Gpl V2 Vs Gpl V3

Spring has sprung and it’s time to start thinking about your garden. Perhaps you’ve been frustrated by our previous versions and now you’re considering the V3. Note that the Gpl V3 is not compatible with your previous stand, so if you want to retain your current stand consider the Gpl V2.

If you are considering a purchase of a GPL V2 and would like to know more about the GPL V3, we have provided a comparison of features side by side . If you find this helpful, please click “Like” or share us with your friends. As always, if you have any questions about the products, we would be happy to answer them for you.

Cure period and the GPL Cooperation Commitment 🔗

The GPLv3 includes an explicit cure period. A cure period is like a grace period to fix a violation of the License. Violators have 30 days after notification of noncompliance to “reinstate” their License by fixing the violation. If the violation is cured in the cure period, there is no harm, no foul.

Technically, with the GPLv2, an actor may choose to immediately pursue legal action for noncompliance with the terms of the GPLv2. In September 2015, the Free Software Foundation and Software Freedom Conservancy jointly published the Principles of Community-Oriented Enforcement. This was the first call-to-action to propose the backport of the GPLv3 termination clause to GPLv2. These guidelines inspired the creation of the GPL Cooperation Commitment in 2017, driven by Red Hat. In order to address this imbalance in GPLv2 license enforcement, Red Hat, IBM, Google, and Facebook announced the GPL Cooperation Commitment in November 2017 to apply the GPLv3 cure provisions for their GPLv2 and LGPLv2.x licensed software.

The diffrence is in how open they are. GPLv3 is less open than GPLv2 mainly because it allows the contributor to change his mind and revoke his code from the community. That diffrence is what made Linus keep the v2 for Linux. He did it becuase as he groks it, v3 comes short because it doesn’t establish trust among the developers in the community.

GPLv3 still has it’s use in cases where an organization wants to open its code but wants to take it slow. Licensing under GPLv3 let’s the organization retain some control of its open code. The control comes at a cost – a handicaped community – but in some organizations, turning back is an option they must have.

The GPLv3 contains an explicit patent license, according to which people who license a program under the GPL license both copyrights as well as patents to the extent that this is necessary to use the code licensed by them.  A comprehensive patent license is not thereby granted.  Furthermore, the new patent clause attempts to protect the user from the consequences of agreements between patent owners and licensees of the GPL that only benefit some of the licensees (corresponding to the Microsoft/Novell deal).  The licensees are required to ensure that every user enjoys such advantages (patent license or release from claims), or that no one can profit from them.

There are also prominent differences between the two versions: The new GPLV3 is double in length compared to the GPLV2 and touches upon subjects of improvement and clarification in the former version. These include patent indemnity, internalization, and remedies for license infringement.

The GPLv3 contains an explicit patent license, according to which people who license a program under the GPL license both copyrights as well as patents to the extent that this is necessary to use the code licensed by them. A comprehensive patent license is not thereby granted. Furthermore, the new patent clause attempts to protect the user from the consequences of agreements between patent owners and licensees of the GPL that only benefit some of the licensees (corresponding to the Microsoft/Novell deal). The licensees are required to ensure that every user enjoys such advantages (patent license or release from claims), or that no one can profit from them.

 “Legalese” 🔗

The GPLv3 is nearly double the length of the GPLv2 (5,644 words vs. 2,971 words). The GPLv3 reads more like a legal document than the GPLv2. That said, there is a lot more “legal speak” in version 3 than its predecessor. This works to the advantage of Software Freedom by using more concrete and defined language to spell out how the GPL was commonly applied and understood before 2007.

Most of these changes are minor or trivial, and so are not explained here. One example of this is in section 9, “Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.” Unlike the GPLv2, version 3 better defines that you indicate acceptance of the License by modifying or propagating a GPLv3-covered work.

Another characteristic of the GPLV3 code is its attempt in providing more clarity on patent licenses. It tries to clarify what is meant by distribution and derivative work, revoking the immediate termination of a license clause in favor of license opportunities, and the additional terms which permit users to choose from a fixed set of alternative terms to modify the standard GPLV3.

User Product rules 🔗

The GPL Frequently Asked Questions page explains this well:

Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are designed so that users are not allowed to modify that software. There are lots of different ways to do this; for example, sometimes the hardware checksums the software that is installed, and shuts down if it doesn’t match an expected signature. The manufacturers comply with GPLv2 by giving you the source code, but you still don’t have the freedom to modify the software you’re using. We call this practice tivoization.

When people distribute User Products that include software under GPLv3, section 6 requires that they provide you with information necessary to modify that software. User Products is a term specially defined in the license; examples of User Products include portable music players, digital video recorders, and home security systems.

GPLV3 is more compatible with more licenses compared to GPLV2. The new license allows users to make combinations with code that have additional requirements that are not in the license itself.

Conclusion

Spring has sprung and it’s time to start thinking about your garden. Perhaps you’ve been frustrated by our previous versions and now you’re considering the V3. Note that the Gpl V3 is not compatible with your previous stand, so if you want to retain your current stand consider the Gpl V2.

0 Comments

No Comment.