# GPL v3 and Ruby License **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [4 April 2006 22:59 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436 "2006-04-04T22:59:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Greg\_Brown1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/258eb7/32.png) [@Greg\_Brown1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Greg_Brown1)\ **Post date:** [5 April 2006 20:41 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436/21 "2006-04-05T20:41:13Z")
I was using abbreviations here, in a license, it would be something like: You are free to modify, copy and/or redistribute this software under the GNU General Public License 2, or any later version of this license. > **···** > > On 4/5/06, Bob Gustafson \ wrote: > > > I think you agree that the 'v2 or later' is not particularly a good > > thing, although you say 'GPL' without specifying a version. ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Neukirche1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Christian\_Neukirche1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Christian_Neukirche1)\ **Post date:** [6 April 2006 11:20 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436/22 "2006-04-06T11:20:01Z")
Gregory Seidman \ writes: > } a) Resist it by removing any "any later version" clauses from our > } license agreements which use the license of ruby > } > } b) Embrace it and re-release code using GPLv3 and Matz's terms, but > } make sure the FSF hears the voice of our community beforehand. > } > } c) Can it entirely and favor an established license such as the BSD license. > } > } d) Draft up our own license, possibly with cartoon foxes. > > You forgot one: > > e) Ignore it, continue to release under v2 with the clause that allows >    others to choose to license it under v3, and not include any non-v2 >    patches/code. +1, thanks for your pragmatism. > **···** > > > --Greg > > -- > Christian Neukirchen \ [http://chneukirchen.org](http://chneukirchen.org) ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Brown1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/258eb7/32.png) [@Greg\_Brown1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Greg_Brown1)\ **Post date:** [6 April 2006 12:23 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436/23 "2006-04-06T12:23:27Z")
Oh... cool. Now we just have libraries and things like that to be concerned with, but that's an individual developers decision. Thanks matz. I wonder if it might be smart to explicitly note GPLv2? > **···** > > On 4/6/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto \ wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > In message "Re: GPL v3 and Ruby License." \> on Thu, 6 Apr 2006 02:03:34 +0900, "Gregory Brown" \ writes: > > > > \>Meaning... when GPLv3 comes out, do we. > > \> > > \>a) Resist it by removing any "any later version" clauses from our > > \>license agreements which use the license of ruby > > \> > > \>b) Embrace it and re-release code using GPLv3 and Matz's terms, but > > \>make sure the FSF hears the voice of our community beforehand. > > \> > > \>c) Can it entirely and favor an established license such as the BSD license. > > \> > > \>d) Draft up our own license, possibly with cartoon foxes. > > > > For your information, at the beginning of Ruby's license, we see: > > > >   Ruby is copyrighted free software by Yukihiro Matsumoto \. > >   You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL > >   (see the file GPL), or the conditions below: > > > > and the file GPL contains GPLv2, so you have no option to choose GPLv3 > > automatically even when it comes out. Even though I have no objection > > to GPLv3 unlike Linus right now, still we don't have any problem with > > our current licensing. So I'd wait for few more years after the final > > release to settle things down, then if we find no problem, I would > > replace the GPL file to GPLv3. ---
**Author:** ![Andrew\_Johnson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Andrew\_Johnson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Andrew_Johnson)\ **Post date:** [6 April 2006 16:18 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436/24 "2006-04-06T16:18:41Z")
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > For your information, at the beginning of Ruby's license, we see: > >   Ruby is copyrighted free software by Yukihiro Matsumoto > \. >   You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the > GPL >   (see the file GPL), or the conditions below: > > and the file GPL contains GPLv2, so you have no option to choose GPLv3 > automatically even when it comes out. Even though I have no objection > to GPLv3 unlike Linus right now, still we don't have any problem with > our current licensing. So