Phoronix Test Suite Exploring GPLv2 License

[stikonas]

I would also say, stay with GPLv3.

[brosis]

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.

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Its up to GPL to protect the four mentioned freedoms and versions -n are outdated and have flaws hence can't fully protect the freedoms mentioned in the preamble of the said license, hence they are invalid per se. As if someone recommends to install outdated version of the software with known vulnerability for the sake of compatibility with his own criteria.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.

[deanjo]

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.

[mrugiero]

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.

[brosis]

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.

[bridgman]

AFAIK the term "GPLv2+" is shorthand for "GPL v2 or any later version" (see section 14 of GPL).

[GreatEmerald]

GPLv2+ means the program is available under the terms of the GPLv2 and hence is open to tivoization. You are allowed to do any thing with GPLv2+ software that you are allowed to to do with GPLv2 software.

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.

[erendorn]

It does. If you don't ship source with binary, you must ship CDs on request. And that for every release up to three years long on every 3rd party request.

It does not. The GPLv2 says:
"which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange"
Well guess what, if you distribute your software using internet, how can internet not be a medium for software interchange?

It is not written "on a CD", or "on a medium customarily used at the time of writing this license", or "on a medium of the choice of the guys asking for the source".
Any medium that is commonly used to distribute software can be used to distribute the source.

[Kristian Joensen]

GPLv2+ means the program is available under the terms of the GPLv2 and hence is open to tivoization. You are allowed to do any thing with GPLv2+ software that you are allowed to to do with GPLv2 software.

[GreatEmerald]

So there could never be any court case where there's dispute over wheteher a software is considered GPLv2 or GPLv3. If the copyright holder is licensed it under GPLv2, they have given permission for the recipients to consider it either GPLv2 or GPLv3, so the recipient can choose which license to accept. For that matter, since there's no such license as "GPLv3 or earlier", any case where there's a choice of license is a case where the software is distributed as GPLv2 in the first place, so it's not like the distributor could even argue "we wanted to distribute as GPLv3".

You still haven't said whether you believe that tivoising GPLv2+ code would be considered a license violation or not...