GPLv3/Apache argument brought up some concerns over the current state of the GPL
Working on a new project with a collaboration team. They are throwing
around GPLv3, Apache, and zlib.
An argument sprang up, which makes me concerned about DFSG-ness of the GPLv3.
The GPLv3 allows for modifications per the license itself. This is
apparent in statements by legal people who say that the Freetype
license was not compatible with the GPLv2 because of their 'you MUST
say we are partially responsible for your product', whereas it is with
the GPLv3 since it allows for the modifications.
Is the GPLv3 verified for integrity before getting a project DFSG
approval? Is the GPLv3 even DFSG compatible?
My biggest concern is that since it allows for small modifications,
what would protect us, as the original authors, from someone taking
our source, modifying a single line, then re-releasing under a
modified GPLv3 that says that inclusion must state in documentation
they had a part in the work.
I'm probably going to win my argument for Apache license, but I
realize the same thing may yet happen. I've found spreading better
licenses increases their use by others, so I'm sticking to Apache
unless its beyond my control.
Not in need of paid-lawyer advice (I've released a lot of scripts
under the WTFPL) but would like input. The debate sparked concern over
any future use of ours of the GPL, at all. None of us like the FSF
stance that the GPL is a contractible plague to even use GPL software
as a static or dynamically linked library... and I'm dead against the
GPL personally until that is changed. Apache for programs and WTFPL
for scripts until then.
Thanks in advance for any input.