4 ms·

You might as well blame GNU for updating from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+, creating the problem in the first place. Since, realistically, neither Linux nor GNU will budge

by jabl 5y ago

You might as well blame GNU for updating from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+, creating the problem in the first place. Since, realistically, neither Linux nor GNU will budge, maybe the practical solution would be to look into integrating with the equivalent library in the LLVM ecosystem (assuming it exists).

monocasa 5y ago
It was always clear that gnu would create newer versions of the GPL and start releasing under it. The blame is pretty clearly on the people who editted the license text to be GPL2 only.
- Macha 5y ago
  I think it's acceptable to not want an organisation to be able to relicense your software under arbitrary terms, which the GPL does allow the FSF to do. The GPL 3 is a pretty benign improvement on the GPL 2 (though I know Linus objects to the Tivo clause). I don't think anyone who was happy with their software being used under the terms of GPL 2 would be unhappy with it being used under the terms of the GPL 3 additionally, rather than exclusively. But let's imagine the next version of GPL 4 was "Additionally the authors may at their discretion use it under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license". Nothing wrong with it as a license, but that's a bigger leap in terms of license changes. It's not hypothetical that they could exercise that kind of power - they _did_ with the GFDL with the "wikipedia can relicense as CC-BY-SA" clause in GFDL 1.3. I think most people would agree that that was a responsible use of that power. but I can understand those that don't want to extend the trust that all future uses will be responsible.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    Sure, but that still means that the fault of not being in the ecosystem falls on the person who specifically edited their license to not be a part of the full ecosystem going forward regardless of whatever reasons they had for doing that.
    - Someone 5y ago
      Calling that a fault shows bias. You could just as well call it a choice.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        A choice that results in consequences is normally how you assign fault for those consequences.
        Someone 5y ago
        For those consciously omitting “and later”, the effect of not allowing that probably isn’t a fault, but a desired outcome. “You can do A, B, and C with the software I wrote, or whatever X may at some future date decide you can do with it” isn’t something everybody is happy with. It certainly requires some long-term trust in what X will or will not do.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        monocasa 5y ago
        The assignment of fault and it being a desired outcome are rarely mutually exclusive concepts.
  - bostonsre 5y ago
    Would that >= license be enforceable in court? It seems lame to create a license that forces you to agree to whatever future license changes come about.
    - Aengeuad 5y ago
      It could go several ways but I can't see a judge wanting to entertain complaints that a new GPL version isn't to your liking if the changes are minor, especially so since it's always going to remain valid in GPLv3. If the FSF goes rogue and changes the GPL to be incredibly restrictive (i.e., allowing proprietary redistribution, and I realise this can be considered permissive..) it might be possible to get it to be ruled invalid defaulting to the more permissive licence, especially if you have deep pockets, or if the FSF change the licence to be ridiculously permissive like 0BSD then it's not going to be legal in countries like Germany, either way any major change is likely to result in an international enforcement nightmare.
      - ufo 5y ago
