How about dual-licensing? That way everyone can choose the license that best fits his needs.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Phoronix Test Suite Exploring GPLv2 License
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by amehaye View PostHow about dual-licensing? That way everyone can choose the license that best fits his needs.
I can't see why companies dislike GPLv3 but like "GPLv2 or later", given that "or later" means v3...
Anyway, we should all make small contributions to PTS now, then disallow a license change...
Comment
-
Originally posted by brosis View PostOr patent protection for users under paragraph 11? Say, you used some mechanism of calling or benchmarking - and you, and all your userbase are sued over patent related to this.
Originally posted by deanjo View PostGPL 3 doesn't realistically prevent that either. If someone is going to obfuscate the code to hide the source it doesn't matter what license they use.
Originally posted by TAXI View PostYou mean the default "GPLv2 or later" ? :P
I can't see why companies dislike GPLv3 but like "GPLv2 or later", given that "or later" means v3...
Anyway, we should all make small contributions to PTS now, then disallow a license change...
I don't really see the point on dual licenses, at least if you allow the user to pick between them under the same conditions. Just use the lowest common denominator (in how restrictive they are), as it's how it will effectively work. If I dual license something as BSD/GPLv3, all of those who are negatively affected (from their point of view, that is) will use it as BSD, and the ones who care about free software will contribute back, which would happen nonetheless with BSD only.
A different story would be in the cases of paid licenses, or in the cases where you care, for example, what they do with the software, for example, imagine you have the following ideology: all of the public administration software should remain open, but otherwise you don't care. Then, you could license your code as BSD for non-public administration applications, and GPL for public administration uses. Although this could be said to restrict the use of the software (although in sum you could use it any way you want, it's just with a different license), infringing both licenses.
Point is, dual licensing makes sense only (or maybe almost only, and I'm missing some cases) if you impose different conditions for the licenses to apply.
One exception might be this, GPLv2+, as I'm not sure exactly how it works.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mrugiero View PostI didn't realize until I read your post, but yeah, it becomes circular: to be (legally) able to decrypt it, you must first prove it's under the GPLv3, and if you'd be able to prove that, you wouldn't need to decrypt it to prove it was under the GPLv2 in the other case, so there's no difference.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mrugiero View PostI always wondered how that worked, as it's "at your option". Whose option? Distributor? End-user? It makes a difference. If the distributor can choose to only consider it GPLv2 at the moment of distribution, then it's obvious why they accept it, as it means they can choose not to follow the patents and anti-tivoisation clauses. If it's end user's, then any of those distributors are effectively giving me licenses to their patents "at my option".
On the other side every end-user can ask for the source and compile for himself, choosing the GPL version "at his option" while doing so, so, well, I'm, confused.
//EDIT: A funny imagination I just had: At a court:
Company A: "In our option we choose GPLv3"
Company B: "But in out option, as original creator of the software we choose v2"
Judge: "In my option I choose v4, which doesn't exist. You all loose!"
:PLast edited by V10lator; 09 January 2014, 12:05 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mrugiero View PostI always wondered how that worked, as it's "at your option". Whose option? Distributor? End-user?
Originally posted by mrugiero View PostI don't really see the point on dual licenses, at least if you allow the user to pick between them under the same conditions. Just use the lowest common denominator (in how restrictive they are), as it's how it will effectively work. If I dual license something as BSD/GPLv3, all of those who are negatively affected (from their point of view, that is) will use it as BSD, and the ones who care about free software will contribute back, which would happen nonetheless with BSD only.
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostIt does not require you to ship CD's, it requires you to have the source available in machine readable form.
Originally posted by deanjo View PostGPL 3 doesn't realistically prevent that either. If someone is going to obfuscate the code to hide the source it doesn't matter what license they use.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TAXI View PostThat's exactly what I'm asking myself all the time, especially as I use gentoo, so basically I'm forking the software I install every time I install it (so the "at your option" has to mean me, no?).
Comment
-
How about anything but GPL?
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.
Comment
Comment