I found various discussions here that mentioned GPLv3, but not even one that mentioned it as a goal.
Do you think you'll ever move to it or is it too late by now?
Just curious.
The big question is - why? No one 'updates' licenses just for the sake of license spirit. V3 wouldn't have much benefits for the project IMO.
Well, GPL sees itself as a whole philosophy. They spent more than a decade and a half on v3. As for benefits:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
If the source code mentions "version 2 or later", then it can automatically move into 3 by changing it to "version 3 or later".
wrote:The big question is - why? No one 'updates' licenses just for the sake of license spirit. V3 wouldn't have much benefits for the project IMO.
Indeed, If It Works, Don't Fix It.
The main thing GPLv3 seem to have over GPLv2 is the anti-DRM stuff, and how relevant is that to DOSBox?
wrote:The main thing GPLv3 seem to have over GPLv2 is the anti-DRM stuff, and how relevant is that to DOSBox?
There are sales of machines that are designed like arcade machines. Inside, they're just computers that only run an emulator. I don't know if anyone ever sold a "DOSBox arcade machine" (probably with a frontend) and locked it up with DRM. If they did, it would take GPLv3 to handle it (GPLv3 allows DRM but doesn't allow forbidding hacking it).
So, it's all about sabotaging the Steam and GOG official rereleases of DOS games in the name of RMS?
Doesn't sound very good to me or for the end user.
The whole premise of GOG is that it's DRM-free. And I doubt if Steam uses DRM when it comes to DOSBox. My example was hardware DRM. Plus like I said, GPLv3 does allow DRM.
Plus like I said, GPLv3 does allow DRM.
And yet Steam is inherently DRM in that you must eventually log on even for offline mode games. It just happens to be DRM mostly done right and with some value given to the user as a result (the ability to download to multiple machines, a 'permanent' store of your games, etc).
I think the fact that this discussion exists it all is a pretty good indication of why the devs aren't necessarily jumping up and down to switch to GPL3. Sure, it may all work out the same in the end with regards to Dosbox, but then again, it might not.
-Frob
DOSBox is already GPL3. Notice the bolded text. It would be redundant for developers to change all of the files to include a three instead of a two.
/*
* Copyright (C) 2002-2010 The DOSBox Team
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
* Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
*/
Uhm no...it's not. It's only GPL3 if the authors decide to make it so. That's the part you have bolded, sure enough, the "at your option" being the important part here.
In fact, Stallman et al say that it is impossible to make GPL2 and GPL3 compatible, so they themselves make a clear distinction. There's a section in the FAQ specifically covering how to upgrade from 2 to 3.
-Frob
How hard it is for you to understand what you linked to? Look at the bold part. The "at your option" part means that anyone can choose to use whatever version they want so long as it is greater than or equal to 2 (in the case of DOSBox's current code).
Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?
No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2.
However, if code is released under GPL “version 2 or later,” that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits.
wrote:It would be redundant for developers to change all of the files to include a three instead of a two.
It is most certainly not redundat to change 2 to a 3. Yes, you can use dosbox sources as GPL3 but the point of changing to a "GPL3 or later" is that you could no longer apply GPL2 to it. You can "upgrade" GPL2 to v3 with current sources but that doesn't make sense since GPL3 is less permissive than GPL2...
There's no point in discussing this in a public forum. If you are sure that such
a discussion is needed be sure you contact a lawyer first (this IS neededed to
grasp all details or even get an overview of the implications).
