GPL 3 Forking Risks Discussed

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)."

Comments

Whew

[Captain Nick]

At least they aren't GPL spooning.

From the GPL v2 text:

[azmaveth]

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.

Re:Is it just me...

[Aadain2001]

After reading the article, it seems like those who think there will be a "division" don't really understand the whole of the Linux world. There are MANY licenses in use by the FOSS world right now, and adding a new version (which addresses international copyright laws and patent issues) will not cause Linux to split into multiple camps. If GPLv3 turns out to be bad, then no one will use it and GPLv2 will remain the most used license. In the FOSS world, no one forces you to do anything like use a specific license when you want to use anyone instead (the developer that is, not the end user).

Pleasant forking action?

[Cruithne]

Has anyone ever encountered any pleasant forking action? This google image search is leading nowhere... perhaps safesearch needs to be off?

And from the Linux Kernel "COPYING" file

[Fruny]

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.

Re:And from the Linux Kernel "COPYING" file

[Anonymous Coward]

That means there will be no GPL v3 as far as Linux is concerned. Linus et al won't get every contributor to the table to agree to a license change. Without that happening, the kernel will have to remain under GPL v2 only. The relicensing of the Mozilla codebase (to the MPL/LGPL/GPL trilicense) has been a tedious process for the Mozilla project, and that is a considerably younger and smaller codebase.

Re:And from the Linux Kernel "COPYING" file

[R.Caley]

I dispute that the BSDL is more free than the GPL.

It gives the licencee more options, hence it is a more free licence.

and thus the code quickly becomes less free.

No, the code is always there licenced under the original terms, and so as free as it ever was. The worst that can happen is that someone else decides not to open up their work.

The point of the GPL is to sacrifice a little freedom in order to encourage the creation of further open source software.

The relevant point is that later licences can not restrict anyone's options, only open up more options. This means that all that is being `risked' is that encouragement to the creation of further open source derivatives, and that only if the FSF fundamentally changes it's nature.

On the other hand, congrtess could pass a bill, or a judge make a decision, tomorrow which changed the impact of the GPL, say making the linux kernel unusable in commercial shops. Wouldn't that give Bill a stiffie. Who do you think Bill would be more likely to manage to buy off, the FSF or some congresscritters?

The existance of a mechanism to patch a system is a security issue. The lack of any ability to do so is a limit to the useful lifetime of the system in a changing world.

Mod parent up

[FidelCatsro]

I doubt we will see any unplesant forking ,The license must evolve just as the software does .
If we didnt patch the linux kernel and left security holes in it we would have alot of massive problems , the license is like any other code(all be it legal code) bugs will arise and it will need to grow to support new platforms and new inovations .
Thus the clause in the license that the parent states gives the backwards and forwards compatibility if you want it .
unplesant forking will rarely occur

Re:Mod parent up

[KiloByte]

Some of the contributors are dead, too, in the non-figurative sense.
Try to get them to relicense the part they hold the copyright on.

Linux is the biggest GPLed project, with many thousands of separate copyright holders. The mere code audit would take years, not to mention trying to actually contact them. They are often unreachable, their mail address may be no longer valid, they may use the name Anonymous Chinese Dissident #75483, they may be in a persistent vegetative state, etc etc.

And the Berne convention forbids you to ignore even a single copyright holder.

Re:Mod parent up

[Welsh Dwarf]

The big problem though is that not all kernel devs are still contactable (or even still alive), so there would be a fair amount of rewriting involved in anycase.

Can't see the problem

[rescendent]

Presumably this is to allow more protection from/for patents and copyrights.

Most distributions include demo versions of commercial software, software in the public domain and software under other licences.

Apache is included in most distributions and apache is under the Apache License and apache aren't entirely convinced their licence is compatible with the GPL...

If Apache can be included, where's the problem?

Just some early morning thoughts...

Stop being afraid of Change

[ites]

Remember that the version 2 of the GPL dates from June 1991. It is an incredible document, and I agree with Moglen's assertion that it's the basis of a multi-billion dollar industry. Stallman will go down in history as a visionary.

But after 14 years, GPL/2 is starting to age. Yes, it addresses current problems, but remember that software written and licensed today must still be protected and viable in 15 years' time.

There is absolutely no point in postponing the introduction of GPL/3. There must be a migration, and there will be a period of overlap.

But change is not something to fear in itself. It's something to plan and to manage, and in this case, it's essential.

Last thing: if you followed the FSF's recommendations as to how to use the license, your code would contain this text:

# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
# modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
# published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of
# the License, or (at your option) any later version.

Which all my company's GPL software contains.

Thanks to Moglen, and the FSF for their fantastic work.

Re:I wouldn't trust RMS

[latroM]

...Maybe eventually FSF will prevent me from using my own code in commercial products or something.

They can't do that. If you have written the code you can do whatever you wish with it. GPL allows you to use the software under it commercially.

It's time for something that follows pragmatic wishes of most free software developers rather than one person's political agenda.

I don't know about you but I value my freedom with free software. The pragmatical POW is too narrow.

Re:An impractical question

[azmaveth]

Yes, the GPL could be changed in the future this way. No, it wouldn't effectively "sell the rights to close the sources" as you can still choose to use the earlier version of the license. You are not forced into using a later version - it is left as an option.

Misunderstandings

[bonniot]

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.

Re:Wow,

[Minna Kirai]

if you don't trust RMS then why the fuck are you using his license?

People change. They can turn greedy and resentful. They may grow old and senile. And inevitably, they will die, and the organizations they lead will be repopulated with other people whose ideas are non-identical.

Someone's past actions are infinitely more trustable than his future.

If you trust RMS today, then use the GPL. If you trust RMS and all his succssors in the future forever, certain they can never be bought, bribed, or bludgeoned, then use GPL plus "at your option, any later version"

Not that easy

[Anonymous Coward]

If GPL3 mentions anything that is not in GPL2 (ie it places restrictions relating to patent litigation etc) then it cannot be compatible with GPL2.

The only thing the GPL3 can do and still be compatible with GPL2 is to have fewer restrictions. In which case, what's the point, we already have BSD.

Re:Whats all the hubbub? Bub?

[Cardinal Biggles]

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 .")

Vaporware issues..

[iamsure]

If they'd stop talking about what it "will be" and "wont be", and put out a draft, they'd have *constructive* discussions instead of guessing!

Look, seriously, yes, there are grave concerns, and its a hideously important document. However, there is no reason why they cant put v2 into a wiki, add some proposed changes, and start working with the community on modifications.

This is at least the 10th story that has discussed A DISCUSSION OF WHAT WILL BE IN THE NEW VERSION!

Its not even 5 pages long. They've already mentioned the high points of areas they want to improve/change (patents, webservices), and everyone is well informed!

So just get on with it, and stop playing the vaporware game.

In the meantime, the only GPL-like license that actually closes the web services loophole (the Affero GPL), which is mentioned as a template for the GPLv3, ISNT GPL compatible!

It would be nice to have a GPLv2 compatible license that closes that loophole, so I'm waiting anxiously for a look at a license that will do it.

Enough talk - WRITE!

Make it compatible with the CPL and the Apache 2.0

[srmq]

It would be wonderful (especially in the Java camp) if the new GPL was compatible with the CPL and the Apache 2.0 licenses. Apparently the FSF even agrees somewhat to the additional restrictions that these licenses make (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html ), so it would be nice to address the problem.

Being able to use Apache code and Eclipse with GPL projects would give a great boost to GPL Java projects.