[Panel-devel] [PATCH] Beginnings of a panel implementation for discussion

[Jos Poortvliet]

On 8/19/07, Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom at strangesoft.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun August 19 2007, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
> > Well, yes, it is. So it comes down to trust, I guess. Personally, I'd
> trust
> > the FSF - they're pretty clear on what they want, and they can't change
> > their opinion.
>
> No, but they can keep adding more and more clauses to the licence that
> restrict what can be done with your code. If you like that, fine.


I think that's paranoia. Imho, the GPLv3 isn't more restrictive than the V2,
it's just more clear. They ALWAYS stated that one of the basic freedoms is
to be able to replace the software on a device with your own. Now that used
to be possible with the V2, so it had a bug. Now it's fixed. I don't see
that as unexpected or weird. Some are happy with the change, others not. But
it IS in the spirit of the GPL and the freedoms they want to protect. They
can't legally add or remove those freedoms in future versions, so I don't
think it's fair to say 'they can do anything' -> that's just not true.

> Practically, having all code under "or later" is easier. If you don't want
> > to go to the next version, as a project, no problem. Just don't. Of
> course,
> > tell contributers to use GPLv2"or later", not GPLv3... If you want to go
> > that way, you can. But if there is code without the "or later", you have
> to
> > contact people to be able to go to a newer version.
>
> If a version says "GPL2 or later" that includes 3, as v3 is "later". As
> soon
> as a new licence is out, it gets bumped up to it. People can start
> claiming
> (because it is) that "OMG ProjectX is GPL3" and then that gets blown out
> proportion, and theres a good chance that many potential (commercial)
> users
> will be put off, and decide to stay away.


No, it get's bumped to it when the project decides to stop bringing it to
ppl as gplv2 and adds gplv3 code. Code which has the GPLv2 or later
statement will remain GPLv2 and can be distributed as such. it is STILL the
decision of the project (eg KDE) to go with GPLv3 or not. My point was that
without the "or later" statement, it's much harder to make that choice, up
to impossible. I wouldn't want that.

BTW some are working on a solution for this: if you contribute code to KDE,
you 'give' it to them so KDE can decide to change the license in the future.
Would solve this problem, as that would equal
"GPLv2-or-later-or-anything-else-KDE-considers-appropriate-and-in-the-same-spirit".
or something. So either way, we're going in that direction. For the reasons
I just gave.

>
> > The only problem is if a contributer contributed code with GPLv2 or
> later,
> > and there comes a gplv3 along the road which he doesn't like. KDE starts
> > using it. Now he can't deny KDE the use of his code, while in the no "or
> > later" situation, he could.
> >
> > I could see why a individual contributer would prefer the latter
> situation,
> > but for KDE, it's worse. KDE is best off with a "or later" clause,
> because
> > WE can then decide what to do.
>
> Can you? I don't think so. If you say "or later" that means anyone using
> it
> can claim any version from 2 and onwards, weather you like it or not.


Yes, that's the idea... But the project (eg KDE) decides whether to
DISTRIBUTE it as such. I prefer (as seen from the projects standpoint) that
over having to contact each contributor over the decision.

You'd
> have to go back and make a request to all the copyright holders to change
> the
> licence (not an entirely easy task in many cases).
>
> With the "or later" bit you are essentially being forced into agreeing to
> whatever gets put into new versions.


Yes, but
1. that's restricted to things 'in the same spirit' of the current GPL and
the 4 freedoms
2. the KDE project can still decide NOT to go that way

Whats better? Licence change on the project's terms or on the licence
> author's
> terms?


Indeed, that's where it comes at. I wouldn't say it's not a though decision,
but as I just mentioned, giving all rights (in a legally limited way, just
as the "or later" thing is) to KDE would essentially do the same, yet it's
what we are going for. After all, if the whole FOSS world goes to a newer
GPL, we might be forced as well due to our dependencies. And first having to
contact each and every old contributor could be way too costly for the
project.

> And if a contributor doesn't like that, of
> > course, he can talk about it. And it's possible some don't want to
> > contribute due to this clause (I think it's unlikely). Overall I think
> it's
> > best to set this policy by default.
>
> --
> Thomas Fjellstrom
> tfjellstrom at strangesoft.net
>

Love,

Jos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/panel-devel/attachments/20070819/7c1045a0/attachment.html