I'd wait for few more years after the final > release to settle things down, then if we find no problem, I would > replace the GPL file to GPLv3. Be careful what you assume about the GPL. Consider clause 9 of the GPL file included with current Ruby: >   9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions > of the 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. > > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program > specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any > later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions > either of that version or of any later version published by the Free > Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of > this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software > Foundation. In other words, because the current Ruby distribution does not explicitly restrict itself to a specific version of the GPL, anyone can re-release or re-distribute current Ruby entirely under any published version of the GPL, including GPLv3 (when it comes out). cheers, andrew > **···** > > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C). ---
**Author:** ![Austin\_Ziegler5](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/austin_ziegler5/32/1985_2.png) [@Austin\_Ziegler5](https://rubytalk.org/u/Austin_Ziegler5)\ **Post date:** [5 April 2006 19:41 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436/25 "2006-04-05T19:41:18Z")
[...] > > > Stronger is not necessarily better, of course. Stronger also can be > > > seen as 'more restrictive' by some. However, I do believe that > > > copyleft is not coercion because you cannot coerce someone through > > > licensing terms. > > > > That's a common misconception. One \*can\* coerce through licensing > > terms. If the choice is "my way or the highway", where the highway is > > extremely difficult, it's coercion. A lot of Libertarians I know > > would disagree me on this point, but they're also of the opinion that > > coercion can only come from physical force. The verb "coerce", > > however, is defined as: "To cause to do through pressure or > > necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means". A licence can > > be coercion. > > I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I guess that puts me in the dissenting > group on things like that. I believe that strong contracts that are > freely entered into can be upheld and can be used to support various > political and ethical goals. [...] In theory, this stance is great. In practice, do you read \*every\* licence you come across? Click-acceptance is legal these days, you know, so there \*might\* be a licence clause that requires you to give your firstborn the name "Myron Fiddlebrick", and you might have agreed to such without having read it. I'm one of those odd folks who \*does\* read all of the fine print (on contracts that I sign; I generally ignore the licence details on software because it isn't clear how enforceable it is and I prefer the stated intent of the licence, e.g., "like a book", etc.), and I'll challenge sections that I don't like. If it matters enough to me, I won't do business with the person who puts out that sort of licence or contracts. Coercion can happen in many forms, and libreadline is a perfect example of coercion. (Of course, I would argue that there are times when such coercion is important and useful, such as when NeXT implemented an Objective-C frontend for GCC and was forced to release its source.) I don't really have an issue with a copyleft licence: if you want to restrict how your code can be given out (e.g., like the CC ShareAlike licence provision), then that's your choice. The problem I have with the GNU GPL is the deception that goes on around it and the "moral" boundaries it sets up around its restrictions. I also think, as I've said, that the GPLv3 goes beyond what is reasonable for an open source licence. > > > I am mostly in favor of weak copyleft, in most pragmatic > > > applications of licenses. Protect your source, ensure it will > > > remain free software, ensure the license can't be buried under a > > > proprietary license, etc. As far as linking and integrating with > > > non-free software... i'd like to be an idealist and say it's evil... > > > but of course, I wouldn't have a job if that were the case 😉 > > > > Something like the MPL. The problem is, with the way that the GPL is > > written, the MPL is incompatible with it. This will not be changing > > under GPLv3. > > I imagine I must be the FSF's "most loving critic". I do love these > guys and their ideas, but I don't love the vagueness and rhetoric they > are prone to: Yeah. That's Stallman through and through. I was one of the ~300 or so folks heavily involved in the discussion list about the MPL back