5 ms·

The GPL already includes a clause stating "or any later version" so GNU software can happily update the GPL version. Linux specifically has an exception to this

by opk 5y ago

The GPL already includes a clause stating "or any later version" so GNU software can happily update the GPL version. Linux specifically has an exception to this. It is the dodgiest part of the whole GPL in my opinion and gives the Free Software Foundation a lot of power and makes it impossible to fork or replace the established organisation if it goes awry.

carlhjerpe 5y ago
Doesn't this work out a bit like MongoDB, where Amazon forked a version released before they replaced the GPL with their own license? Meaning the freedoms of the GPL will be withheld, no?
- DSMan195276 5y ago
  Yes it's very similar, the scope is just vastly different. If you have the "or later" GPL clause in your license then any new version of the GPL is retroactively a valid licensing option for your code, even if it's vastly different or actually removes freedoms. If they wanted the FSF could release GPLv4 tomorrow that just says all code licensed under it is public domain, and instantly all code with the "or later" clause could be treated as public domain.
  - carlhjerpe 5y ago
    Thanks for the clarification.
kube-system 5y ago
But if you don’t own the copyright to a particular piece of the code, doesn’t that also mean you don’t have the authority to assign a license to it?
- dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
  The GPL gives you a licence to the code, you don't need to own the copyright.
  - Kye 5y ago
    The problem appears to come when someone doesn't have the right to license it under (any) GPL in the first place because their employer owns all code they write.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Yes, but I can’t put GPL on someone else code. Whoever owns the code has to do it. And when I write code for hire, I have no right to the code, the legal person who hired me does. So, how would I put a GPL license on code that I wrote for somebody else without their permission?
    - Quekid5 5y ago
      When writing GPL'ed code for your employer your employer must obviously be (made) aware that that code is going to be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, as the copyright holder -- they have already given permission for that license to be used or they must do so. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Nope, sorry, it's not that straightforward at all: Under American labour laws (in many, but perhaps not all jurisdictions), your employer owns the copyright to whatever you write even on your own time. So they might not even have known, at the time, that you were writing something in the first place. But if you do so and release it without notifying them, and they later find out you wrote it while in their employ, they might claim that "Hey, that's _ours,_ and we sure never authorised releasing that under <<whatever>> license!"
        Quekid5 5y ago
        I think you might be missing context for the thread? Or maybe I'm inferring context that isn't there. I thought we were discussing the "no copyright assignment" scenario. > But if you do so and release it without notifying them That's them not doing due diligence as far as I can tell. The employee would also be in breach of contract, possibly even committing a crime. Employees can do all sort of illegal acts while in the employ of someone else... and when that happens you prosecute them (if it's egregious enough). I suppose it may mean that an upstream project may be harmed quite badly if this goes on for long enough... ... but that's no different for any open source project. Or even closed source: Maybe an employee is working for two companies and 'reusing' code in an unauthorized way.
- lmm 5y ago
  The original author contributes the code under "or any later version". So the project maintainer (or anyone) can then use a newer version of the GPL if they want (but not some other unrelated version).
  - kube-system 5y ago
    > The original author contributes the code under "or any later version". That’s the part I’m stuck on. How would I do that on code I do not own, because I wrote it for hire? I’m guessing there a legal answer to this question somehow, it has to have come up at some point.
    - rswail 5y ago
      You don't own the copyright so you can't license it under any licenses. So your original contribution was unlicensed and therefore the owner of the copyright can declare all use by anyone as infringement on their IPRs.
    - lmm 5y ago
      > That’s the part I’m stuck on. How would I do that on code I do not own, because I wrote it for hire? Well anyone can write a letter that says "I hereby grant you a license to use this code under these terms...", but if they don't hold the copyright on it then the letter is meaningless (or maybe fraudulent). So in court you would have to prove that that person's copyright is actually valid, and if the code was written by someone who was employed and their employer didn't sign a disclaimer of work-for-hire ownership claims, then that could be disputed. If you want to enforce the copyright against other people, as the FSF did, then that's bad. If you just want to avoid getting sued yourself, then it's probably not really a problem, because the employer would have to positively prove that they held the copyright to be able to enforce it. That said, some projects that don't require copyright assignment do still require a disclaimer of work-for-hire claims in their CLA.
pavon 5y ago
Actually, the GPL itself does not contain that clause. The FSF encourages you to release software as "GPL 3 or later", but if you don't explicitly state that (by using their recommended license notice, or otherwise) then your work is only licensed under that exact version of the GPL. One noteworthy case is that Linus did not release the kernel as "GPL 2 or later" and as such it is still GPL 2, and incompatible with GPL 3 licensed code. Of course (almost?) all GNU and FSF projects, like GCC, include the "or later" clause.
- toyg 5y ago
  This is a classic case of somewhat-unintended consequences. When the GPL was first published, authors assumed developers would actually read it, and provided the recommended notice as a customizable template. Instead, developers just blindly copypasted, because "who's got time to read, amirite?". And then somebody actually woke up to the "or later" clause when the tivoization debate happened, and started accusing this and that of nefarious intent.

by opk 5y ago

carlhjerpe 5y ago

Doesn't this work out a bit like MongoDB, where Amazon forked a version released before they replaced the GPL with their own license? Meaning the freedoms of the GPL will be withheld, no?

