Phoronix Test Suite Exploring GPLv2 License

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Phoronix Test Suite Exploring GPLv2 License

We are currently exploring the option of moving the Phoronix Test Suite under a GPLv2 license...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU2NDM

[Cyborg16]

There's also EUPL if you want something with more options ? though I haven't seen many users.

[erendorn]

There's also EUPL if you want something with more options ? though I haven't seen many users.

did not know about that one, thanks.

[curaga]

Are there many outside contributions in PTS?

[GreatEmerald]

That's silly, why would you want to downgrade a license? Just because some companies like to have an option to tivoise things? Don't allow yourself to be bullied like that... Also, GPLv3 is overall better written, with internet in mind etc.

[brosis]

Not giving advantages?
How about paragraph 5&6, that in GPL2 requires you to ship CDs with source code, not acknowledging internet as distribution medium? How about someone, who downloaded PTS from your site asks to ship CDs to China or Kazakhstan?
Or tivoisation freedom in paragraph 3? Say, someone forks phoronix on "benchmarking device" that effectively is encrypted, so that you can't prove he is using it with his own modifications.
Or 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.
Or license withdrawal protection which makes CLA unneeded, that is present in GPL3 paragraph 2, but absent in GPL2? (keyword "irrevocable") So that a contributor can't revoke his contribution from you.

What about incompatibility between GPL3 and GPL2, the main concern that prohibited Linux to switch to GPL3 (and it was NOT anti-tivoization)? GPL3 allows to add exceptions into section 7, that GPL2 does not allow, making GPL3 more compatible with other open source licenses.

GPL2 is outdated, stating "We consider switching to GPL2" is like stating "We consider switching to Kernel 2.0". This has no sense, except for explicit compatibility reasons. Its a clear downgrade. IMHO.

[brosis]

There's also EUPL if you want something with more options ? though I haven't seen many users.

This license makes only sense for derivative works, such as EU software projects. It is worse than GPL on freedom due to higher compatibility and higher uncertainty (see paragraph 5 of EUPL) if one of licenses conflicts with EUPL. It is more complex, older, while having no advantage over GPL. It also limits legal application to EU countries.

[darkbasic]

Please don't.

[gQuigs]

Meh..

Please post their actual concerns so we can discuss them. Are they planning on distributing PTS themselves to their customers? Otherwise, they would just be nervous about the Free software world getting some of their patents that apply to the PTS codebase. In which case, we definitely need them to use the GPLv3 ...

I say stay on GPLv3... and hopefully we can make this a learning opportunity for them to become more comfortable with the GPLv3.

[deanjo]

Not giving advantages?
How about paragraph 5&6, that in GPL2 requires you to ship CDs with source code, not acknowledging internet as distribution medium? How about someone, who downloaded PTS from your site asks to ship CDs to China or Kazakhstan?

It does not require you to ship CD's, it requires you to have the source available in machine readable form.

Or tivoisation freedom in paragraph 3? Say, someone forks phoronix on "benchmarking device" that effectively is encrypted, so that you can't prove he is using it with his own modifications.

GPL 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.