in the day, and I got into some arguments with Eben Moglen about the whole thing when the FSF was trying to get Netscape to \*solely\* use the GNU GPL. (I consider the day that the Mozilla Foundation relicensed everything as MPL and GNU GPL as a net loss for quality open source.) The problem is entirely in the GNU GPL's wording preventing further restrictions on the code. Here's a gedankenexperiment:   \* Create a copyleft licence patterned after the GNU GPL (make it the   GNU GPL without the propaganda). Call it the ASCL (Austin's Strong   Copyleft Licence). Add one additional term that enforces your right   to be known as the author of a work (this is \*not\* the advertising   clause from the original BSD, mind you). The ASCL is incompatible   with the GNU GPL. The GNU GPL requires that your licence have a \*subset\* of restrictions that the GNU GPL provides. It is not even clear if the GNU GPL would be compatible the ASCL even if the additional term were removed. However, even \*one\* additional restriction, no matter how reasonable, renders your licence wholly incompatible with the GNU GPL. It's nonsense, and it could be fixed pretty easily. -austin > **···** > > On 4/5/06, Gregory Brown \ wrote: > > > On 4/5/06, Austin Ziegler \ wrote: > > -- > Austin Ziegler \* halostatue@gmail.com >                \* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca ---
**Author:** ![Yukihiro\_Matsumoto2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Yukihiro\_Matsumoto2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Yukihiro_Matsumoto2)\ **Post date:** [6 April 2006 14:27 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436/26 "2006-04-06T14:27:44Z")
Hi, > **···** > > In message "Re: GPL v3 and Ruby License." on Thu, 6 Apr 2006 21:23:27 +0900, "Gregory Brown" \ writes: > > > I wonder if it might be smart to explicitly note GPLv2? > > Indeed. I'd change the wording for next release. > >               matz. ---
**Author:** ![Yukihiro\_Matsumoto2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Yukihiro\_Matsumoto2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Yukihiro_Matsumoto2)\ **Post date:** [6 April 2006 16:32 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436/27 "2006-04-06T16:32:30Z")
Hi, > Be careful what you assume about the GPL. Consider clause 9 of > the GPL file included with current Ruby > In other words, because the current Ruby distribution does not > explicitly > restrict itself to a specific version of the GPL, anyone can re-release > or re-distribute current Ruby entirely under any published version of > the > GPL, including GPLv3 (when it comes out). Agreed. I will change the description to: Ruby is copyrighted free software by Yukihiro Matsumoto \. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL version 2 (see the file GPL), or the conditions below: ^^^^^^^^^ in the near future to clarify.               matz. > **···** > > In message "Re: GPL v3 and Ruby License." on Fri, 7 Apr 2006 01:18:41 +0900, Andrew Johnson \ writes: ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Baird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@Daniel\_Baird](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Baird)\ **Post date:** [7 April 2006 00:22 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436/28 "2006-04-07T00:22:49Z")
I'm not convinced that's what the licence is saying. If the program licence terms say "GPL2 or later", I think this clause in GPL2 is saying only that you can opt to \*comply with\* any later version. I don't think it's saying that you can re-release the program code with licence terms of "GPLv3 or later" -- just that for your specific use of the program, you can choose which one you comply with. It's possible I've misinterpreted Andrew's comment. And I'm not a lawyer -- I still have a beating human heart 🙂 ;Daniel > **···** > > On 07/04/06, Andrew Johnson \ wrote: > > > \> > > \> Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program > > \> specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any > > \> later version", you have the option of following the terms and > > conditions > > \> either of that version or of any later version published by the Free > > \> Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number > > of > > \> this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free > > Software > > \> Foundation. > > > > In other words, because the current Ruby distribution does not explicitly > > restrict itself to a specific version of the GPL, anyone can re-release > > or re-distribute current Ruby entirely under any published version of the > > GPL, including GPLv3 (when it comes out). > > > > cheers, > > andrew > > -- > Daniel Baird > [http://danielbaird.com](http://danielbaird.com) (TiddlyW;nks! :: Whiteboard Koala :: Blog :: Things > That Suck) > [[My webhost uptime is ~ 92%.. if no answer pls call again later!]] ---
