This guest column by a representative of the Free Software Foundation Europe discusses proposed provisions in a future version 3 of the GNU General Public License that are intended to reduce open-source license proliferation, by making the GPL more flexible.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-15
By "variations of the GPLv3" he just means GPLv3 plus optional terms. True, the sets of terms would differ, but they could not render the corresponding projects incompatible.
Sure they could; and no doubt eventually will in at least one incarnation.
He even hints at a likely place for this to happen when he mentions patent retaliation.
Member since:2006-08-26
Such hypothetical incompatibility seems no likelier than the uncertainties surrounding GPLv2 (e.g., is it enforcible?) since its introduction.
Your criticism seems more based on patent retaliation itself. Earlier you said the GPLv3 is capable of backfiring, but I think that is a bit overstated since the "it can backfire in some cases" refers to patent retaliation in general, not the clause (hence the narrowness of the clause). Yes, I know, if it could backfire in the narrow case, then the current draft of the GPLv3 backfires.
Member since:
2006-08-26
By "variations of the GPLv3" he just means GPLv3 plus optional terms. True, the sets of terms would differ, but they could not render the corresponding projects incompatible.