Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Sep 2007 21:24 UTC, submitted by Kishe
GNU, GPL, Open Source "A research firm serving the mobile phone industry has published an 18-page whitepaper about open source licensing. Entitled 'GPLv2 vs. GPLv3', the paper examines the meteoric rise of open source software, and the forces that shaped each license, before concluding with an extremely detailed point-by-point comparison."
Thread beginning with comment 275652
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE BSD license.
by sbergman27 on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 03:24 UTC in reply to "RE BSD license."
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

The GPL is not a barrier to code sharing, it's a mandater of it.

"""

Virtually no FOSS project which is not under GPL can use code from a GPL'd project. Even GPLv2 projects are prohibited from using GPLv3 code. That's a huge barrier to code sharing. A one-way barrier, though, for the most part, since great care has been taken by the GPLvX authors to ensure what they term "compatibility" with other FOSS licenses. That means making sure that GPL projects can take from other projects as they please, without the donor projects receiving anything in return.

I'm willing to accept that situation as (possibly) being good for FOSS as a whole. But please do not just ignore the fact that copyleft licenses do erect barriers to code sharing in the FOSS world.

I would file your argument in the "sometimes the benefits outweigh the disadvantages" category.

Edited 2007-10-02 03:30

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE BSD license.
by pinky on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 14:08 in reply to "RE BSD license."
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>That's a huge barrier to code sharing. A one-way barrier, though, for the most part, since great care has been taken by the GPLvX authors to ensure what they term "compatibility" with other FOSS licenses.

GPL compatibility is not a special compatibility it's the very normal compatibility we know from any other area.

Compatible means that you can mix code. You can mix BSDL and GPL code, you can mix Apache-License and GPLv3 code, etc.

There is absolutely no technical or legal barrier. Maybe there is a personal barrier if an author of BSD code don't want to combine his code with GPL code. But than this is his personal decision and not a barrier of the GPL or any strange definition of compatibility.

What you mean is that you can't relicense GPL code. But that's relicensing and not compatibility.

Relicensing is not possible but compatibility (especially for GPLv3) is quite good.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE BSD license.
by sbergman27 on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 17:33 in reply to "RE BSD license."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

GPL compatibility is not a special compatibility it's the very normal compatibility we know from any other area.

"""

FSF doublespeak. For an organization which claims to take the moral high ground, they play the doublespeak game to a level which rivals the large multinationals.

"""
What you mean is that you can't relicense GPL code. But that's relicensing and not compatibility.

"""

More doublespeak.

No. I mean that if you are a GPLv3 project you can take code from, say, an Apache project without changing your license. But if you are an Apache project, you cannot incorporate the GPL'd project's changes to your code back into your code without changing your license. And if you try to argue that a project changing its license is no big deal, just consider a scenario in which GPL'd projects were required to change their license to use, say, BSD or MIT licensed code.

I really wish that some of the permissively licensed projects would temporarily add a "no copyleft" clause to their licenses just to make the point. Can you imagine the shock, horror, and outrage which would be elicited if permissively licensed projects ever decided that turnabout was fair play?

The cries of "It's not fair!" would be deafening, and you know it.

Edit: I should probably clarify that I am generally favorable to copyleft licenses, including GPLv2 and even GPLv3. But to ignore the fact that restrictive licenses like GPLv[23] are not good team players with the greater FOSS community is deceptive and counterproductive. GPLv[23] are good licenses for many use cases *despite* their warts. But they do *have* the warts.

Edited 2007-10-02 17:42

Reply Parent Score: 1