Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+

dolphin-emu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+

#21

Post by dragonwriter »

jordigh wrote: post #18
krschultz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPLv2+ means you are accepting the terms of GPLv5. What's in GPLv5? I have no idea. No one has any idea. It might never get written. As long as RMS is in charge, I'm not worried about the contents of the next GPL dramatically differing from the current spirit. However, there is no guarantee that I will agree with future versions of the GPL. I'd like to judge them as they come. It's actually really strange to sign up…

> As long as RMS is in charge, I'm not worried about the contents of the next GPL dramatically differing from the current spirit. You don't have to trust RMS. You can trust lawyers interpreting clause 14 of GPLv3 correctly. This clause says that later GPL versions must be "similar in spirit". It also says that newer versions cannot impose any more obligations or restrictions on authors or copyright holders.

But what if you objection to GPLv2+ is specifically already realized in GPLv3,like, say, the market-differentiated anti-Tivoization rules.

(Also, "similar in spirit" is so vague as to be completely meaningless.)

Re: Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+

#22

Post by jordigh »

im3w1l wrote: post #19
jordigh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst that could happen is that there is a future GPL version that removes copyleft. If there is a future GPL version that is horrible for the receipient, then at worst that receipient can simply opt for GPLv3. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#V... Clause 14 of GPL 3 also clarifies what later licenses can do. They must be "similar in spirit" and they cannot impose any additional requirem…

If FSF turned truly malicious, they could remove the "no warranty" section.

That seems to contradict the clause that says no further obligations can be imposed upon authors or copyright holders. In particular, they cannot be forced to provide a warranty.

Re: Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+

#23

Post by cma »

lnanek2 wrote: post #9
jordigh wrote: post #3

> In practice, GPLv3 only adds more restrictions to the license Not at all. They say so themselves: GPLv3 adds compatibility with Apache v2, which GPLv2 lacks. This thus removes a restriction. GPLv3 also clarifies some things from GPLv2, such as being explicit about being applicable not only to software, and giving a clearer meaning of what distributing software means. GPLv3 calls this "conveying".

That's not true at all. Read up on the different licenses. The reason v3 was created was to fight tivoization, where the code is realeased, but the hardware prevents loading updated copies. From the point of view of a company licensing their source, v3 is much more restrictive. It requires a lot more things than a more free license. Linux is famous for rejecting it because of that. Yes, there's a benefit that you are…

Linux had no copyright assignment policy and they didnt put in the GPLv2+ future versions clause--they had so many contributors that they really had no choice but to reject it.

Re: Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+

#24

Post by jordigh »

dragonwriter wrote: post #21
jordigh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as RMS is in charge, I'm not worried about the contents of the next GPL dramatically differing from the current spirit. You don't have to trust RMS. You can trust lawyers interpreting clause 14 of GPLv3 correctly. This clause says that later GPL versions must be "similar in spirit". It also says that newer versions cannot impose any more obligations or restrictions on authors or copyright holders.

But what if you objection to GPLv2+ is specifically already realized in GPLv3,like, say, the market-differentiated anti-Tivoization rules. (Also, "similar in spirit" is so vague as to be completely meaningless.)

> But what if you objection to GPLv2+ is specifically already realized in GPLv3,like, say, the market-differentiated anti-Tivoization rules.

Yeah, if you like tivoisation, you probably don't like the spirit of the GPL at all. Tivoisation is really a loophole that wasn't anticipated in GPLv2. It should not have been allowed by GPLv2, but it simply wasn't anticipated.

> (Also, "similar in spirit" is so vague as to be completely meaningless.)

Vague is how the law is. It has to be vague, and the people who wrote the GPL have a good understanding of how judges interpret vague language. I trust them to have done a good job.

Re: Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+

#25

Post by tzs »

jordigh wrote: post #4
song wrote: post #2

I'm wondering about those 0.5% who refused to relicense. What would be the rational behind refusing such a change. I can understand refusing for a project to be relicensed under a very different license but not between GPLv2 and GPLv2+...

Some people (Linus Torvalds is a notable example) think that GPLv3's provisions that forbid things like locked down hardware are too much. They would rather be "permissive" and allow hardware that restricts what the user can do with it. What good is modifiable software if the hardware will refuse to run software if it's modified? Tell me, Mr Anderson, what good is a phone call when you are unable to speak?

Note that while GPLv3 prohibits Tivoization, that is only one way to lock down hardware. For instance, the locked apps model of iPhone is OK under the GPLv3 (GPLv3 is incompatible with the App Store, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the locked hardware. That's due to the TOS for the App Store requiring the user agree to not reverse engineer and not redistribute apps they obtain from the store).

The anti-Tivoization clauses are not as strong as most casual readers of GPLv3 seem to think they are. In particular, they only apply if "you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term".

A "User Product" is "either (1) a 'consumer product', which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling".

So, as long as you keep GPLv3 code out of the firmware, OS, and bundled applications that ship when you sell your hardware to the customer, you can lock down the hardware and still provide add-on software that is GPLv3.

Re: Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+

#26

Post by TylerE »

cma wrote: post #23
lnanek2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true at all. Read up on the different licenses. The reason v3 was created was to fight tivoization, where the code is realeased, but the hardware prevents loading updated copies. From the point of view of a company licensing their source, v3 is much more restrictive. It requires a lot more things than a more free license. Linux is famous for rejecting it because of that. Yes, there's a benefit that you are…

Linux had no copyright assignment policy and they didnt put in the GPLv2+ future versions clause--they had so many contributors that they really had no choice but to reject it.

Linus is very anti-GPL3

Quote: "In a very real sense, the GPLv3 asks people to do things that I personally would refuse to do. I put Linux on my kids computers, and I limit their ability to upgrade it. Do I have that legal right (I sure do, I'm their legal guardian), but the point is that this is not about "legality", this is about "morality". The GPLv3 doesn't match what I think is morally where I want to be. I think it is ok to control peoples hardware. I do it myself."

For something quite recent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

Re: Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+

#27

Post by joesb »

jordigh wrote: post #4
song wrote: post #2

I'm wondering about those 0.5% who refused to relicense. What would be the rational behind refusing such a change. I can understand refusing for a project to be relicensed under a very different license but not between GPLv2 and GPLv2+...

Some people (Linus Torvalds is a notable example) think that GPLv3's provisions that forbid things like locked down hardware are too much. They would rather be "permissive" and allow hardware that restricts what the user can do with it. What good is modifiable software if the hardware will refuse to run software if it's modified? Tell me, Mr Anderson, what good is a phone call when you are unable to speak?

> What good is modifiable software if the hardware will refuse to run software if it's modified?

You are free to build your own hardware.

GPLv2 ensure software is open, you use GPLv2 software, you ensure the software stay open.

It does not try to control other things outside what it gives. "Use my software? Make your hardware open. Use my software? Make your customer service open." No. It's simply "Use my software? Make your software open"

Which is fair in Linus's opinion.

Re: Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+

#28

Post by stefantalpalaru »

0x0 wrote: post #6
song wrote: post #2

I'm wondering about those 0.5% who refused to relicense. What would be the rational behind refusing such a change. I can understand refusing for a project to be relicensed under a very different license but not between GPLv2 and GPLv2+...

Licensing GPLv2+ means you'll accept any future "GPLv4", "GPLv5" etc without having any idea what those licenses will look like. You might end up not liking having them apply to your code. What if control of FSF is taken over as if like a coup and a nasty "GPLv4" is released?

The way you protect yourself from unknown future licenses is to license the project under GPLv2 but require all contributions to be GPLv2+. When you read and agree to the next version, then you can add it to the project or switch to it completely.

This scheme depends on one (main) developer having control over the licensing of a significant part of the code base so it's subject to the "hit by a bus" failure mode.

Re: Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+

#29

Post by joesb »

jordigh wrote: post #24
dragonwriter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if you objection to GPLv2+ is specifically already realized in GPLv3,like, say, the market-differentiated anti-Tivoization rules. (Also, "similar in spirit" is so vague as to be completely meaningless.)

> But what if you objection to GPLv2+ is specifically already realized in GPLv3,like, say, the market-differentiated anti-Tivoization rules. Yeah, if you like tivoisation, you probably don't like the spirit of the GPL at all. Tivoisation is really a loophole that wasn't anticipated in GPLv2. It should not have been allowed by GPLv2, but it simply wasn't anticipated. > (Also, "similar in spirit" is so vague as to be c…

The problem is I can never be sure exactly what the "spirit of GPL" is.

Re: Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+

#30

Post by Ruud-v-A »

I think it is a mistake to license anything under a “or later version” license. If you do that, you licence your code under a license that you have never read, so how can you know that it serves your intentions? You are blindly licensing code under a licence that has yet to be written!

In the GPL case, the Free Software Foundation states that “The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.” (Section 14 of the GPLv3.) Now of course I don’t expect the FSF to publish something radically different, but they _could_ do so. Even if you trust the FSF now, are you sure you trust the FSF twenty years from now?

Post reply on HN