Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software

Re:Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software by millstone on Sunday June 14, 2015 @02:38AM (#9713960)

This is hypocritical, because the GPL does exactly what you describe through its "or any later version" clause. Remember when gcc switched to GPLv3? Did you contribute to gcc? If so, your contribution got re-licensed under whatever the FSF decided, and thereby acquired a bunch of new restrictions that you never agreed to.

And sure, everyone is free to use the v2 version of the code (i.e. gcc 4.2), but nobody wants to, since all new development is happening with the v3 version, which is now the standard.

Linux is a famous exception: it omits the "or any later version" clause, and so avoids getting steamrolled in the way you describe.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software by click170 on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:25AM (#9714061)

> Remember when gcc switched to GPLv3? Did you contribute to gcc? If so, your contribution got re-licensed under whatever the FSF decided, and thereby acquired a bunch of new restrictions that you never agreed to.

How can they relicense the code unless every contributor signed a Contributor License Agreement granting them that right?

A quick search seems to indicate that GCC has no such CLA.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software by elsjaako on Sunday June 14, 2015 @06:26AM (#9714420)

The standard GPL includes a clause that let's you published a modified version of the software under a later version of the GPL.

So if you write something under the GPLv2, and I change it and publish it, then the GPL says I need to release the source under the GPLv2 or later. This means that I can publish it under the GPLv3, and you can't take back my changes unless you upgrade your software to the GPLv3.

Linux removed the "or later" text from their version of the GPLv2, meaning that I can't change the Linux kernel and publish the result under the GPLv3.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software by the_why_of_y on Sunday June 14, 2015 @08:18AM (#9714620)

This is incorrect, no version of the GPL has such a clause. The FSF merely recommends that authors give downstreams the option to use GPL version N "or later".

However, you can "upgrade" LGPL code to GPL, see LGPLv3 "2. Conveying Modified Versions".

There is a FLOSS license that has an implicit upgrade to new version clause: the Mozilla Public License, see "6.2. Effect of New Versions" in MPLv1.1.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software by elsjaako on Monday June 15, 2015 @02:39PM (#9721137)

I learned something today.

It looks like the "or later clause" is a built in option, but not a built in default, of the GPLv2. With that I mean that the meaning of that phrase is explained in the 9th clause.

[ Parent | on HN ]