GPL Version 2

Software Licenses

Books

Open Source
   Glossary
      Advertising Clause
      Compatible Licenses
      Copyleft
      Derivative Works
      Dual Licensing
      FLOSS
      FOSS
      Free Software
      Incompatible Licenses
      OSD
      OSI Certified
      OSS
      Permissive Licenses
      Viral Licenses
   Licenses
      AGPL
      Apache
      Apple
      Artistic
      BSD
      CDDL
      CPL
      EPL
      GPL v2
      GPL v3
      IPL
      LGPL
      MIT
      Mozilla
      SPL
      X License
      X11 License
   Organizations
      ASF
      FSF
      OSI
      SFLC
   People
      Bruce Perens
      Eben Moglen
      Eric Raymond
      Lawrence Lessig
      Linus Torvalds
      Richard Stallman

Proprietary
   Closed Source
   Freeware
   Shareware

Public Domain

Shared Source
   MS Community License
   MS Permissive License

Software Licenses > Open Source > Licenses > GPL v2

GPL Version 2

The GNU General Public License ("GNU GPL" or simply "GPL") is a copyright license for free software created by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation.

The GPL was originally created by Stallman for the GNU project which was an attempt to develop a free operating system as well the associated utilities, as a complete alternative to proprietary software. Stallman developed the GPL because early versions of GNU project utilities had a separate, and mutually incompatible license, for each program, which meant that the programs could not share code.

Although the GPL is used by the Free Software Foundation itself for software for which it holds the copyright, the license is also extremely widely used for other software, including, for example, the Linux kernel.

The original version (version 1) of the GPL was released in January 1989, and version 2, which is the main version in use today, was released in 1991. An offshoot of version 2, the LGPL followed, this version being principally intended for software libraries. A revised version of the license, version 3 of the GPL, was released in July 2007, although not without controversy, and some software is gradually being released under it.

The GPL is a copyleft license: it only allows distribution of the unmodified work, or derivative works, provided the people to whom licensee's distribute are granted the same rights to further modify and/or distribute the software. Additionally, distributors are also required to make the source code available, and a variety of options are provided for doing so.

There have been a number of legal disputes in the USA and Germany related to the GPL. In all cases which have been resolved, the GPL has proven to be both enforceable and legally binding. The SCO vs IBM case has not yet been resolved, however in that case, the principal remaining GPL-related issue appears to be whether SCO violated the GPL (IBM alleges that they did, but SCO claims that they did not).

In particular, in cases in Germany, copyright-holders have won injunctions and judgements preventing copyright-infringing use of GPL licensed software (where the copyright infringement arises from breaching the license's terms).
In 2005, a private individual, Daniel Wallace, filed two law suits in Southern Indiana, one against the Free Software Foundation, and the other against IBM, Novell and Red Hat, alleging that the use of the GPL violated anti-trust law. Wallace's lawsuits were however ultimately dismissed by the court, which comprehensively rejected his arguments.
The SCO Group has made various allegations (and filed lawsuits based on these allegations) relating to Linux, claiming that some of the code in Linux is there in violation of SCO's alleged intellectual property rights. In the course of these lawsuits, as well as on their web site and in other public statements, the SCO Group has made various claims and assertions about the GPL, including:
1. The assertion that the GPL "violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws" (in a letter that the SCO Group's CEO, Darl McBride, sent to the US Congress and published on its web site.
2. A defense (subsequently dropped) in a lawsuit to IBM counterclaims, alleging that "The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."
3. A defense (also subsequently dropped) in a lawsuit to IBM counterclaims, seeming to allege that IBM could not enforce the copyrights of IBM-owned but GPL-licensed works, without the presence of various third parties: "IBM has failed to join one or more parties needed for just adjudication of the counterclaims, including but not limited to the Free Software Foundation and contributors to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels."
4. That the SCO Group's distribution of Linux (including IBM copyrighted works) did not violate the GPL, even though SCO was simultaneously attempting to impose licene fees and various restrictions on Linux users.