        If GPLv4 were more restrictive, people would still be able to use the software under the terms of gplv2 or gplv3. The scenario where FSF goes "rogue" would be if gplv4 became more permissive, e.g. if it stopped being a copyleft licence.
    - caf 5y ago
      It doesn't force anyone to agree with any changes. It says "the recipient can use this under GPL v2 or any later version as published by the FSF", which means if they recipient is happy with the rights they got under GPL v2 they can keep using it under that version for as long as they like. The only person agreeing to future license changes is the publisher of the code, and they're the ones that chose to publish it under "GPLv2+" or whatever.
- waych 5y ago
  What some call a feature, others will call a bug. It doesn't make sense to assign blame on those who bug-fixed the backdoor in the license that clearly would allow a third party to change licensing terms. Even(!) if that third party was rms.
- jeltz 5y ago
  While so far FSF have behaved responsibly it makes perfect sense for the Linux developers to not place their trust in an external organization.
  - medstrom 5y ago
    The code was always going to be possible to use under GPL2, even if it said GPL2+. It's not really placing their trust with anyone since they wouldn't lose anything. It's more of a flag waving op to keep corporate interest -- corporate are notoriously disinterested in GPL3 projects, so Linux devs basically said "ok let's not let anyone fork as GPL3 and make significant work we can't benefit from". Then Linux stays relevant to corporate, who keep on supplying developers to the project.
    - joosters 5y ago
      This isn't true at all - Linus made the licensing decision in version 0.12 of the kernel, back in 1992! The certainly wasn't any corporate interest in Linux that needed to be protected back then. http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html
      - medstrom 5y ago
        TIL, thanks. Guess cui bono isn't a reliable method of deduction.
        aidenn0 5y ago
        So you're telling me Chicxulub impact wasn't caused by small mammals?
- Aengeuad 5y ago
  I get that the point here is that perf could relicence to GPLv2+ to resolve this issue (although this works both ways, libbfd could dual licence as GPLv2+/GPLv3+) and it could be left at just that, but I have to nitpick this: >The blame is pretty clearly on the people who editted the license text to be GPL2 only. They edited the licence, yes, but the FSF explicitly wants you to do this to make your intention clear(1). When you licence software under the GPLv2 (or 3, etc) you have a choice of 'GPLv2 only' or 'GPLv2, or any later version', however since the licence text only states 'Version 2' with the old short labels being just 'GPL-2.0' there's some ambiguity on whether you mean GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later. The default assumption should always be v2-only, however as (at the time) the FSF were still recommending the short label of GPL-2.0 and the issue of using v2-only or v2-or-later wasn't really an issue you had a lot of v2 licenced software and patches using the default unedited licence with the FSF short label of GPL-2.0 and this is purely the fault of the FSF. It wasn't until the GPLv3 came around which some people didn't like (notably the Linux kernel, which is probably why perf is v2-only) that you got people editing their licences to make the intention clear, although for many projects they had no choice in the matter as changing to v2-or-later would require permission from every copyright holder that had contributed code to that project, again this is partially the fault of the FSF for not having enough foresight or making the choice of -only or -or-later more explicit and clear. P.S. if you already know the history and context here this post probably seems a little patronising and I apologise for that. (1) https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html
- canadianfella 5y ago
  No way. Letting someone else change your license is dumb.

