Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+

I would like to know that too, since all the worst case scenario I can think of is also defining aspects of permissive licensed projects.

For example, a community could fork a project and license it under a new'er version, and then the original founder could suddenly want to incorporate the new changes but at the same time not want to use the new license, and the new community refuses request for a license to the old version. I don't think it ever has happen with a gplv2+ project, and it require a quite hostile community to begin with, but as a worst case scenario that would likely be it.

Honestly, I'd sooner prefer to see everything licensed under BSD / MIT (Expat, X11) / ISC / etc. "copycenter" / "copyfree" licenses, for the simple reason that very few people in their right mind would use the AGPL at all (let alone in a project that doesn't involve writing network-facing software), and I'd rather see more software be compatible with as many free software licenses as possible. Aside from public domain, such non-copyleft licenses are a dream for writing free software, since the license doesn't get in the way of using such code in, say, Apache'd or GPL'd or MPL'd or whatever-L'd code.

(A)GPL, in other words, should be reserved for things that aren't meant to be reusable by other codebases. For everything that should be reusable, LGPL is about the limit for something being usable (and even that can be difficult to work with).

The reasoning behind most things is selfish. Even Richard Stallman is subject to this; his motivation for the free software movement was when a colleague wouldn't share software changes that Stallman wanted/needed for his own use.

That said, the specific objection of Linux to the GPLv3 is twofold:

* There are thousands (if not millions) of contributors that would need to be contacted and would need to give consent to such a licensing change. I imagine some of those contributors might even be dead, and given the currently-draconian copyright laws of many nations (particularly the United States), this means that relicensing is that much more difficult.

* The GPLv3 would be a very hard hit for a lot of users of Linux in the embedded space, where a large number of "Things" in the "Internet of Things" aren't exactly designed to be field-programmable. The anti-TiVoization wording in the GPLv3 would cause a lot of pain there.

How come there was no mention of the upcoming OSVR partnership as one of the final straws to push forward with this change?

Yes, it is because those terms only apply to conveyances that occur as part of a transaction in which the right of possession of the User Product is transferred.

Note that the GPLv3 defines "User Product" as "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".

The iPhone is the "User Product". This can further be seen by considering the definition of "Installation Information": “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source.

In short, the User Product is the thing you install the covered work (the GPLv3'd thing) on and run it on, which for an App Store would be the iPhone or iPad. Unless GPLv3 is not using "possession" and/or "transaction" in their normal meanings, there is no way to characterize purchasing and downloading an app from the App Store as being a transaction in which the right of possession of the iPhone is transferred. Since no definitions of possession or transaction are given in the license, we can assume their normal meaning.

I haven't raised this issue with the FSF because I don't see it as an issue. They are the ones that specifically put in the limitation that Tivoization only occurs for GPLv3 object code conveyed as part of a transaction where the right of possession of the User Product is transferred to the person receiving the object code. In general, considering how much time they spent on drafting this thing, I generally assume it means what it says and it says what they intended.

If they somehow botched the drafting and that is not what they meant, it doesn't really matter anyway because if it ends up in court and the parties disagree on how they interpret those parts, the court will go with what it says, not what the drafter claims they meant. So, my general policy (with all licenses, not just GPL) is to go with what they say, unless they are too ambiguous and then I avoid the covered software. (Actually, before I get to that point I first see if I can limit my use of the work to only those uses that do not require the permission of the copyright holder. If I can limit me needs thusly then I can ignore the license).