4 ms·

Also Linus: GPL V3 is a fine license. Overall Linus Torvalds did not like how V3 was forced onto 'unsuspecting' GPL v2 users due to the 'or later' license assi

Also Linus: GPL V3 is a fine license. Overall Linus Torvalds did not like how V3 was forced onto 'unsuspecting' GPL v2 users due to the 'or later' license assignment.

hutrdvnj 5y ago
Yeah, but this quote is out of context. With context it makes much more sense.
Blikkentrekker 5y ago
The number of persons who earnestly say that it is a good idea to license one's work under or later-licenses is quite boggling. It is putting one's work into the hands of license that does not yet exist, it is irrevocable and once the F.S.F. brings a new version and one does not like provisions thereof, one cannot go back.
- blendergeek 5y ago
  While I can see why some wouldn't want to use an "or later" license, I don't think it is near as big a deal as you make it out to be. While you are granting the FSF the ability to relicense your code, they only have the ability to re-license your existing code. As it is already under the current version of the license, if you do not like the new version, you can simply stop using it for future additions. If I license something under "GPLv2 or later", and the FSF releases GPLv3 that is the SSPL, I can simply keep using my existing code under GPLv2. If the FSF releases GPLv3 and it is CC0, then I can once again keep using my code under GPLv2. In either of these cases, I don't have use the new version of the license on new versions of the software. While the existing software is always "GPLv2 or later", later additions can be "GPLv2 only". An "or later" license allows for making my license compatible with future versions of the GPL. Personally, I see this as a good thing.
  - dosshell 5y ago
    You can also dual license your work. If a new license version appears you can read it through and then decide if you want to distribute your work with that license _too_.
    - j16sdiz 5y ago
      Only if you are the sole author. If you have accepted third party contribution and don't have any copyright assignment agreement (which is... Most of the projects out there), you can't relicense easily.
      - rurban 5y ago
        Not official GNU projects. They can easily switch their/our projects to GPL-4 when the urge arises.
  - athrowaway3z 5y ago
    This is fundamentally wrong. I don't care if you like GPLv2 or not, but this is clearly showing you can't read or haven't read it. Its not about the user keeping his code under GPL2, its about other parties being required to keep their changes under GPL2 and accessible.
    - blendergeek 5y ago
      > This is fundamentally wrong. Would you provide a point-by-point rebuttal? If not, would you at least provide some evidence of your position that my post is "fundamentally wrong"? > I don't care if you like GPLv2 or not, but this is clearly showing you can't read or haven't read it. I have read GPLv1, GPLv2, GPLv3, aGPLv3, the X.ORG license, all forms of the BSD license, the appache license, several versions of the Mozilla License, amongst others. Please refrain from personal insults ("clearly showing you can't read") as well. > Its not about the user keeping his code under GPL2, My argument is that the FSF will probably not grant anybody privileges with the existing code that I don't like. Even once a new version of the GPL is released, other contributors will have to contribute under a version of the GPL. If the best versions are only under a later version of the GPL, maybe I will switch to GPLv4. > its about other parties being required to keep their changes under GPL2 and accessible. So it seems that you are worried that future contributors will release their contributioins only under the "later" version of the GPL and these new contributions will thus not be compatible with the older version of the GPL. This definitely could happen. However, many projects already dual license under GPLv2or3 so I don't see this as much of a concern. Sure we are adding GPLv2,3,orLater but these issues already exist and already don't cause too great an issue (in my opinion).
