Any thoughts on moving to GPLv3?

[lwc]

You've recently released a new version and it was still under GPLv2. Just wondered why. You know, seeing the makers of GPL spent more than a decade and a half on this upgrade (that came out months ago), and it was supposed to make the software world better and all.

[sev]

And what are the reasons behind such suggestion? What benefits will it bring to us as a project?


Eugene

[Urd]

There may be reasons not to change, other open-source projects didn't change to:
http://www.videolan.org/pr2007-1.html

[samwise]

Whilst I think it's presumptuous to assume the license should be changed, perhaps the spirit of the question should be, whether the debate has been had by the ScummVM developers.

Perhaps when it has, the results of that could be listed somewhere on the website, as it was in the VideoLAN link above. There's no reason it couldn't then be discussed again in future ...

Sam.

[md5]

Since Urd mentioned the reasons that the VideoLAN team didn't want to switch to GPL v3, here are the reasons that the GNU project believe that projects should upgrade to v3 (for completeness):
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

[fingolfin]

We simply haven't really discussed this so far.

But it would be very difficult for us to make such a license change, as there are literally dozens of people who hold copyright to the ScummVM source, so if we want to do this formally correct, we would need each of those to sent us a written & signed paper declaring that they either accept the license change, or even transfer their copyright to one of us.

There seem to be no serious benefits for us, either, so, I feel little compelled to start such a discussion, personally .

[samwise]

We simply haven't really discussed this so far.

But it would be very difficult for us to make such a license change,

There seem to be no serious benefits for us, either, so, I feel little compelled to start such a discussion, personally .

Just because there are difficulties, doesn't mean the discussion shouldn't be had. You write up a list of pro's and con's, including the amount of effort required to change the license and then the lead developers should make an informed decision, When that's been done, the decision and rationale can be noted on the website.

Personally, I think you're probably right - but it makes sense that an open source project should discuss it and record the decision publicly (even if the discussion is in private).

I also think it's worth considering whether you should ask for any new contributors to automatically allow ScummVM to re-license their contributions in future. IANAL, and I don't know if that can be done without them assigning complete copyright to the ScummVM project, but it does mean that if the license needs to be changed in the future it will limit the size of the task to what it is atm.

Sam.

[eriktorbjorn]

But it would be very difficult for us to make such a license change, as their are literally dozens of people who hold copyright to the ScummVM source, so if we want to do this formally correct, we would need each of those to sent us a written & signed paper declaring that they either accept the license change, or even transfer their copyright to one of us.

Strictly speaking, would we really need all that paperwork? The current license says "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version". I take that to mean that anyone could change the license to GPL 3 on future versions, as long as the current version stays under the current license.

Of course, making a change like that without asking could antagonize the developers, which wouldn't be good for anyone. Personally, I have no strong feelings on the subject, but I would like to know what the advantages are first.

[fingolfin]

Just because there are difficulties, doesn't mean the discussion shouldn't be had. You write up a list of pro's and con's, including the amount of effort required to change the license and then the lead developers should make an informed decision, When that's been done, the decision and rationale can be noted on the website.

And of course "we" are having that very discussion right now, so... . I don't mind discussing this in the open at all.

However, I don't think that this decision or the "rationale behind it" needs to be recorded on our website (other than keeping this thread around, like any other forum thread). In fact, I do *not* believe that any team member has to justify (with rational or other reasons) why he wants to stay with the GPL 2 or not. It might be beneficial, but I can't demand this from any team member. And I would react allergic if somebody asked this from me, too.

Of course it's usually better to explain to people why you do something, as it helps to convince others that what you do is right. But nobody is required to make others believe he's doing the right thing, is he?

Personally, I think you're probably right - but it makes sense that an open source project should discuss it and record the decision publicly (even if the discussion is in private).

Well, we are already discussing this in public right now, and we record the decision (which currently is: "We don't do it because we see no benefits, only work involved", but of course could change) in public, too . So your wish has already been granted.

To sum it up: As I see it, GPL 2 works fine for us. The added clauses in GPL3 do not affect us. In particular, I see no advantage in switching.

First off, GPL 3 is incompatible with GPL 2. So, we must relicense *all* our code at once, and we must be careful with regards to code we want to use which is under the GPL 2. For example, libmad (used for MP3 support in ScummVM) is GPL 2. Bummer. No MP3 support anymore.

The tivoization part is not really of interest to me nor does it concern me.

The "patent protection" part in GPL3 at first might sound useful to us (think of the iMuse patent), until you realize it only protects you if a company releases GPL software, then later asks for patent royalties for using that software. This is not the case for us, so it's irrelevant. (Note: we believe that the iMuse patent is trivial and that there exists prior art, so we are not seriously afraid of it anyway).

While I don't like software patents, I don't think ScummVM switching to GPl3 will have *any* effect on their (non)existence, so that doesn't seem like a valid reason to switch to the GLP3 either.

Finally, they say:

Further advantages of GPLv3 include better internationalization, gentler termination, support for BitTorrent, and compatibility with the Apache license. All in all, plenty of reason to upgrade.

