Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful [was Re: GnuTLS in Debian]
On 28/12/13 22:59, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> On 12/28/2013 04:15 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
>>> There are organization who will allow v2 but not v3 because of the
>>> tivoizaton and patent clauses. A developer may want
>>> his work to be used by such organizations as well as by Debian.
>>
>> That would be an argument for v2+, not v2 only.
>
> Nope. An organization that will not accept the GPLv3 because of the
> tivoization and patent clauses will not accept
> GPLv2 or later. The "or later" clause means a downstream can invoke
> their rights under the GPLv3 to demand secret
> encryption keys or upstream can revoke the license for patent
> action.
> These organizations do not accept GPLv2+ because
> it's effectively GPLv3.
I think this is a misinterpretation of the "or later" wording. To have a
slightly more concrete discussion, let's say you're relying on being
able to "tivoize" software that is a derivative work of libfoo version
5, licensed under GPL-2+ by copyright holder FooCorp. (I am not a
lawyer, this is not legal advice, and this is a hypothetical situation.)
When you consider the terms of libfoo's license, the licensing
boilerplate says you may choose "at your option, either version 2 of the
License, or any later version" (with version 3 currently the only
possible later version). If FooCorp try to compel you to provide the
encryption keys that implement tivoization, you can tell them "I chose
to distribute/derive from libfoo under GPL-2, which does not require
that" - AIUI this gives them no basis to insist that you comply with
GPL-3 terms.
What FooCorp *can* do to *encourage* you to accept the GPL-3 is to
release a new version, say libfoo version 6, under either GPL-3 or
GPL-3+. If they are no longer maintaining libfoo v5, or v6 has
compelling new features, you have an uncomfortable choice: either you
can upgrade to libfoo v6 (which in practice compels you to comply with
GPL-3 terms, since there is no later version yet), or you can continue
to use libfoo v5, forking and/or maintaining it if necessary, with or
without assistance from FooCorp or other libfoo users, and being careful
to avoid copying anything not available under GPL-2 into it.
This is not unique to the GPL: FooCorp could equally well release libfoo
v5 under a permissive BSD-style license, and libfoo v6 under something
more restrictive, such as the GPL or a proprietary license (although in
this case, you'd probably be more likely to find disgruntled libfoo v5
users who were willing to help you to fork v5 under its original license).
S
Reply to: