GPL v3?

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 05 Jun 2007, 13:17

With the GPLv3 causing so much debate, which GPL will Spring use, v2 or v3?

For the layman, if GPLv2 is freedom, GPLv3 is Enduring Freedom.

Relative · Post by **Relative** » 05 Jun 2007, 13:18

KDR_11k wrote: For the layman, if GPLv2 is freedom, GPLv3 is Enduring Freedom.

Then you mean GPLv3 = founding of the police state and international military intervention against legitimate governments?

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 05 Jun 2007, 13:30

Yes, pretty much.

Relative · Post by **Relative** » 05 Jun 2007, 13:33

KDR_11k wrote:Yes, pretty much.

kthx, postcount ++

Post by **Tim Blokdijk** » 05 Jun 2007, 13:40

KDR_11k wrote:With the GPLv3 causing so much debate, which GPL will Spring use, v2 or v3?

For the layman, if GPLv2 is freedom, GPLv3 is Enduring Freedom.

I think that for the moment gpl2 will be used, I would like to see how things develop with the Novell-Microsoft deal and what the exact restrictions on drm will be. But it's Tobi's call if he would have a reason to push for gpl3 any time soon he would have my support.
Ignoring the fact that Spring has a load of contributors that would have to be contacted for the change in license. A license change for Command Engine would be easier.

Relative · Post by **Relative** » 05 Jun 2007, 13:41

Also, I think I read in the OSRTS (CE) forums that some of the devs want to turn spring from GPL to LGPL.

Edit: I almost forgot, GPLv3 also includes a perpetual war against some vague, ill-defined force of "EVIL", right?

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 05 Jun 2007, 13:43

GPLV2 includes a clause that anything released under it can also be released with a later version of the GPL (a clause that most people take out since it gives RMS a great deal of power).

Really, the distinction between V2 and V3 isn't really material to Spring anyways - it primarily has to do with embedded platforms where the platform is designed to prevent loading unauthorized binaries.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 05 Jun 2007, 14:05

Not just that, it also revokes all GPL rights for people who have patent deals of some kind, that's the bigger issue. It's aimed at punishing Novell.

Post by **jcnossen** » 05 Jun 2007, 14:38

A license change for Command Engine would be easier.

CE is LGPL, so GPL v3 doesn't really have anything to do with it anyway.. Or is there a new LGPL too?

Relative · Post by **Relative** » 05 Jun 2007, 15:21

jcnossen wrote:
A license change for Command Engine would be easier.
CE is LGPL, so GPL v3 doesn't really have anything to do with it anyway.. Or is there a new LGPL too?

Quick google search:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/lgpl3-dd2-guide

Looks like LGPL is getting a revision as well.

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 05 Jun 2007, 15:43

Can we have links to some explanation of GPL v2, GPL v3, their differences, their consequences etc? Preferably some short article for dummies, something readable, not a technical phonebook.

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 05 Jun 2007, 15:47

zwzsg wrote:Can we have links to some explanation of GPL v2, GPL v3, their differences, their consequences etc? Preferably some short article for dummies, something readable, not a technical phonebook.

I'm not sure about any other details, but the preamble pretty much covers the two big changes, which seem to be common between LGPL and GPL:

Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

Neither of which affect Spring. No patents, and there is no set-top box that is specificially designed to play the dev's version of Spring and no other version.

Post by **Tim Blokdijk** » 05 Jun 2007, 23:35

jcnossen wrote:
A license change for Command Engine would be easier.
CE is LGPL, so GPL v3 doesn't really have anything to do with it anyway.. Or is there a new LGPL too?

Ok, I was under the impression CE used some Spring (GPL2) code but I must admit I haven't been tracking CE developments. Although I'm very much interested in it.

zwzsg wrote:Can we have links to some explanation of GPL v2, GPL v3, their differences, their consequences etc? Preferably some short article for dummies, something readable, not a technical phonebook.

An example: depending on how the final GPL3 will look like we "might" run into legal complications with a playstation 3 port of Spring for example.
Another example: If we would use a drm technique as an anti-cheat feature we "might" have legal problems with the GPL3.

Spring RTS Engine

GPL v3?

GPL v3?

Re: GPL v3?

Re: GPL v3?

Re: GPL v3?

Re: GPL v3?