GPLv3 gives much more legal definition to the spirit of the GPL and free software, but some people seem to like the loopholes in GPLv2. Also, the GPLv3 is much better about what happens when the license is violated. GPLv2 is very strict about license termination. GPLv3 is just better in all regards.
My favourite part of the GPLv2 is the torrent technicality[0]. I wonder if all those people seeding Linux distributions realise they're violating the license.
> The best way to make sure you are in compliance when distributing GPLv2 object code on BitTorrent would be to include all the corresponding source in the same torrent
> section 6(e) of GPLv3 is designed to give distributors—people who initially seed torrents—a clear and straightforward way to provide the source, _by telling recipients where it is available on a public network server._ This ensures that everyone who wants to get the source can do so, and it's almost no hassle for the distributor.
Can we backport some of those features to GPLv2? GNU may not have an interest in that, but presumably we don't need GNU's permission to create a "GPL2.5" like license?
We really don't need yet another license. What's more, all those changes would probably result in a new license that is again incompatible with GPLv2. The fact is that the "anti-tivoization" clause is, for most free software projects, a smaller problem (if a problem at all) compared to the simple fact that the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2.
I fear there is simply no way of creating a "new" GPL license that is compatible with the GPLv2, short of adding an exception like MPLv2 does.
You could, but you could not change the license of code licensed as “GPLv2 or later”, since the full phrase is “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.”. So only a “GPL” published by the FSF would count as a “later” version.
Seems easier to license your software under GPLv3, along with a statement that you waive licencees form any obligations placed upon them by the clauses you don't like.
It's only "better" if you philosophically agree with its imposed restrictions on the code. I for example happen to agree with Linus arguments against v3. For example, the clause against "tivoization". If you believe tivoization is wrong, then yes v3 is better, otherwise it is not.
Yes and no: the part clarifying what happens when one does not comply with the GPL is "objectively better"¹, since it clarifies a legal situation otherwise subject to multiple interpretations. Similarly the clarifications with regard to software distribution, which are enhanced compared to a license written in 1991.
I'd say that "most parts" of the GPLv3 are clearer than the GPLv2: of course one is free to argue that the patent clause and the anti-tivoization clause offset these improvements, but I'd still give credit for the rest.
1. I'm using objectively in a sense that I hope is colloquially understandable, if philosophically wrong.
What do you consider these restrictions to be? The way that GPLv3 works against tivoisation is that it requires downstream distributors to provide the information necessary to defeat it, such as private code-signing keys.[1] You think this is an unacceptable requirement? It seems no more onerous to me than the requirement in GPLv2 that the source code must include all necessary scripts to build and deploy the software.
What license are these logos being released under? The alternative set specifically states CC-BY 3.0... but the main set, as far as I can tell only have the implied licence granted by being allowed to use them to advertise the license.
That was my first question. The attribution requirement for the alternative logos is quite a drag. I really wouldn't bother with a logo that requires credit like that.
It might not be license-compliant, but if I were to ever use these logos, I would claim to satisfy the attribution requirement through comments in the page source. After all if you write a CLI tool that links GPL stuff you don't have to mess up your output with license crap. Those who want to know will read the source.
It seems to make more sense for the logo itself to link to the explanation of the actual license. (e.g. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html ) I agree with parent posts that it is a confusing distraction to have some other link also present on the page. If GNU wanted to put such links on their license pages, they could. Now they just have a logo and a link to TFA.
I guess the FSF is still trying to emphasise that there's a "new" version of the GPL that people should be using. It's relatively rare to see new projects use GPLv2, but there's still quite a few who are unable or unwilling to go to v3. Witness people elsewhere in this thread saying how they want to keep using v2.
Saves time from having to download the software and look for LICENSE, COPYING, or even peeking at the source code for the license header. This protects the user's employer from being accused of using the software and violating the GPL by leaving web logs indicating it was downloaded.
This is a great service to everyone who needs to make sure they're not using GPL'd software.
Additionally, if you dislike terror threats and completely broken democracy, you're going to not-love how they interact with opaque and treacherous software and online services in the future.
You really think there's more people concerned over proprietary software than ISIS? It seems your gauging of public outrage is disproportionate to real levels of public outrage. In any event, it's a fallacy of relative privation.
This is a fallacy - we all have to direct our time and resources as we see fit, and it is not feasible or reasonable to expect everyone with a keyboard to contribute in some way to the downfall of ISIS.
Besides, given that we live in the information age, the legal treatment of the software that controls our world is Kind Of A Big Deal.
Why hate? Why can't someone merely disagree with the premise of the GPL and prefer not to use software that is V3 encumbered? The use of emotive language by the FSF and other GNU exponents is actually very off putting. It comes across as very dogmatic. YMMV.
"Encumbered" sounds just as dogmatic to me. It is very difficult to use absolutely neutral language. The kind of responses that the GPL elicits from some detractors is frequently akin to hatred.
But point taken, I've changed it to "dislike" so that nobody is accused of hatred.
Logos aren't mindless fluff or artsy wallpaper that you slap on a project before sending it out the door. They're often the first impression someone gets of your work, and using a thoughtless design says nothing good about what you value.
It doesn't have to be this way. There are free software projects out there that have beautiful, thoughtful, iconic logos. Firefox is the first that comes to mind. The Linux penguin (while a bit odd) has grown on me too.
59 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] thread[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#BitTorrent
> The best way to make sure you are in compliance when distributing GPLv2 object code on BitTorrent would be to include all the corresponding source in the same torrent
Not a link to the source, the source code itself.
> section 6(e) of GPLv3 is designed to give distributors—people who initially seed torrents—a clear and straightforward way to provide the source, _by telling recipients where it is available on a public network server._ This ensures that everyone who wants to get the source can do so, and it's almost no hassle for the distributor.
The Linux kernel is still licensed under GPLv2.
The differences between v2 and v3 is the entire context of this thread, so I believe you're deliberately being obtuse.
Besides, why would you want to go back to v2?! I found no strong argument for v2 except for supporting tivoization.
I'd say that "most parts" of the GPLv3 are clearer than the GPLv2: of course one is free to argue that the patent clause and the anti-tivoization clause offset these improvements, but I'd still give credit for the rest.
1. I'm using objectively in a sense that I hope is colloquially understandable, if philosophically wrong.
--
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html
So yeah, not a new announcement. Maybe just new to the OP and they got excited enough to post it up here? :)
The alternative logos are in SVG, so that's great.
Kinda wishful thinking, isn't it?
This is a great service to everyone who needs to make sure they're not using GPL'd software.
I certainly recognize them, but I'm not sure about most people...
But, in general, yes... it is probably wishful thinking. But just because the future looks dismal doesn't mean that you don't give it your best shot.
Besides, given that we live in the information age, the legal treatment of the software that controls our world is Kind Of A Big Deal.
Last-Modified: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 20:58:51 GMT
If I were them, I'd re-draw the logos. It looks like "v3" only if you already know it means v3.
But point taken, I've changed it to "dislike" so that nobody is accused of hatred.
My freedom is now protected by icons, ugly as fuck
It doesn't have to be this way. There are free software projects out there that have beautiful, thoughtful, iconic logos. Firefox is the first that comes to mind. The Linux penguin (while a bit odd) has grown on me too.