by jabl 5y ago

monocasa 5y ago

It was always clear that gnu would create newer versions of the GPL and start releasing under it. The blame is pretty clearly on the people who editted the license text to be GPL2 only.

Macha 5y ago
I think it's acceptable to not want an organisation to be able to relicense your software under arbitrary terms, which the GPL does allow the FSF to do. The GPL 3 is a pretty benign improvement on the GPL 2 (though I know Linus objects to the Tivo clause). I don't think anyone who was happy with their software being used under the terms of GPL 2 would be unhappy with it being used under the terms of the GPL 3 additionally, rather than exclusively. But let's imagine the next version of GPL 4 was "Additionally the authors may at their discretion use it under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license". Nothing wrong with it as a license, but that's a bigger leap in terms of license changes. It's not hypothetical that they could exercise that kind of power - they _did_ with the GFDL with the "wikipedia can relicense as CC-BY-SA" clause in GFDL 1.3. I think most people would agree that that was a responsible use of that power. but I can understand those that don't want to extend the trust that all future uses will be responsible.
- monocasa 5y ago
  Sure, but that still means that the fault of not being in the ecosystem falls on the person who specifically edited their license to not be a part of the full ecosystem going forward regardless of whatever reasons they had for doing that.
  - Someone 5y ago
    Calling that a fault shows bias. You could just as well call it a choice.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      A choice that results in consequences is normally how you assign fault for those consequences.
      - Someone 5y ago
        For those consciously omitting “and later”, the effect of not allowing that probably isn’t a fault, but a desired outcome. “You can do A, B, and C with the software I wrote, or whatever X may at some future date decide you can do with it” isn’t something everybody is happy with. It certainly requires some long-term trust in what X will or will not do.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        monocasa 5y ago
        The assignment of fault and it being a desired outcome are rarely mutually exclusive concepts.
- bostonsre 5y ago
  Would that >= license be enforceable in court? It seems lame to create a license that forces you to agree to whatever future license changes come about.
  - Aengeuad 5y ago
    It could go several ways but I can't see a judge wanting to entertain complaints that a new GPL version isn't to your liking if the changes are minor, especially so since it's always going to remain valid in GPLv3. If the FSF goes rogue and changes the GPL to be incredibly restrictive (i.e., allowing proprietary redistribution, and I realise this can be considered permissive..) it might be possible to get it to be ruled invalid defaulting to the more permissive licence, especially if you have deep pockets, or if the FSF change the licence to be ridiculously permissive like 0BSD then it's not going to be legal in countries like Germany, either way any major change is likely to result in an international enforcement nightmare.
    - ufo 5y ago
      If GPLv4 were more restrictive, people would still be able to use the software under the terms of gplv2 or gplv3. The scenario where FSF goes "rogue" would be if gplv4 became more permissive, e.g. if it stopped being a copyleft licence.
  - caf 5y ago
    It doesn't force anyone to agree with any changes. It says "the recipient can use this under GPL v2 or any later version as published by the FSF", which means if they recipient is happy with the rights they got under GPL v2 they can keep using it under that version for as long as they like. The only person agreeing to future license changes is the publisher of the code, and they're the ones that chose to publish it under "GPLv2+" or whatever.
waych 5y ago
What some call a feature, others will call a bug. It doesn't make sense to assign blame on those who bug-fixed the backdoor in the license that clearly would allow a third party to change licensing terms. Even(!) if that third party was rms.
jeltz 5y ago
While so far FSF have behaved responsibly it makes perfect sense for the Linux developers to not place their trust in an external organization.
- medstrom 5y ago
  The code was always going to be possible to use under GPL2, even if it said GPL2+. It's not really placing their trust with anyone since they wouldn't lose anything. It's more of a flag waving op to keep corporate interest -- corporate are notoriously disinterested in GPL3 projects, so Linux devs basically said "ok let's not let anyone fork as GPL3 and make significant work we can't benefit from". Then Linux stays relevant to corporate, who keep on supplying developers to the project.
  - joosters 5y ago
    This isn't true at all - Linus made the licensing decision in version 0.12 of the kernel, back in 1992! The certainly wasn't any corporate interest in Linux that needed to be protected back then. http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html
    - medstrom 5y ago
      TIL, thanks. Guess cui bono isn't a reliable method of deduction.
      - aidenn0 5y ago
        So you're telling me Chicxulub impact wasn't caused by small mammals?
Aengeuad 5y ago
I get that the point here is that perf could relicence to GPLv2+ to resolve this issue (although this works both ways, libbfd could dual licence as GPLv2+/GPLv3+) and it could be left at just that, but I have to nitpick this: >The blame is pretty clearly on the people who editted the license text to be GPL2 only. They edited the licence, yes, but the FSF explicitly wants you to do this to make your intention clear(1). When you licence software under the GPLv2 (or 3, etc) you have a choice of 'GPLv2 only' or 'GPLv2, or any later version', however since the licence text only states 'Version 2' with the old short labels being just 'GPL-2.0' there's some ambiguity on whether you mean GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later. The default assumption should always be v2-only, however as (at the time) the FSF were still recommending the short label of GPL-2.0 and the issue of using v2-only or v2-or-later wasn't really an issue you had a lot of v2 licenced software and patches using the default unedited licence with the FSF short label of GPL-2.0 and this is purely the fault of the FSF. It wasn't until the GPLv3 came around which some people didn't like (notably the Linux kernel, which is probably why perf is v2-only) that you got people editing their licences to make the intention clear, although for many projects they had no choice in the matter as changing to v2-or-later would require permission from every copyright holder that had contributed code to that project, again this is partially the fault of the FSF for not having enough foresight or making the choice of -only or -or-later more explicit and clear. P.S. if you already know the history and context here this post probably seems a little patronising and I apologise for that. (1) https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html
canadianfella 5y ago
No way. Letting someone else change your license is dumb.