Fork me on GitHub
Current releases are 2.1.5 (31 Oct 2014) and 2.0.18.13 (5 Aug 2014)

Ready for 2.1? Find out if your plugins are compatible. 2.0 will no longer be updated after Dec 2014.

Vanilla is licensed under GPL v2! Why NOT GPL v3?

qwentyqwenty New
edited May 2012 in Feedback

Vanilla license => http://vanillaforums.org/docs/license

Why NOT gpl3? Tivo is available on gpl2 but "GPL v3" closed doors for tivo!

GPL2 vs GPL3 => See this table

So, why vanilla developers team hasn't upgrated the license to version 3.0?


Maybe related discussions: http://vanillaforums.org/discussions/tagged/license/p1

Tagged:

Comments

  • x00x00 MVP
    edited May 2012

    Why not a permissive licence?

    Don't get me wrong GPL has it place, but too may people rush into a particular type of licensing without fully realising the implications.

    Some GLP fans don't really know what the licensing is about, but they like the general idea.

    I believe the are GPL-2 because the started on in and then looking at the legal implications it was too difficult to change to a more permissive licence. The is what I recall from Mark. This is the nature of GPL it is actually quite restrictive.

    GPL-2 is ok, I don't think there is any point in switching, they don't really need more ideology restricting their business.

    Simple fact is one of the most widely used OS software is jQuery, and it isn't a coincidence was released on MIT licence.

    If you happen to sleep in your university lab, have a research degree that never ends and have other means of supporting yourself you can bang on about GPL till the cows come home. Back in the real word, you have to choose the licence on a case by case basis, and actually come up with a way of making end meet.

    Don't get me wrong I'm really glad GPL exists, you need these types of "one way syphon" licences, becuase they stop complacency and tenancy toward absurd IP laws. I think it was a Microsoft exec that said that GPL was like a cancer, well he would think that. I'd say it is a good cancer then.

    However the idea than any one licence, (especially GPL), would be a solution for ever case is totally bonkers.

    grep is your friend.

    UnderDog
  • x00x00 MVP
    edited May 2012

    Tivo "we may be unable to incorporate future enhancements to the GNU/Linux operating system into our software, which could adversely affect our business"

    Make sense. If you don't like it, that is your problem.

    grep is your friend.

    UnderDog
  • On the other side of thing I don't think there is a well know OS operating system that that had a known exploit for over a decade a chose to do nothing about it, unlike a certain property operating system.

    grep is your friend.

    UnderDog
  • Ok, that's your BUSINESS; although GPL v3 is not against your business! :)

    I thought you've chose gpl because of philosophy behind of free software,

    x00 said: Why not a permissive licence? ...

    GPL-2 is ok, I don't think there is any point in switching, they don't really need more ideology restricting their business.

    If you want a permissive licence, so why not BSD license?

    x00 said: This is the nature of GPL it is actually quite restrictive. Restriction? Really?

    Which restriction?

    In contrary, GPL supports programmers! Supporting your freedom is actually quite restrictive? GPL is based on copyleft which grant users their liberty permanently.

  • x00x00 MVP
    edited May 2012

    If you want a permissive licence, so why not BSD license?

    It is not up to me.

    In contrary, GPL supports programmers! Supporting your freedom is actually quite restrictive? GPL is based on copy left which grant users their liberty permanently.

    This is somewhat of myth, or not entirely correct. The restriction in GPL is in it limits the choices you can make in development. It limits the choices you can make in the future.

    AGPL is a good example of further limitation. Imagine if this vanilla forums was AGPL, then they wouldn't make any money off vanillaforums.com, and therefore wouldn't be able to afford to support development of the released software.

    In my view the best part of copy left is someone else could have a better idea or improvement, the rest of GLP ideology is just not all it is cracked up to be. Sorry to disagree.

    I was also romanced by GPL in the beginning. The fact of the matter was Ubuntu is financed by someone who was already a billionaire. I absolutely applaud contribution, but it wouldn't have happened if he didn't get money from his previous software.

    The fact of the matter, many project need some funding, or they will die.

    I'm actually working on ways that OS programmers can get rewarded for actual work, rather than licences, additional service or hardware revenue, which is just not always viable.

    So I'm a supporter of OS. I will try my hardest to a least offer the option of getting it work with GLP, becuase GPL might be right for that case. I sure I get some hard-liners moaning, but the ultimate aim is release more of the (GLP and other) OS software. In order to do that there has to be a parallel stream the get round GPL limitations. I will provide an "honesty box" alternative, but it is not always goign to be suitable.

