Please tone down the GPL3 paranoia

[Bruce Perens]

Rob Landley wrote:
> Would you prefer I just make an executive decision without so much public 
> discussion?
>   
No. I would prefer that everyone refrain from closing out avenues
regarding GPL3 while GPL3 does not yet exist, due to some
possibly-incorrect perception of what GPL3 will include.
>> There was no restriction to prevent future versions of the GPL.
>>     
>
> No future versions of the GPL existed yet.
>   
A long time ago, FSF changed its physical mail address and that caused a
revision of the GPL. The language "or any later version" has been a
standard part of GPL license grants since at least that long ago. Also,
FSF and other folks in our community have always been aware that changes
in the law could cause a sudden and unexpected need for a change in the
GPL in order for software covered under the GPL to continue to offer the
expected freedoms.
> Why is chosing a specific license for the project a "restriction"?
I think the most important reason is that by doing so, you are making it
much more difficult to repair the license if at some future date the law
and the license become incompatible with each other. For example, a
number of significant contributors to free software have died. Their
estates probably have no idea how to handle requests to relicense their
copyrighted property. You can publish a license change for objection and
hope that's enough, but you can't get an unambiguous answer.
> And it doesn't take any special privileges to drop all but one license of a 
> multi-licensed project.  It happens all the time:
> http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/license-change.html
>   
This is a bad example. Unlike the busybox project, Sun demands copyright
assignment before it accepts contributions to their own source tree. So,
they have a right to make unilateral license changes without asking anyone.
> As an individual developer, I could fork the project and create new versions
Uh-huh. As you know, there's a big difference between individual
developers and project leaders.
> We will never accept GPLv3-only patches into the project.
I can think of some cases where you might have to positively abandon
GPL2 in response to some legislative or court action.
> There's nothing wrong with GPLv2, and if there was it would be wrong with the 
> Linux kernel, a project at the center of a multi-billion dollar industry with 
> the resources to lobby for changes in the law to protect itself.
>   
This is an entirely different argument, but if you are talking about
OSDL's patent project, you should be aware that their membership would
not allow them to lobby for fundamental changes in patent law, and
limited them to patent "quality" initiatives that have so far seen no
fruit. I've been part of the meetings.
> You seem to be suggesting it would be acceptable to simplify the project's 
> license to GPLv3 only, but not to GPLv2 only.\
I think you need to leave the option to progress to GPL3 only for a
future in which GPL2 may no longer be viable because major license
circumventions are found acceptable by some court and thus gain the
strength of law. I am saying that you should not close out your options
in case that happens.
> What's wrong with GPLv2?  It strikes an excellent balance that's lasted 15 
> years already.  It's been a stable social contract the entire time I've been 
> using Linux.
>   
When the GPL was drafted, dynamic linking was not in common use. There
were no ASPs. Both of these represent oft-used loopholes. There had been
no cases like Nintendo v. Goloob or Specht v. Netscape, either of which
might be used as precedent to weaken the GPL in a later case.
>> rather than a license that would have allowed improvements to 
>> the package to be locked down in some way.
>>     
>
> You're implying GPLv2 would allow this?
>   
Well, there is the DRM issue. Do you really want unmodifiable signed
busybox binaries that circumvent your GPL-granted right to modify the
software within hardware that you own? Linus says yes. I'm not sure you
should agree.
> you thought Sun was being divisive with CDDL:
> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137327&cid=11480318
>   
CDDL was written for deliberate GPL incompatibility, indeed I still
believe that to be its primary aim. A major goal in the drafting of GPL3
is compatibility with legacy GPL2 code.

    Thanks

    Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20060914/c118bf4f/attachment-0001.htm