Doubts Raised About Legal Soundness of GPL2

svonkie writes "Two prominent IP lawyers have warned that the all-pervasive General Public License version 2 (GPLv2) is legally unsound. They claim GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are much better suited for the realities of modern open source software. 'If you go back in time to when GPLv2 was written, I don't think people were aware of just how ubiquitous this license would become and how closely scrutinized it would be,' said Mark Radcliffe, partner at the firm DLA Piper and general counsel for the Open Source Initiative (OSI). 'At that time, open source was not something as broadly used as it is now.' Radcliffe was joined by Karen Copenhaver, partner at Choate Hall & Stewart and counsel for the Linux Foundation, for a GPL web conference hosted by the license-sniffing firm Black Duck software"

Comments

Re:Conspiracy?

[DAldredge]

Nice people don't want to punish those they disagree with. "If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs." Richard Stallman

Re:Conspiracy?

[V!NCENT]

Microsoft can, because the software that is licensed by the GPLv3 can be upgraded to newer license version by everyone that whishes and so if Microsoft got hold of the FSF then it could render GPL software useless. The power over GPL software, starting with version number 3, just got decentralised.

Re:Conspiracy?

[V!NCENT]

I was just pointing out a problem with the GPLv3, because people are pointing out problems with the GPLv2 and the entire solution here seems to be upgrading, for which I am warning. I do that because I think Microsoft is indirectly responsible for trolling by submitting these articles to /. and other sites.

Re:Missing the Point

[BitZtream]

The point of the GPL was that it was very simple and broad-sweeping. Naturally this does make it vulnerable to attack in the sense that the legal system might feel threatened by the massive impact of such a game-changing license; copyleft practically redefines IP law in a way that those in the legal institution (eg lawyers, judges, lawmakers, and the business interests that pay for them) don't acknowledge, understand, or otherwise feel comfortable with because they don't feel in control.

What the hell are you talking about? Its no different than any other software license. The only thing different about GPL versus other licenses is that it pushes for the Stallman cult agenda rather than for money.

It didn't 'change the game' in any way what so ever. Just because every douchebag and his brother in collage and highschool wrote some app and made it GPL so they could be cool with their geek friends doesn't mean its changed the world.

A mere technicality could disqualify ANY license agreement or contract, welcome to the way the law works. Again, GPL is not unique.

Why is it GPL trolls always think the GPL is this unique world changing, nothing like it in existence license?

What applies to other licenses applies to GPL and what applies to GPL applies to other licenses.

You missed the point, GPL is not unique, anything used to cripple GPL will cripple other software licenses as well, MS and friends are in no hurry to fuck up licenses in general.