Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy

Why GPLv3 Will Supplant GPLv2 - the default choice

"As we are seeing, some projects have already moved to version 3, while others are holding back. Nonetheless, version 3 is the latest version, and as such in some sense the “official” GPL. So when users are confronted with software that uses earlier versions, they may well wonder why that is – unaware of, and probably indifferent to, the detailed legal arguments. Instead, many will see it in black and white terms: that version 3 is an update to version 2, and therefore the new standard." -- Read more

This is interesting as it may provide some fuel to those who argue against FSF's licensing strategy. If people don't read the license and rather just accept it for granted as the new standard this gives FSF quite a bit of leverage as the dominant license provider to dictate the conditions under which the majority of Free Software will be used and distributed.

While it may not be their intention to control these conditions and would rather like people to actually read and understand the license they are adopting the commonly ingrained amount of stupidity that there is in our society, the same stupidity that allowed Windows to become a dominant operating system, almost as a matter of luck, gives FSF the power to shift and mold the Free Software industry.


Another thing is that most


Another thing is that most software is currently licensed "GPL v2 or any higher version" (don't know the exact wording, but that's more or less what it says) and thus these programs now automatically are covered by GPL v3, if the author wants it or not. Of course, if the project is still being maintained it's easy to switch to GPL v2 only, but there are also tools that just seem to be updated every few years (though these seem mostly to be GNU-tools like grep or the findutils, which probably anyway will then go for GPL v3).

As for me, my PHP-classes are LGPL. You cannot choose the version of it on SourceForge, but in the archives I include a copy of LGPL 2.1. Anyway, LGPL is quite a bit more free on restrictions than GPL. So you are actually free to change the license to GPL v22 or, if available (which now is the case), a later version.

EasyLFS actually didn't receive a license yet. Problem here is that it's a collection of software with different licenses. Most is GPL or LGPL. But some packages also have BSD-style licenses.
I guess I'll really have to try to find some time to check each package for it's license (I started this already, but accidently deleted the document) and read them if there's a problem of putting the whole thing under GPL. Then I'd still have to decide which version of it. That I've last read GPL v2 is quite some time ago, and I haven't read the final GPL v3 yet. So I'll also have to read and compare these. Also I'll need to check if I can include packages which are GPL v3 into a GPL v2-distro, which might be a problem.
In the end it might turn out that I'll just license my install-scripts, and just mention that the packages come with different licenses, but all of those are free licenses.

And when I'm finished with all that I'll patent breathing...

I think just licensing the

I think just licensing the stuff that you introduce, that is the stuff which are authored by you in EasyLFS (hence making EasyLFS essentially what it is) under a license of your choice would be best. Pretty much the last option you mentioned.

Otherwise you have to constantly be on look out about license compatibility of new software which you might want to include later on just to comply with the overall license.

Yes, I think that's going to


Yes, I think that's going to be the way I'll go.
But still I'll compile a list of licenses and have a look through them.
And of course I'll still need to decide what license my scripts then should get.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.