GPL2 vs GPL3 (if not EUPL)

Licenses
1

I’m considering EUPL: EUPL - a better choice for European citizens? - #23 by vlap

But it has a few downsides as this article exemplifies.

The fact that you have to write such a article says something. There are always FSF / GPL people who will seek ways to include code under their umbrella.

This means that even this is not allowed, you may end up as a software maintainer with a EUPL license to be a policemen, telling people who wants your code to become GPL, that this is a license infringement.

For some code, where you’re feeling relax/lax about, that might not be a huge problem, but for other project it might be. It will cost you time and energy at least.

The advantage of GPL is that it’s more clear. It doesn’t have compatible licenses which can convert your GPL code to something else. At least if you pick GPL2 or GPL3, if you choose LGPL, people can take it and turn it into GPL. Yeah, that’s a constant when you’ve to deal with the FSF it seems. There is only one right license in their book and that isn’t LGPL or EUPL.

Anyway, when considering GPL, I’ve read part of the discussion (Linux mailinglist about dual license, via wikipedia) with Linus Torvalds where he explains why he thinks GPL2 is a better license then GPL3. I think the main argument is that GPL3 is overreaching (makes statements not only about software, but also hardware). I think I agree with this, also when you see how FSF reacts to the EUPL license (by suggesting a copyright infringement).

So what could be downsides of choosing GPL2 above GPL3 these days?

2

I spent a while debating this for a piece of my own software last year. The FSF will be happy to explain the downsides of GPL2 only from their POV, but I do think that Torvalds is correct in his assessment that GPL3 is fundamentally different. If I recall rightly I also had some reservations about my own responsibilities under the GPL2.

What initially pushed me towards the EUPL is that unlike the GPL2 it covers serverside code as well, so a bit like a cross between LGPL and AGPL. There are several other things to like about it as someone based in the EU

  • it “feels” more grounded in law, rather than reading like spray-and-pray. I mean even writing off the text as cultural differences, the accompanying documention regarding how to apply it is vastly different.
  • the GPL (as the article you linked stated) has some legally dubious clauses in it from an EU standpoint. One is the liability clause, and another being the concept that linking to another binary constitutes creating a combined work, thus requiring the licenses to be compatible.
  • The FSF has a very aggressive stance with plenty of opinions, but they don’t have the same credibility in my book as the people behind the EUPL.
  • If nothing else, the EUPL is simply easier to apply.

Hope this helps.