GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

Xyne · 2010-04-15 01:01:16

The recommended prelude to include in source code files which are released under the GPLv2 is

GPLv2 wrote:

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

Does anyone here removes the "or any later version" clause? I'm not really worried about it but to me that clause places too much faith in the benevolence and competence of future license authors. If a version were ever released that included a gaping loophole then all code released under previous versions would suddenly fall into it.

Tangentially, what licenses do you use and why? What do you think about the GPL and various BSD licenses?

*edit*
This is definitely a "GNU" discussion and I chose to interpret the "GNU/Linux" forum as a forum for discussion about all things GNU and/or Linux. Sorry if this belongs somewhere else.

Last edited by Xyne (2010-04-17 14:42:14)

tlvb · 2010-04-15 01:15:31

I have yet to code anything big enough that it would concern me, but in the few cases I've written anything complex enough to need a license and good enough to warrant sharing it, I go with the GPL,

My take on GPL vs BSD:

GPL:
- gdev0 codes gapp0 and releases it under GPL
- gdev1 uses code from gapp0 to make app1 and has to comply with the GPL.
- gdev2 uses code from gapp1 to make gapp2 and has to comply with the GPL.

BSD:
- bdev0 codes bapp0 and releases it under the BSD.
- bdev1 codes bapp1 and can release it under an open source license or make it proprietary.
- bdev2 can or can not develop bapp2 depending on bdev1's choice of license.

bdev1 has more freedom than gdev1, so at this level one could say that BSD is more free than GPL (and this seem to be the major argument when claiming that BSD offers more freedom), however the cost is the possible lost opportunity for bdev2 to develop bapp2.

Rephrasing this, one could say that BSD gives more freedom to level 2 developers at the possible cost of level 3 development, while GPL imposes the same set of rules on all levels.

Last edited by tlvb (2010-04-15 09:36:20)

Anikom15 · 2010-04-15 02:32:45

The GPL has proved its power in court, and gives "distributed" freedom rather than "direct" freedom. This is why I choose it.

upsidaisium · 2010-04-15 09:06:37

If I absolutely must put a license on something, I'd choose the ISC license or the MIT license. But really, I just work on little hobby projects; if/when I release a script or app for others to use, I likely wouldn't bother myself with licenses. "Public domain" works for me. (The License section of the werc page pretty well reflects my thoughts on licenses)

wuischke · 2010-04-15 09:40:59

I, too, mostly use ISC or MIT (essentially equal to public domain, but no restriction to certain countries) although I'll use the LGPL for Open Source projects where I want to encourage both commercial adoption and contributions to the code.

Talking about the LGPL: There's exactly one (common) license with which the LGPL (v3) is not compatible: The GPL v2 with a restriction to use only this version. For the sake of compatibility, I would leave the "new version" language in the license.

Edit: Add "(common)"

Last edited by wuischke (2010-04-15 09:42:16)

Infinity717 · 2010-04-15 10:01:01

tlvb wrote:

BSD:
- bdev0 codes bapp0 and releases it under the BSD.
- bdev1 codes bapp1 and can release it under both an open source license or make it proprietary.
- bdev2 can or can not develop bapp2 depending on bdev1's choice of license.

Wrong, bapp0 will be under BSD so bdev2 can always use my code.

Public domain is not a good idea because you don't own the copyright. As a developer i prefer the BSD/Apache/MIT license for open source projects.

Allan · 2010-04-15 10:10:27

I use GPL (previously v2 only, now v2 or newer) for most things I code. I also offer people to pay me to provide code with another license if they want to use it but do not want to use GPL for their code.

I was once concerned about the "or newer" clause, but there are many people in charge of the GPL and from the v3 drafting process, we see that changes are well reviewed so I am not particularly paranoid about what future versions will bring.

tlvb · 2010-04-15 10:51:37

Infinity717 wrote:

tlvb wrote:
BSD:
- bdev0 codes bapp0 and releases it under the BSD.
- bdev1 codes bapp1 and can release it under both an open source license or make it proprietary.
- bdev2 can or can not develop bapp2 depending on bdev1's choice of license.
Wrong, bapp0 will be under BSD so bdev2 can always use my code.

In my example it is implied that bapp2 uses code/features that are present in bapp1 but not bapp0. Otherwise I wouldn't have used three levels in the example.

jwwolf · 2010-04-15 11:10:42

WTFPL

Infinity717 · 2010-04-15 11:41:26

You also imply that bdev1 would use your code if it was GPL too (those features may never appear on your project anyway) and that bdev1 would not merge changes back.

See what Allan wrote:

I also offer people to pay me to provide code with another license if they want to use it but do not want to use GPL for their code.

So, his GPL projects may lack some features.

