[ros-dev] GPLv3 Migration - flamewar warning

[Thomas Weidenmueller]

I oppose the GPL3. I think we're fine with the GPL2.

Version 3 just adds even more restrictions. If anyone likes to fork
ReactOS, they're free to license it under version 3, as the GPL2 license
clearly states that any subsequent version of the GPL can be applied,
too. But applying the GPL2 on GPL3 code doesn't work. That's why I
believe we shouldn't switch to GPL3.

I don't think it makes sense to dual-license our code. If anyone finds
the GPL3 too restrictive, then they're just going to pick the GPL2
anyway. It'd just influence work derived from derived work, that would
be prevented from switching from GPL3 to GPL2. Since everybody is free
to license any ReactOS code under the GPL3, that already a possibility.

I believe we've been very clear on the "or later version" clause. That's
what the license says, and that's the rights we grant everybody.

Especially ReactOS should remain open to patent-related issues, at least
allowing derived work to deal with patent issues.

Of course GPL3 code cannot go back into trunk unless it remains an
independent part, ie. a stand-alone application, etc. That's the only
downside I see. I think we only have to really think about switching to
GPL3 in case WINE switches to it.

- Thomas

Steven Edwards wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been inactive for a while and most likely will be so for a while
> however I thought this would be a good time to bring up the GPLv3 due
> to its recent release. Does anyone have any objections to license as
> it stands now? If you've not had a chance to review it I suggest you
> do so. I am happy to help answer any questions regarding the license
> as I did take part in early drafting on behalf of the ReactOS and Wine
> Projects although I am not a lawyer and anything I say should be at
> least reviewed by the SFLC or your own lawyers.
> 
> It is my suggestion that if there are no objections then we start to
> contact each developer requesting them to dual license existing code
> as GPLv2/GPLv3 and use the same tracking system as the audit system to
> do the migration.
> 
> ReactOS has never been really clear on the "or later version" clause
> in the GPL. The ReactOS license includes the text and the license
> number is not specified in most of the ReactOS sources, though I don't
> think it would be fair to simply take all of the source and re-license
> it without some discussions and a vote.
> 
> It would also be possible to distribute ReactOS under both licenses
> via dual licensing as a possible compromise if a dispute arises. This
> would mean if some third party (Third Party A) wants to take ReactOS
> enhance it and then resell it, they would not have to worry about
> another third party (Third Party B) taking their modifications and
> redistributing them for profit without the patent protections of the
> GPLv3 and the Anti-Tivoization clauses. The only downside to this is
> if Third Party A is only making changes under GPLv3 then those changes
> could not go back in to ReactOS trunk. I don't think this is a major
> issue, as I expect both third parties to be proprietary vendors making
> enhancements that the Project might not want/need in the trunk in any
> case. Third Party A in the interest of keeping forking to a minimal
> would still send bug fixes back up both licenses.
> 
> 
> Thanks
>