

Android GPLv2 termination worries: one more reason to upgrade to GPLv3 - tjr
http://www.fsf.org/news/android-termination-upgrade-gplv3

======
reemrevnivek
Don't panic! The article isn't about an expiration or termination of the GPLv2
itself. It's about the termination _of violator rights_ after the violator
complies with the license.

GPLv2 requires all copyright holders (which is hundreds for Android) to agree
to forgive the violator, GPLv3 assumes that the violator will be forgiven
after they comply with the license.

Sounds like a good reason to upgrade to v3 to me.

~~~
georgemcbay
Upgrading the Linux license to v3 would also require all copyright holders to
agree, making it equally impossible to do in practice... in fact, probably
more so since most contributors would just blindly 'yea' vote on revoking the
termination of an Android license for any specific vendor who came back into
compliance whereas some of them are actively opposed to GPLv3 terms.

~~~
cube13
Given the number of complaints Linus Torvalds made about GPLv3's anti-
Tivolization clause, I don't think that we're going to ever see the kernel on
v3.

------
robot
"Hence, we created new termination provisions for GPLv3. These terms offer
violators a simple method to earn back the rights they had. Parties who
violate the license have their rights restored provisionally as soon as they
come back into compliance, and permanently if no copyright holders terminate
those rights within sixty days of the last violation. Furthermore, first-time
violators will have their rights restored permanently if they come into
compliance within thirty days of receiving such notice."

So you violate the GPL and if no copyright holder complains in 60 days, you
continue to distribute software? Hmm.

~~~
georgemcbay
"within sixty days of the _last_ violation"

If you continue to distribute in violation of the GPL, that violation window
continues to be reset.

------
tzs
Ouch...that's quite a kick in the teeth to Groklaw, Boycott Novell, Brian
Proffitt and a few other well known commentators, who have been trying hard to
dismiss any claims that the GPLv2 termination clause could be a problem here
(because once you lose your rights, you need to get the copyright holders to
explicitly restore them if you want to resume distributing the GPLv2 software)
as FUD from Android enemies. Some of them even claim it comes from people
secretly on Microsoft and/or Apple's payroll.

------
CWuestefeld
I think this is one more example of how, rather than freeing software from the
grip of corporations, the open source movement has succeeded in making the
licensing of software such a morass that nobody can even understand it.

~~~
gte910h
I think you're incorrect there. I think the GPL is relatively complicated, and
made certain high value project (Famously, MySQL and the Linux Kernel) safe
from capture by private entities.

Most other open source licenses are extremely liberal. LGPL is a little
complicated, but not so much anyone who understands recursion can't understand
it.

