Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by atondwal 3129 days ago
I don't think it's about not using the GPLv3 --- a lot of software is stuck in GPLv2 because the maintainers can't get everyone who contributed (or their estate) to sign off on a license upgrade to the better but incompatible GPLv3. Even the linux kernel is stuck!

But this isn't an "escape hatch" for breaking the GPL; there's a reason the FSF made the "cure clause" explicit in the GPLv3. The explicit language should make life easier and save on court costs not only for corporate lawyers, but even more so for the excellent folks at the Free Software Conservancy, the biggest defenders against GPL violations.
1 comments
richardfontana 3129 days ago
As the Red Hat FAQ (https://www.redhat.com/en/about/gplv3-enforcement-statement) says:

Q: Why didn’t you simply relicense your GPLv2 projects under GPLv3 and let the community benefit from the cure approach that way?

A: In many cases, this would not be possible or practical. For example, we couldn’t relicense our Linux kernel contributions under GPLv3, because the overall license of the Linux kernel is “GPLv2 only”.

link