Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPLv2 and GPLv3 Coexisting In the Same Project?

Posted by kdawson on from the which-side-of-the-fence dept.

cyclop writes "I am coding a data analysis application in my laboratory that I would like to release as free (as in freedom) software. Moreover I am going to begin a small OSS game that will be based, in part, on GPLv2 libraries. Problem is: in both cases, I'd like to be able to exchange code both with GPLv2 and (future) GPLv3 projects. I have no particular passions about either license — only thing is I don't want BSD-style 'do anything you want' licensing but a copyleft license. I know that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are not compatible. What can I do? Double licensing? Is there a compatible-with-both license? Adding exceptions? What do you think is the best way to address the GPLv2-to-GPLv3 transition without ending up on one or the other side of the barricade?"

2 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. What's the point ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I can't get most of my peripherals to work with Linux. Esp. cameras.

  2. GPL: Intellectual Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    As a consultant for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
    Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
    some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
    very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
    exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.

    Although we met several technical challenges along the way
    (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
    were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
    went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
    considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.

    So you can imagine our surprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
    we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
    was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
    called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
    states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
    Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
    we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
    now be available at no cost to our competitors.

    Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
    products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
    its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

    Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
    use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
    position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
    another solution. Although it was thought to do, there really was no
    option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.

    I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
    with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
    guarantee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
    experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
    associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
    something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
    Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
    it remains only a bit player.

    Thank you for your time.