      - athrowaway3z 5y ago
        "fundamentally wrong" and "you cant read" are a poor choice of words in retrospect and i should have used "Fundamentally misrepresents the issue" and "you appear to not understand why GPLv2 exists". > Please refrain from personal insults ("clearly showing you can't read") as well. I think the issue stems from: > "I don't think it is near as big a deal as you make it out to be." It is ambiguous weather you are "not sure about your logic", or if you are "not sure about Blikkentrekker logic". I took it to mean the latter. This puts your comment in a very bad light and set me off because it fails to acknowledge the issue Blikkentrekker is raising. > "While you are granting the FSF the ability to relicense your code, they only have the ability to re-license your existing code" A developer chooses the GPLv2 in part to what it does to _future_ code. `I provide this for free and we are all required to contribute future improvements for free, no-take-backsies`. >"If the FSF releases GPLv3 and it is CC0" is among the worse case scenario's for a developer that chooses GPLv2. It invalidates their choice and leaves only `I provide this for free` and is the core of the issue at hand. > My argument is that the FSF will probably not grant anybody privileges with the existing code that I don't like. And this is a perfectly fine counter. Its a matter of if you think the risk is worth it.
- CrLf 5y ago
  Imagine I use software "X" which is licensed under GPLv2-or-later and put it inside locked-down hardware. Then someone else comes along and chooses to use it under GPLv3, then proceeds to sue me because I can't lock down GPLv3 software. Problem is... when you choose the GPL version in an "or later" scenario, you're choosing for yourself, not others. Thus "or later" posed no problems by itself. (The same exercise can be made regarding the patent clauses.)
  - fsckboy 5y ago
    you locked it down under v2, there's no problem there, and only the author can sue you for violating the old license or the new one, which you have not done.
CrLf 5y ago
The "or later" bit was meaningless until the first GPLv3 (or later) code change was introduced, and it wasn't forced by anyone since it wasn't even part of the license. Users of GPLv2-or-later software cannot use GPLv3 clauses against other users (such as patent grants), as either party can always claim to be using the code under either license. GPLv2-or-later is thus fine. The "unsuspecting part" comes from people relicensing under v3 without understanding how radioactive it is. And it is radioactive not because of any software-related concerns, but because of extraneous stuff (like Linus says). Funny enough, the most radioactive bits come from trying to cover things that are better fought in other grounds, like software patents.
twhb 5y ago
I read this comment then watched the video and this comment misled me. He did not come around to accepting v3 after just procedural complaints, he said it’s fine for other people, who actually want its new conditions, but it’s not an update to v2 and should have been a separate license.
ASalazarMX 5y ago
Wait, we first need to know if the OR in "GPL v2 or later" is short-circuit or strict evaluation.

