
Technology Leaders Increase Predictability in Open Source Licensing - dankohn1
https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/technology-industry-leaders-join-forces-increase-predictability-open-source-licensing
======
jordigh
I guess it's nice that they're taking the part of GPLv3 that they like, i.e.
not getting sued as easily, while leaving out the parts that they don't like,
e.g. making it more difficult to control users by tivoising the hardware.

I suppose it's an improvement, but the GPL is supposed to be no-more-Mr-nice-
guy when needed so that things like Intel ME can't happen. The idea was to
have so much GPLv3 out there that it would be infeasible or impractical to go
against it and try to tivoise the hardware. The GPL vaccination is supposed to
provide herd immunity. Instead what happened is that through a subtle anti-
copyleft campaign, big tech companies have spread to their employees the fear
of touching anything copylefted, making it much easier to subvert our
computing to the very core.

I don't like it, and I wish more people stood for proper copyleft. It's about
the only effective defensive tool we have for protecting software freedom.
Calling for weak licensing sounds nice, oh, the companies will give back
source code when they can, we shouldn't be too mean to them and burden the
poor tech giants with our evil licenses. No, this hasn't been the case. The
tech giants are only nice when convenient for them, and very much not nice in
the countless documented ways that they have been so far, as they create this
very convenient but dystopian tech society we're fostering.

~~~
nine_k
I think cheaper compliance means better compliance. A no-suit cure process is
a win both for a company that _inadvertently_ broke GPL provisions, and the
bodies like GNU who would point at it and require compliance. It also means
that a small company can roll out a GPL-licensed solution with less fear of a
non-compliance lawsuit.

Litigation is expensive; it makes sense against large and stubborn violators,
but the proper process costs a lot for _both_ sides.

Or maybe I'm missing something important here?

~~~
jordigh
Yes, I already agreed this is a good thing. Perhaps I wasn't clear, my
apologies. It's good to be lenient, especially in cases of accidental non-
compliance. This is an uncontroversial improvement of GPLv3 over GPLv2.

I'm just bemoaning the larger context of copyleft non-adoption.

~~~
ekidd
> _I 'm just bemoaning the larger context of copyleft non-adoption._

I rarely bother to use copyleft for my personal open source work, because I'm
not typically interested in hiring lawyers to try to enforce compliance. And
if I wouldn't pay a lawyer to go after a violator, then I don't personally see
much point in using anything more complicated than CC0 or a boring permissive
license.

Licensing adds overhead. If I use the GPL, then somebody has to stop and ask
themselves, "Hey, can I use reuse 30 lines of this GPLed code in this MIT-
licensed project? Do I need to change my project's license? Do I need to ask
permission?" Usually I don't care.

However, for certain projects, I _am_ perfectly willing to enforce a copyleft
license. In that case, I'm happy to use the GPL 3. It's a good license, and
I'm very glad it exists.

I don't feel like anybody else should feel obligated to take my approach. Part
of my philosophy here comes from painful personal experience that successfully
commercializing code requires years of sacrifice, and 99% of what I write in
my free time will never be worth that effort.

------
DannyB2
Some GPLv2 copyrighted works, such as the Linux kernel, have many
contributors. Each contributor is a copyright owner of their contribution.

I'm fine with these Technology Leaders using a new GPLv2 derived license on
NEW code they contribute. After all, it's their code.

Existing code, like the Linux kernel, and other code, already have a specified
license. Can the license on the Linux kernel even be changed without consent
of everyone who ever participated? (Some of whom may no longer be living.)

~~~
ghaff
>Existing code, like the Linux kernel, and other code, already have a
specified license. Can the license on the Linux kernel even be changed without
consent of everyone who ever participated? (Some of whom may no longer be
living.)

Around the time of GPLv3, Eben Moglen made a statement to the effect that it
might be possible because "My guess is that Linux is a collective work…as
evidenced by a decade of LKML [the Linux Kernel Mailing List] discussions.
That’s my guess." It would certainly be controversial and seems highly
unlikely in any case. [ADDED: IANAL and have no opinion on the legalities
involved.]

[https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-
matter-...](https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-not-a-
legal-one/)

This is not a new license by the way. It's a commitment "to extending the
GPLv3 approach for license compliance errors to the software code that each
licenses under GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 and v2."

