5 ms·

Android GPLv2 termination worries: one more reason to upgrade to GPLv3

9 points by tjr 15y ago

reemrevnivek 15y ago
Don't panic! The article isn't about an expiration or termination of the GPLv2 itself. It's about the termination of violator rights after the violator complies with the license. GPLv2 requires all copyright holders (which is hundreds for Android) to agree to forgive the violator, GPLv3 assumes that the violator will be forgiven after they comply with the license. Sounds like a good reason to upgrade to v3 to me.
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  Upgrading the Linux license to v3 would also require all copyright holders to agree, making it equally impossible to do in practice... in fact, probably more so since most contributors would just blindly 'yea' vote on revoking the termination of an Android license for any specific vendor who came back into compliance whereas some of them are actively opposed to GPLv3 terms.
  - cube13 15y ago
    Given the number of complaints Linus Torvalds made about GPLv3's anti-Tivolization clause, I don't think that we're going to ever see the kernel on v3.
CWuestefeld 15y ago
I think this is one more example of how, rather than freeing software from the grip of corporations, the open source movement has succeeded in making the licensing of software such a morass that nobody can even understand it.
- gte910h 15y ago
  I think you're incorrect there. I think the GPL is relatively complicated, and made certain high value project (Famously, MySQL and the Linux Kernel) safe from capture by private entities. Most other open source licenses are extremely liberal. LGPL is a little complicated, but not so much anyone who understands recursion can't understand it.
robot 15y ago
"Hence, we created new termination provisions for GPLv3. These terms offer violators a simple method to earn back the rights they had. Parties who violate the license have their rights restored provisionally as soon as they come back into compliance, and permanently if no copyright holders terminate those rights within sixty days of the last violation. Furthermore, first-time violators will have their rights restored permanently if they come into compliance within thirty days of receiving such notice." So you violate the GPL and if no copyright holder complains in 60 days, you continue to distribute software? Hmm.
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  "within sixty days of the last violation" If you continue to distribute in violation of the GPL, that violation window continues to be reset.
- kelnos 15y ago
  60 days after coming back into compliance.
tzs 15y ago
Ouch...that's quite a kick in the teeth to Groklaw, Boycott Novell, Brian Proffitt and a few other well known commentators, who have been trying hard to dismiss any claims that the GPLv2 termination clause could be a problem here (because once you lose your rights, you need to get the copyright holders to explicitly restore them if you want to resume distributing the GPLv2 software) as FUD from Android enemies. Some of them even claim it comes from people secretly on Microsoft and/or Apple's payroll.

9 points by tjr 15y ago

Don't panic! The article isn't about an expiration or termination of the GPLv2 itself. It's about the termination of violator rights after the violator complies with the license. GPLv2 requires all copyright holders (which is hundreds for Android) to agree to forgive the violator, GPLv3 assumes that the violator will be forgiven after they comply with the license. Sounds like a good reason to upgrade to v3 to me.

georgemcbay 15y ago
Upgrading the Linux license to v3 would also require all copyright holders to agree, making it equally impossible to do in practice... in fact, probably more so since most contributors would just blindly 'yea' vote on revoking the termination of an Android license for any specific vendor who came back into compliance whereas some of them are actively opposed to GPLv3 terms.
- cube13 15y ago
  Given the number of complaints Linus Torvalds made about GPLv3's anti-Tivolization clause, I don't think that we're going to ever see the kernel on v3.

CWuestefeld 15y ago

I think this is one more example of how, rather than freeing software from the grip of corporations, the open source movement has succeeded in making the licensing of software such a morass that nobody can even understand it.

gte910h 15y ago
I think you're incorrect there. I think the GPL is relatively complicated, and made certain high value project (Famously, MySQL and the Linux Kernel) safe from capture by private entities. Most other open source licenses are extremely liberal. LGPL is a little complicated, but not so much anyone who understands recursion can't understand it.

robot 15y ago

"Hence, we created new termination provisions for GPLv3. These terms offer violators a simple method to earn back the rights they had. Parties who violate the license have their rights restored provisionally as soon as they come back into compliance, and permanently if no copyright holders terminate those rights within sixty days of the last violation. Furthermore, first-time violators will have their rights restored permanently if they come into compliance within thirty days of receiving such notice." So you violate the GPL and if no copyright holder complains in 60 days, you continue to distribute software? Hmm.

georgemcbay 15y ago
"within sixty days of the last violation" If you continue to distribute in violation of the GPL, that violation window continues to be reset.
kelnos 15y ago
60 days after coming back into compliance.

tzs 15y ago

Ouch...that's quite a kick in the teeth to Groklaw, Boycott Novell, Brian Proffitt and a few other well known commentators, who have been trying hard to dismiss any claims that the GPLv2 termination clause could be a problem here (because once you lose your rights, you need to get the copyright holders to explicitly restore them if you want to resume distributing the GPLv2 software) as FUD from Android enemies. Some of them even claim it comes from people secretly on Microsoft and/or Apple's payroll.