gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Brazilian GNUtian Oliva: "how about mutual


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Brazilian GNUtian Oliva: "how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?"
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:04:53 +0200

Over there on LKML... the thread is unfolding... LOL.

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> Here's an idea that just occurred to me, after all the discussions
> about motivations, tit-for-tat, authors' wishes and all.
> 
> If GPLv3 were to have a clause that permitted combination/linking with
> code under GPLv2, this wouldn't be enough for GPLv3 projects to use
> Linux code, and it wouldn't be enough for Linux code to use GPLv3
> projects.  That's because GPLv2 would still demand all code to be
> licensed under GPLv2, and GPLv3 wouldn't permit this.
> 
> However, if GPLv3 had a permission to combine/link with code under
> GPLv2, *and* Linux (and any other projects interested in mutual
> compatibility) introduced an additional permission to combine/link
> with code under GPLv3 (or even GPLv3+, constrained by some condition
> if you will), then:
> 
> - the kernel Linux could use code from GPLv3 projects
> 
> - GPLv3 projects could use code from Linux
> 
> - each copyright holder would still get to enforce the terms s/he
>   chose for his/her own code
> 
> Does this sound like something that would make sense for your
> community, so as to maintain/increase cooperation between authors who
> love GPLv2 and those who love defense for freedom, while respecting
> each author's not-always-compatible wishes?
> 
> In other words, does it even make sense for the FSF to consider
> introducing such a provision in GPLv3, that AFAICT, by itself, would
> have no effect whatsoever, since an additional permission would be
> needed for the GPLv2 side?
> 
> If you were to permit compatibility with GPLv3+ (rather than GPLv3),
> would you constrain it?  Would something like:
> 
>   as long as the later version grants each licensee the same
>   permissions as GPLv2, except for constraining permissions that would
>   enable one licensee to deny other licensees the exercise of the
>   permissions granted by both licenses
> 
> do, subject to translation to proper legalese (if that's at all
> possible)?
> 
> Do you know of any other communities that are like-minded with you,
> that are sticking with GPLv2, that I could poll about interest in such
> a provision in GPLv3?
> 
> Thanks, and sorry for taking your attention away from coding one more
> time.  I hope you find it worth it this time.
> 
> --
> Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
> FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
> Red Hat Compiler Engineer   address@hidden, gcc.gnu.org}
> Free Software Evangelist  address@hidden, gnu.org}
> -

regards,
alexander.

--
"Live cheaply," he said, offering some free advice. "Don't buy a house,
a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have
to spend all your time making money to pay for them."

        -- Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman: 'Live Cheaply'


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]