The Free Software Foundation has denied there is a risk that free software projects could fork when the next version of the GNU General Public License (GPL) becomes available.
Over the last few weeks, free software developers from various projects have expressed concerns about the next version of the GPL. In a posting to the legal mailing list for the Debian Linux distribution, OpenOffice.org volunteer Daniel Carrera pointed out that as Linux is currently only distributed under GPL two, it could face problems when GPL three is released.
"My understanding is that Linux is distributed under the GPLv2 exclusively," said Carrera in the posting. "Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux won't be able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct?"
Debian maintainer Matthew Palmer agreed that this was the case and said he was worried that when GPL 3 comes out some free software projects could split into separate branches. "I fear a lot of unpleasant forking action when the GPLv3 comes out," said Palmer.
Palmer said that some developers may decide to only license their project under either version two or three of the GPL, while others may chose to licence under multiple versions of the licence. This could result in "licence-incompatible forks", according to Palmer.
But Eben Moglen, the general counsel for Free Software Foundation, said on Thursday there shouldn't be a problem persuading Linux developers to migrate to GPL 3, as the licence will be developed with their input.
"I don't think it will be a difficulty," said Moglen. "When the FSF finishes its work to produce the first discussion draft of GPL 3 there will be an extended comment period, which will be a chance for everybody to have their say. We will take as long in listening as people need to take."
GPL 3 is likely to include changes to take into account international copyright law and a new strategy to cope with the threat of patents, according to Moglen.
It is not surprising that the next version of the GPL has attracted a lot of interest as it is the basis for a "multi-billion dollar industry", according to Moglen. "In a market that size there are a lot of participants and a lot of people with interests," said Moglen.
Moglen was unable to say when GPL 3 would be released, although he suggested that it would be available in the next year or two. He is confident that when GPL 3 is released, people will be pleased with the outcome.
"When it's all over people will say about the GPL 3, 'it's better, it's not that different, what's all the fuss about?'" said Moglen. "People have to trust that we know what we're doing." This echoes his previous statements where he said that the process was "going to be a screaming match some days, but it is going to be a noble effort when it's over."
He said that today's free software industry owed a debt of gratitude to version two of the GPL. "A very large field came into existence as a function of the correctness of Richard Stallman's ideas," said Moglen
Talkback
There is a problem with the GPL. What if the next versions of GPL will allow incorporating code into proprietary programs? There is no guarantee that this will no happen and programs that are licensed under GPLv.2 and "any other later version of GPL" will have big problems.
So the best thig for the software developers is to license to only to a specific (version of) license. Of course, because he/she has copyright, can choose another later version of GPL, if s/he want this and agree.
"What if the next versions of GPL will allow incorporating code into proprietary programs?"
No chance in hell, that this i going to happen... :)
That will never be the job of the GPL, thats the job of the BSD/MIT/APACHE/X11 Licenses... ;)
"No chance in hell, that this i going to happen"
Linus (used to?) thinks it may happen. That's why the kernel is explicitly under v2, not the "and later" bits.
Richard Stallman would be the last person on earth who would let that happen. I think you would be more likely to see problems come about because the new license would go to even greater (i.e. stricter) lengths to prevent proprietary software domination. Stallman has made it know that he feels all software should be "free as in freedom". Whether you agree with him or not one thing you can say is that he's rock solid in his beliefs about how software should be distributed, released, and protected.
That's my 2 cents.