Aren't the licensing 'wars' over?
Aren't the licensing 'wars' over?
Posted Aug 17, 2023 15:49 UTC (Thu) by danielthompson (subscriber, #97243)In reply to: Aren't the licensing 'wars' over? by e-rk
Parent article: HashiCorp's license change
However it should also be noted that developers who use GPL-3.0-or-later (and GPL-2.0-or-later) licensing have granted to the FSF the capability to add another license to software that they do not own the copyrights for. This is certainly a significant power although is much more subtle than the one wielded by HashiCorp (and therefore rather harder to abuse).
Although the foundation can add a new license to existing software by releasing a new version of the GPL they they cannot withdraw the existing license from a GPL-3.0-or-later that they do not own (e.g. the new GPL license doesn't mean a GPL-3.0-or-later project becomes a GPL-4.0-or-later project). Likewise they cannot stop a project reacting to a new GNU GPL license that they do not like by licensing any *future* releases as GPL-3.0-only.
Posted Aug 17, 2023 21:01 UTC (Thu)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link] (4 responses)
There's also a whole issue of equitable estoppel. In the part of the GPL that discusses future versions, it says:
The bit about future versions being similar in spirit is vague, but courts in the USA have the power to enforce terms like that under the principle of equity. If the FSF tried to release a new GPL that was substantially different, for example by giving the FSF power over any software released under GPL v 4, a court could rule it didn't count under the new version clause because it wasn't similar in spirit. This isn't an easy or guaranteed thing, but it would limit how large any changes to the license could be.
Posted Aug 17, 2023 23:15 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (3 responses)
So if the FSF tried to relicence the software under a commercial licence they would open themselves up to a breach of contract lawsuit.
The problem would be if the FSF went bust. I've heard at least one story (on Groklaw) where an American bankruptcy court rewrote a copyright agreement (to the detriment of the copyright holder) before selling it on.
Cheers,
Posted Aug 18, 2023 13:15 UTC (Fri)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (2 responses)
The FSF would not go bust. A nonprofit can exist based on part time volunteer hours and little to no money. Of course, that would be a very sad day which I hope never happens.
Posted Aug 18, 2023 19:07 UTC (Fri)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link] (1 responses)
It is certainly possible for a charitable organization like the FSF to go bust. The most obvious way this could happen is if they borrowed money they couldn't pay back. Unless they borrowed some really huge amount, they might get bailed out by being taken over by another charity with a similar interest. I could easily imagine FSF getting taken over by someone like Software in the Public Interest or the GNOME Foundation if something like that happened. I don't know the ins and outs, but they might have to be taken over by another charity (a 501(c)3 like SPI or GNOME) rather than some other kind of non-profit (e.g. a 501(c)6 industry consortium like the Linux Foundation).
Posted Aug 19, 2023 14:17 UTC (Sat)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link]
In relation to my post, this is typical strawman kind of argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man: "You said X, but in fact it is possible for not X to happen!"
Aren't the licensing 'wars' over?
The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Aren't the licensing 'wars' over?
Wol
Aren't the licensing 'wars' over?
Aren't the licensing 'wars' over?
Aren't the licensing 'wars' over?