1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
|
#+title: The useful GPL "or later" clause
#+date: <2021-12-06>
Ariadne Conill wrote a piece on GPL "or later" clause. I made a comment about two weeks ago, which was under moderation but has not appeared as of today. So I decided to publish it below (with some minor edits).
The article says:
#+begin_quote
The primary motive for the version upgrade clause, at the time, was quite simple: the concept of using copyright to enforce software freedom, was, at the time, a new and novel concept, and there was a concern that the license might have flaws or need clarifications.
#+end_quote
The main purpose of the -or-later clause is compatibility. Any two (strong) copyleft licenses are incompatible. If a program is licensed under GPLv2-only, it is incompatible with GPLv3. Same goes for version 3: a GPLv3'd program will likely not be combinable with future GPLv4'd programs.
The article continues:
#+begin_quote
However, for all of the success of the GPLv3 drafting process, it must be noted that the GPL is ultimately published by the Free Software Foundation, an organization that many have questioned the long-term viability of lately.
#+end_quote
What long-term viability? According to <https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-board-frequently-asked-questions-faq#FSFfinancialstatus>:
#+begin_quote
The FSF is in good financial health. As is the case with many organizations, the pandemic affected the FSF, impacting donors, making it impossible to host or attend in-person events, and disrupting operations. Fortunately, conservative financial planning over the years provided the FSF with sufficient reserves to weather these difficulties.
The rating organization Charity Navigator recently gave the FSF its 8th consecutive 4-star rating and, for the first time ever, a perfect overall score: https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-awarded-perfect-score-from-charity-navigator-plus-eighth-consecutive-four-star-rating.
The FSF does not depend on large single sources of funding. It accepts and appreciates support from corporations who want to give back by contributing to the development and advocacy for free software, but direct corporate support accounted for less than 3% of FSF revenue in its most recently audited fiscal year.
The vast majority of FSF’s financial support comes from individuals -- many, but not all, of whom choose to become associate members. At this moment, the FSF has more associate members than at any time in its history.
#+end_quote
The original article continues:
#+begin_quote
And this is ultimately the problem: what happens if the FSF shuts down, and has to liquidate? What if an intellectual property troll acquires the GNU copyright assignments, or acquires the trademark rights to the FSF name, and publishes a new GPL version? There are many possibilities to be concerned about, but developers can do two things to mitigate the damage.
#+end_quote
It is baked into GPL terms that future versions of the license have to be similar to the current version in spirit, see Section 14 of GPLv3 text, which protects GPL from the FSF:
#+begin_quote
The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
#+end_quote
On the other hand, GPLv3-or-later, as its name implies, offers a *choice*. The recipient of a program under this license can choose to apply GPLv3, or a future version e.g. GPLv4, and if the future version is bad all is not lost:
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#VersionThreeOrLater>
#+begin_quote
Suppose a program says “Version 3 of the GPL or any later version” and a new version of the GPL is released. If the new GPL version gives additional permission, that permission will be available immediately to all the users of the program. But if the new GPL version has a tighter requirement, it will not restrict use of the current version of the program, because it can still be used under GPL version 3. When a program says “Version 3 of the GPL or any later version”, users will always be permitted to use it, and even change it, according to the terms of GPL version 3---even after later versions of the GPL are available.
If a tighter requirement in a new version of the GPL need not be obeyed for existing software, how is it useful? Once GPL version 4 is available, the developers of most GPL-covered programs will release subsequent versions of their programs specifying “Version 4 of the GPL or any later version”. Then users will have to follow the tighter requirements in GPL version 4, for subsequent versions of the program.
However, developers are not obligated to do this; developers can continue allowing use of the previous version of the GPL, if that is their preference.
#+end_quote
Continues on the original article:
#+begin_quote
First, they can stop using the “or later” clause in new GPL-licensed code.
#+end_quote
This is a bad idea and likely harmful to the free software movement, because programs licensed under newer GPL will not be compatible with programs licensed under GPLv3-only.
#+begin_quote
Second, they can stop assigning copyright to the FSF. In the event that the FSF becomes compromised, for example, by an intellectual property troll, this limits the scope of their possible war chest for malicious GPL enforcement litigation. As we have learned from the McHardy cases involving Netfilter, in a project with multiple copyright holders, effective GPL enforcement litigation is most effective when done as a class action. In this way, dilution of the FSF copyright assignment pool protects the commons over time from exposure to malicious litigation by a compromised FSF.
#+end_quote
The copyright assignment enables the FSF as the copyright holder to enforce GPL effectively.
The assignment contract safeguards the future of assigned work <https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2014/spring/copyright-assignment-at-the-fsf>:
#+begin_quote
But the most important element of the assignment contract is the promise we make to every contributor and community member: We promise to always keep the software free. This promise extends to any successors in the copyright, meaning that even if the FSF were to go away the freedom of all users to share in the contributions wouldn't.
#+end_quote
Finally, note there is a difference between Creative Commons licenses and GPL regarding the -or-later variants. GPL offers people the choice to use -only or -or-later, though FSF recommends the latter. Contrast that with Creative Commons licenses where -or-later is built-in, and the recipient has no choice.
|
