Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932094AbWI2Jhf (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:37:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932107AbWI2Jhf (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:37:35 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:12556 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932094AbWI2Jhe (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:37:34 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: GPLv3 Position Statement Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 02:37:28 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <17692.53185.564741.502063@samba.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Fri, 29 Sep 2006 02:40:29 -0800 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Fri, 29 Sep 2006 02:40:31 -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3809 Lines: 79 > > Quite frankly, if the FSF ever relicenses any of their projects to be > > "GPLv3 or later", I will hope that everybody immediately forks, and > > creates a GPLv2-only copy (and yes, you have to do it immediately, or > > you're screwed forever). That way the people involved can all vote with > > their feet. > I do hope your either joking about this, or that you would consult > with the major contributors to the project before doing this. In past > postings you have expressed strong support for "authors rights", which > includes the idea of not using someones code if they don't want you to > use it, even if it might be legal to do so. That really is totally against the spirit of the GPL and, frankly, I think it's the opposite of the attitude the free software community should be taking. You have to choose between "even if you lawfully acquired a work, you should not use it in ways the author does not want" and "once you lawfully acquire a work, you may do with it what you want provided you respect other people's freedom to do the same". The GPL squarely opts for the latter. The spirit is that you give other people a lot of freedom to do things with your works, even things you may very much dislike. In exchange, you get the freedom to do the same things and we all build up a large pool of unencumbered works we can all draw on. If everyone got to impose their own restrictions, and still take from and contribute to the same pool, it would quickly poison the pool. Consider just the problem "GPLv2 and later" and "GPLv3 and later" contributions to the same project will cause. If you have to deal with "GPL and please don't do X" also, ... > I'm also a strong proponent of "authors rights", and I would consider > it very nasty if someone took one of my projects and decided to fork > it to be GPLv2 only, deliberately going against my intention. They > might have a legal right to do so but it would clearly be against my > wishes. I'm not even 100% certain it would be legal. Then don't put your software under a license that permits them to do so. If you did so accidentally or without knowledge of the consequences, I have much sympathy. But if you accept the GPL package deal and then try to pressure people into different terms, I have none at all. > The "any later version" words I have put on all my projects are there > quite deliberately. And your work will always be available that way, nothing can make it go away. But suppose I add my own work to your work -- why should your wishes override mine? Or, to put it another way, how does my offering my own work based on yours with a different license that you don't like take anything away from you? (Especially since it's the one license you actually knowingly chose.) As I read the GPLv2, it only requires you to keep the ability for the work to be licensed under the GPLv2. (Mostly per section 2b.) The preamble appears to conflict (in the "all the rights" section), but that can't possibly override 2b (and must mean all the rights you got from the GPLv2), or you get some nonsensical results. For example, if I was the sole author of a GPLv2 work and I really had to give everyone all the rights I had, I would have to give them the right to relicense under the BSD license. (Since I have that right.) A lot of people get justifiably irritated at some things the GPL lets people do with their code. The spirit of the GPL is that you have to take it, and in exchange, you get to irritate other people if you want to. Those are the rules we chose to play by. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/