None of which seems to matter for us.

I also think it's worth considering whether you should ask for any new contributors to automatically allow ScummVM to re-license their contributions in future. IANAL, and I don't know if that can be done without them assigning complete copyright to the ScummVM project, but it does mean that if the license needs to be changed in the future it will limit the size of the task to what it is atm.

We already considered this in the past (back when we had to consider switching to a less-open license than the GPL, in order to survive legal attacks by LucasArts -- still could happen one day, too, BTW).

Currently, this is simply not possible. You can only assign copyright to legal entities, and "The ScummVM project" is no legal entity. And if you just say "Folks, you are free to relicense this at any time", then you must specify *who* is allowed to decide on that relicensing,. So, give me that right? All current ScummVM team leads? All team members? Everybody, including Microsoft? Hm, seems bad. So maybe restrict it to "OSI-approved licenses"? A big bunch of legal problems crop up. These "permissions to relicense" would of course have to be submitted via a signed paper to one of us (see above: me, the whole team, ... ?), and so on.

So, the only would be copyright assignment to a legal entity, like the FSF does it. Either we assign it to a single person (e.g. me or Eugene), but I am categorically against that: Neither do I want anybody to carry the legal burden should some company try again to sue us, nor do I want a single person, including me, to alone have that much control over our codebase.

Alternatively, we could incorporate (or use some other similar legal construct which would turn "us" into a "legal person"). But while this may have some merits (central copyright, the possibility to have a bank account on that name -- both IMO very *small* advantages), the drawbacks IMNSHO far outweigh them. For one thing, the involved (paper)work really turns me off: I want to have fun coding in my spare time, not juggle contracts, deal with lawyers, be involved in a "board of directors of ScummVM, Inc.", write tax declarations and so on.
Also, I think that this would make it easier for companies who wrongly believe that we somehow infringe on their "IP" to sue us, freeze our bank accounts etc.. Nah.

[fingolfin]

Strictly speaking, would we really need all that paperwork? The current license says "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version". I take that to mean that anyone could change the license to GPL 3 on future versions, as long as the current version stays under the current license.

You are right, I forgot about that (reading the RMS article, which just says that GPL2 and GPL3 are incompatible -- which they are, but with most GPL2 code (not all!) you are free to relicense it to GPL3. I just checked, this is also the case with libmad, so what I said about MP3 support is not quite correct.

So, changing to GPL3 wouldn't be that difficult for us. Interesting. But I still don't really see a benefit. And then there is this:

Of course, making a change like that without asking could antagonize the developers, which wouldn't be good for anyone. Personally, I have no strong feelings on the subject, but I would like to know what the advantages are first.

Precisely. Of course everybody is allowed to distribute code derived from ScummVM under GPL3, but I wouldn't want to *forbid* people to use it under the GPL2 (which we'd essentially do by moving to GPL3) unless knowing that our contributors are happy with that. After all, I want them to contribute more in the future.

[Freddo]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[samwise]

However, I don't think that this decision or the "rationale behind it" needs to be recorded on our website (other than keeping this thread around, like any other forum thread).

Problem is, ppl don't search forums properly. I just think it might be better to provide an easily findable summation rather than require someone to read through the complete thread (if everyone chips in, I guess this will grow). Still, you pays yer money and you takes yer choice.

In fact, I do *not* believe that any team member has to justify (with rational or other reasons) why he wants to stay with the GPL 2 or not.

Absolutely not. No point changing, if there is no benefit. However, it's just good practice to be clear that the topic has been discussed, and not just ignored. If this thread is the discussion, I guess that covers it.

Well, we are already discussing this in public right now, and we record the decision (which currently is: "We don't do it because we see no benefits, only work involved", but of course could change) in public, too . So your wish has already been granted.

Yay!

And if you just say "Folks, you are free to relicense this at any time", then you must specify *who* is allowed to decide on that relicensing,.

Why so? Again, IANAL, but if I release something as public domain, then anyone can package it up however they want. No?

Everybody, including Microsoft? Hm, seems bad.

hehe

More seriously, they'd only be able to take those bits that had been externally contributed from this point. If the core was kept as pure GPL, they no-one could re-package it without a lot of effort, replacing the GPL bits.

Sam.

[fingolfin]

And if you just say "Folks, you are free to relicense this at any time", then you must specify *who* is allowed to decide on that relicensing,.

Why so? Again, IANAL, but if I release something as public domain, then anyone can package it up however they want. No?

Sorry, I was a bit sloppy there in my wording. I really should have added "OR you must grant this right to everybody, i.e. effectively put your code into the public domain."

But since this is really out of question for me personally, it didn't occur to me to mention this explicitly

[lwc]

Wow, I didn't know it's such a heated debate. I was really just curious, that's all. As for Videolan, I did wonder whether your official reasons were identical to theirs.

[md5]

I wouldn't call this a "heated debate", "constructive arguments" would be much more fitting in my opinion