Slashdot Mirror
A Case Study In GPLv2 / GPLv3 Compatibility
An anonymous reader writes "A project called OpenChange is working to develop an open source client library for Microsoft Exchange. They are heavily dependent on Samba code for the underlying protocol support and have been forced to move to GPLv3 once Samba moved. This has gotten in the way of legally adding support to other software such as KDE, which is unwilling or unable to go GPLv3." It sounds like all the developers involved expect the GPLv2/GPLv3 issues to be resolved in time.
Update: 10/01 12:26 GMT by KD : Dan Shearer, of OpenChange and the Samba Team, wrote in to correct the anonymous submitter's mistaken implication that OpenChange moved reluctantly to GPLv3. Read on for his actual position.
I'm Dan Shearer of both the OpenChange project and the Samba Team, and I wrote the message on bacula-devel linked by anonymous' original post. I would like to correct the unfortunate impression given by anonymous that OpenChange has been reluctantly forced to change licenses because Samba has moved to the GPLv3. In fact, OpenChange see that the GPLv3 is entirely appropriate for Samba, and OpenChange plans to use the GPLv3 even when not necessarily required to do so by upstream licenses. The move to GPLv3 was one of two license changes we plan to announce on openchange.org in the next few days.
The specific issue highlighted in the post is not a general GPLv3/v2 incompatibility. Code which is licensed under the GPLv2 but no later version is incompatible with the GPLv3. There are a few significant examples of GPLv2-only code, including KDE as mentioned and also the Linux kernel, which cannot be linked to GPLv3 code. That is a matter of policy for those few projects. We would of course be delighted to be able to use their code as appropriate if they change their policy at some point, but we have no complaint if they do not choose to do so. The GPL offers many choices and this is one of them.
Most GPLv2 code includes the words "or any later version", which is a statement of trust by the licensor in the people who create those later versions. The GPLv3 was created as a community effort, a very large and representative community effort, and in that sense many people think that this trust has been maintained. Including the Samba Team and the OpenChange project. If you are unsure about this, go to archive.org and search for "Eben Moglen 2007", which will give you a choice of media and plain text for the summary talk in Edinburgh a day or two before the GPLv3 was released. We respect that there are different opinions on licensing including some who do not like the GPLv3, however it is indisputable that the GPLv3 is very much a community production rather than a statement from the FSF. That fact of community evolution supports the idea that the trust implied by "or any later version" has been maintained.
It might also be helpful to reflect on the history of OpenChange. OpenChange is an independent work from a team led by Julien Kerihuel built on the research and tools produced by the Samba Team. OpenChange has been the direct beneficiary of a lot of effort contributed by the Samba Team over the last four years. We strongly support Samba's use of the GPLv3 as being an appropriate response to the current legal environment.
The thread the anonymous poster linked to was in response to Kern Sibbald of the excellent Bacula project. Kern has his particular views, and we respect those views, but they are by no means general. (Readers may also like to read the entire thread on bacula-devel.) When we look at the numbers at Palamida we find many thousands of projects that OpenChange can link against, besides all the others with compatible licenses such as the Apache license. We don't feel very lonely :-)
Update: 10/01 12:26 GMT by KD : Dan Shearer, of OpenChange and the Samba Team, wrote in to correct the anonymous submitter's mistaken implication that OpenChange moved reluctantly to GPLv3. Read on for his actual position.
I'm Dan Shearer of both the OpenChange project and the Samba Team, and I wrote the message on bacula-devel linked by anonymous' original post. I would like to correct the unfortunate impression given by anonymous that OpenChange has been reluctantly forced to change licenses because Samba has moved to the GPLv3. In fact, OpenChange see that the GPLv3 is entirely appropriate for Samba, and OpenChange plans to use the GPLv3 even when not necessarily required to do so by upstream licenses. The move to GPLv3 was one of two license changes we plan to announce on openchange.org in the next few days.
The specific issue highlighted in the post is not a general GPLv3/v2 incompatibility. Code which is licensed under the GPLv2 but no later version is incompatible with the GPLv3. There are a few significant examples of GPLv2-only code, including KDE as mentioned and also the Linux kernel, which cannot be linked to GPLv3 code. That is a matter of policy for those few projects. We would of course be delighted to be able to use their code as appropriate if they change their policy at some point, but we have no complaint if they do not choose to do so. The GPL offers many choices and this is one of them.