**Author:** ![Michal\_hramrach\_Such](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ab097/32.png) [@Michal\_hramrach\_Such](https://rubytalk.org/u/Michal_hramrach_Such)\ **Post date:** [5 April 2006 21:54 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436/29 "2006-04-05T21:54:54Z")
heh, that is what they say they put in v3 🙂 You see, if you allowed any additional restrictions, you could as well use the BSD license. But they say they observed that some acceptable additional restrisctions tend to appear in other free licenses. And that they are incompatible because of that. So they will name the acceptable additional restrictions for you. And you can add them or use code covered by other licenses that include them in your gpl software 🙂 disclaimer: I did not read the license but this is discussed on the page linked a few messages back just below the tivo issue Thanks Michal > **···** > > On 4/5/06, Austin Ziegler \ wrote: > > > On 4/5/06, Gregory Brown \ wrote: > > \> On 4/5/06, Austin Ziegler \ wrote: > > [...] > > \>\>\> I am mostly in favor of weak copyleft, in most pragmatic > > \>\>\> applications of licenses. Protect your source, ensure it will > > \>\>\> remain free software, ensure the license can't be buried under a > > \>\>\> proprietary license, etc. As far as linking and integrating with > > \>\>\> non-free software... i'd like to be an idealist and say it's evil... > > \>\>\> but of course, I wouldn't have a job if that were the case 😉 > > \>\> Something like the MPL. The problem is, with the way that the GPL is > > \>\> written, the MPL is incompatible with it. This will not be changing > > \>\> under GPLv3. > > \> I imagine I must be the FSF's "most loving critic". I do love these > > \> guys and their ideas, but I don't love the vagueness and rhetoric they > > \> are prone to: > > > > Yeah. That's Stallman through and through. I was one of the ~300 or so > > folks heavily involved in the discussion list about the MPL back in the > > day, and I got into some arguments with Eben Moglen about the whole > > thing when the FSF was trying to get Netscape to \*solely\* use the GNU > > GPL. (I consider the day that the Mozilla Foundation relicensed > > everything as MPL and GNU GPL as a net loss for quality open source.) > > > > The problem is entirely in the GNU GPL's wording preventing further > > restrictions on the code. Here's a gedankenexperiment: > > > >   \* Create a copyleft licence patterned after the GNU GPL (make it the > >         GNU GPL without the propaganda). Call it the ASCL (Austin's Strong > >         Copyleft Licence). Add one additional term that enforces your right > >         to be known as the author of a work (this is \*not\* the advertising > >         clause from the original BSD, mind you). The ASCL is incompatible > >         with the GNU GPL. > > > > The GNU GPL requires that your licence have a \*subset\* of restrictions > > that the GNU GPL provides. It is not even clear if the GNU GPL would be > > compatible the ASCL even if the additional term were removed. However, > > even \*one\* additional restriction, no matter how reasonable, renders > > your licence wholly incompatible with the GNU GPL. > > > > It's nonsense, and it could be fixed pretty easily. ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Brown1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/258eb7/32.png) [@Greg\_Brown1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Greg_Brown1)\ **Post date:** [7 April 2006 00:43 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436/30 "2006-04-07T00:43:26Z")
You absolutely, positively, can redistribute the software under a later version. That is the whole point of the clause. This was explictly mentioned by Eben Moglen and Richard Stallman at the meeting I attended last weekend. If you grant permission for redistribution under the terms of GPL version 'foo' or any later version... since this permission is granted outside of the license, but the ability to do so is granted inside the license, a redistributer is free to remove the 'or any later version', upgrade to a newer version, etc. You can't place additional restrictions on re-distribution AFAIK. I do not think you could say 'freedom is granted to use this software under v2 or later, but not redistribute under anything but v2'. I think that would be a conflict. > **···** > > On 4/6/06, Daniel Baird \ wrote: > > > I'm not convinced that's what the licence is saying. If the program licence > > terms say "GPL2 or later", I think this clause in GPL2 is saying only that > > you can opt to \*comply with\* any later version. I don't think it's saying > > that you can re-release the program code with licence terms of "GPLv3 or > > later" -- just that for your specific use of the program, you can choose > > which one you comply with. ---