    I'm also for fighting against the absurd IP laws, but I think there is a danger in being too paranoid, and idealistic they you introduce a system which is just as convoluted.

    grep is your friend.

  • x00 said: Simple fact is one of the most widely used OS software is jQuery, and it isn't a coincidence was released on MIT licence.

    I didn't get u?! jQuery i bi-license software!

    If the GPL suits your project better you are also free to use a jQuery project under that license.

    and MIT license allows you to include jquery in commercial projects.

    I think it was a Microsoft exec that said that GPL was like a cancer

    he has said nonsense! http://s.ma.tt/dropbox/2008/09/gnu/Stephen_Fry-Happy_Birthday_GNU-hq_600px_780kbit.ogv

    x00 The fact of the matter was Ubuntu is financed by someone who was already a billionaire. I absolutely applaud contribution, but it wouldn't have happened if he didn't get money from his previous software.

    => RedHat; this year it was on the top of list of big-companies.

  • Red Hat offers professional support. If you can do that great. it is not always viable. I'm a supporter of professional open source, especially the more intelligent ideas.

    jQuery is bi licensed, but originally MIT. MIT suits that sort of project a lot more, and is a large part of its success.

    grep is your friend.

  • qwentyqwenty New
    edited May 2012

    qwenty: If you want a permissive licence, so why not BSD license?

    x00 said: It is not up to me.

    GPL-2 is ok, I don't think there is any point in switching, they don't really need more ideology restricting their business.

    @Mark

    What's your idea about GPL3?

    What's your idea also about "Vanilla licensed under GPL3"?

  • ToddTodd Chief Product Officer Vanilla Staff

    @qwenty, if you think Vanilla should be released under the GPL3 then why don't you state why? Hint: You should use more than one sentence.

  • Todd said: @qwenty, if you think Vanilla should be released under the GPL3 then why don't you state why? Hint: You should use more than one sentence.

    however, gpl3 is a newer version as vanilla2 is over vanilla1.

    tivoization(lockdown) is available on gpl2

    DRM is hinted into gpl3

    gpl2+apache = ilegal

    you can find more here.

    but, before I use more than one sentence, It's better to clarify your aim of choosing gpl2? If you describe about the reasons of your choice, it can restrict embroglios!

  • x00x00 MVP
    edited May 2012

    gpl2+apache = ilegal

    wrong, you are talking about software that is using Apache licensing code in the product, it is not illegal to run vanilla on Apache server.

    1. you are not mixing the code bases, they are entirely separate concerns
    2. they are not distributed together.

    I understand you are not a programmer so I can understand the confusion. A good example of what you are talking about is Apache Wave, which can't use GLP2 libraries. But that is not a concern to vanilla.

    Black’s Law Dictionary defines unlawful as not authorized by law, illegal. Illegal is defined as forbidden by law, unlawful.

    This is a civil issue, although licensing is not the same as contract law, but licences can be 'upheld'.

    tivoization is not relevant to vanilla. They are not in a position run their own hardware, and it is broadly supported php. DRM is not relevant either for the same reason.

    So far you haven't provided any compelling reasons why a change to GPL3 would make any sense.

    As I said before licensing is very much the right choice for the particular project, you have to understand how licensing related to that project.

    Any licence change can cause complications. This is not a new project, it didn't start on GPL2 there is no real reason to change.

    All there rest of the argument is purely fandom/idealog, assuming that GPL3 would some how make a big difference when it won't

    To understand the licensing you have to understand the software an hardware an how it is used.

    grep is your friend.

    422
  • 422422 Developer MVP

    Good answer @x00

    422 Real Estate Australia , now open Check it out

  • qwentyqwenty New
    edited May 2012

    x00 said:

    gpl2+apache = ilegal wrong, you are talking about software that is using Apache licensing code in the product, it is not illegal to run vanilla on Apache server.

    I know, mixing "codes under gpl2 + codes under apache license" was the intention.

    I understand you are not a programmer so I can understand the confusion.

    But I'm a pc user! a vanilla user too! Is gpl just for programmer? It's a part of liberty. can I be upset about future?

    tivoization is not relevant to vanilla. They are not in a position run their own hardware, and it is broadly supported php. DRM is not relevant either for the same reason.

    "They are not ..." => "they" means the developers team here? ok, So, you say "developing team" probably won't restrict its software to property hardware, right? what about derivation works of vanilla? gpl3 try to protect a software and any later work based on the first software.

