Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPL 3 Forking Risks Discussed

Posted by Hemos on from the much-thunder-and-lightning dept.

sebFlyte writes ""I fear a lot of unpleasant forking action when the GPLv3 comes out." The words of Debian maintainer Matthew Palmer. ZDNet has an interesting look at the possibility of forking when GPLv3 emerges, with lots of reassurance from Eben Moglen (the FSF's chief lawyer)."

6 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. From the GPL v2 text: by azmaveth · · Score: 5, Informative

    TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

    9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the 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.

    Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

  2. And from the Linux Kernel "COPYING" file by Fruny · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

  3. Misunderstandings by bonniot · · Score: 4, Informative
    I will never put an "... or later" clause. Maybe eventually FSF will prevent me from using my own code in commercial products or something.
    I think you have two misunderstandings:
    1. As the copyright holder, you can always decide to release your code under another license.
    2. The "or later" clause is at your option, "you" being the licensee. This means that that clause can only grant new rights, not remove rights, since anybody can always decide to chose to see the software as licensed under GPL v2. This is similar to dual licensing.
    Both points mean that your fears are not founded.
    --
    Watch great movie opening scenes!
  4. Re:Mod parent up by natrius · · Score: 3, Informative

    VS 2 and VS 3 will be fully compatible

    I'm not an expert on the GPL, but I don't think this is true. Version 3 of the GPL will add additional restrictions on top of what v2 does. GPL v2 explicitly states that you can't add more restrictions. The only way GPL v3 would be compatible with v2 is if it took away restrictions, which I don't think is the case.

  5. Re:An impractical question by m50d · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, but if program foo says "version 2 or later at your option", then Steve Ballmer licenses a copy under v10 to Bill Gates who then can make a derivative of foo called foobar and sell it without giving users the sources.

    --
    I am trolling
  6. Re:Whats all the hubbub? Bub? by Cardinal+Biggles · · Score: 4, Informative
    The only change I'd like to see is " this code cannot be used by Microsoft or SCO or its subsidiaries, or employees in any fasion ". Or better "this code cannot be used by GW Bush to kill innocent people in any country under any circumstances whatsoever" or something to that effect.

    Then the GPL would no longer be an Open Source license, or even a Free Software license.

    See items 5 and 6 of the Open Source Definition ("No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups", "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor"), or the Free Software Definition ("you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere .")