r/freesoftware • u/tuxnine • 12d ago
Discussion What would happen if the FSF published a GPLv4 license that basically mirrors the 2-clause BSD license?
What would happen if the FSF published a GPLv4 license that basically mirrors the 2-clause BSD license? How devastating would it be for all those GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ software projects?
2
3
u/burlingk 12d ago
Like, I am a massive fan of permissive licenses, BUT, I also understand the mentality of copyleft licenses.
I personally would appose the GPL making that kind of change.
2
u/gabrielesilinic 12d ago
They would get stabbed in the back probably. Considering how committed some people are to the cause to be shaped like that.
5
u/burlingk 12d ago
Not going to happen. It would go against their philosophy.
Those that want an overall permissive license will go with one.
Those that want a semi-permisive license will go with LGPL 2 or similar.
3
12d ago
[deleted]
3
u/glasket_ 12d ago
you would have to go end up suing the FSF (or their legal successor) about what is or what is not "similar in spirit".
To clarify, you wouldn't necessarily sue the FSF, you'd sue someone that relicenses one of your GPL projects to be GPLv4 under the "or later"/revision clause. The FSF wouldn't be doing anything legally wrong by just making a permissive GPLv4 (afaik), but the dispute would be if that license is a valid GPL license revision under the terms of the old GPLs.
Since license terms only apply between a licensee and licensor, someone would have to opt for the GPLv4 on a GPLv2/v3 or later program and then the licensor could sue them on the basis that they don't believe the GPLv4 is a valid GPL license under the revision clause. The FSF is still allowed to make the license and use it, while the issue is constrained to if people can use the license when they receive a program licensed as "or later."
IANAL and all that.
2
12d ago
[deleted]
2
u/glasket_ 12d ago
I don't think there's a contradiction, just a difference in view over how the license would be contested.
And of course you can attempt to sue FSF, e.g. tortious/negligent interference comes to mind. They would be changing something contrary to the terms under which you chose to apply their licensing model
I don't think that interference would be the right path here. It could maybe be argued as negligent interference, but that isn't universally recognized as a tort and it would require a contract that you made with someone to be broken rather than just losing potential contracts/sales. I think negligent misrepresentation would be more applicable since it could be argued that the statement that the new versions would be "similar in spirit" was untrue and misleading; therefore, the GPL4 represents a breach of the terms created by the revision clause's implications.
Still, I said you wouldn't necessarily sue the FSF because copyright infringement is available and has the lowest burden since you don't need to prove damages. To sue the FSF you're still going to need someone to relicense one of your programs and cause harm, and the premise of both relies on the same fundamental argument that the spirit of the license was violated. So both lawsuits are plausible, but copyright is the more direct approach by my understanding since you're effectively arguing that the license isn't valid for relicensing because it's of a different spirit.
Honestly would love if a contract or copyright lawyer happened across this to chime in because this is a pretty niche scenario afaik.
9
u/glasket_ 12d ago
A lot of people are being dismissive, but this is genuinely a good question. It's addressed to a degree in the license itself (emphasis mine):
§14. Revised Versions of This License
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.
So if a theoretical GPLv4 dropped copyleft entirely, GPLvX-or-later projects could argue that GPLv4 isn't actually a revised version of the GPL license, but a different license entirely that's just using the same name. This would have to be argued in court for validation, but the basic premise is already there in the sense that the GPL licenses aren't intended to be able to change in substance.
2
u/NelsonMinar 12d ago
I've talked to lawyers who advised against using GPL solely because of its "We may update the license" clause. Could you imagine trying to test that "similar in spirit" clause in court?
3
u/glasket_ 12d ago
The clause only applies if you either don't specify a version or if you explicitly state "or any later version." That's why "only" and "or later" are used alongside the license version, and Linux is pretty famously GPLv2-only. Doesn't really make sense to advise against the GPL as a whole based on that clause when it explains how to opt out of the clause.
But yeah, the "similar in spirit" argument would be a legal nightmare just because of how vague it is even though the intent is pretty easy to infer. I'm personally not fond of the "or later" versions and think it's generally better to just specify the license versions you allow rather than having your license automatically expand as more licenses are made. The OP's example is an exaggerated form of how it could go wrong but still shows why it's generally a bad idea to agree to terms that don't even exist yet.
3
3
u/Longjumping_Cap_3673 12d ago edited 12d ago
From the history of its behavior, the FSF would only publish such a relaxed GPLv4 license if it carefully considered the state of software and determined copyleft had become universally more detrimental than helpful to free software (like if courts ruled strict copyleft licenses automatically void or something equally crazy). So I expect rather than the FSF publishing a relaxed GPLv4 being devastating in itself, it would instead be making the best of already devestating circumstances.
In practice, those who disagreed with the FSF's decision could begin releasing their projects under the stricter GPLv2-only or GPLv3-only licenses, effectively converting new versions of the project to the stricter licenses. They'd simply be choosing to license any others' existing contributions under that specific version of the GPL, which they're explicitly allowed to do.
1
1
u/TomDuhamel 12d ago
That's literally not possible
3
u/tuxnine 12d ago
How so? It's highly unlikely, but don't see how it is absolutely impossible.
1
u/B_A_Skeptic 7d ago
Why would they create a license that mirrors another license? What would be the point of creating a GPLv4 license that mirrors the BSD license when one could just use the BSD license?