Gpl on foundatahttps://foundata.com/en/tags/gpl/feed-atom.xml2024-05-23T00:25:00Zfoundata GmbHwebmaster@foundata.comhttps://foundata.com/© 2023-2026, foundata GmbH (https://foundata.com)https://foundata.com/images/feed-icon.67ff83c698af1511552374e80cf5f6ff26d497ef21f04186cf058859d535ca75.svghttps://foundata.com/images/feed-logo.9138f24a120dabc7e3d34003662131cc9c7f2ff153ec39d2f6dea3a48c35b4bf.svgPlease use GPLv3 “or-later” instead of “only”tag:foundata.com,2024-05-23:/en/blog/2024/use-gpl-or-later/2024-05-23T00:25:00Z2024-05-23T00:25:00ZAndreas Haerterhttps://andreashaerter.com/An article about the pros of the "or later" clause of the GNU General Public License (GPL).It makes sense to prefer copyleft licenses. The most popular copyleft license is probably the GNU General Public License (GPL), with Version 3 from 2007 being the latest one. When you use the GPLv3, you have to decide if you go for “GPL v3.0 or later” or “GPL v3.0 only”. This is because of Clause 14 “Revised Versions of this License” of the GPLv3.1

The clause addresses how future versions of the license will be handled and state that the Free Software Foundation (FSF) may publish new versions of the GPL, which will be similar in spirit to the current version but may include changes to address new legal and technological issues. This also ensures the protection of Free Software from potential missteps by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) itself as, for example, no one could state a valid GPLv4 without copyleft. Some argue that the GPLv3 is fundamentally different from the GPLv2, but a detailed examination shows this is not the case–it is indeed similar in spirit. Just read it for yourself. For our part, we therefore strongly recommend choosing the “or later” option for our own projects.

Learn from past mistakes

Using GPL-2.0-only in the past created significant compatibility issues with other licenses, hindering the integration and distribution of combined works. For example, software licensed under GPL-2.0-only is incompatible with the Apache-2.0 license, preventing the combination of many codebases even today. And some projects had to spend a lot of time and work to change licensing to achieve better license compatibility and reduce integration barriers. These issues can lead to fragmentation and reduced flexibility in the open-source ecosystem.

GPLv2 showed that this adaptability might be necessary, as sticking to GPL-2.0-only did not provide any significant benefit and led to compatibility problems. Therefore, it makes sense to adopt the “or later” option whenever possible. This approach not only preserves the spirit of the license but also provides a safeguard against potential future challenges, much like a well-prepared contingency plan.

Conclusion

The “or later” clause of GPL-3.0-or-later is crucial as it allows the evolution of the license to keep up with changing circumstances, ensuring ongoing protection and freedom for software users and developers. This clause is like a safety net that allows us to adapt to future changes in the legal and technological landscape and to enable cooperation from various parties in the future. Use it.

  1. It is the same with Clause 9 of GPLv2. ↩︎

]]>