GPLv3 out
Moderator: General Moderators
- Ambush Commander
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: New Jersey, US
GPLv3 out
So... are you going to use it? I myself have been operating with the LGPL v2 or later clause, and I'm wondering whether or not to start exclusively licensing new versions under LGPL v3.
- The Phoenix
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:12 pm
Re: GPLv3 out
Mismatch.Ambush Commander wrote:So... are you going to use it? I myself have been operating with the LGPL v2 or later clause, and I'm wondering whether or not to start exclusively licensing new versions under LGPL v3.
GPL (note the lack of a leading L) v3 is out. Its a substantial change from GPLv2 - enough that its forward (but not backward) compatible.
LGPL (note the leading L for 'lesser') v3 is also out, but it is a far less substantial change from LGPLv2. It adds additional protections, but does not dramatically change the nature of the license.
Personally, for PHP-driven web apps, GPLv3 gives much better protection than GPLv2 (if your goal is share-share-alike behavior), so I like it. However, it can cause a substantial licensing headache when it comes to being shared with a GPLv2 codebase.. so it probably won't take off quickly.
- Ambush Commander
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: New Jersey, US
Ah, my bad. I was under the impression that the new Tivo-ization clause in GPLv3 was also ported to LGPL, taking a closer look at the license it doesn't look that sort of clause would even make sense with LGPL.
That being said, I know many of us work with GPL-ed code on a day-to-day basis, and much of it licensed under a v2 or later clause.
What's really interesting for PHP driven applications is the Affero GPL, which requires that if the function of the application is made public (not just redistribution), you have to disclose the source code. That is, if you were to download some software that was AGPL, put it on a public server, and tweak it a little, you are obligated to release those tweaks under the AGPL license.
That being said, I know many of us work with GPL-ed code on a day-to-day basis, and much of it licensed under a v2 or later clause.
What's really interesting for PHP driven applications is the Affero GPL, which requires that if the function of the application is made public (not just redistribution), you have to disclose the source code. That is, if you were to download some software that was AGPL, put it on a public server, and tweak it a little, you are obligated to release those tweaks under the AGPL license.
- The Phoenix
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:12 pm
Right on. The LGPL is useful for the very rare case of a library that people will want to modify, but not want to share their modifications for. Personally, if its truly a *library*, I'd be likely to lean towards the BSDL, in the hopes that it would get used more widely - and by doing so, expose potential problems/bugs more quickly.Ambush Commander wrote:Ah, my bad. I was under the impression that the new Tivo-ization clause in GPLv3 was also ported to LGPL, taking a closer look at the license it doesn't look that sort of clause would even make sense with LGPL.
But the LGPL does give a little more "share-share-alike" protection to libraries than the BSDL, so.. it has a place in the community.
Yes. Some projects (notably the Linux kernel) do take the step of choosing NOT to include the "or later clause" portion. For those projects, they are going to have a tricky time dealing with GPLv3 code. GPLv2 code can be included in GPLv3 projects without a problem. However, GPLv3 code CANNOT be included in GPLv2(only) projects.Ambush Commander wrote:That being said, I know many of us work with GPL-ed code on a day-to-day basis, and much of it licensed under a v2 or later clause.
Thats going to result in quite a bit of licensing problems, forks, and bitter feelings I suspect.
The AGPL was sort of a prequel to GPLv3. GPLv3 includes similar clauses. The AGPL requirements went a bit further than was likely enforcable by law, and used unclear language.Ambush Commander wrote:What's really interesting for PHP driven applications is the Affero GPL, which requires that if the function of the application is made public (not just redistribution), you have to disclose the source code. That is, if you were to download some software that was AGPL, put it on a public server, and tweak it a little, you are obligated to release those tweaks under the AGPL license.
The GPLv3 clauses that relate basically boil down to saying running a web service doesn't remove your requirement to share-alike. There are still some shortcomings, which require the upstream to do things like include a "show source" link (or similar functionality), but its much better protection than the GPLv2 - for PHP scripts run as a web service.
All in all, its got some value-add, but it also muddies the water substantially.