GPL v3

[mindplay.dk]

Many other projects are upgrading from GPL version 2 licensing to version 3 these days.

In order to be legally compatible with other GPL version 3 licensed libraries, maybe it's time for ProcessWire to consider upgrading?

[Radek]

Many other projects are upgrading from GPL version 2 licensing to version 3 these days.

In order to be legally compatible with other GPL version 3 licensed libraries, maybe it's time for ProcessWire to consider upgrading?

Hi, i dont like GPL v3. Its too much restricted than free.

[teppo]

Hi, i dont like GPL v3. Its too much restricted than free.

Compared to GPL v2 currently used, how is it more restrictive, could you perhaps elaborate this a bit further?

Taking a quick look at some articles and overviews of differences it would seem that v3 isn't such a huge change but could actually make things easier and more precise especially when dealing with other licenses. Affero license on the other hand seems a bit too intrusive for my taste..

I'm no expert in this subject, so I could be completely wrong here. Is anyone familiar enough with these to explain what moving on would mean for a project like ProcessWire?

[mindplay.dk]

I've heard recently that a few projects are moving from GPL v2 to MIT licensing - there was a long discussion and it looks like Twitter is moving Bootstrap from GPL2 to MIT.

[Radek]

Compared to GPL v2 currently used, how is it more restrictive, could you perhaps elaborate this a bit further?

Taking a quick look at some articles and overviews of differences it would seem that v3 isn't such a huge change but could actually make things easier and more precise especially when dealing with other licenses. Affero license on the other hand seems a bit too intrusive for my taste..

I'm no expert in this subject, so I could be completely wrong here. Is anyone familiar enough with these to explain what moving on would mean for a project like ProcessWire?

I am not licence expert but:

Seems to me like GPL v3 limits developers to release software how they want.

Whole software must be release with GPL compatible licence. (Cant choose different licence)

For example if i take GPL3 CMS, change it little and deploy to my server, i must give

my source code too...?

For me is better BSD licence.

[teppo]

Seems to me like GPL v3 limits developers to release software how they want.

Whole software must be release with GPL compatible licence. (Cant choose different licence)

What you're describing here is often referred to as copyleft and it actually requires you to license any modified code under exactly same license as original code, not with a "GPL compatible" license. Important thing to note here is that PW is already licensed under GPL v2, which also contains so called copyleft clause -- there's no difference in this matter between v2 and v3.

I'd also suggest that you take a look at this article which describes copyleft principle and explains why it's (mostly) a good thing. It sucks for someone who'd prefer to take a free / open software, modify it slightly and publish it under a closed source license or take parts of it and use those in his/her own closed source application (both of which, in my personal opinion, are rather rude things to do).

I do see why some people dislike this, though. To be honest I'm not a huge fan of GPL either, but I do agree that it's a very good way to ensure that free software stays free..

For example if i take GPL3 CMS, change it little and deploy to my server, i must give

my source code too...?

Not true. Neither GPL v2 or v3 forces you to do this. As a matter of fact v3 actually explains this in more detail and is less ambiguous; quoting directly from one of the articles I posted above:

"In contrast to the GPLv2, the GPLv3 clearly states that there is no requirement to disclose the source code in an ASP use of GPL programs as long as a copy of the software is not sent to the client."

This is where Affero license differs from "ordinary" GPLv3 and exactly the reason I said it's too restrictive for my taste

[mindplay.dk]

I have been asked numerous times in the past to upgrade various projects from GPL2 to 3, and have willingly done so.

My policy has always been quite simple - there is only one scenario where I could picture enforcing my legal rights: if somebody were selling my product (or a derivative product) and passing it off as their own. I feel comfortable that both GPL2, GPL3 and MIT protects me in that situation.

Other than that, I don't really care what people do with my software. Simple

I think, at the end of the day, precisely what license is used probably matters more to the consumer than to the vendor - and for various reasons, consumers seem to prefer GPL3 or MIT.