I don't want to argue GPL vs BSD, my preference is BSD and i respect the choice that every developer does. It's their work after all.

The point is, if people want to contribute to your project they will. You can not force them to do so.

bruce · 2010-04-15 12:35:09

I'm personally all for BSD style open licenses (ie no share-alike type clause) because if I've put the work into coding something, I'd like to see it used as much as possible, whether or not they open source their code - or use an incompatible license. I also like licenses that provide me the freedom to use them freely without having to share my source, but that's just me As I think expecting everyone to develop completely open software is unreasonable, but again, I understand that others think differently

tlvb · 2010-04-15 12:55:43

Infinity717 wrote:

You also imply that bdev1 would use your code if it was GPL too (those features may never appear on your project anyway) and that bdev1 would not merge changes back.

I think you lost me, the g/b cases I put up are separate, in order to highlight what restrictions/freedoms they give, I'm not taking a stand. I don't see how I am implying what you are saying, are you talking about the problems arising from BSD license using developers' inability to work on GPL projects because BSD permits closing of the source, which GPL prohibits?

- gdev2 cannot contribute to/fork bapp1 because bdev1 closed the source.
- bdev2 cannot contribute to/fork gapp1 because he/she wants to use the BSD license.

If this is what you meant, the restrictions are still asymmetric, because gdev2 is hindered by the choices/philosophy from bdev1, while bdev2 is hindered by the choices/philosophy of him/herself.

JohannesSM64 · 2010-04-15 14:12:38

bruce wrote:

I also like licenses that provide me the freedom to use them freely without having to share my source

GPL allows using the code freely without sharing the source. Only distribution requires releasing the source.

bruce · 2010-04-16 12:20:23

@JohannesSM64
That's quite cool to know, cheers

snakebite · 2010-04-16 14:45:25

JohannesSM64 wrote:

bruce wrote:
I also like licenses that provide me the freedom to use them freely without having to share my source
GPL allows using the code freely without sharing the source. Only distribution requires releasing the source.

Just want to add that the Affero GPL (AGPL) requires you to share the source if you use it (useful for eg. web applications).

Gigamo · 2010-04-16 18:04:16

I too prefer the MIT/BSD style licenses for my projects. There is quite an interesting writeup about GPL/MIT etc here: "The Maximal Usage Doctrine for Open Source"

Bralkein · 2010-04-16 20:05:54

I personally prefer the GPL. Look at the Linux kernel: I think it's amazing how all of those companies end up working together on the same project, even though some of them are direct competitors. I think that the GPL is key in this; it keeps people "honest" and reduces opportunities for dishonesty and exploitation in a way that BSD-style licences do not.

However, I do think that there are some situations where BSD-type licences are a good idea. Publicly-funded research projects should really be licensed in this way because I think it's more fair under the circumstances.

The main thing to remember is that licences are down to personal choice, and I think we should respect other people's wishes and tolerate a wide range of FOSS licence types. It always makes me cringe when these discussions arise on Slashdot, since it always degenerates into BSD and GPL zealots flaming each other, when really they're on the same side. We should be working together!

fsckd · 2010-04-16 20:16:22

someone on the internet once wrote:

BSD code is free code to be used in software.
GPL code is code to be used in free software.

oli · 2010-04-18 16:53:03

Anikom15 wrote:

The GPL has proved its power in court, and gives "distributed" freedom rather than "direct" freedom. This is why I choose it.

Do you have any real arguments instead of using Orwellian newspeak to manipulate the audience? There is no such thing like "distributed" freedom (well, maybe in some strange countries), there is freedom and there is no freedom at all. Period.

Apart from that I'm using anything BSD or MIT or similar licenses, usually Beerware: http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/ (scroll down to the bottom). Finally I can live with the decission of others, whether they're using proprietary licenses, the GPL, BSDL etc. pp. I do care, but I do care more about _freedom_, the freedom to make his very own decission.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-04-15 01:01:16

GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#2 2010-04-15 01:15:31

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#3 2010-04-15 02:32:45

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#4 2010-04-15 09:06:37

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#5 2010-04-15 09:40:59

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#6 2010-04-15 10:01:01

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#7 2010-04-15 10:10:27

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#8 2010-04-15 10:51:37

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#9 2010-04-15 11:10:42

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#10 2010-04-15 11:41:26

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#11 2010-04-15 12:35:09

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#12 2010-04-15 12:55:43

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#13 2010-04-15 14:12:38

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#14 2010-04-16 12:20:23

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#15 2010-04-16 14:45:25

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#16 2010-04-16 18:04:16

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#17 2010-04-16 20:05:54

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#18 2010-04-16 20:16:22

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

#19 2010-04-18 16:53:03

Re: GPL "or any later version" clause & general license discussion

Board footer