GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing [LWN.net]

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Feb 28, 2016 10:09 UTC (Sun) by Del- (guest, #72641)
In reply to: GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing by Wol
Parent article: Winning the copyleft fight

> To emphasise - "you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received" - ie the freedom to distribute under v2.

Yes, this was the part I thought, thank you. I don't mean to be difficult, but freedom is open for wide interpretation. Actually, I have seen some argue that permissively licensed code is more free than copyleft. For this reason, the FSF has been very specific in stating a definition of freedom in relation to software, as provided by, e.g., wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
it does in no way imply GPLv2. GPLv3 preserves the same freedoms found in GPLv2. Hence, I am afraid your argument falls apart.

> Which is likely to fall foul of copyright law and be classed as "too trivial to be copyrightable".

Indeed, again my precision was way off, my apologies. The added code lines should be sufficient addition to warrant copyright, and trivial additions do not apply here. I still stand by my claim though. For any software you yourself want to distribute, it is trivial to add a non-trivial patch (non-trivial enough to warrant copyright), and hence enable relicensing (within the context discussed here, i.e., from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+). However, I still cannot see a clear argument stating that a recipient of GPLv2+ cannot relicense to GPLv3+ upon redistributing, seeing your argument above seems to fail.

to post comments

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Feb 29, 2016 12:17 UTC (Mon) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link] (3 responses)

Sorry, but no, the freedoms granted by the GPLv2 are NOT the same as those granted by the GPLv3.

With GPLv2 someone can "Tivoize" a device. With GPLv3 you cannot. It might not be a freedom that the FSF (or you) likes, but it's a freedom never the less.

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Feb 29, 2016 13:50 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (2 responses)

Del- was talking about “freedoms” in terms of the FSF's Four Freedoms. In that context the GPLv2 and GPLv3 are equivalent in that they are both designed to preserve these. Being able to “tivoize” a device is not one of the Four Freedoms.

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Mar 1, 2016 1:41 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Unfortunately, in this case, it's the black letter of the licence that rules, not the intent of the people who wrote it.

In any case, saying "I can distribute under v2, but you can't", is placing restrictions on what your downstream is allowed to do, which is a clear breach of the principles behind the GPL. (And, in telling other people what they can and cannot do with code that is not your own, you're exercising powers that copyright law does NOT give you.)

Cheers,
Wol

GPLV3 has been a boon for bait-and-switch licensing

Posted Mar 1, 2016 8:58 UTC (Tue) by Del- (guest, #72641) [Link]

> Unfortunately, in this case, it's the black letter of the licence that rules, not the intent of the people who wrote it.

For legal documents like a license, it is very common (I would even say necessary) to supply specific definitions to concepts (like freedom) that are open to interpretation. The GPL does this right above the paragraph you quoted:

"The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things."

The black letter does not seem to support your interpretation.

> in telling other people what they can and cannot do with code that is not your own, you're exercising powers that copyright law does NOT give you.

Generally speaking this is clearly not a true statement. GPL is called copyleft exactly because it gives the recipient of the code powers through copyright law.