Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 55

Thread: Phoronix Test Suite Exploring GPLv2 License

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    BSD would be a smart move, or the UIOS used by the LLVM crew.

    GPL 2 was never an especially bad license but GPL 3 goes way overboard with its radicalism. As such the Free software Foundation really needs to be punished for that radical change. The best way to slap the FSF about the head is to avoid. Using any of their license.
    BSD would be extremely silly move, because its not court acknowledged, it does not protect against license withdrawal and patent claims. Apache in this sense is a much better license, but it is not copyleft.

    Regarding your GPL comment, you have managed to punish yourself by posting completely clueless claims, as GPL was designed to protect four freedoms of the users and later versions address issues that are "unpatched" in GPL2. How is it "radical"? If you are so bad with GPL, then use EULA - its completely free of. Anything. Radically. Go on, punish yourself.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    AFAIK the term "GPLv2+" is shorthand for "GPL v2 or any later version" (see section 14 of GPL).
    Yes, that was the point. The problem is we (or at least, I) don't understand its implications in the cases where versions 2 and 3 are actually different.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    basic output is similar to the GPL'ed program, then v3 gives enough ground to force-provide the source code, if this software is publicly distributed.
    In which they would be in violation of the GPL 2 as well, again there is no REAL advantage with GPL 3 on that part. It is a false sense of security that relies on a Utopian world. Also, basic output is NOWHERE near enough to even suspect a violation as there are ten million ways to skin a cat to end up getting the same output.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    IIRC the GPLv2 text just requires "a method customarily used for distributing source code" (or something like that, going from memory here). That probably means you shouldn't use paper tape any more, but doesn't limit you to CDs.
    Quote Originally Posted by GPL2 paragraph 3
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange
    Doesn't have to be CDs, can be any other popular disk format.
    GPL2 also completely lacks the conditions of source distribution over network, including protection from passwords, non-standard ways/tools, storing in non-standard formats.

    Its up to GPL to protect the four mentioned freedoms and versions -n are outdated and have flaws hence can't fully protect the freedoms mentioned in the preamble of the said license, hence they are invalid per se. As if someone recommends to install outdated version of the software with known vulnerability for the sake of compatibility with his own criteria. But from the perspective of the project, these versions are clearly inferior as they fulfill the original mission less.
    Or take it this way - advancement is becoming better and better with each version towards the original goal. Hence downgrading is becoming worse and worse towards original goal. Up to the point of zero (no license). Basic math.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Edinburgh, UK
    Posts
    53

    Default

    I would also say, stay with GPLv3.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    In which they would be in violation of the GPL 2 as well, again there is no REAL advantage with GPL 3 on that part. It is a false sense of security that relies on a Utopian world. Also, basic output is NOWHERE near enough to even suspect a violation as there are ten million ways to skin a cat to end up getting the same output.
    And if the court forces an independent research of the specified software piece on the matter of license misuse?..
    If you mind that there is no real advantage, what real advantage from your own viewpoint would it be? (Apart from the "Don't worry, take it easy", aka "prepare to be sued" method). The EULAs that I know all use or base on non-copyleft (BSD etc) are not becoming less restricting, so they must know and believe in what they are claiming.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    Doesn't have to be CDs, can be any other popular disk format.
    GPL2 also completely lacks the conditions of source distribution over network, including protection from passwords, non-standard ways/tools, storing in non-standard formats.
    Actually, passwords probably infringe the "human readable" part even in GPLv2, as passwords protect because they are encrypted in a non-human readable form. For the non-standard part, I have no idea.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Hmm, that would mean that GPLv2+ is basically GPLv2 that can be combined with GPLv3 works (under GPLv3 terms). Which I guess is the point, so it makes sense.
    Well yes, and it's kind of funny in that "GPLv2+" is the actual, original GPLv2 license as published by the FSF. It's the "GPLv2" without the plus that is the modified version of the GPLv2 proper. The original GPLv2 does include "or later version" clause.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    Yes, that was the point. The problem is we (or at least, I) don't understand its implications in the cases where versions 2 and 3 are actually different.
    In cases where the versions are different, it's up to the recipient to choose which license terms they obey. If something is allowed by one license but not the other, then it's allowed, because the recipient can choose to obey the license that allows it.

