1 |
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 6:20 AM Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier |
2 |
<contact@×××××××××.me> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> [2020-01-27 12:41:26+0100] Ulrich Mueller: |
5 |
> > So, the question is, should we allow ebuilds |
6 |
> > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, v2 or later |
7 |
> > in the repository, or should we even encourage it for new ebuilds? |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. One the one hand, I think |
10 |
> > that GPL-2+ should generally be preferred because it offers better |
11 |
> > compatibility. For example, the compatibility clause in CC-BY-SA-4.0 |
12 |
> > won't work with GPL-2. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Is there another reason for GPL-2+ than just compatibility? |
15 |
> Because I quite find the "or later" thing to be quite a scary one as |
16 |
> whatever will come up next as a GPL will become applicable and it feels |
17 |
> quite weird to me to have a license that can evolve to whatever |
18 |
> license over time. |
19 |
|
20 |
Well, there are two sides to this particular issue. |
21 |
|
22 |
GPL 2+ means that anybody can choose to redistribute the code under |
23 |
the terms of any version of the GPL that is >=2. So, if they add |
24 |
terms to GPL v4 that you really don't like, you can still redistribute |
25 |
it under the terms of GPL v2-3 if you prefer. |
26 |
|
27 |
The other side to this is that you can't stop others from |
28 |
redistributing it under v4. They could also incorporate it into other |
29 |
code that is v4+ which you could only redistribute under v4 or |
30 |
greater. Of course, the original code can still be redistributed |
31 |
under v2 - it is just the parts that are comingled with other v4 code |
32 |
that is at issue. |
33 |
|
34 |
Really the main threat (IMO) is that the code could be de-copylefted. |
35 |
They could make GPL v4 a copy of the BSD license, and now anything |
36 |
that was v2+ is effectively BSD and can be used in non-FOSS software |
37 |
without issue. I guess that isn't any worse than the previous case of |
38 |
it instead being merged into some other v4 variant that you can access |
39 |
the source for but prefer to avoid because of something else in the |
40 |
license, except now you might not see the code at all. |
41 |
|
42 |
The advantage of 2+ is of course flexibility: |
43 |
|
44 |
For one it reduces license proliferation. Code that is v2-only is |
45 |
effectively orphaned with regard to v3, v4, v5, and so on projects in |
46 |
the future. GPLv2 is fairly restrictive by design around |
47 |
compatibility with other licenses and accepting future versions helps |
48 |
mitigate this insofar as you trust the FSF. |
49 |
|
50 |
And of course if at some point some fatal flaw is found in the GPL in |
51 |
a court case, it is possible that a future version could mitigate that |
52 |
flaw. Of course, if that flaw lets anybody ignore the copyleft bits |
53 |
you can't prevent people from using it under the old flawed v2, but at |
54 |
least you can still use the code in your own v4 or whatever. Of |
55 |
course, if the flaw effectively made the v2 code public domain you can |
56 |
do that anyway, but if the flaw were of a different nature it might |
57 |
cause problems having code being locked up as v2-only. |
58 |
|
59 |
> |
60 |
> I think I would personally slightly prefer to have it be properly |
61 |
> dual-licensed GPL-{2,3} or GPL-2 & CC-BY-SA-4.0 instead. |
62 |
> |
63 |
|
64 |
The problem like this is that this is basically just kicking the can |
65 |
down the road. It is of course equivalent for the moment, but when |
66 |
GPLv4 comes along we have to go through this again. Right now most of |
67 |
the Gentoo authors are alive and might be willing to explicitly sign |
68 |
off on a relicense (maybe). However, maybe in another 10 years when |
69 |
GPLv4 comes out it is going to be much harder to track everybody down. |
70 |
|
71 |
On the flip side the fact is that none of us know what the FSF will |
72 |
look like in 10 years, or 40 years. There are plenty of large |
73 |
non-profits today that bear little resemblance to what they looked |
74 |
like 100 years ago, for good or ill. The GPL v2 (or v3) are known |
75 |
quantities that we can debate on in a concrete manner, but unknown |
76 |
future versions can only be speculated on. |
77 |
|
78 |
Another solution to this problem is the FLA - which is something we've |
79 |
talked about but shelved until we've sorted out some of our other |
80 |
copyright issues which were thorny enough. Perhaps we could consider |
81 |
taking that up again. Without getting into the details it is a bit |
82 |
like a copyleft-style copyright assignment, which isn't actually an |
83 |
assignment. We envisoned it being voluntary and would allow any |
84 |
contributor to give the Foundation the authority to relicense their |
85 |
contributions, with a number of restrictions, like the new license |
86 |
being FOSS. I'd have to dig up the latest version and take a look at |
87 |
it again. Basically instead of trusting the FSF you'd be trusting the |
88 |
Foundation instead, but there are some limitations on what they'd be |
89 |
allowed to do, and if they violate those limitations the agreement |
90 |
would be canceled and the rights would revert back to whatever was on |
91 |
the original contribution, which would probably be whatever the author |
92 |
originally wanted. That said, I'm not sure it really provides a whole |
93 |
lot more protection over what happens except for the fact that |
94 |
Foundation members have more say in how the Foundation operations than |
95 |
the FSF, if only because the number of people allowed to vote are |
96 |
limited to a relatively small pool Gentoo contributors, at least |
97 |
compared to the entire FOSS community. |
98 |
|
99 |
-- |
100 |
Rich |