6 ms·

From a person who makes a living selling software I like GPL v3 where I dislike GPL v2. This mostly resolves around that I can offer a proprietary license to th

by hackits 10y ago

From a person who makes a living selling software I like GPL v3 where I dislike GPL v2. This mostly resolves around that I can offer a proprietary license to the clients for the software in situations they dis-like GPL v3 but it also keeps everyone source code open for modifications.

greenhouse_gas 10y ago
You can do the same with GPL2 (if you have a CLA, see MySQL (are you thinking of AGPL by any chance?)). The issue is that I don't see why would someone code for you for free, if you're going to sell the resultant code. For example, I don't think IBM would contribute to Linux if Linus was considered "the sole owner" and sold GPL exemptions.
- hackits 10y ago
  GPL2 - I give you my time and my work, you can sell it or include it in your product but credit the software package/module in your read-me.txt file and where to find it. By any chance you make modifications please make it available or publish them so it can be included back into the product. GPL3 - I give you my time and my work, you can sell it or include it in your product but you need to also release your product under GPL3 and make it available to the public (eg.. Copy left). The caveat of GPL3 is if the legal department doesn't like it, they can negotiate with the developer to purchase a GPL2 license, or proprietary license that comes with support. Mostly boils down if you want everyone to play nice.
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    You've made a distinction without a difference. Both licenses are copyleft. You choose GPL in the first place 'cause it's a more toxic poison pill vs other businesses. That's its function for you. By this measure GPL 3 is indeed the better poison pill because it precludes tivoization as well as going for the old hardware-and-software patent grab, too.
pksadiq 10y ago
> I can offer a proprietary license to the clients for the software in situations they dis-like GPL v3 This is how business works for codes like Qt and Odoo. They didn't choose [AL]GPLv3+ for the software to be free, but (or along with), for the reason that it would benefit them. The same tactic may be used by Canonical (Ubuntu) for their code like Mir, Unity, and other codes with CLA in the near future. For me, GPLv3 gives the following additional protection: * Patent protection from the authors (for their own patents that are used in the software) * More freedom (Eg: A router with GPLv2 Linux + Busybox is simply open source, not free software. That is, you can get the source code of those Linux + Busybox. But the router company may not give you a way to modify the software bundled with the router. GPLv3 protects the users against such locks). * Easier distribution requirement. If a user asks for source code of some GPLv2 code in a CD or some other offline media, the developer is obliged to (of course the developer can ask for its expenses). for a GPLv3+ code, it is enough to be hosted online/emailed.
- hackits 10y ago
  Agreed your point. That is kind of the reason why I'm reluctant to use the GPLV2. If you distribute my software I want you to also honor the license agreement and release your resulting source code. In other words everyone has a gun pointed at each other head's and it keeps everyone honest. There are current ongoing issues with GPLV2 with router, ip camera's and some other big named businesses that have bundled open source software but have not honored the license agreement and released or make publicly available those modifications. In doing so they're in breach of the license agreement and considering they're a commercial entity the copyright holders should rightly so be compensated. You can take the chance and be the `nice` guy and release your source code under a BSD or GPLv2 license though with anything open source don't be surprised if you find your work inside a Toyota with your email address.
gribbly 10y ago
What exactly is the difference between v2 and v3 in this situation ? x264 and x265 are both GPLv2 licensed, but also offer commercial licenses.
- hackits 10y ago
  From my understanding. v2 I can include x264 either dynamically linked or statically linked into my software and sell the software but wouldn't need to release the source code to my software. If I make any alteration or modification to the x264 source code (eg.. performance/bug fix) then I'm bound by the license agreement to make such modification available. v3 very similar but under the license agreement I have to make my source code and any derivative libraries that my software package source code available under the same license.

by hackits 10y ago

greenhouse_gas 10y ago

You can do the same with GPL2 (if you have a CLA, see MySQL (are you thinking of AGPL by any chance?)). The issue is that I don't see why would someone code for you for free, if you're going to sell the resultant code. For example, I don't think IBM would contribute to Linux if Linus was considered "the sole owner" and sold GPL exemptions.

hackits 10y ago
GPL2 - I give you my time and my work, you can sell it or include it in your product but credit the software package/module in your read-me.txt file and where to find it. By any chance you make modifications please make it available or publish them so it can be included back into the product. GPL3 - I give you my time and my work, you can sell it or include it in your product but you need to also release your product under GPL3 and make it available to the public (eg.. Copy left). The caveat of GPL3 is if the legal department doesn't like it, they can negotiate with the developer to purchase a GPL2 license, or proprietary license that comes with support. Mostly boils down if you want everyone to play nice.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  You've made a distinction without a difference. Both licenses are copyleft. You choose GPL in the first place 'cause it's a more toxic poison pill vs other businesses. That's its function for you. By this measure GPL 3 is indeed the better poison pill because it precludes tivoization as well as going for the old hardware-and-software patent grab, too.

pksadiq 10y ago

> I can offer a proprietary license to the clients for the software in situations they dis-like GPL v3 This is how business works for codes like Qt and Odoo. They didn't choose [AL]GPLv3+ for the software to be free, but (or along with), for the reason that it would benefit them. The same tactic may be used by Canonical (Ubuntu) for their code like Mir, Unity, and other codes with CLA in the near future. For me, GPLv3 gives the following additional protection: * Patent protection from the authors (for their own patents that are used in the software) * More freedom (Eg: A router with GPLv2 Linux + Busybox is simply open source, not free software. That is, you can get the source code of those Linux + Busybox. But the router company may not give you a way to modify the software bundled with the router. GPLv3 protects the users against such locks). * Easier distribution requirement. If a user asks for source code of some GPLv2 code in a CD or some other offline media, the developer is obliged to (of course the developer can ask for its expenses). for a GPLv3+ code, it is enough to be hosted online/emailed.

hackits 10y ago
Agreed your point. That is kind of the reason why I'm reluctant to use the GPLV2. If you distribute my software I want you to also honor the license agreement and release your resulting source code. In other words everyone has a gun pointed at each other head's and it keeps everyone honest. There are current ongoing issues with GPLV2 with router, ip camera's and some other big named businesses that have bundled open source software but have not honored the license agreement and released or make publicly available those modifications. In doing so they're in breach of the license agreement and considering they're a commercial entity the copyright holders should rightly so be compensated. You can take the chance and be the `nice` guy and release your source code under a BSD or GPLv2 license though with anything open source don't be surprised if you find your work inside a Toyota with your email address.

gribbly 10y ago

What exactly is the difference between v2 and v3 in this situation ? x264 and x265 are both GPLv2 licensed, but also offer commercial licenses.

hackits 10y ago
From my understanding. v2 I can include x264 either dynamically linked or statically linked into my software and sell the software but wouldn't need to release the source code to my software. If I make any alteration or modification to the x264 source code (eg.. performance/bug fix) then I'm bound by the license agreement to make such modification available. v3 very similar but under the license agreement I have to make my source code and any derivative libraries that my software package source code available under the same license.