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 :-)
How is this an issue? If KDE2 uses the GPL2, it clearly says "or any future version", which makes it forward compatible with the GPL3, which means it can be mixed with other GPL3 software. I see nothing in the linked article that contradicts this.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
The poster missed out on half of the introduction to OpenChange. Since most people won't visit the website, I'll fill in the blank.
OpenChange is basically the Samba of Exchange. It aims to provide both a library to be used in clients (as mentioned), and also provide a drop in replacement for Microsoft Exchange server.
Personally, I'm a bit weary of the project. Although it would be nice to have an open source server thats natively compatible with Outlook, and provides an easy transition off of Microsoft products, I'd much rather see a real Open standard take hold rather than turning MAPI into a pseudo standard like Samba has done to CIFS and is doing with Active Directory. Perhaps this is the best that can be done considering how entrenched Microsoft Exchange/Outlook has become in many companies.
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?
I'm not going to burden them with the many questions the GPLv2 and GPLv3 raise.
GPL is designed to give Freedom to the 3rd person in the chain of development. BSD only gives freedom to the second person in the chain, but he can restrict the 3rd person's freedom if they so choose. The 1st person is of course the original developer and he can do whatever he pleases regardless of license.
Hence, with BSD your code is only free to the first two persons and even though the 2nd person can be generous and release his changes in BSD to the 3rd... The 3rd is still free to restrict the freedoms of the fourth and so on.
GPLv3 makes sure you can't take away freedom at any point in the chain of development of anyone else that comes after you.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
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.
My requirements for a software license center around Stallman's original Four Freedoms. Any software I write I want to have those four freedoms protected, both for what I distribute as well as derivative works, but have no other restrictions, either for developers or users.
The GPLv3, I feel, unnecessarily limits Freedom 0, as well as containing additional clauses that do more than protect the four freedoms. The BSD license doesn't preserve these freedoms for derivative works, so it's not my ideal license either. The patent clauses of GPLv2 simply say, "any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all", which adequately protects the four freedoms, but doesn't make any further restrictions. It's not what I would call an "anti-patent" provision in the same sense as the GPLv3.
Regarding DRM: it is impossible, in my opinion, for DRM to infringe upon the Four Freedoms in a software sense. Software-based DRM cannot prevent users from exercising any of their Four Freedoms, because since they have access to the source code, they can simply remove the DRM portions of the software. For DRM to work at all with open-source software, the DRM must be entirely hardware-based, and, in every case, that exact software will run on modified or alternate hardware. Thus, I believe anti-DRM provisions are out of scope for a software license, because it attempts to dictate what sort of hardware you are allowed to distribute with your software.
What it really comes down to for me is the four freedoms: anything the license does that is above and beyond those four freedoms is something I don't want. Any of the four freedoms it fails to protect is a deficiency. And that's why I've chosen the GPLv2 for my software.
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
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
Where did you get that datum? I think if you read any decent analysis, you'll find that the vast majority of code in active FOSS projects is written by programmers paid to do so. This means that project leaders, i.e. the ones who invest the most in the project have every incentive to think long and carefully about the future of their project, because it affects their professional future, too.
You only see that one solution because you haven't done your analysis properly.
There are very good reasons why more FOSS developers choose the GPL than all the other licenses combined. Perhaps you should investigate those reasons before discarding it as a nuisance.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
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 could construct a piece of hardware that will only run an unmodified RHEL3 image, but never actually distribute that image myself. By building and selling that piece of hardware, have I somehow removed any freedoms of all the people running RHEL3? Not at all. They still have access to the source code, they can modify it and distribute their modifications, they can run the code for whatever purposes they want, etc. The only restriction is to the hardware, not the software. Furthermore, there may be very legitimate reasons why somebody might want to ship a piece of crippled hardware that can only run a single image. Even the FSF has recognized that in their DRM exceptions in the GPLv3.
I could agree that some people might interpret Tivoization as an infringement of the first freedom, but a statement so strong as "clearly infringes" I have to disagree with.
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
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
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 understand 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 (http://gpl3.palamida.com:8080/index.jsp) 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
Dan Shearer