3 ms·
That's a problem of the companies. GPLv3 contains no fundamental changes in the freedoms it gives and requires to be uphold - it just clarifies some things expl
by wolfgke 11y ago
That's a problem of the companies. GPLv3 contains no fundamental changes in the freedoms it gives and requires to be uphold - it just clarifies some things explicitly (in particular that tivoization is explicitly forbidden, where before it was some legal gray area) and gives better compatibility between the GPL and other FOSS licenses.
- pjmlp 11y agoI didn't say that it was a licence problem. Many companies have legal departments that forbid any form of GPL software. I had customers that any third party dependency required legal approval before being used in the code.
- wolfgke 11y agoYou explicitly wrote about GPLv3 in your post above. For GPL software in general, your claim is surely true. But I see no reason why GPLv3 might make a difference (except for the few rare cases where tivoization might play a role) over GPLv2 here.
- pjmlp 11y agoEvery licence change, even a comma, triggers a new legal review in such customers.
- chris_wot 11y agoGiven they were using the LGPL before, which means they were already using GPL software, it means they are already in conflict with their legal department. In other words, what you say isn't the case.
- wolfgke 11y agoIt is a difference (also to the legal department) to use GPL/LGPL software (say, GNU/Linux) or develop (or even release publicly) software that uses components/libraries that are under GPL/LGPL. I think pjmlp was implicitly only talking about the second scenario.
- chris_wot 11y agoAs am I :-)