Linus Warms (Slightly) to GPL3

lisah writes "Though Linus Torvalds isn't exactly tripping over himself to endorse the GPLv3 draft, he continues to warm up to it little by little and says the newest version is 'a hell of a lot better than the disaster that were the earlier drafts.'"

this is the last month

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

If anyone has comments about discussion draft 4, make them asap. Here's the page where you can see the draft and where you can add your comments:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html [fsf.org]

The plan is for the final GPLv3 to be published on June 29th, so comments should be submitted now so that there is still some time for them to be discussed and acted on.

For an explanation on the changes and the motivations of the current draft, see:

http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-t ranscript [fsfeurope.org]

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Scarblac]

The FSF has always used "version 2 or later" licenses. In that case, there is no incompatibility.

It's only third party projects that changed that into version 2 only that will now be incompatible.

Relicensing not an issue

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Linus doesn't have to relicense the entire kernel to impose the new GPL-3 restrictions on the kernel.

Since it looks like GPL-2 code may be freely integrated into GPL-3 software, all Linus has to do is start adding GPL-3 code to the kernel. These small additions will have the effect of relicensing the kernel without affecting licensing of individual modules that Linus doesn't own the copyright to. Then anybody who wants to use Linux will have to stick with the GPL-3 restrictions, or remove the GPL-3 code before building or distributing.

Re:interconnections

[Scarblac]

The GPLv3 FAQ [fsf.org]:

How is GPLv3 compatible with other GNU licenses?
The various GNU licenses enjoy broad compatibility between each other. The only time you can't combine code under two of these licenses is when you want to use code that's only under an older version of a license with code that's under a newer version.

So strictly GPL2 stuff is incompatible.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Hmm.... Wait... Sun is a company right?

So why does it look like they'll be going for GPLv3 instead of v2 for Solaris and Java stuff then, if that is less attractive to companies? Perhaps what you meant was; Some companies like v2 better than v3.

Nope.. Typical for slashdot... you are incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

GPLv2 = You may redistribute my code or things made out of my code so long as you extend to the recipients the same rights that you have. You may not use various forms of funny business, such as granting discriminatory patent licenses to side step the requirements.

GPLv3 = You may redistribute my code or things made out of my code so long as you extend to the recipients the same rights that you have. You may not use various forms of funny business, such as granting discriminatory patent licenses, contracting with someone else to provide a discriminatory patent license, or using DRM to prevent people from executing the rights you are required to grant them.

So, the list of specifically excluded funny business has expanded somewhat. No one should claim this as a shock because the GPLv2 includes a delightful preamble which explains the purpose of the license, and the changes in v3 are perfectly in line with that purpose. Beyond that, GPLv3 has also had a lot of linguistic overhaul so it is a much clearer document overall.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[roscivs]

GPL2 License: Use our code, but give back your code too.
GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way.

"we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." -- GPLv2

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[pavon]

Either it is, or it isn't.

That's not true. There are many ways to write a license, and even if one we have now is legally binding, that does not mean that it is the best way to word it to be absolutely certain of it's outcome in court, or to minimize time in court.

But more to the point, GPLv2 was really only written with US copyright law in mind. The language of GPLv3 was deliberately and carefully chosen to be as precise and legally binding in as many countries as possible. One example is the use of the word convey rather than distribute, and the precise definition given for the word.

In addition, one particular piece of icing, is that it is actually compatible with more open source licenses, in particular the Apache License.

Re:Relicensing not an issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The section that states you can't put any additional restrictions on distribution of source and binary. GPLv3 has additional restrictions of distribution(thou shalt not use DRM, etc), and thus, it's incompatible with a straight GPLv2 license. There is no such problem with code licensed with GPLv2 or later, but that doesn't apply to most of Linux.