[TriLUG] GPLv3 -- What do you think?

[Shane O'Donnell]

On 3/15/06, Joseph Tate <dragonstrider at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/12/06, Barry Gaskins <barry.gaskins at gmail.com> wrote:
> >    However, I do think that he has a lot of other reasons to not use it in
> > linux.  Mostly because if any of linux goes to GPL version 3 then ALL of it
> > must go there.  And since he did not write most of linux himself, he would
> > need to get the permission from ALL of the contributers. Since some of
>
> Um, the GPL itself in paragraph 9 allows the user (not the
> contributors) to use any "later" version of the gpl, so getting the
> contributors to agree is irrelevant.  Code authors restricting the
> license to v2.0 is impossible.  That's my reading however, and the
> standard disclaimers apply.

This could potentially run into conflict with clause 6, which states
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein." which, arguably, v3 does.

Of course, explicitly granting the ability to redistribute under "any
later version" would trump this.  So, you potentially end up in a
sticky mess where you might receive code licensed without a specific
version or with the "any later version" phrase, enhance it somehow and
redistribute it under GPLv3, then theoretically, all of the dependent
bits MUST also be licensed without a specific version or with the "any
later version" phrase.  And if not, you couldn't do so, or you'd be
infringing on clause 6 of the code not licensed with the "any later
version" phrase.

I think this is part of the logic used in saying that Linux as a whole
would be difficult to redistribute under GPLv3--of course, anyone can
still USE it under GPLv3 at their own discretion.

And of course, we're debating intricacies between a license that
doesn't yet exist (draft format only) and one that's untested in the
courts.  So IANAL and YMMV.

Shane O.
========
Shane O'Donnell
shaneodonnell at gmail.com
====================