Also Linus: GPL V3 is a fine license. Overall Linus Torvalds did not like how V3 was forced onto 'unsuspecting' GPL v2 users due to the 'or later' license assignment.

hutrdvnj 5y ago

Yeah, but this quote is out of context. With context it makes much more sense.

Blikkentrekker 5y ago

The number of persons who earnestly say that it is a good idea to license one's work under or later-licenses is quite boggling. It is putting one's work into the hands of license that does not yet exist, it is irrevocable and once the F.S.F. brings a new version and one does not like provisions thereof, one cannot go back.

blendergeek 5y ago
While I can see why some wouldn't want to use an "or later" license, I don't think it is near as big a deal as you make it out to be. While you are granting the FSF the ability to relicense your code, they only have the ability to re-license your existing code. As it is already under the current version of the license, if you do not like the new version, you can simply stop using it for future additions. If I license something under "GPLv2 or later", and the FSF releases GPLv3 that is the SSPL, I can simply keep using my existing code under GPLv2. If the FSF releases GPLv3 and it is CC0, then I can once again keep using my code under GPLv2. In either of these cases, I don't have use the new version of the license on new versions of the software. While the existing software is always "GPLv2 or later", later additions can be "GPLv2 only". An "or later" license allows for making my license compatible with future versions of the GPL. Personally, I see this as a good thing.
- dosshell 5y ago
  You can also dual license your work. If a new license version appears you can read it through and then decide if you want to distribute your work with that license _too_.
  - j16sdiz 5y ago
    Only if you are the sole author. If you have accepted third party contribution and don't have any copyright assignment agreement (which is... Most of the projects out there), you can't relicense easily.
    - rurban 5y ago
      Not official GNU projects. They can easily switch their/our projects to GPL-4 when the urge arises.
- athrowaway3z 5y ago
  This is fundamentally wrong. I don't care if you like GPLv2 or not, but this is clearly showing you can't read or haven't read it. Its not about the user keeping his code under GPL2, its about other parties being required to keep their changes under GPL2 and accessible.
  - blendergeek 5y ago
    > This is fundamentally wrong. Would you provide a point-by-point rebuttal? If not, would you at least provide some evidence of your position that my post is "fundamentally wrong"? > I don't care if you like GPLv2 or not, but this is clearly showing you can't read or haven't read it. I have read GPLv1, GPLv2, GPLv3, aGPLv3, the X.ORG license, all forms of the BSD license, the appache license, several versions of the Mozilla License, amongst others. Please refrain from personal insults ("clearly showing you can't read") as well. > Its not about the user keeping his code under GPL2, My argument is that the FSF will probably not grant anybody privileges with the existing code that I don't like. Even once a new version of the GPL is released, other contributors will have to contribute under a version of the GPL. If the best versions are only under a later version of the GPL, maybe I will switch to GPLv4. > its about other parties being required to keep their changes under GPL2 and accessible. So it seems that you are worried that future contributors will release their contributioins only under the "later" version of the GPL and these new contributions will thus not be compatible with the older version of the GPL. This definitely could happen. However, many projects already dual license under GPLv2or3 so I don't see this as much of a concern. Sure we are adding GPLv2,3,orLater but these issues already exist and already don't cause too great an issue (in my opinion).
    - athrowaway3z 5y ago
      "fundamentally wrong" and "you cant read" are a poor choice of words in retrospect and i should have used "Fundamentally misrepresents the issue" and "you appear to not understand why GPLv2 exists". > Please refrain from personal insults ("clearly showing you can't read") as well. I think the issue stems from: > "I don't think it is near as big a deal as you make it out to be." It is ambiguous weather you are "not sure about your logic", or if you are "not sure about Blikkentrekker logic". I took it to mean the latter. This puts your comment in a very bad light and set me off because it fails to acknowledge the issue Blikkentrekker is raising. > "While you are granting the FSF the ability to relicense your code, they only have the ability to re-license your existing code" A developer chooses the GPLv2 in part to what it does to _future_ code. `I provide this for free and we are all required to contribute future improvements for free, no-take-backsies`. >"If the FSF releases GPLv3 and it is CC0" is among the worse case scenario's for a developer that chooses GPLv2. It invalidates their choice and leaves only `I provide this for free` and is the core of the issue at hand. > My argument is that the FSF will probably not grant anybody privileges with the existing code that I don't like. And this is a perfectly fine counter. Its a matter of if you think the risk is worth it.
CrLf 5y ago
Imagine I use software "X" which is licensed under GPLv2-or-later and put it inside locked-down hardware. Then someone else comes along and chooses to use it under GPLv3, then proceeds to sue me because I can't lock down GPLv3 software. Problem is... when you choose the GPL version in an "or later" scenario, you're choosing for yourself, not others. Thus "or later" posed no problems by itself. (The same exercise can be made regarding the patent clauses.)
- fsckboy 5y ago
  you locked it down under v2, there's no problem there, and only the author can sue you for violating the old license or the new one, which you have not done.

CrLf 5y ago

The "or later" bit was meaningless until the first GPLv3 (or later) code change was introduced, and it wasn't forced by anyone since it wasn't even part of the license. Users of GPLv2-or-later software cannot use GPLv3 clauses against other users (such as patent grants), as either party can always claim to be using the code under either license. GPLv2-or-later is thus fine. The "unsuspecting part" comes from people relicensing under v3 without understanding how radioactive it is. And it is radioactive not because of any software-related concerns, but because of extraneous stuff (like Linus says). Funny enough, the most radioactive bits come from trying to cover things that are better fought in other grounds, like software patents.

twhb 5y ago

I read this comment then watched the video and this comment misled me. He did not come around to accepting v3 after just procedural complaints, he said it’s fine for other people, who actually want its new conditions, but it’s not an update to v2 and should have been a separate license.

ASalazarMX 5y ago

Wait, we first need to know if the OR in "GPL v2 or later" is short-circuit or strict evaluation.