● 02.05.07

●● Why Not Have A GPL 2.1 As Well?

Posted in Action, DRM, Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux, GPL, Law at 1:52 am by Shane Coyle

Many developers, most notably Linus Torvalds and many kernel maintainers, are perfectly happy with the current General Public License and for many projects, relicensing could be a painful or even impossible task – especially since it has been said that GPLv3 will be incompatible with GPLv2.

Can the Free Software Foundation be convinced to also work out an update to the GPLv2 that will include the Microvell-deal verbiage? Many have stated that they feel that FSF’s hesitancy to pursue Microvell under GPLv2 is because it has become the rallying cry for the upcoming v3, which was lacking popular support pre-Microvell.

If the GPLv2 is updated, both versions 2.1 and 3 would be available under the commonly implemented "or any later version" clause, or developers could continue to explicitly specifiy the version as others have opted to do. So, I ask, why not have a GPL 2.1 as well?

Isn’t the point to help protect developers from having their code hijacked and proprietized? Wouldn’t the cause of Free Software be better served by providing a patched version 2 as well? I am on the record as having seen the need for GPLv3, but I also see the need for GPLv2.1. I hope that Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen will agree.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Permalink  Send this to a friend

----------

➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.