    Maybe in the next year a group of people creat a fork of vanilla just working on their hardware. huh?

    So far you haven't provided any compelling reasons why a change to GPL3 would make any sense.

    read above line :)

    Any licence change can cause complications.

    for example?

  • 422422 Developer MVP

    @qwenty are u married ?

    422 Real Estate Australia , now open Check it out

  • 422 @qwenty are u married ?

    assume Yes, then?

    assume No, then? :)

    Is it related to this argument?

  • 422422 Developer MVP
    edited May 2012

    Nope, was just gonna offer him my condolences n sympathy. You must drive him mad.

    Never assume , makes an ass outta u and me

    Plus its a DISCUSSION FORUM. Not an ARGUMENT FORUM

    422 Real Estate Australia , now open Check it out

  • x00x00 MVP
    edited May 2012

    qwenty I'm saying you are not a programmer, as it you don't understand how this will licence will apply to this particular case.

    What you talk about restrictions it just doesn't apply becuase php is a widely distributed. If someone create a fork of vanilla that could only be used on one piece of architecture (not likely), then no body would use it, and if they wanted to they could just just create fork of that.

    it is not the case that there is only one piece of hardware to used, and that hardware company could then prevent fork from running. even if it was the case, it would be pretty limited as you wouldn't be able to run any other software. There whole point of a server is to serve, it oblivious to to the top level server code, becuase it must be able to run the server software, which runs a gateway interface which employ php. PHP licensing is such that what you talk about begin locked it just wouldn't be possible with vanilla.

    You seem to be a bit obsessed with GPL, and somewhat 'entitled' to this change when really is isn't your decision to make. Having said that vanilla team has no intention and could not prevent people from leaving, who want to.

    I should remind you that project like this need some kind some kind of revenue stream to survive. Too much ideology kills projects, so many OS project just don't don't of the ground becuase there is too much guff about licensing, and hoops to jump through.

    The problem with GPL, is it is hypocritical, it is trying to countenance the absurdity of IPs law, by being even more convoluted. It is becoming a self parody. Having said it has its uses, but you really have to think long and hard about apply any kind of licensing.

    And yes switching to GPL3 you will have to spend time making sure you are complaint, and then you have to contact all of those maintaining forks and all the contributors.

    It is a total waste of time for no good reason. GPL2 is perfectly adequate.

    grep is your friend.

  • x00x00 MVP
    edited May 2012

    422 said: Nope, was just gonna offer him my condolences n sympathy. You must drive him mad.

    Never assume , makes an ass outta u and me

    Plus its a DISCUSSION FORUM. Not an ARGUMENT FORUM

    I didn't realise it was that bad. I guess I didn't read too much into it. I don't mind a good argument.

    qwenty what happened to your old avatar? it only lasted a short while. I found it amusing.

    grep is your friend.

  • Lets not make personal comments!

    grep is your friend.

    leafmonster
  • ToddTodd Chief Product Officer Vanilla Staff

    @x00, you are a patient gentlemen. I hope I may have the chance to buy you a drink someday.

  • peregrineperegrine ☯ hasta luego :) In-Flight MVP
    edited May 2012

    422 said: @qwenty are u married ?

    qwenty said:

    422 @qwenty are u married ?

    assume Yes, then?

    assume No, then? :)

    Is it related to this argument?

    My apologies first @422 and @Qwenty - but as an honored member of the peanut gallery (and erstwhile cargo-cult programmer), I felt I had to comment on these.

    I read these two quotes. And I thought to myself - oh my gosh - the first wedding proposal on the vanilla forum questions and answers site since "naomi" proposed to all of us. A coy response by qwenty, but my suspense shattered by the third salvo. It appears they were sparks of friction not sparks or romance. More of a frisson and another day at the forum.

    Saves, the rest of us from dreaming up the "wedding proposal badge" and finding a sponsor for building the wedding proposal badge plugin. :).

    By the way, this thread may be driving some people crazy but I am learning a bit about licensing so I found it pretty interesting.

    Monetary Donations will be appreciated if you use my plugins. Thanks in Advance.
    As a waiter gets a tip for a good meal, tips for successful solutions appreciated as well. Peregrine

    422
  • 422422 Developer MVP

    Haha,

    Twas just my sense of humour. No offence intended to qwenty.

    I think a Pitbull / Rottweiller badge is more apt.

    422 Real Estate Australia , now open Check it out

Sign In or Register to comment.