
For Clarity's Sake, Please Don't Say “Licensed under GNU GPL 2” (2017) - dannymemotivo
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html
======
xgulfie
I really do not trust GNU enough to say "or later". There's no reason to think
the next GPL's terms will be what I want.

Putting "or later" at the end licenses your software under unknown terms. It
could become CC0.

~~~
ryukafalz
Well, yeah; it depends on how closely the FSF's goals align with your own.
Personally, mine are very close to the FSF's, so I'm comfortable releasing
code under GPL v3 or later. Yours may not be.

It's worth noting however that it's much easier to go from "v3 or later" to
"v3 only" than the other way around.

~~~
OJFord
> It's worth noting however that it's much easier to go from "v3 or later" to
> "v3 only" than the other way around.

Why so? I always wondered why say 'or later' rather than just adopt v4 (et
al.) as dual (...) licences as and when, so I can believe it, I just don't
understand it.

~~~
ryukafalz
If you don't like the new version of the license, you can start releasing your
newer code under v3-only. This doesn't stop someone from forking the old
version and releasing it under v4, but for the vast majority of projects this
isn't an issue; most are small enough that it's uncommon for forks to overtake
the original while the latter is still in development.

------
robocat
> As a consequence, code released under GPL version 2 only can't be merged
> with code released under GPL version 3 only.

So:

1\. GPL3 introduced an incompatible, breaking change, knowing there was
important GPL2 only code.

2\. GPL3 did not include any way to grandfather in existing GPL2 code.

Being idealistic is great, but sometimes it has ugly consequences.

~~~
phkahler
You can't grandfather in code under a different license. The recommendation
when GPLv2 was published was to include the "or any future version" to allow
relicensing within the same series of licenses. A lot of people didnt do that,
some for lack of understanding and some fully aware.

------
klyrs
This is dishonest. They're implying that

"Licensed under GPL 2.0"

Is ambiguous about whether later versions are applicable. They're not. Only
GPL 2.0 applies because that's the listed license.

~~~
javagram
The text of the GPL 2.0 states

> Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
> specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
> later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
> either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
> Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
> this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
> Foundation.

The license itself admits that it may cover multiple versions. Being clear, as
the FSF is recommending on this page, seems like the best choice to avoid
confusion for your end users.

(in particular, this page seems to be about deprecating the existing ambiguous
SPDX license indicators and replacing them with ones that have clear 'only' or
'later' suffixes. This seems like a good thing.)

~~~
klyrs
>> If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to
it and "any later version", you have the option...

> The license itself admits that it may cover multiple versions.

... along with the conditions under which this expansive licensing applies.
While it's good to be clear, it's not respectful of author's wishes to presume
a later license when they didn't explicitly allow that. The article suggests
that this case is ambiguous, when it is absolutely not and I find that to be
irresponsible

------
vgetr
I wonder if perhaps RMS is annoyed by the lack of GPL v3 adoption.

~~~
saltyshake
GPL v3 is toxic. It forces companies to hand out their private certificates.
Huge no-no for any hardware manufacturer.

~~~
Reelin
> GPL v3 is toxic.

DRM is toxic.

~~~
sn_master
Agreed, but no content company will license their shows if anyone can record
it in full HD with an app on their TV.

~~~
pdkl95
> no content company will license their shows

That's their problem. Refusing to sell your product is probably not the best
long-term business strategy. If they want revenue, the will eventually sell.
The government already distorts the market in their favor by granting them an
exclusive _copyright_. Those rights do not include being free from the market
forces like supply & demand.

> anyone can record it in full HD with an app on their TV

Why would anybody do that, when its easier to just download a torrent? DRM
doesn't stop piracy, because "stopping piracy" has always been the PR-excuse.
DRM is an attempt to usurp _property rights_ , with a manufacturer retaining
control over your device _after the first sale_.

edit: grammar

~~~
sn_master
Companies been very successful at catching and suing people torrenting. Plenty
of ISPs/universities block torrent entirely.

If you do it from your TV, its much harder to catch.

------
dang
Url changed from [https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/rms-article-for-claritys-
sake-...](https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/rms-article-for-claritys-sake-please-
dont-say-licensed-under-gnu-gpl-2), which points to this.

