licensing: GPLv2, v3, and Apache

[David W Hogg]

Thanks to all who responded.  Perhaps surprisingly, these emails
clarified some of the issues for me.  Will ponder and license,
hopefully soon.  Then I will apply for git hosting and etc.

On Dec 28, 2007 6:37 PM, John Gilmore <gnu at toad.com> wrote:
> > > about the *technical* reasons and differences.
>
> > Apache or GPLv2 is fine. Anything that is GPL-compatable will be acceptable.
>
> Gnash is GPLv3, and it's on the OLPC.  The latest versions of many
> other GNU programs are GPLv3 too, and will also make it into later
> OLPC releases as it gets rebased on later Fedora releases.
>
> Most "GPLv2" licensed software actually says "GPLv2 or any later
> version".  This allows such software to be linked with, and/or
> converted to, later versions of the license.  The Linux kernel is one
> of the few GPL programs that has stuck with GPLv2-only -- and it
> will probably not stay that way for the next hundred years.
>
> I negotiated with a lot of companies as co-founder of Cygnus, which
> develops and supports free software for companies that use it.  (It's
> now part of Red Hat.)  Licensing your code under Apache, GPLv2,
> GPLv2+, or GPLv3+ protects the "Four Freedoms" of its users and
> developers; see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html .  The
> practical difference is that later, people who modify GPL software
> can't take it proprietary.
>
> Often companies will improve free software, for their own use and the
> use of their customers.  The GPL is the argument that makes their
> lawyers and managers let go of the improvements, rather than
> reflexively making them proprietary because that's what they learned
> in law school.  See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html .
> Cygnus argued to every customer that freeing their changes is a good
> business practice, reduces later maintenance costs, reduces market
> fragmentation, etc.  But "The license on the underlying software
> *requires* it" is the argument that carried the day every time.
>
> Any version of the GPL will do; I use the latest (and allow my
> software to be relicensed to later versions) because it's the best.
> GPLv3 isn't US-centric; it allows linking with software licensed under
> similar non-GNU licenses; and it disallows DRM that would prevent
> users from removing restrictions that somebody has inserted in it.
> (While DRM on music has started falling out of the market this year,
> it's still alive and kicking on proprietary software, video, digital
> television, and anywhere else that a monopoly wants control over its
> competitors and its customers.)
>
> You can never tell where your software will end up.  I wrote the code
> that became GNU Tar, which now exists in every system that uses rpms
> or debs, including the OLPC.  I am happy that it's been GPL since 1988,
> and is now GPLv3+.
>
>         John
>



-- 
David W. Hogg - associate professor, NYU - http://cosmo.nyu.edu/hogg/