7 ms·

Too bad they are only for the GPL3 family of licenses. If I choose GPL license for a project it is always a GPL2 family.

by icefox 11y ago

davexunit 11y ago
GPLv3 gives much more legal definition to the spirit of the GPL and free software, but some people seem to like the loopholes in GPLv2. Also, the GPLv3 is much better about what happens when the license is violated. GPLv2 is very strict about license termination. GPLv3 is just better in all regards.
- glass- 11y ago
  My favourite part of the GPLv2 is the torrent technicality[0]. I wonder if all those people seeding Linux distributions realise they're violating the license. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#BitTorrent https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#BitTorrent
  - dijit 11y ago
    That says they only need to link to the sources somewhere in the torrent.
    - glass- 11y ago
      Are we reading the same thing? It says: > The best way to make sure you are in compliance when distributing GPLv2 object code on BitTorrent would be to include all the corresponding source in the same torrent Not a link to the source, the source code itself.
      - dijit 11y ago
        I'm two lines down. > section 6(e) of GPLv3 is designed to give distributors—people who initially seed torrents—a clear and straightforward way to provide the source, _by telling recipients where it is available on a public network server._ This ensures that everyone who wants to get the source can do so, and it's almost no hassle for the distributor.
        glass- 11y ago
        That paragraph has no relevancy to the GPLv2, it is pointing out how they fixed the problem in version 3. The Linux kernel is still licensed under GPLv2. The differences between v2 and v3 is the entire context of this thread, so I believe you're deliberately being obtuse.
- wyldfire 11y ago
  Can we backport some of those features to GPLv2? GNU may not have an interest in that, but presumably we don't need GNU's permission to create a "GPL2.5" like license?
  - baghira 11y ago
    We really don't need yet another license. What's more, all those changes would probably result in a new license that is again incompatible with GPLv2. The fact is that the "anti-tivoization" clause is, for most free software projects, a smaller problem (if a problem at all) compared to the simple fact that the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2. I fear there is simply no way of creating a "new" GPL license that is compatible with the GPLv2, short of adding an exception like MPLv2 does.
  - teddyh 11y ago
    You could, but you could not change the license of code licensed as “GPLv2 or later”, since the full phrase is “under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.”. So only a “GPL” published by the FSF would count as a “later” version.
  - yrro 11y ago
    Seems easier to license your software under GPLv3, along with a statement that you waive licencees form any obligations placed upon them by the clauses you don't like.
  - crististm 11y ago
    If I remember correctly, GPL itself is copyright FSF. I don't think you can use it as a base for derivative work. Besides, why would you want to go back to v2?! I found no strong argument for v2 except for supporting tivoization.
- greyman 11y ago
  It's only "better" if you philosophically agree with its imposed restrictions on the code. I for example happen to agree with Linus arguments against v3. For example, the clause against "tivoization". If you believe tivoization is wrong, then yes v3 is better, otherwise it is not.
  - baghira 11y ago
    Yes and no: the part clarifying what happens when one does not comply with the GPL is "objectively better"¹, since it clarifies a legal situation otherwise subject to multiple interpretations. Similarly the clarifications with regard to software distribution, which are enhanced compared to a license written in 1991. I'd say that "most parts" of the GPLv3 are clearer than the GPLv2: of course one is free to argue that the patent clause and the anti-tivoization clause offset these improvements, but I'd still give credit for the rest. 1. I'm using objectively in a sense that I hope is colloquially understandable, if philosophically wrong.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    What do you consider these restrictions to be? The way that GPLv3 works against tivoisation is that it requires downstream distributors to provide the information necessary to defeat it, such as private code-signing keys.[1] You think this is an unacceptable requirement? It seems no more onerous to me than the requirement in GPLv2 that the source code must include all necessary scripts to build and deploy the software. -- [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html

Too bad they are only for the GPL3 family of licenses. If I choose GPL license for a project it is always a GPL2 family.

by icefox 11y ago

Too bad they are only for the GPL3 family of licenses. If I choose GPL license for a project it is always a GPL2 family.

davexunit 11y ago

GPLv3 gives much more legal definition to the spirit of the GPL and free software, but some people seem to like the loopholes in GPLv2. Also, the GPLv3 is much better about what happens when the license is violated. GPLv2 is very strict about license termination. GPLv3 is just better in all regards.

glass- 11y ago
My favourite part of the GPLv2 is the torrent technicality[0]. I wonder if all those people seeding Linux distributions realise they're violating the license. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#BitTorrent https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#BitTorrent
- dijit 11y ago
  That says they only need to link to the sources somewhere in the torrent.
  - glass- 11y ago
    Are we reading the same thing? It says: > The best way to make sure you are in compliance when distributing GPLv2 object code on BitTorrent would be to include all the corresponding source in the same torrent Not a link to the source, the source code itself.
    - dijit 11y ago
      I'm two lines down. > section 6(e) of GPLv3 is designed to give distributors—people who initially seed torrents—a clear and straightforward way to provide the source, _by telling recipients where it is available on a public network server._ This ensures that everyone who wants to get the source can do so, and it's almost no hassle for the distributor.
      - glass- 11y ago
        That paragraph has no relevancy to the GPLv2, it is pointing out how they fixed the problem in version 3. The Linux kernel is still licensed under GPLv2. The differences between v2 and v3 is the entire context of this thread, so I believe you're deliberately being obtuse.
wyldfire 11y ago
Can we backport some of those features to GPLv2? GNU may not have an interest in that, but presumably we don't need GNU's permission to create a "GPL2.5" like license?
- baghira 11y ago
  We really don't need yet another license. What's more, all those changes would probably result in a new license that is again incompatible with GPLv2. The fact is that the "anti-tivoization" clause is, for most free software projects, a smaller problem (if a problem at all) compared to the simple fact that the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2. I fear there is simply no way of creating a "new" GPL license that is compatible with the GPLv2, short of adding an exception like MPLv2 does.
- teddyh 11y ago
  You could, but you could not change the license of code licensed as “GPLv2 or later”, since the full phrase is “under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.”. So only a “GPL” published by the FSF would count as a “later” version.
- yrro 11y ago
  Seems easier to license your software under GPLv3, along with a statement that you waive licencees form any obligations placed upon them by the clauses you don't like.
- crististm 11y ago
  If I remember correctly, GPL itself is copyright FSF. I don't think you can use it as a base for derivative work. Besides, why would you want to go back to v2?! I found no strong argument for v2 except for supporting tivoization.
greyman 11y ago
It's only "better" if you philosophically agree with its imposed restrictions on the code. I for example happen to agree with Linus arguments against v3. For example, the clause against "tivoization". If you believe tivoization is wrong, then yes v3 is better, otherwise it is not.
- baghira 11y ago
  Yes and no: the part clarifying what happens when one does not comply with the GPL is "objectively better"¹, since it clarifies a legal situation otherwise subject to multiple interpretations. Similarly the clarifications with regard to software distribution, which are enhanced compared to a license written in 1991. I'd say that "most parts" of the GPLv3 are clearer than the GPLv2: of course one is free to argue that the patent clause and the anti-tivoization clause offset these improvements, but I'd still give credit for the rest. 1. I'm using objectively in a sense that I hope is colloquially understandable, if philosophically wrong.
- jordigh 11y ago
  What do you consider these restrictions to be? The way that GPLv3 works against tivoisation is that it requires downstream distributors to provide the information necessary to defeat it, such as private code-signing keys.[1] You think this is an unacceptable requirement? It seems no more onerous to me than the requirement in GPLv2 that the source code must include all necessary scripts to build and deploy the software. -- [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html