6 ms·

Kind like how GPL 3 makes it infeasible for most companies to use/support free software. At least Stallman gets to feel morally superior though

dralley 1y ago
And Free Software does not benefit from a morass of mutually-incompatible copyleft licenses that may as well have been proprietary since you can't use them together. None of the permissive licenses have this problem.
- gkbrk 1y ago
  Which open-source licenses can't be used together?
  - dralley 1y ago
    GPLv2 and GPLv3, for one example... It's sad when two licenses from the same organization are incompatible. GPLv2 and Apache.
    - teddyh 1y ago
      The number of significant software projects which are licensed as GPLv2-only, and which are therefore incompatible with GPLv3, can probably be counted on one hand. Normal GPLv2 projects are licensed – as instructed by the text in the license itself – as “GPLv2 or later”. Which means that any normal GPLv2-licensed software can be relicensed to GPLv3, and can therefore be combined with any other GPLv3-licensed program without any issue whatsoever.
      - gus_massa 1y ago
        For GPL v2 only, let's start the list with Linux and Git... The "or later" has been used in creative ways, like relicencing all the Wikipedia content, or the Affero to AGPL transition. Nothing shady, but unexpected. Do you trust RMS to avoid doing shady things in the later GPL licence? I do, but he is not longer in the FSF. Do you trust the current members of the FSF to avoid doing shady things in the later GPL licence? I don't know them. Do you trust the future members of the FSF to avoid doing shady things in the later GPL licence???
        CorrectHorseBat 1y ago
        >Do you trust RMS to avoid doing shady things in the later GPL licence? I do, but he is not longer in the FSF. Yes he is: https://www.fsf.org/about/staff-and-board https://www.fsf.org/about/staff-and-board
        ndiddy 1y ago
        Section 14 of the GPL says "The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns." Given that the preamble to the GPL explicitly says "the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users", I don't think that a judge would find that a hypothetical GPLv4 that was basically MIT or something is "similar in spirit" to the present version. If you're worried about the other direction (i.e. a hypothetical GPLv4 that had some bizarre restriction like "all users must donate to the FSF"), the "or any later version" means that as long as you don't decide to update the license you use yourself, people can continue to use it under the GPLv2 or v3 indefinitely.
raverbashing 1y ago
Honestly at least Linus has his head in the right place

dralley 1y ago

And Free Software does not benefit from a morass of mutually-incompatible copyleft licenses that may as well have been proprietary since you can't use them together. None of the permissive licenses have this problem.

gkbrk 1y ago
Which open-source licenses can't be used together?
- dralley 1y ago
  GPLv2 and GPLv3, for one example... It's sad when two licenses from the same organization are incompatible. GPLv2 and Apache.
  - teddyh 1y ago
    The number of significant software projects which are licensed as GPLv2-only, and which are therefore incompatible with GPLv3, can probably be counted on one hand. Normal GPLv2 projects are licensed – as instructed by the text in the license itself – as “GPLv2 or later”. Which means that any normal GPLv2-licensed software can be relicensed to GPLv3, and can therefore be combined with any other GPLv3-licensed program without any issue whatsoever.
    - gus_massa 1y ago
      For GPL v2 only, let's start the list with Linux and Git... The "or later" has been used in creative ways, like relicencing all the Wikipedia content, or the Affero to AGPL transition. Nothing shady, but unexpected. Do you trust RMS to avoid doing shady things in the later GPL licence? I do, but he is not longer in the FSF. Do you trust the current members of the FSF to avoid doing shady things in the later GPL licence? I don't know them. Do you trust the future members of the FSF to avoid doing shady things in the later GPL licence???
      - CorrectHorseBat 1y ago
        >Do you trust RMS to avoid doing shady things in the later GPL licence? I do, but he is not longer in the FSF. Yes he is: https://www.fsf.org/about/staff-and-board https://www.fsf.org/about/staff-and-board
      - ndiddy 1y ago
        Section 14 of the GPL says "The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns." Given that the preamble to the GPL explicitly says "the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users", I don't think that a judge would find that a hypothetical GPLv4 that was basically MIT or something is "similar in spirit" to the present version. If you're worried about the other direction (i.e. a hypothetical GPLv4 that had some bizarre restriction like "all users must donate to the FSF"), the "or any later version" means that as long as you don't decide to update the license you use yourself, people can continue to use it under the GPLv2 or v3 indefinitely.

raverbashing 1y ago

Honestly at least Linus has his head in the right place