**Author:** ![Austin\_Ziegler5](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/austin_ziegler5/32/1985_2.png) [@Austin\_Ziegler5](https://rubytalk.org/u/Austin_Ziegler5)\ **Post date:** [5 April 2006 22:10 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436/31 "2006-04-05T22:10:48Z")
> heh, that is what they say they put in v3 🙂 They did. One step forward (acceptable additional restrictions), three steps back (DRM and patent stuff, neither of which is best fought in the GNU GPL). > disclaimer: I did not read the license but this is discussed on the > page linked a few messages back just below the tivo issue I have read GPLv3 draft 1. I was unimpressed. I am underwhelmed by the process. -austin > **···** > > On 4/5/06, Michal Suchanek \ wrote: > -- > Austin Ziegler \* halostatue@gmail.com >                \* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Baird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@Daniel\_Baird](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Baird)\ **Post date:** [7 April 2006 01:16 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436/32 "2006-04-07T01:16:58Z")
Hmm, I guess Bill Gates is right and GPL is aggresively viral after all 🙂 It seems weird that if action A is allowable under GPL2 but not under GPL3, and I repackage Ruby source and release it under GPL3, people who get source from me can't do action A, but people who get source from the original location can. ;Daniel > **···** > > On 07/04/06, Gregory Brown \ wrote: > > > You absolutely, positively, can redistribute the software under a later > > version. > > -- > Daniel Baird > [http://danielbaird.com](http://danielbaird.com) (TiddlyW;nks! :: Whiteboard Koala :: Blog :: Things > That Suck) > [[My webhost uptime is ~ 92%.. if no answer pls call again later!]] ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Brown1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/258eb7/32.png) [@Greg\_Brown1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Greg_Brown1)\ **Post date:** [7 April 2006 01:35 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436/33 "2006-04-07T01:35:07Z")
But that's kind of the point of the whole thing. You can see farther up the thread where we mentioned the 'any later version' clause to be a back door, which can be avoided by mentioning an explicit version number. But as Austin mentioned, it does swing both ways. I'm personally going to avoid putting 'or any later version' in any of my code, because I'm afraid that even if I'm down with GPLv3, which for the most part I am... what's to say about GPLv4 or GPLv5? Is my code going to be under a wildly different license 10 years from now (assuming with incredible ego that i'll have some project that spans that time frame)? I don't want to think about it... so dropping the 'any later version' term from my license file will save thinking about it. > **···** > > On 4/6/06, Daniel Baird \ wrote: > > > On 07/04/06, Gregory Brown \ wrote: > > \> > > \> > > \> You absolutely, positively, can redistribute the software under a later > > \> version. > > \> > > \> > > Hmm, I guess Bill Gates is right and GPL is aggresively viral after all 🙂 > > > > It seems weird that if action A is allowable under GPL2 but not under GPL3, > > and I repackage Ruby source and release it under GPL3, people who get source > > from me can't do action A, but people who get source from the original > > location can. ---
**Author:** ![Jeremy\_Tregunna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e99b99/32.png) [@Jeremy\_Tregunna](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jeremy_Tregunna)\ **Post date:** [7 April 2006 02:43 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436/34 "2006-04-07T02:43:23Z")
> I'm personally going to avoid putting 'or any later version' in any of > my code, because I'm afraid that even if I'm down with GPLv3, which > for the most part I am... what's to say about GPLv4 or GPLv5? Is my > code going to be under a wildly different license 10 years from now > (assuming with incredible ego that i'll have some project that spans > that time frame)? Personally, I will just avoid using the GPL because of this nonsense. > I don't want to think about it... so dropping the 'any later version' > term from my license file will save thinking about it. Everyone should do this in my view, only explicitly granting permission where they chose too. > **···** > > On 6-Apr-06, at 9:35 PM, Gregory Brown wrote: > > -- > Jeremy Tregunna > jtregunna@blurgle.ca [Previous page](https://rubytalk.org/t/gpl-v3-and-ruby-license/26436.md?page=1)