Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+ (opens in new tab)

(dolphin-emu.org)

69 pointsmparlane11y ago67 comments

67 comments

34 comments · 4 top-level

song11y ago· 15 in thread

I'm wondering about those 0.5% who refused to relicense. What would be the rational behind refusing such a change. I can understand refusing for a project to be relicensed under a very different license but not between GPLv2 and GPLv2+...

delroth11y ago

The only person I know that opposed the change was Scott Moreau, and from my understanding he only did it to be an annoyance (I have IRC logs that indicate this pretty clearly). Given his history with other projects[1,2] it's not a big surprise. This was solved by removing the broken and mostly unused Wayland support from Dolphin.

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/544543/ [2] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM0MTM

jordigh11y ago

Some people (Linus Torvalds is a notable example) think that GPLv3's provisions that forbid things like locked down hardware are too much. They would rather be "permissive" and allow hardware that restricts what the user can do with it.

What good is modifiable software if the hardware will refuse to run software if it's modified? Tell me, Mr Anderson, what good is a phone call when you are unable to speak?

tzs11y ago

Note that while GPLv3 prohibits Tivoization, that is only one way to lock down hardware. For instance, the locked apps model of iPhone is OK under the GPLv3 (GPLv3 is incompatible with the App Store, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the locked hardware. That's due to the TOS for the App Store requiring the user agree to not reverse engineer and not redistribute apps they obtain from the store).

The anti-Tivoization clauses are not as strong as most casual readers of GPLv3 seem to think they are. In particular, they only apply if "you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term".

A "User Product" is "either (1) a 'consumer product', which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling".

So, as long as you keep GPLv3 code out of the firmware, OS, and bundled applications that ship when you sell your hardware to the customer, you can lock down the hardware and still provide add-on software that is GPLv3.

joesb11y ago

> What good is modifiable software if the hardware will refuse to run software if it's modified?

You are free to build your own hardware.

GPLv2 ensure software is open, you use GPLv2 software, you ensure the software stay open.

It does not try to control other things outside what it gives. "Use my software? Make your hardware open. Use my software? Make your customer service open." No. It's simply "Use my software? Make your software open"

Which is fair in Linus's opinion.

chongli11y ago

Keep in mind that Linus's reasons behind licensing are often selfish ones: he simply wants as many people as possible contributing code to him.

0x011y ago

Licensing GPLv2+ means you'll accept any future "GPLv4", "GPLv5" etc without having any idea what those licenses will look like. You might end up not liking having them apply to your code. What if control of FSF is taken over as if like a coup and a nasty "GPLv4" is released?

jordigh11y ago

The worst that could happen is that there is a future GPL version that removes copyleft. If there is a future GPL version that is horrible for the receipient, then at worst that receipient can simply opt for GPLv3.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#V...

Clause 14 of GPL 3 also clarifies what later licenses can do. They must be "similar in spirit" and they cannot impose any additional requirements on any author or copyright holder.

edit: Okay, after seeing clause 14, I don't even see how a judge would interpret a GPL version without copyleft to be "similar in spirit", so I can't even imagine how that would happen. I think you're ok in accepting newer versions of GPLv3.

stefantalpalaru11y ago

The way you protect yourself from unknown future licenses is to license the project under GPLv2 but require all contributions to be GPLv2+. When you read and agree to the next version, then you can add it to the project or switch to it completely.

This scheme depends on one (main) developer having control over the licensing of a significant part of the code base so it's subject to the "hit by a bus" failure mode.

krschultz11y ago

GPLv2+ means you are accepting the terms of GPLv5. What's in GPLv5? I have no idea. No one has any idea. It might never get written. As long as RMS is in charge, I'm not worried about the contents of the next GPL dramatically differing from the current spirit.

However, there is no guarantee that I will agree with future versions of the GPL. I'd like to judge them as they come. It's actually really strange to sign up for an open ended contract where a 3rd party is writing the revisions.

jordigh11y ago

> As long as RMS is in charge, I'm not worried about the contents of the next GPL dramatically differing from the current spirit.

You don't have to trust RMS. You can trust lawyers interpreting clause 14 of GPLv3 correctly. This clause says that later GPL versions must be "similar in spirit". It also says that newer versions cannot impose any more obligations or restrictions on authors or copyright holders.

comex11y ago

If you're talking about Dolphin, read the article again. Nobody refused, but a few people couldn't be contacted - unlike Linux, Dolphin has never required real names from contributors, so this mostly consisted of a few people who contributed under an alias a few years ago before utterly vanishing from the Internet.

EDIT: disregard; didn't see the graph, and wasn't previously aware of the one person who refused. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9600204 for the correct answer.

SEMW11y ago

> read the article again. Nobody refused, but a few people couldn't be contacted

No. Ten were uncontactable, and one refused.

"Refused and Code Rewritten - 1/202"

"Unable to Contact - 10/202"

From the descriptions of the red and black slices of the pie chart - https://dolphin-emu.org/m/user/blog/relicensing/relicensepie...

xahrepap11y ago

I read it. And it's still confusing because of this graph (from the article):

https://dolphin-emu.org/m/user/blog/relicensing/relicensepie...