    The only real "catch" is, that the license doesn't really concern the recipient until such a time as that recipient becomes a (re-)distributor themselves, since the license is only really concerned with distribution.

    So basically, GPLv2+, ie. GPLv2 proper, gives the recipient the right to re-distribute under the terms of GPLv2+ or GPLv3+, but not modified GPLv2 (sans plus) nor modified GPLv3. That mostly becomes relevant in cases of reusing code in another project, ie. using GPLv2 code in a GPLv3 project. But it could theoretically also apply to a situation where something is allowed in GPLv3 but not allowed in GPLv2.

    For a crazy hypothetical, let's say GPLv2 forbids you to distribute software to people who live in Luxemburg (just to conjure an absurd example), but GPLv3 allows it. But since GPLv2 proper (ie. GPLv2+, as it's paradoxically called) allows redistribution within the terms of either GPLv2, GPLv3 or any hypothetical later future version of GPL, it would still be allowed to redistribute the software (or any modified version of the software) to Luxemburg. The license would still stay as GPLv2+, though, even though the terms would be those of GPLv3+.

    Even if it's the other way around - if GPLv2 allows you to distribute to Luxemburg, but GPLv3 forbids it, it would still be allowed - because it's licensed as GPLv2, and you get to choose between 2 and 3. Even if a GPLv4 comes along and says that anyone distributing to people in Luxemburg loses all rights forever to touch any GPL-licensed software, you'd still have the right to distribute to Luxemburg under GPLv2+ or GPLv3+.

    Now, if GPLv2 allows distributing to Luxemburg and GPLv3 denies it, and the software is licensed under GPLv3+, then it's forbidden to distribute to Luxemburg. Unless GPLv4 comes along and again allows distribution to Luxemburg, in which case it becomes allowed again to distribute to Luxemburg.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    In cases where the versions are different, it's up to the recipient to choose which license terms they obey. If something is allowed by one license but not the other, then it's allowed, because the recipient can choose to obey the license that allows it.

    The only real "catch" is, that the license doesn't really concern the recipient until such a time as that recipient becomes a (re-)distributor themselves, since the license is only really concerned with distribution.

    So basically, GPLv2+, ie. GPLv2 proper, gives the recipient the right to re-distribute under the terms of GPLv2+ or GPLv3+, but not modified GPLv2 (sans plus) nor modified GPLv3. That mostly becomes relevant in cases of reusing code in another project, ie. using GPLv2 code in a GPLv3 project. But it could theoretically also apply to a situation where something is allowed in GPLv3 but not allowed in GPLv2.

    For a crazy hypothetical, let's say GPLv2 forbids you to distribute software to people who live in Luxemburg (just to conjure an absurd example), but GPLv3 allows it. But since GPLv2 proper (ie. GPLv2+, as it's paradoxically called) allows redistribution within the terms of either GPLv2, GPLv3 or any hypothetical later future version of GPL, it would still be allowed to redistribute the software (or any modified version of the software) to Luxemburg. The license would still stay as GPLv2+, though, even though the terms would be those of GPLv3+.

    Even if it's the other way around - if GPLv2 allows you to distribute to Luxemburg, but GPLv3 forbids it, it would still be allowed - because it's licensed as GPLv2, and you get to choose between 2 and 3. Even if a GPLv4 comes along and says that anyone distributing to people in Luxemburg loses all rights forever to touch any GPL-licensed software, you'd still have the right to distribute to Luxemburg under GPLv2+ or GPLv3+.

    Now, if GPLv2 allows distributing to Luxemburg and GPLv3 denies it, and the software is licensed under GPLv3+, then it's forbidden to distribute to Luxemburg. Unless GPLv4 comes along and again allows distribution to Luxemburg, in which case it becomes allowed again to distribute to Luxemburg.
    Yea, so in essence the least restrictions apply. Though if GPLv2 didn't allow distributing to Luxemburg and GPLv3 did, then all the copies of the software in Luxemburg would also be immune to tivoisation, as far as I understand it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •