4 ms·

No chance of that. GPLv3 wasn't just an update, it was a major change from GPLv2. Importantly, it limited developers own rights to use code of projects they co

No chance of that. GPLv3 wasn't just an update, it was a major change from GPLv2. Importantly, it limited developers own rights to use code of projects they contribute to how they want (including in devices that are locked or secured in various ways). Plenty of people even outside of Linux are not going to be going to GPLv3. The GPLv3 split also damaged the more copyleft side of things as I think some kernel devs predicted. I think the momentum is currently more MIT / Apache - not sure if that could be where folks could be encouraged to release under to keep at least the open source part alive even if the copyleft part kind of goes away. Anyone doing any stats on this? The more true open source players are going MIT / Apache style, the proprietary relicense folks are doing the (A)GPLv3 thing to drive licensing revenue given the risk aversion to GPLv3 that is out there. A lot of the GPLv3 codebases require contributor agreements so they can license outside of GPLv3 so they tend not to be true multi-contributor / multi-copyright holder codebases.

account42 5y ago
> GPLv3 wasn't just an update, it was a major change from GPLv2. Importantly, it limited developers own rights to use code of projects they contribute to how they want (including in devices that are locked or secured in various ways). This is FUD. - The developer's own rights to their own code are never limited. What is limited is the rights they get to other people's code. - GPL does not limit use in any way, it limits distribution. The limit placed by the GPL on distribution is that the recipient must also be given source code and the same legal rights to the code. The GPL-3 fixes a technical loophole where the recipient is given rights to the code but prevented by technical means of using their modifications to that code on the device it is intended for. And yes, tivoization is absolutely a loophole in the GPL2, i.e. against the spirit of the license - the FSF has always been about empowering users to modify their software.
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  Would you be willing to indemnify a developer who is a contributor to a GPLv3 project so they could use that project code in a locked down device if necessary without release keys etc? If so, great, the claim is FUD. Reality is GPLv3 folks have lied about almost everything - Ubuntu had to get special private communication from FSF to be able to ship a GPLv3 bootloader etc. And no, the license is pretty darn clear to most of us, even if you are a major contributor to a project, you CANNOT use that project code how you would like. This is not FUD, this is part of the license design. That is a major change from GPLv2 which is what we are discussing. A reminder that developers, not users, pick the license of code. That is also fundamental to copyright law. You can write a license that makes developers pay users $1,000. Users might like that. Developers may not choose it. That is what is happening here in many cases. Developers are choosing to avoid GPL for other options. Again - this conversation would be helped if someone had some data. Anecdotally I'm seeing lots more MIT / Apache stuff than GPLv3 stuff these days.

account42 5y ago

> GPLv3 wasn't just an update, it was a major change from GPLv2. Importantly, it limited developers own rights to use code of projects they contribute to how they want (including in devices that are locked or secured in various ways). This is FUD. - The developer's own rights to their own code are never limited. What is limited is the rights they get to other people's code. - GPL does not limit use in any way, it limits distribution. The limit placed by the GPL on distribution is that the recipient must also be given source code and the same legal rights to the code. The GPL-3 fixes a technical loophole where the recipient is given rights to the code but prevented by technical means of using their modifications to that code on the device it is intended for. And yes, tivoization is absolutely a loophole in the GPL2, i.e. against the spirit of the license - the FSF has always been about empowering users to modify their software.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago
Would you be willing to indemnify a developer who is a contributor to a GPLv3 project so they could use that project code in a locked down device if necessary without release keys etc? If so, great, the claim is FUD. Reality is GPLv3 folks have lied about almost everything - Ubuntu had to get special private communication from FSF to be able to ship a GPLv3 bootloader etc. And no, the license is pretty darn clear to most of us, even if you are a major contributor to a project, you CANNOT use that project code how you would like. This is not FUD, this is part of the license design. That is a major change from GPLv2 which is what we are discussing. A reminder that developers, not users, pick the license of code. That is also fundamental to copyright law. You can write a license that makes developers pay users $1,000. Users might like that. Developers may not choose it. That is what is happening here in many cases. Developers are choosing to avoid GPL for other options. Again - this conversation would be helped if someone had some data. Anecdotally I'm seeing lots more MIT / Apache stuff than GPLv3 stuff these days.