Reply to post:

From here on, Red Hat's new GPLv2 software projects will have GPLv3 cure for license violators

thames

There is no change to the actual license. If the original license was GPLv2, then that remains the license. What happens is they add another file to the project which says that in the event of a license violation, the "cure" procedure for copyright violation will be as specified in the new file. Since GPLv2 doesn't address what happens at that point there is no conflict with that license. Since Red Hat stated what they they would do in that instance, so far as a court is concerned they are as effectively bound by it as they would be if it was a clause on the license itself.

GPLv3 addressed a lot of issues in GPLv2 like this, and is in my opinion overall a better license and what I use in my own open source projects unless I need to conform to the license of an existing project. The GPLv3 drafting process also took in a lot of input from lawyers around the world to correct issues relating to legal systems which are different from that in the US, as well as many other matters.

The main objection that people had against GPLv3 was the provision that manufacturers of locked-down platforms had to provide unlock keys. The main objector back then appear\ed to be Tivo and other makers of things like home TV video recorders. These days it is cell phone and tablet makers who object to it.

I won't be surprised if eventually they end up with what is effectively a "GPLv2.9" - or a GPLv3 without the anti-lock-down provisions.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021