Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #183759

Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement.

Show all headers | View raw

> On Sat 15/Jul/2017 19:24:56 +0200 Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > [...]
> > Finally, this is probably a good moment -- since this thread has erupted on
> > a Debian Mailing List -- to let everyone know that Conservancy also
> > organizes a GPL copyright aggregation project for Debian contributors as
> > well, see: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/#debian and
> > https://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/aug/17/debian/.

Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> May I ask, in passing, why Debian (for packages like apt, say) did not
> switch to GPLv3?

I discussed in my talk at DebConf10 about how many Debian packages are
already outbound licensed under GPLv3, because Debian carries the default
version of GPL as GPLv3, by symlinking /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL to
GPL-3.  The effect of that is that, for any package that simply says "GPL" or
points to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL , Debian is licensing it it users
under GPLv3.

Of course, if Debian developers haven't added changes that are
GPLv3-or-later, the downstream user can always go back upstream and get a
copy licensed under GPLv2-or-later (etc.).

I note you asked specifically about apt, which is GPLv2-or-later.  While I
think contributors to apt and other GPLv2-or-later packages should consider
whether GPLv3-or-later is a better license for them (I generally think GPLv3
is a very good licensing choice in most situations), I don't see any urgent
reason that developers should switch to GPLv3, in part because...

>  Would such switch ease enforcement?

... I am not aware of any specific reasons why GPLv3 is more easily enforced
than GPLv2.  The challenges that our community faces regarding enforcement,
which I outlined in my email yesterday, exist in roughly equal measure for
both GPLv2 and GPLv3.

> as well as Linux

As another poster pointed out, most (although not all) of Linux's copyrights
are GPLv2-only, and a change in license to GPLv2-or-later or GPLv3-or-later
would require extensive effort.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn
Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
========================================================================
Become a Conservancy Supporter today: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> - 2017-06-19 21:00 +0200
  Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-06-19 21:40 +0200
    Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-06-28 04:10 +0200
      Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-07-10 17:40 +0200
      Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org> - 2017-07-14 20:20 +0200
        Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-07-14 22:30 +0200
          funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org> - 2017-07-15 19:30 +0200
            Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-16 13:50 +0200
              Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-07-16 17:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-19 13:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-07-19 23:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-20 14:10 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-07-20 22:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-21 20:40 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 03:40 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:00 +0200
              Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org> - 2017-07-17 00:50 +0200
              Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 03:00 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@ebb.org> - 2017-07-17 21:40 +0200
  Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 00:20 +0200
    Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:50 +0200
      Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Nick Boyce <nick@steelyglint.org> - 2017-07-20 16:20 +0200

csiph-web