Note: "0.5% Refused. Code Rewritten"

If you mouse over that graphic in the article it says 1 person refused. However, the article otherwise completely ignores that 1 person... (unless I missed it, both times ;) )

thoughtpolice11y ago

Hm? The graph on the page shows 4.5% of contacts being marked as "Unable to contact", while it shows a very small 0.5% as "Refused, Code Rewritten". Or is this graph wrong?

warp11y ago

Looking at the graph mouseover, I think 10 contributors refused to relicense. Their contributions were removed from the codebase.

Ruud-v-A11y ago· 10 in thread

I think it is a mistake to license anything under a “or later version” license. If you do that, you licence your code under a license that you have never read, so how can you know that it serves your intentions? You are blindly licensing code under a licence that has yet to be written!

In the GPL case, the Free Software Foundation states that “The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.” (Section 14 of the GPLv3.) Now of course I don’t expect the FSF to publish something radically different, but they _could_ do so. Even if you trust the FSF now, are you sure you trust the FSF twenty years from now?

JoshTriplett11y ago

If you don't trust the FSF, the GPLv3 actually offers another alternative: "If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program."

So you could say "GPLv2, GPLv3, or any later version approved by ...". Which then means that a future relicense to allow GPLv4 (after reviewing it to your satisfaction) would not require contacting every single contributor.

carussell11y ago

Even in the worst case scenario, it remains available under the original license, and that's not going to change.

What is the worst case scenario, by the way? You could say it depends on who you are. One such scenario would be for developers who agree with the FSF's strong copyleft philosophy who are betrayed by a future hypothetical revision that removes all copyleft provisions to make it no stronger than, e.g., BSD. This affects only a subset of those choosing a license for their project. (I.e., if you don't care about copyleft, this purportedly horrific thing doesn't even affect you.) Funnily enough, the subset of those who would be affected are hardly ever the ones I see making the argument you are.

So what terrible things do you imagine the worst case scenario involving?

belorn11y ago

I would like to know that too, since all the worst case scenario I can think of is also defining aspects of permissive licensed projects.

For example, a community could fork a project and license it under a new'er version, and then the original founder could suddenly want to incorporate the new changes but at the same time not want to use the new license, and the new community refuses request for a license to the old version. I don't think it ever has happen with a gplv2+ project, and it require a quite hostile community to begin with, but as a worst case scenario that would likely be it.

maaku11y ago

If you are pro-patent protection, the FSF already released something radically different.

baghira11y ago

To be fair, most FLOSS license, including GPLv2 and BSD 2-clause and 3-clause, are (were?) usually considered to have an implicit patent grant, similar in spirit to the one in MPLv2 or GPLv3. I don't think that argument that one could use GPLv2 while thinking that software patent are good has that much ground.

jordigh11y ago

> they _could_ do so.

They already wrote legalese that says that they can't do so. This isn't merely an empty promise: it's already encoded into the text of the license. If a later version of the license is radically different and not in spirit of the GPL or imposes upon authors obligations that earlier versions of the GPL do not, then the current version of the GPL already says that later version would be invalid.

yellowapple11y ago

Would the anti-TiVoization wording in the GPLv3 count as "obligations that earlier versions of the GPL do not [impose]", and if so, does that mean that the GPLv3 is invalid?

yarrel11y ago

I trust the FSF twenty years from now more than I trust someone today who doesn't use "or later version".

yellowapple11y ago

So you don't trust Linus Torvalds et. al.?

mikerichards11y ago

Yeah, I'd like to know the legalities of this "we can rewrite the license in anyway we choose, and your code from 20 years ago will fall under its terms".

Once again the FSF political motives cast its license into dubious territory. Just stay away from the GPL.

jordigh11y ago· 5 in thread

> In practice, GPLv3 only adds more restrictions to the license

Not at all. They say so themselves: GPLv3 adds compatibility with Apache v2, which GPLv2 lacks. This thus removes a restriction.

GPLv3 also clarifies some things from GPLv2, such as being explicit about being applicable not only to software, and giving a clearer meaning of what distributing software means. GPLv3 calls this "conveying".

lnanek211y ago

That's not true at all. Read up on the different licenses. The reason v3 was created was to fight tivoization, where the code is realeased, but the hardware prevents loading updated copies. From the point of view of a company licensing their source, v3 is much more restrictive. It requires a lot more things than a more free license. Linux is famous for rejecting it because of that.

Yes, there's a benefit that you are compatible with other more strict licenses, but that's like saying moving from GPL to proprietary is less restrictive because then you are compatible with the rest of your proprietary code at your company. Being more compatible with less free licenses is not more free.

jordigh11y ago

The statement "GPLv3 only adds more restrictions" is false, because it also removes some restrictions.

Whether you think you should allow Tivoisation or not is a different matter to the plain fact that there are things that GPLv3 allows which GPLv2 does not allow.

carussell11y ago

This is off-topic to the comment jordigh made. Describing it as "not true at all" is worse than stretching; it's just wrong on its face. Re-read the original comment.

silon511y ago

IMO, GPL2 has all the stuff against tivoization already there (preferred form for modification -- if I can't modify it for actual hardware, it's not enough).

cma11y ago

Linux had no copyright assignment policy and they didnt put in the GPLv2+ future versions clause--they had so many contributors that they really had no choice but to reject it.

foldor11y ago

How come there was no mention of the upcoming OSVR partnership as one of the final straws to push forward with this change?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse