On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:50:25AM -0500, Jim Hartley wrote:
> The real question is, if something has been released under GPLv2, can
> anyone FORCE it to change to GPLv3? Even if the FSF owns the copyrights,
> I would not think they could "unrelease" it, all they could do is put
> out a new version under GPLv3 which everyone could then choose to
> ignore. Stallman's "four freedoms" have given users the choice to
> continue using/modifying/distributing the GPLv2 versions. If there is
> any forking being done, it sounds like it will be the FSF doing it! I
> think most people are going to follow the line of least resistance and
> stay with GPLv2.
The standard GPLv2 text includes a clause that says the GPL-licensed
software is subject to the terms of the current, or any later, version
of the GPL. Thus, while nobody can force someone to release a GPLv2
project as GPLv3 only, most GPLv2 projects can be re-released by anyone
who receives it as GPLv3 software, with or without modification. There
are, however, a few people who have released software under GPLv2 with
the "or later" clause removed. One of those is Linus Torvalds, so the
Linux kernel CANNOT be released in a fork as GPLv3 unless Linus
specifically allows it.
As a result, there will likely be a bit of software out there that goes
to GPLv3 -- and people probably won't notice in some cases in time to
fork it as GPLv2 very effectively. For the most part, however, there
isn't much chance of that happening. The more likely result is that any
software whose developers and copyright holders move it to GPLv3, but
does not have a critical mass of users and developers willing to fork to
keep it GPLv2, will fade into obscurity. Frankly, without a popular
GPLv3 OS (since v2 and v3 look to be incompatible), I don't really see
how any notable result can arise other than the eventual irrelevancy of
both the GPLv3 and any software that is released under that license,
except in cases where there's no common code with, or dependency on,
GPLv2-only software.
If, somehow, this actually interferes with the core Linux software
ecosystem itself, I suspect the major effect may simply be to make *BSD
more popular at the expense of Linux. For me, personally, even the
clauses of GPLv2 that make it unreasonably dangerous (in a
legal/financial sense) to run a small community distro have already made
started making *BSD more popular at the expense of Linux.
-- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] "There comes a time in the history of any project when it becomes necessary to shoot the engineers and begin production." - MacUser, November 1990
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:11:38 EDT