Most GPLv2 code includes the words "or any later version", which is a statement of trust by the licensor in the people who create those later versions. The GPLv3 was created as a community effort, a very large and representative community effort, and in that sense many people think that this trust has been maintained. Including the Samba Team and the OpenChange project. If you are unsure about this, go to archive.org and search for "Eben Moglen 2007", which will give you a choice of media and plain text for the summary talk in Edinburgh a day or two before the GPLv3 was released. We respect that there are different opinions on licensing including some who do not like the GPLv3, however it is indisputable that the GPLv3 is very much a community production rather than a statement from the FSF. That fact of community evolution supports the idea that the trust implied by "or any later version" has been maintained.
It might also be helpful to reflect on the history of OpenChange. OpenChange is an independent work from a team led by Julien Kerihuel built on the research and tools produced by the Samba Team. OpenChange has been the direct beneficiary of a lot of effort contributed by the Samba Team over the last four years. We strongly support Samba's use of the GPLv3 as being an appropriate response to the current legal environment.
The thread the anonymous poster linked to was in response to Kern Sibbald of the excellent Bacula project. Kern has his particular views, and we respect those views, but they are by no means general. (Readers may also like to read the entire thread on bacula-devel.) When we look at the numbers at Palamida we find many thousands of projects that OpenChange can link against, besides all the others with compatible licenses such as the Apache license. We don't feel very lonely :-)
The "or any future version" is optional for the developers. I have removed it from all of my software, as I do not want to license my code under rules which have not yet been written.
That said, I have no clue if KDE includes that line or not.
I see another reason why this is a non issue. They can use an older version of samba which was released under GPLv2. They don't even need to switch to other libraries. If they want the can even fork samba.
So the dependency tree looks like this:
Samba --OpenChange -- KDE
KDE operates on top of OpenChange, which operates on top of KDE. From the write up, OpenChange is "heavily dependent on Samba code for the underlying protocol support". So they mix in outside (Samba) code which changed license, and thus are forced to change the license. Fair enough - they want the free lunch, they have to use the license specified by the guy who wrote the code.
What doesn't make any sense is that OpenChange cannot support KDE now. Of course they can. As long as they don't share any code, they can be licensed independently.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Did you totally miss the part of the GPL that says it doesn't cover use? You can't run afoul of the GPL merely by using software.
As the GPL puts it:
> When it comes to the open source software that I develop and release, I always use the MIT license.
And I thank you for that. I don't care what your motives, I appreciate those who share code.
But please don't spread FUD about the GPL. Is that too much to ask?
Linus himself does not think GPLv3 is a good thing. So why do people keep adopting it.
People are adopting gpl3 for some of the same reasons they adopted gpl2, which is to ensure that users are free to modify their software to suit their needs.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
If someone were to take my code, and extend it with GPLv3-only code, then the derivative works would have more restrictions than Stallman's four freedoms, which is something I don't want to have happen. I would be unable to take their changes back, for example, and use them at a company who was worried about the patent retaliation clauses, or other restrictions that aren't present in v2.
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
You are arguing something different than the GP - you are saying that for any given line of code, the probability of it being written by a paid programmer is high, what he is saying is that the probability that a given FOSS programmer is paid is low. For example, if 5% of the people did 95% of the work, and those 5% were paid, then both of your claims are correct. I suspect it is probably something more like 10-25%, though not all paid, and 75-90%, but I no data to back that up. What he is concerned about is that for those who are only able to contribute a couple hours a week, spending even 15 minutes trying to figure out what license to release under, he will have lost 1/8th of his time. The ability to change the license away from original intent is quite troubling, as nice as it is to be able to maintain compatibility in licensing. This is similar to donors to foundations/universities wanting control of where their donations are used versus where the foundation/universities would like to spend their money. The catch here is that the university can replace general funds with donated and effectively remove the restrictions for most small and medium donations, whereas in the licenses, the restrictions and wishes of the creator are not removable.
I'm amazed there are people out there thinking this kind of behaviour is fair game. Just because somebody makes their source available, doesn't mean they want you to pass off their work as your own.
It really is very simple:
BSD says "Do what you want. I don't care."
GPLv2 says "You got the source, so should your customers."
GPLv3 says "Stop jumping through loopholes! You got the source, so should your customers."
Commercial licenses say "You want the source?!?! Go f*%$ yourself."
Personally I would never BSD license any of my code. There are too many people in the world that will happily rip it off.
The "second" person has made some changes which make the software better and it is now the de facto standard. if the "second" person now closes the source, this leaves the "third" person stranded. Having access to the original source code does not give him much, since he would now have to reinvent the second person's changes.
I have always considered the BSD a libertarian license, in that it depends on individual goodness and doesn't try to impose any restrictions. The GPL on the other hand is more of a socialistic license in that it tries to impose the "greater good of the society" condition on downstream contributors. Which license you prefer very much depends on which philosophy you prefer.
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. - Mahatma Gandhi