[ale] GPL3

Michael B. Trausch michael.trausch at gmail.com
Sun Jul 1 15:04:33 EDT 2007


On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 08:21 -0400, Jeff Lightner wrote:

> Curious:   Did GPL allow for releasing modified code originally based
> on it under a modified GPL license like GPL2 or GPL3?  If so for GPL
> that seems like it included some amazing foresight.  I?m assuming not
> all the source was rewritten so wonder if this might allow for some
> legal challenges down the line on newer software released under GPL3
> if it is based on code originally released under GPL?  


The copyright holder to source code may release their source code under
any license they wish at any time.  I could release something under the
GPLv2, and if:

      * I accepted patches from others, but required that they turn
        copyright over to me,
      * Accepted no patches from others, and retained ownership of
        copyright on 100% of the code, or
      * Did not use code from anywhere else that is granted for use
        under the GPLv2 only, 

Then I would be able to re-license the entire code-base under GPLv3?or
even decide to release future versions of my software under any license
I chose, including something similar to Microsoft's EULA.  However, the
change of such license is not retroactive, which means that if the
software in question is something that is important to the community, it
is quite likely that a license change such as that would result in a
fork.  However, if a software author states that they permit one to use
the GPLv2 or another later release of the GPL at the user's discretion,
then I could use GPLv2 software under the terms of the GPLv3.

Not all projects use the Free Software Foundation's boilerplate license
grant that is contained in the appendix of the GPLv2, though, so not all
GPLv2 software can be used within a GPLv3 project unless the software is
actually relicensed by the author.

Because people could apply the GPLv2 to their own software in a way that
would bind the software directly to the GPLv2 and not any future
versions of the GPL, care must be used in crafting a project in the free
software world now.  The GPLv2 and the GPLv3 cannot be used in the same
project as the only license for a patch/file/module, for example,
because the two licenses are incompatible with each other?they are both
free software licenses, but by definition the GPLv3 has more
restrictions designed to retain software freedom; the GPLv2 says,
however, that it can not be coupled with any license that is more
restrictive than itself (and the GPLv3 is, by definition, slightly more
"restrictive" than the GPLv2, for good reasons).  So... that means that
at least for me, software development has taken a slightly new turn in
terms of the overhead required for license-checking, at least in the
short term.  In the long term, this overhead will disappear as the GPLv2
falls into disuse.

    --- Mike

--
Michael B. Trausch
           michael.trausch at gmail.com
Phone: (404) 592-5746
                          Jabber IM:
           michael.trausch at gmail.com
Demand Freedom!  Use open and free protocols, standards, and software!
Support free speech---it is the most valuable freedom we have!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part




More information about the Ale mailing list