Re: [gNewSense-users] "under the GPL" vs. GPLv2 or later

[Sam Geeraerts]

Bake Timmons wrote:
> At the risk of beating a dead horse, I still am wondering about past
> discussions on license versions.  In reaction to the ambiguity of
> something like "under the GPL", we feel the need to email the author for
> clarification.  However, with something like "GPLv2 or later", there
> *also* is ambiguity.  After all, "under the GPL" could mean *at least*
> v1, v2, or v3, but "GPLv2 or later" could mean *at least* v2 or v3.
> That is, there is *still* ambiguity, so I do not see the logic in having
> to resolve one ambiguity but not having to resolve the other.  Kevin
> brought up the point that in failing to seek clarification, we
> ultimately might even be breaking the law in some places.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html, paragraph 14 says:

"If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General 
Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free 
Software Foundation."

That has been in there since version 1. I think that makes it pretty 
clear that "under the GPL" can just be replaced by "GPLv2" and that 
there is no need to contact the copyright holder.

It also says:

"If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU 
General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have 
the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered 
version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation."

That means that "GPLv2 or later" might as well be "GPLv2" for the 
purposes of Linux.

The GPL is kind of a quantum license: it's a superposition of all (or 
some) of its possible states. It's even better than quantum mechanics 
because you can set it to your preferred state at the time of your 
choosing instead of collapsing to some random state the moment you 
happened to observe it. :)

> When Linux was first put under the GPL in 1992, the current version of
> the GPL was already v2, so I would argue that it is hard to see what
> prospect v1 could ever have.  You still see it explicitly mentioned here
> and there, but clearly v3 is the future.  Thus, it really comes down to
> v2 vs. v3, so *for us* how different is "GPLv2 or later" vs. "under the
> GPL"?  Should we not also be asking authors about what they mean by
> "GPLv2 or later"?  More generally, should we not also apply the same
> policy--whatever it turns out to be--to *all* of the other software
> whose freedom we check?

Consistency and setting a policy as early on in the process as possible 
is important to avoid having to do everything all over again. That 
policy also needs to be thoroughly documented so that the same 
discussions don't come up over and over again, and to let the user know 
what kind of freedoms he can expect from gNewSense and to let him figure 
out for himself how much he can trust the team behind it to have done a 
good job.

Such a policy would include:
- what licenses are considered free (e.g. Artistic License 1.0)
- how to resolve these version issues
- how to resolve license compatibility issues (not only for separate 
programs or modules or files, but also within files, e.g. cdrecord.c)
- what to do about patents (enforced or not, e.g. mp3/mpge2)
- what to do about non-licensing legal issues (e.g. DMCA vs. libdvdcss)
- what about artwork and such (license, source material)
- the (public) use of non-free means (e.g. Launchpad)
- issues not directly related to freedom (security, CoC, etc.)
- etc.


Personally, I'm still a bit confused about the policy on patents:

http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00081 says: explicitly no policy

http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00037 says: no patented technology in 
gNewSense (judging from the comment this bug should not be closed)

http://cuttingfree.blogsome.com/2007/01/19/an-interview-with-gnewsense-founders-paul-omalley-and-brian-brazil/ 
says: we leave it out/we take no stance about mp3, not sure about other 
patented technology.


I hope I'm not overstepping my boundaries here. According to 
http://wiki.gnewsense.org/Main/HowToHelp, the only way to help that 
doesn't involve the wiki is by joining the discussion, so that's what 
I'm trying to do.