4 ms·

The FSF does address version incompatibility, the problem is that some popular projects flat out refuse to follow their guidance. The FSF uses the approach of

The FSF does address version incompatibility, the problem is that some popular projects flat out refuse to follow their guidance. The FSF uses the approach of asking people to release programs under “GNU GPL version N or any later version.” This licensing is compatible with version N, and also with N+1 (because it offers version N+1 as an option). When you combine code under “GPL 3 or later” with code under “GPL 2 or later”, the license of the combination is their intersection, which is “GPL 3 or later”. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.html

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
That doesn't solve the problem at all. Licensing under GPLv2+ only allows one's code to be used in all GPL projects, not other copyleft licences, but that's not the full problem: it does not allow one to use code of anything other than GPLv2+. At this point one can't use GPLv2 or GPLv3 code any more, only GPLv2+ code. Furthermore, licencing under GPLv+ puts blind faith into the F.S.F.; it irrevocably licenses one's code under a licence that doesn't exist yet. When GPLv4 is eventually released, the software is now released under it, and GPLv4 might contain provisions one doesn't agree with, but one can't revoke it now. IT's absolutely not a solution.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  > not other copyleft licences The CDDL was intentionally written to be incompatible with the GPL. Which other copyleft licenses do you have in mind, and what advantages do they have over GPL-compatible licenses? > When GPLv4 is eventually released, the software is now released under it, and GPLv4 might contain provisions one doesn't agree with, but one can't revoke it now. If you release your code under a permissive license, it's basically guaranteed to be compatible with the future GPLv4, so you're in that situation anyway.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    > The CDDL was intentionally written to be incompatible with the GPL. Which other copyleft licenses do you have in mind, and what advantages do they have over GPL-compatible licenses? What strong copyleft licence do you know that is compatible with any GPL? The F.S.F. indeed alleges that it was intentional, and perhaps it was, but every single strong copyleft licence is pretty much incompatible with every other — one must go out of one's way to make them compatible and even it's typically an asymmetric compatibility. Advantages? They obviously do things differently and there's probably a reason why big companies tend to craft their own licence rather than relying upon a template. Examples: - Eclipse Public Licence - Mozilla Public Licence 0.1 and 0.2 - Apple Public Licence - Common Development and Distribution Licence - GPLv2 — yes, it should be mentioned as an example > If you release your code under a permissive license, it's basically guaranteed to be compatible with the future GPLv4, so you're in that situation anyway. You assume that the only option one have is GPLv2+ or a permissive licence. Linux is simply released under GPLv2, exactly because Linus Torvalds and many others in it disagree with some of the GPLv3 provisions; ZFS is simply released under the CDDL, and FixFox simply under the MPL. They have their reasons to choose other licences than GPLv3, because they disagree with some of the provisions thereof.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

That doesn't solve the problem at all. Licensing under GPLv2+ only allows one's code to be used in all GPL projects, not other copyleft licences, but that's not the full problem: it does not allow one to use code of anything other than GPLv2+. At this point one can't use GPLv2 or GPLv3 code any more, only GPLv2+ code. Furthermore, licencing under GPLv+ puts blind faith into the F.S.F.; it irrevocably licenses one's code under a licence that doesn't exist yet. When GPLv4 is eventually released, the software is now released under it, and GPLv4 might contain provisions one doesn't agree with, but one can't revoke it now. IT's absolutely not a solution.

josephcsible 6y ago
> not other copyleft licences The CDDL was intentionally written to be incompatible with the GPL. Which other copyleft licenses do you have in mind, and what advantages do they have over GPL-compatible licenses? > When GPLv4 is eventually released, the software is now released under it, and GPLv4 might contain provisions one doesn't agree with, but one can't revoke it now. If you release your code under a permissive license, it's basically guaranteed to be compatible with the future GPLv4, so you're in that situation anyway.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > The CDDL was intentionally written to be incompatible with the GPL. Which other copyleft licenses do you have in mind, and what advantages do they have over GPL-compatible licenses? What strong copyleft licence do you know that is compatible with any GPL? The F.S.F. indeed alleges that it was intentional, and perhaps it was, but every single strong copyleft licence is pretty much incompatible with every other — one must go out of one's way to make them compatible and even it's typically an asymmetric compatibility. Advantages? They obviously do things differently and there's probably a reason why big companies tend to craft their own licence rather than relying upon a template. Examples: - Eclipse Public Licence - Mozilla Public Licence 0.1 and 0.2 - Apple Public Licence - Common Development and Distribution Licence - GPLv2 — yes, it should be mentioned as an example > If you release your code under a permissive license, it's basically guaranteed to be compatible with the future GPLv4, so you're in that situation anyway. You assume that the only option one have is GPLv2+ or a permissive licence. Linux is simply released under GPLv2, exactly because Linus Torvalds and many others in it disagree with some of the GPLv3 provisions; ZFS is simply released under the CDDL, and FixFox simply under the MPL. They have their reasons to choose other licences than GPLv3, because they disagree with some of the provisions thereof.