[LAU] GPL vs GPLv3

[Robin Gareus]

On 06/10/2010 11:38 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> Atte André Jensen wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>>
>> I write a little code from time to time. I just discovered that at least 
>> some of it is still under GPL. Now I'm thinking about changing that to 
>> GPLv3.
>>
>> 1) Can I Just Do It, simply by stating on the webpage and/or in the 
>> software that it's under GPLv3.
> 
> If its your code, then yes.
> 
> If its other peoples code and the GPLv2 license says "GPL version 2
> or later" then is find to link with GPLv3 code. If you intend to
> modify it heavily you can simply change the license to GPLv3 leaving
> the copyright unmolested (apart from maybe adding your own (c) if
> you are doing any significant additions.
> 
>> 2) Is it (as I understand from 
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html) recommended to change to 
>> GPLv3? What are the main advantages (both for the community and me) with 
>> GPLv3 and are there any drawbacks?

Drawbacks include that it becomes much harder to combine code of
difference [L]GPL license versions: It's a bit sad to look at the Matrix
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

The major reason why the [L]GPLv3 came to be is because of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

In short: with GPLv2 someone can use your code in a product and while
providing the source-code, prevent you from actually using your own
version on that product. (This can be because the vendor does not
publish the build-system or uses signatures on the builds).

A common scenario these days is that GPLv3 is incompatible with the
iPhone-app store, while GPLv2 is not.

Depending on your standpoint, this can be an advantage or disadvantage.

> The only problem is with code with a GPLv2 header where the part that says
> "GPL version 2 or later" has been removed. I believe GPLv2only and GPLv3
> code is not compatible.
> 
> Fors software licenses, this:
>  
>     http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
> 
> is really good.
> 
>> NB2: I also wrote some "patches" for various synths and stuff like that. 
>> I know it's been brought up here before, but forgot the answers. Could 
>> that be released under GPL(v3) as well or is it better to use CC, and if 
>> so which dialect is recommended?
> 
> CC Attribution (or maybe CC Share Alike) is probably best for synth patches.

...unless you want them to become a Debian package.

Debian won't accept any CC licensed content in their official packages
(basically because none of the Creative Commons licenses have a "source"
requirement). Ubunutu however is not that pedantic about it.

You can license the samples under GPL or make them available more freely
(public-domain, MIT/X11, ..) to get them into Debian. Strictly speaking
you're not providing a "source" of the sound either but you make the
debian-legal people happy (well, it's not actually that simple, the
debian-legal team has some good points; but it can take months to read
and understand all the details involved.)

On that note: Here's Richard Stallmann singing for you in Terms of the
GPL: http://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song.au "If you are not used
to a meter of 7/8, you may perceive it as inability to keep time."

> Cheers,
> Erik
> 

Ciao,
robin