Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Should Developers Switch to GPLv3?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the how-much-better-is-it-than-v2? dept.

Isaac IANAL asks: "Victor Loh of ExtremeTech writes about the General Public License version 3's clause, which requires releasing digital signature keys — in other words, the software should be able to retain interoperability when modified. The article raises an objection, citing Linus Torvalds, that the so-called TiVoisation clause would inhibit open-source adoption in embedded devices among entities such as governments, health care providers, and finance firms. The issue has been discussed on Slashdot many times before. If you're a developer for a platform that needs to run signed code, could you use software under the GPLv3, or does the GPLv3 (at its current, unreleased state) truly inhibit your control as a developer over your device?"

2 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Stop spreading confusion! by secolactico · · Score: 0, Redundant

    (and let his project die in obscurity in 1992)

    Are you sure of that? It seems to me that the GPL and Linux have had a rather symbiotic relationship. Without the GPL Linux would probably not have gotten very far or at least very fast (it would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Linus chosen BSD style license). And without Linux, would the GPL have gotten all the notoriety it enjoys today?

    --
    No sig
  2. Use whatever the dominating license is by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 0, Redundant

    If you are writing free software, I strongly advice you to use whatever free license is the dominating one in the community where your application belong. There are good reasons to prefer some licenses over others, depending on the circumstances and goals, but in the vast majority of cases, these good reasons are dwarfed by the confusion created by going for an unusual (in the community) license.

    And whatever you do, don't create your own license.