GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake?

Moving To GPL 3 -- Or Not
If significant swathes of open-source developers move to GPL 3 while others cling to GPL 2, the split could be disastrous. At best, it would be a headache-inducing obstacle; at worst, it would expand an ideological rift into an unbridgeable chasm.

Important projects that move to GPL 3 -- like the GNU OS components -- would probably fork, with one batch of developers moving forward on the GPL 3 code and another group developing around the last version of the code covered by GPL 2. The Linux kernel maintainers predict a Balkanization that would "inflict massive collateral damage upon our entire ecosystem and jeopardize the very utility and survival of Open Source."

Of course, not everyone has such a grim view, and plenty of open-source developers think GPL 3's changes are essential. Although MySQL's amended licensing terms make migration an option rather than an obligation, the company likes what it sees in the new license and hopes for quick industry adoption, according to Kaj Arno, MySQL's vice president of community relations.

"The patent issue is highly important, and it needs solving," Arno said. GPL 3 also expands and clarifies the scope of what other open-source licenses it is compatible with and features language tweaks to make it more applicable within non-U.S. legal systems -- changes important to the Swedish company.

One of the highest-profile projects to embrace GPL 3 is Samba, a widely used networking interoperability protocol included in almost all Linux distributions. Samba's maintainers have already declared that when GPL 3 goes live, they're migrating.

"We very much want to support what the Free Software Foundation is doing here," Samba lead developer Jeremy Allison said. "We're big fans of the anti-DRM stuff, and the ability to mix and match other licenses is a big deal."

Allison said he's pleased by how meticulous and restrained the GPL 3 is. "It's an incredibly well-thought-out license," he said. "It's not this radical, wild-eyed 'no DRM' stuff. It's actually a considered, measured approach to try and discourage something we don't like."

Another influential open-source steward, Sun Chief Open-Source Officer Simon Phipps, echoed Allison's comments. The FSF posted for public comment a first draft of GPL 3 early last year, and a second draft went out in July. Meanwhile, several discussion committees solicited feedback from scores of stakeholders. Phipps participated in one of those committees, and the unfolding revision process has impressed him.

"I think it's gone remarkably well. I was actually pretty skeptical at the start of the process. I was kind of assuming that what we were going to have was a plebiscite, but there's a real and forthright dialogue going on," Phipps said. "You can tell how effective it is by looking at the distance between the first and second drafts. The second draft has a tone that's more moderate and considered. The first draft was attacking DRM, where draft two was making provisions for dealing with the consequences of DRM."

Sun won't make any decisions about moving Java and OpenSolaris to GPL 3 until the license is finalized and the Java community has time to evaluate and discuss it. But Phipps is enthusiastic about the changes it features. Still, he's also mindful of the pain involved in shifting a current project and its developer community to a new license.

NEXT: Where's GPL 3 Headed?