Re: Move to LGPL3

[Mark Mielke <mark mark mielke cc>]

Tommi Komulainen wrote:
> IANAL and all, but here are a few points for consideration based on my
> experience after being exposed to Nokia legal machinery.
>
>      1. Changing the wording from "version 2 or later" to "version 3 or
>         later" will remove the "2 or later" option. To my understanding
>         changing the terms of the license text counts as relicensing.
>   

The license explicitly allows for this, though. The license allows for 
itself to be relicensed, providing the new license is blessed by the 
FSF. There would be no value to stating "version 2 or later" if it meant 
"version 2 only". Anybody - including you or I, may privately take a GPL 
v2 piece of software, change the license to GPL v3 (without even 
notifying the original authors), and distribute all further 
modifications under GPL v3 only. This clause made me uneasy when I first 
read it 10 to 20 years ago. The idea that if I distribute a program 
under GPL v2, the FSF could be taken over by somebody worse than Richard 
Stallman, create a new license stating anything it wishes (as long as it 
is called GPL v2 or later), and redistribute all my software under this 
new license. This is why the GPL is labeled a virus by some.

I am not up-to-date on LGPL v3. What I state above is for GPL v3 only.

>      2. Due to the (L)GPLv2 and v3 incompatibility everything above glib
>         (or gtk+) would have to be distributed under v3, which as
>         already noted is a problem if you have any v2 only sources in
>         any glib application. It would be a significant disruption for
>         distributors to make sure all the licenses are OK.
>   

It is only a problem if these v2 programs require updates. If the v2 
programs stick to v2 interfaces, there is no issue.

>      3. Companies are vary of GPLv3. It took a long time to begin to
>         understand GPLv2, GPLv3 is still relatively more intimidating.
>   

The GPL has always been scary. The people who were ever comfortable with 
it, probably didn't read the fine print.

Cheers,
mark

--
Mark Mielke <mark mielke cc>