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)."

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.

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.

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:Mod parent up

[natrius]

VS 2 and VS 3 will be fully compatible

I'm not an expert on the GPL, but I don't think this is true. Version 3 of the GPL will add additional restrictions on top of what v2 does. GPL v2 explicitly states that you can't add more restrictions. The only way GPL v3 would be compatible with v2 is if it took away restrictions, which I don't think is the case.

Re:Mod parent up

[FidelCatsro]

True enough , and witht he kernel that is alot of people ,However I think there will be little problem here .
As i understand it , the GPL v3 address major issues with international laws which is a benifit to us all , and im sure the kernel developers will see it this way (anyone out there who is a kernel dev please correct me if im wrong)
The license is problemeatic if people in say Belarus dont have to abide by it and can just take the code for their own .The only problem will be caused if someone is trying to cause trouble , and if its just one person there code can be removed and replaced

Re:An impractical question

[jeroendekkers]

No, the FSF can't modify the GPL whatever way it wants. Read the GPL:

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.

Re:Shocky !

[koreaman]

LOL but...
posted in the wrong topic

Re:An impractical question

[m50d]

No, but if program foo says "version 2 or later at your option", then Steve Ballmer licenses a copy under v10 to Bill Gates who then can make a derivative of foo called foobar and sell it without giving users the sources.

Re:Not that easy

[anthony_dipierro]

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.

BSD is not copylefted.

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 [opensource.org] ("No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups", "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor"), or the Free Software Definition [fsf.org] ("you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere .")

Re:Stop being afraid of Change

[Masker]

The problem is that not all Linux kernel sources are licensed in the way that you have (with the any later version addendum). In fact, not all kernel sources are even under the GPL; here is an example of a file [linux.no] that's under the MPL (Mozilla Public License) and GPLv2 (only). Then there are the files (example provided) [linux.no] that simply state the license as GPLv2 without the "or later".

In other words, the Linux kernel has many, many copyright holders, and many, many different variations of the license language in the source files. If Linus had only accepted files with a certain license language, that would be one thing, but I think he was more worried about the technical aspects than the religious war aspects of the kernel.

In short, you can't just promote the kernel to GPLv3, and I, for one, don't really see what the outcome is really going to be...

Re:acces to source.

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU CAN'T RUN A PROGRAM FROM SOURCE!

Sure you can. Interpreters have been around for ages. Some firmwares run Forth interpreters. Interpreters even exist for C.

I know that doesn't weaken your argument, but I hate to see a totally false statement in all caps.

Re:a problem either way

[SA Stevens]

What are the rules if you are using linux to drive a Tivo or an elavator or something?

The rules are that the litigants WILL be able to dig into the source and compile a list of people to sue, when the elevator crashes and kills a loved relation.

Believe me, in the current tort environment, the 'NO WARRANTY' section of the GPL might not suffice. If you've contributed to the kernel source tree, better keep your long-term savings in the form of Kruegerrands in a steel chest down in the celler next to your gun safe.

(only halfway tongue-in-cheek here)

Re:Not that easy

[ArekRashan]

But why would you choose the more restrictive latter license if the older version is still an option?