[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/licenses identify-licenses-clearly.html
|
From: |
Robert Musial |
|
Subject: |
www/licenses identify-licenses-clearly.html |
|
Date: |
Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:13:52 -0500 (EST) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Robert Musial <rmmm> 17/12/21 15:13:52
Added files:
licenses : identify-licenses-clearly.html
Log message:
adding new file identify-licenses-clearly.html per RTs #1260916 and
#1260703
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: identify-licenses-clearly.html
===================================================================
RCS file: identify-licenses-clearly.html
diff -N identify-licenses-clearly.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ identify-licenses-clearly.html 21 Dec 2017 20:13:51 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
+
+<title>For Clarity's Sake, Please Don't Say “Licensed under GNU GPL
2”! - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/gnun/initial-translations-list.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>For Clarity's Sake, Please Don't Say “Licensed under GNU GPL
2”!</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<p>When I wrote the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), in 1989, I
+recognized that changes might be necessary: the FSF might someday have
+reasons to publish a new version. So I called the license “version
1,”
+and set up a framework to enable users to upgrade programs to later
+license versions.</p>
+
+<p>There was no customary way of doing this with a free license; as far
+as I know, it had never been done before. Developers had released a
+new version of a program under a different license, and maybe they had
+made new releases of old versions offering use under a different
+license, but they had never set up a systematic way to offer users the
+choice of using a future license version for already-released versions
+of a program.</p>
+
+<p>I did not know how developers would respond to this innovation, so I
+decided to give each developer a choice about allowing future
+versions. This meant developers could release a program under GNU GPL
+version 1 <b>only</b>, or release it under GPL version 1 <b>or any later
+version</b>. The way developers state their choice is in the <b>license
+notice</b> that goes at the start of each source file. That's where the
+GPL says the decision is stated.</p>
+
+<p>The Free Software Foundation urged developers to choose <b>or any
+later version</b>, since that meant users would be free to use that
+program under GNU GPL version 1, or under version 2 (once there was a
+version 2), or under version 3 (once there was a version 3). And they
+will be free to use it under version 4, if we ever have to make a
+version 4.</p>
+
+<p>Since then, the FSF has released GNU GPL version 2 in 1991 and version
+3 in 2007. Each version offers developers the choice to insist on
+that one license version only, or permit use under future license
+versions. (GPL 3 also permits the “proxy” option, where a specified
+Web page can subsequently give permission to use a particular future
+version.)</p>
+
+<p>Publishing programs with license upgrade permission is vital to avoid
+incompatibility between programs released under different GPL versions.</p>
+
+<p>Two different copyleft licenses are almost inevitably incompatible in
+the absence of some explicit compatibility mechanism. That is because
+each one necessarily requires modified versions of a program to be
+released under that very same license. As a consequence, code
+released under GPL version 2 only can't be merged with code released
+under GPL version 3 only.</p>
+
+<p>The mechanism for compatibility between GPL versions is to release a
+program under “version N or any later version.” A program released
+under GPL-2.0-or-later can be merged with code under GPL-3.0-or-later,
+because “3 or later” is a subset of “2 or later”.</p>
+
+<p>Some developers say, “I will release now under GNU GPL version 3 only.
+When I see GPL version 4, if I like it, I will relicense my program to
+allow use under version 4.” That will work fine if you are the only
+author, provided you're still alive, healthy, contactable, and paying
+attention at that time. But copyright lasts an insanely long time
+nowadays; in the absence of major reforms, the copyright on your code
+will last 70 years after your death, in the US (and 100 years, in
+Mexico). Have you made arrangements for your heirs to consider the
+question of relicensing your code to GPL version 4 if you are no
+longer around to consider it?</p>
+
+<p>But trouble will happen even during your lifetime. What if we release
+GNU GPL version 4 ten years from now, and by that time 50 others have
+added to your program, releasing their added code under GPL-3.0-only
+simply because you did? You could approve GPL 4 for the program you
+initially released, but it would be a big job to contact the 50
+subsequent developers at that time to get their permission for GPL 4
+usage of their additions.</p>
+
+<p>The way to avoid these problems is by approving future GPL versions in
+the license notice at the outset. Please put on each nontrivial file
+of the source release a license notice of the form shown at the end of
+the GPL version you are using.</p>
+
+<p>Because we handle license compatibility this way, when people tell you
+a program is released “under GNU GPL version 2,” they are leaving
the
+licensing of the program unclear. Is it released under GPL-2.0-only,
+or GPL-2.0-or-later? Can you merge the code with packages released
+under GPL-3.0-or-later?</p>
+
+<p>When sites such as GitHub invite developers to choose “GPL 3”
or “GPL
+2” among other license options, and don't raise the issue of future
+versions, this leads thousands of developers to leave their code's
+licensing unclear. Asking those users to choose between “only” and
+“or later” would lead them to make their code's licensing clear. It
+also provides an opportunity to explain how the latter choice avoids
+future incompatibility.</p>
+
+<p>Abbreviated license indicators such as “GPL-2.0” or
“GPL-3.0” will
+lead to confusion too. People and organizations that don't recognize
+the difference between “2 only” and “2 or later” will
be prone to
+write “GPL-2.0” in both cases, not realizing there is a
distinction to
+be made.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, when you use SPDX license indicators, please use these:</p>
+
+<li>GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later</li>
+<li>GPL-3.0-only or GPL-3.0-or-later</li>
+<li>LGPL-2.0-only or LGPL-2.0-or-later</li>
+<li>LGPL-2.1-only or LGPL-2.1-or-later</li>
+<li>LGPL-3.0-only or LGPL-3.0-or-later</li>
+<li>AGPL-3.0-only or AGPL-3.0-or-later</li>
+<li>FDL-1.3-only or FDL-1.3-or-later</li>
+
+<p>Please do not use the old, ambiguous license indicators, which will be
+deprecated:</p>
+
+<li>GPL-2.0</li>
+<li>GPL-3.0</li>
+<li>LGPL-2.0</li>
+<li>LGPL-2.1</li>
+<li>LGPL-3.0</li>
+<li>AGPL-3.0</li>
+<li>FDL-1.3.</li>
+
+<p>Giving developers the choice of GPL version “1 only” or GPL
version “1
+or later” seemed obligatory in 1989, but it has created a complexity
+that we would be better off without. Meanwhile, several licenses that
+unconditionally give users the choice to upgrade to later license
+versions have become widely accepted. These include the Mozilla
+Public License, the Eclipse Public License, and all the Creative
+Commons licenses. Each version says that a user is free to use the
+work under later versions, if any, of the same license.</p>
+
+<p>Perhaps we should switch to that approach for future versions of the
+GNU GPL. But that is something to think about in the future.</p>
+
+<p>We thank SPDX for deciding to change the the short identifiers for the
+GNU family of licenses to make the “or later” versus
“only” choice
+explicit. The upcoming version of the SPDX License List for license
+identifiers will use the identifiers recommended above. The confusing
+identifiers, such as “GPL-2.0,” will be deprecated. We ask people
to
+replace them with the new unambiguous identifiers as soon as possible.</p>
+
+<p>By using identifiers that are explicit as to <b>only</b> or <b>any later
+version</b>, we can make the community aware of the difference and
+encourage developers to state their decisions clearly.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2017/12/21 20:13:51 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
- www/licenses identify-licenses-clearly.html,
Robert Musial <=