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 275706
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE BSD license.
by pinky on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 14:08 UTC 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

RE BSD license.
by Valhalla on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 19:21 in reply to "RE BSD license."
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

the problem with permissive licences not being able to incorporate GPL licenced code is due to the basic rights that define the whole copyleft licence, which is to give rights to the recipient, for example the right to recieve the sourcecode.

since permissive licences does not require these rights to be given to the recipient, they cannot adopt GPL licenced code.

so please sbergman, explain to me how you can be favourable to copyleft and yet complain about the licence incompability that prevents permissive licences to use GPL licenced code? it is a direct consequence of the rights that GPL gives recipients, which in turn is what GPL was created for.

so sbergman, how would you solve this?

sbergman27 wrote:
"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."

and what point would that be? that we are NOT permissively licenced? that it is ok to use our code in closed source projects but not in open source projects that use GPL? I fail to see the logic other than to punish GPL as a competitor in the open source licence space.


I personally think that GPL-style licences are better suited for applications and that system oriented code such as drivers etc are better when permissively licenced so as to easily be incorporated into all open source kernels with a minimum of fuss, but that is my personal preference, and it is still at the discretion of the code author. whatever licence he/she chooses is up to them and I don't see no reason why I should second guess their reasoning. but you on the other hand, try to blame FSF for what is ultimately the choice of said code author, again your anti-FSF fervor shines through.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE BSD license.
by pinky on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 00:01 in reply to "RE BSD license."
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

In some later post you write this:

>The above quoted line is an example of the lack of respect for others which I see too often in posts by overly-enthusiastic FSF supporters/

And i have to read things like "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."

Sorry but such statements are disrespectful too. So please practice what you preach.

Now to the topic:

>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.

You don't have to change your license only the license of the whole will be GPL.

But again whether you do it or not is neither a technical nor a legal barrier it's i only a personal question.

Lets make it concrete (BSDL project wants to uses GPL code):

We agree that both licenses are Free Software licenses the basic difference is that GPL requests that the software stays free while the BSD says "do what you want".

Now a BSDL project want to use a GPL module. They can use it. There is absolutely no technical or legal barrier which stops the project.
They can use the GPL module and their code can be BSDL. Sure the complete work would be GPL because you are using parts which say that it's not only free but it also wants to stay free. But this has no effect on the BSDL code. Everyone who gets the program can use all the BSDL code under the terms of the BSDL.

The other way around is basically the same. If a GPL project wants to use a BSDL module the BSDL module will always be BSDL. So everyone who will get a copy of the program can use the BSDL part under the terms of the BSDL.

So what's stops BSD code to use GPL code? It's not the GPL who stops them and it's not any legal or technical barrier. It's is only the opinion of the author who wants a 100% BSDL program. So the only one who stops the BSD project is the BSD project by itself.

This is also exactly the same problem for authors of GPL projects who want a 100% GPL project. This author would probably refuse to use BSDL code. But than again this wouldn't be a compatibility, legal or technical problem but only a personal problem/decision.

You can combine BSDL code with GPL code and you can combine GPL code with BSDL code and in both cases every code would keep its license.

Reply Parent Score: 2