Slashdot Mirror
Will GPLv3 Drive Users from Linux to FreeBSD?
An anonymous reader writes "Last week ZDNet put up an article asking a simple question: will GPL3 drive Linux users to FreeBSD? It's based on issues raised in the August FreeBSD Foundation Newsletter. That publication features a letter by the vice president of the FreeBSD Foundation, Justin Gibbs, arguing that the GPLv3 restricts the rights of commercial users of open source software, and is just the FSF's first step in changing the GPL in ways that authors of GPL software may not have intended. He suggests that commercial users should seriously consider BSD-licensed software as an alternative if they want to be able to safely ship products in the future. This is especially in light of requirements from the FCC that software running on devices (such as software-defined radios) be end-user replaceable. Gibbs states that the FreeBSD Foundation will provide an alternative to GPLv3'd software, especially in light of Stallman's statement that further GPL revisions are due in the near future. Is this likely to cause discontent among Linux users, or will they mostly ignore it?"
You mean you needed more elitism? Phew. I almost abandoned FreeBSD for that reason years ago, and I still am afraid to return to some BSD forums, where Linux users are treated as fanboys. No such thing on Linux forums (yet).
This seems like pure FUD and sour grapes from the BSD fans.
While manufacturers like Apple would have problems "closing" thier platforms, this is already an issue with GPL2 and most appliances manufacturers with such issues use BSD already like Apple.
Wasn't there a big thread on Slashdot last week on how to hack your iPhone? It seems to me that the majority of slashdotters are very much in favour of "user serviceable parts" in thier appliances.
I have actually some experience with certification issues and GPL licences having used the very wonderful JPOS point of sale application (for processing credit card payments). A Danish group went to the trouble of getting it officially certified to connect directly to the Danish banking/credit card network, the only problem being the certification program is for binaries (or JAR file in this case). So as its GPLed you get the source and are free to change the source to your hearts content. But if you want to abide by the terms and conditions of your contract with the payments system you must connect using only the certified JAR file as supplied.
In practise there was no problem really.
I used the source as the basis for a high volume test tool and my version never connected to the outside world.
Anyone actually connecting to a card payments system would be well advised to cover thier arse and use only
certified software as you could be liable for mega penalties if you break the network.
There was no conflict with the GPL2 license and I dont think there would be any confict with the GPL3 license
you have the source and are free to change it, a separate contract with you bank requires you to use only the certified
binary version, or, submit a binary of your modded version to thier extensive and expensive testing program.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
For all the poor commercial developers who can no longer reap a huge profit off of free open source software, and then defecate on the faces of the volunteers who made it possible.
The GPL is at an advantage.
First, GPLd projects can take BSD code, but not in reverse, so a GPL licensed project has a bigger resource pool to draw from.
Second, the GPL forces even very large companies to contribute their changes. While Theo is whining on the OpenBSD mailing list about how IBM (or whoever it was) won't give them the time of the day, Linux doesn't have such a problem. A BSD project can ask nicely, but can't demand anything.
Users aren't going to care what the license is, they'll go for the most functional system.
Has anyone noticed that the GPLv3 went through very, very quietly?
No one congratulated the FSF.
Despite Bruce Perens' predictions, Linus has not been forced to "go with the crowd"
The GPLv3 is a stark reminder of why you should never, ever assign your code to FSF.
We need a new license -- the Linux license -- that has GPLv2 features and perhaps the patent provision but not the anti-tivoization clause. That clause has limited GPL software to hobbyist applications and web serving. There's no way you'd propose GPLv3 software for a gas pump or an Airbus at this point.
The point, I guess, is that GPLv3 is too expensive -- it asks for more than money, more than code -- it tries to dictate engineering. And that is just sad. The problem is that the FSF has a culture very similar to a student council, with roughly the same level of maturity. Those with a contrarian view are shouted down and driven out, so that the only remaining talk is just preaching to the choir.
Sadly, this will slow down open source. Just because people aren't being vocal about it doesn't mean they're for it. In business, when the other side is quiet, it means they're planning to go with a second supplier so they don't have to put up with crap.