This article is compiled from / http://www.zdnet.com , the author has added some content.
1 Introduction
The reason why GPLv2 is considered the most important open source license is because: it is the license used by Linux. On November 27th, three major Linux users, Facebook, Google and IBM, as well as major Linux distributor Red Hat, announced that they will grant additional rights to help companies that have violated the terms of the GPLv2 open source license. GPLv2 and its close cousin LGPL are both widely used open source software licenses. When the GPLv3 was released, its eighth clause, "License Termination," provided users with an opportunity to correct non-compliant license usage. The Termination License Clause in GPLv3 provides a way for businesses to fix license errors. This approach allows the enforcement of license compliance to be in line with the community's norms.
The four companies pledged to extend GPLv3's approach to addressing license noncompliance to software under GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 and LGPLv2.
Specifically, their commitments are as follows:
2. Commitment content
Commitment content:
Before filing or continuing to prosecute any legal action or claim (other than a defensive act) arising out of an alleged license termination, the Company undertakes to apply the following GPLv3 Section Provisions in Section 8 (Termination of License) regarding repair of violations and reinstatement of license. "This License" as used herein refers to the specific license being used.
However, if you cease all infringing acts after discovering a violation of the terms of the license, your license from a particular copyright holder can be reinstated by (a) temporarily reinstating the license until the copyright holder Ultimately and expressly terminate your license; (b) if within 60 days after you cease the infringing act, the copyright holder fails to provide you with notice of infringement in some reasonable manner, you may restore the license in perpetuity.
In addition, if the copyright owner notified you of the infringement by some reasonable means, and this is the first time you have received notice of a violation of this license (for any work) from the copyright owner, and after receiving the notice Within 30 days of , you resolve the violation, and your license from the copyright owner will be reinstated in perpetuity.
This commitment is irrevocable, and is binding and enforceable on the assignee or successor of the company's copyright.
The Company may revise this commitment by posting a new version on this page or at a subsequent location.
Note: The red part is the content in the eighth clause of GPLv3.
Red Hat: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/gplv3-enforcement-statement
Google: https://opensource.google.com/gpl-enforcement/
IBM: https://developer.ibm.com/code/open/
3. Comments on the move
Other companies are expected to join in supporting the move soon. The move is legally binding on each company to apply the GPLv3's fixes to its code under the GPLv2, LGPLv2.1 and LGPLv2 licenses (except for defensive responses to legal proceedings).
This action echoes the recent Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement, which the Free Software Foundation and the Software Freedom Defense Association have adopted, embodying their concept of "Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement Principles". Don't think it's these companies taking a more aggressive stance against companies violating the GPL. Quite the opposite. As Simon Phipps, President of the Institute for the Advancement of Open Source (OSI), commented, "We welcome this commitment from these large open source companies: to put community trust and open source first, and license Evidence litigation as a last resort. Hope other companies follow suit!”
So why didn't these companies simply relicense their contributions to the Linux kernel under the GPLv3? Because it's simply not possible. The overall license for the Linux kernel is a single GPLv2. As Linus Torvalds said in 2016, "I love GPLv2. I really think the license is one of the determining factors in Linux's success, because it mandates code-back, which means from a technical point of view, there is no fragmentation.
Why do it? Michael Cunningham, executive vice president and general counsel at Red Hat, said: "We strongly promote fairness and predictability in license enforcement and support for increased participation in the open source community. We encourage other GPLv2 copyright holders to follow our lead. Footsteps.” IBM General Counsel Mark Ringes also backed: “For years, GPL v2 and V3 have guided the development of Linux, the world’s largest shared code base. Extending the GPLv3’s fix clause to GPLv2 will enable Linux to continue for decades to come. Increased adoption and strong growth. IBM has been a major supporter of Linux and open source, and has helped develop the Linux kernel. Deepening our commitment in this way is a natural evolution of that support.”
While neither of them mentioned it, the moves appear to be a response to some of the recent controversy surrounding the GPLv2 law.
Take the linux security company Grsecurity preventing its users from distributing its "GPLv2" Linux code. Bruce Perens, one of the founders of open source, wrote in a blog post: Businesses "don't use Grsecurity's products because there is a common risk of infringement and breach of contract. Perens does this because GPLv2 guarantees distribution of the code. Grsecurity responded by filing a lawsuit against Perens. However, Grsecurity did not sue Torvalds, even though he declared: "Their patches are pure rubbish."
In a separate incident, Linux kernel maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman of the stable branch said that previous actions by some Linux kernel developers had led them to take a new stance on how GPLv2 was enforced. Kroah-Hartman explained: "Unfortunately, the processes we use to ensure compliance with license obligations and availability of source code can also be used improperly in scams to extract private wealth. In particular, Netfilter community developer Patrick McHardy It has begun to assert its copyrights privately and to grab its fortunes through threats or lawsuits.
McHardy was the chairman of the Linux Netfilter core development team. Netfilter is a Linux kernel utility that handles various networking functions such as facilitating Network Address Translation (NAT). McHardy has been terminated by the Netfilter team. McHardy is rumored to have started legal action against more than 50 companies seeking damages. Netfilter has released a document detailing how to deal with his attempt. According to Kroah-Hartman, McHardy has made several million euros. While the move won't stop McHardy, it could stop future attempts by rogue developers to threaten Linux users.
4. Summarize the difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 on license termination
The license termination clause of GPLv2 stipulates that if you violate the regulations, your license will be automatically terminated, and the automatically terminated license can only be restored with the consent of the copyright holder.
The GPLv3 Termination License terms add the red text above this article to the GPLv2 terms. Makes GPLv3 more predictable and friendly.
References:
-
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
-
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
-
https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/technology-industry-leaders-join-forces-increase-predictability-open-source-licensing?from=timeline
-
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2015/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed_CN.html
I just started writing in Open Source China recently, and some subsequent articles will be posted here, mainly in several directions: open source software legal risks, license compliance, business models, and collaboration models. I will also translate some foreign works. Based on the principle of being short and powerful, I will eat less and eat more meals. I hope everyone likes it, and you are welcome to make a brick. Thanks for the support
My email: [email protected]
T 信 ： DavidTung