DSMan195276 5y ago
Yes it's very similar, the scope is just vastly different. If you have the "or later" GPL clause in your license then any new version of the GPL is retroactively a valid licensing option for your code, even if it's vastly different or actually removes freedoms. If they wanted the FSF could release GPLv4 tomorrow that just says all code licensed under it is public domain, and instantly all code with the "or later" clause could be treated as public domain.
- carlhjerpe 5y ago
  Thanks for the clarification.

kube-system 5y ago

But if you don’t own the copyright to a particular piece of the code, doesn’t that also mean you don’t have the authority to assign a license to it?

dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
The GPL gives you a licence to the code, you don't need to own the copyright.
- Kye 5y ago
  The problem appears to come when someone doesn't have the right to license it under (any) GPL in the first place because their employer owns all code they write.
- kube-system 5y ago
  Yes, but I can’t put GPL on someone else code. Whoever owns the code has to do it. And when I write code for hire, I have no right to the code, the legal person who hired me does. So, how would I put a GPL license on code that I wrote for somebody else without their permission?
  - Quekid5 5y ago
    When writing GPL'ed code for your employer your employer must obviously be (made) aware that that code is going to be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, as the copyright holder -- they have already given permission for that license to be used or they must do so. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Nope, sorry, it's not that straightforward at all: Under American labour laws (in many, but perhaps not all jurisdictions), your employer owns the copyright to whatever you write even on your own time. So they might not even have known, at the time, that you were writing something in the first place. But if you do so and release it without notifying them, and they later find out you wrote it while in their employ, they might claim that "Hey, that's _ours,_ and we sure never authorised releasing that under <<whatever>> license!"
      - Quekid5 5y ago
        I think you might be missing context for the thread? Or maybe I'm inferring context that isn't there. I thought we were discussing the "no copyright assignment" scenario. > But if you do so and release it without notifying them That's them not doing due diligence as far as I can tell. The employee would also be in breach of contract, possibly even committing a crime. Employees can do all sort of illegal acts while in the employ of someone else... and when that happens you prosecute them (if it's egregious enough). I suppose it may mean that an upstream project may be harmed quite badly if this goes on for long enough... ... but that's no different for any open source project. Or even closed source: Maybe an employee is working for two companies and 'reusing' code in an unauthorized way.
lmm 5y ago
The original author contributes the code under "or any later version". So the project maintainer (or anyone) can then use a newer version of the GPL if they want (but not some other unrelated version).
- kube-system 5y ago
  > The original author contributes the code under "or any later version". That’s the part I’m stuck on. How would I do that on code I do not own, because I wrote it for hire? I’m guessing there a legal answer to this question somehow, it has to have come up at some point.
  - rswail 5y ago
    You don't own the copyright so you can't license it under any licenses. So your original contribution was unlicensed and therefore the owner of the copyright can declare all use by anyone as infringement on their IPRs.
  - lmm 5y ago
    > That’s the part I’m stuck on. How would I do that on code I do not own, because I wrote it for hire? Well anyone can write a letter that says "I hereby grant you a license to use this code under these terms...", but if they don't hold the copyright on it then the letter is meaningless (or maybe fraudulent). So in court you would have to prove that that person's copyright is actually valid, and if the code was written by someone who was employed and their employer didn't sign a disclaimer of work-for-hire ownership claims, then that could be disputed. If you want to enforce the copyright against other people, as the FSF did, then that's bad. If you just want to avoid getting sued yourself, then it's probably not really a problem, because the employer would have to positively prove that they held the copyright to be able to enforce it. That said, some projects that don't require copyright assignment do still require a disclaimer of work-for-hire claims in their CLA.

pavon 5y ago

Actually, the GPL itself does not contain that clause. The FSF encourages you to release software as "GPL 3 or later", but if you don't explicitly state that (by using their recommended license notice, or otherwise) then your work is only licensed under that exact version of the GPL. One noteworthy case is that Linus did not release the kernel as "GPL 2 or later" and as such it is still GPL 2, and incompatible with GPL 3 licensed code. Of course (almost?) all GNU and FSF projects, like GCC, include the "or later" clause.

toyg 5y ago
This is a classic case of somewhat-unintended consequences. When the GPL was first published, authors assumed developers would actually read it, and provided the recommended notice as a customizable template. Instead, developers just blindly copypasted, because "who's got time to read, amirite?". And then somebody actually woke up to the "or later" clause when the tivoization debate happened, and started accusing this and that of nefarious intent.