Phoronix Test Suite Exploring GPLv2 License

[GreatEmerald]

And yet many GPL projects have a "hall of shame" but don't bother to do anything more then to put up a web page.

How does that have anything to do with the license itself?

[deanjo]

And yet I can name at least a couple of cases where closed-source apps became open-source due to GPL.

And yet many GPL projects have a "hall of shame" but don't bother to do anything more then to put up a web page.

[GreatEmerald]

There is no real advantage, I'm sorry there just isn't against anyone that has a wee bit of knowledge if they wish to use open code and disguise it. Again it is a false sense of security. First of all you would have to be able to come up with some appreciable evidence that a violation occurred. Without that, no court is going to force "independent research" without any such evidence. It becomes increasingly harder to prove as well if someone was to take some simple steps as, utilizing only part of the code, using a different compiler with different compilation options, changing string names, flipping a routine or two, etc.

Restrictive licenses only tie the hands of the honest person and may give some ammo for some really stupid code thief that takes the code and uses it in a verbatim manner if you have the time and patience and financial ability to chase after them (and hopefully they are in your court jurisdiction).

And yet I can name at least a couple of cases where closed-source apps became open-source due to GPL.

[intellivision]

There is no real advantage, I'm sorry there just isn't against anyone that has a wee bit of knowledge if they wish to use open code and disguise it. Again it is a false sense of security. First of all you would have to be able to come up with some appreciable evidence that a violation occurred. Without that, no court is going to force "independent research" without any such evidence. It becomes increasingly harder to prove as well if someone was to take some simple steps as, utilizing only part of the code, using a different compiler with different compilation options, changing string names, flipping a routine or two, etc.

Restrictive licenses only tie the hands of the honest person and may give some ammo for some really stupid code thief that takes the code and uses it in a verbatim manner if you have the time and patience and financial ability to chase after them (and hopefully they are in your court jurisdiction).

Perhaps it would be good to look at the Mozilla Public License then, it's basically the same as the LGPL except it allows static linking without making linked code part of the greater work and it's compatible with the entire *GPL family of licenses.

[deanjo]

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.

There is no real advantage, I'm sorry there just isn't against anyone that has a wee bit of knowledge if they wish to use open code and disguise it. Again it is a false sense of security. First of all you would have to be able to come up with some appreciable evidence that a violation occurred. Without that, no court is going to force "independent research" without any such evidence. It becomes increasingly harder to prove as well if someone was to take some simple steps as, utilizing only part of the code, using a different compiler with different compilation options, changing string names, flipping a routine or two, etc.

Restrictive licenses only tie the hands of the honest person and may give some ammo for some really stupid code thief that takes the code and uses it in a verbatim manner if you have the time and patience and financial ability to chase after them (and hopefully they are in your court jurisdiction).

[GreatEmerald]

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.

[dee.]

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.

[dee.]

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.

[mrugiero]

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.

[brosis]

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.