Survey Says GPLv3 Is Shunned

willdavid writes in to note a survey of open source developers conducted by Evans Data that indicates a real rift in the community over GPLv3. The survey was based on in-depth interviews with 380 open source developers and no estimated margin of error was given. "Just 6 percent of developers working with open-source software have adopted the new GNU General Public License version 3... Also, two-thirds say they will not adopt GPLv3 anytime in the next year, and 43 percent say they will never implement the new license. Almost twice as many would be less likely to join a project that uses GPLv3 than would be likely to join... [Evans Data's CEO said] 'Developers are confused and divided about [the restrictions GPLv3 imposes], with fairly equal numbers agreeing with the restrictions, disagreeing with them, or thinking they will be unenforceable.'"

Comments

Slow adoption is to be expected

[A beautiful mind]

It is much easier for new projects to start out with GPLv3 than old projects to convert. Unless the committers transfer copyrights to a central body like in the case of the gnu tools and FSF, it is hard to move to another license if not bordering on impossible.

Re:Slow adoption is to be expected

[stinerman]

Not to mention any project with files licensed under GPLv2 or later is, for all intents and purposes, GPLv3 anyway.

Re:Slow adoption is to be expected

[fotbr]

Not necessarily. GPL version 3 only provisions do not apply to it, unless it is changed to be licensed under GPL 3 (only, or "or later").

Re:Slow adoption is to be expected

[hansonc]

wrong.

If I'm the user of the code e.g. Tivo and I don't decide that I want to comply with gpl v3 I don't have to in that case. For you to force me to comply with v3 you have to relicense it as v3 (or later) it's not a retroactive license which probably wouldn't be legally enforceable anyway.

Re:Slow adoption is to be expected

[Experiment 626]

Unless, of course, all the commits were "GPLv2 or later", in which case the project was effectively already under the GPLv3 from the moment it was released.

Wrong. The "or later" does not mean that whatever the most recent version of the GPL has been published is the one that applies. It means someone wanting to copy / distribute / whatever the software is free to do so under the terms of the GPLv2, or any later version that they might prefer the terms of. If the GPLv4 came out next week and said "to distribute software under this license, you have to send RMS a case of beer", you could distribute "GPLv2 or later" software by either providing its source (the GPLv2/v3 option) or by sending RMS a case of beer. New versions of the GPL give you more choices in licensing "or later" code, they don't retroactively change the terms of the deal like some shady EULA.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

Re:Slow adoption is to be expected

[DragonWriter]

My point was that all these projects can be counted as GPLv3 projects, or is it that important that I formally fork such a project to be counted in the numbers?

Well, yes, if it is not currently licensed with the restrictions in the GPLv3 (but merely allows other people to relicense their own redistribution that way), it is inaccurate to describe it as a GPLv3 project. I mean, by your argument, every project under a GPLv3-compatible license (or, presumably, in the public domain like SQLite) should be counted as a GPLv3 project because someone could conceivably redistribute a derivative of it under the GPLv3 at some point in the future.

Remember!

[heinousjay]

Those restrictions are for your freedom. It is important to take freedom away to protect it. Truly allowing freedom would allow freedom to be taken away, and we can't allow that, so we've taken away some freedom to allow true freedom to flourish.

I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't understand that perfectly.

And I'm sure I'll get modded down, but before you do that, read through my first paragraph carefully and tell me what I've said differently than the GNU people.

Re:Remember!

[cromar]

GPL protects the freedom of the code, not the freedom of the developer. Big difference! If you want developer freedom, use the BSD license or some such. Different tools for different problems :)

Re:Remember!

[Lost Found]

What the GPL is really concerned with beyond the code is protecting the freedom of the code's user. BSD aims to give the initial recipient of BSD-licensed code the freedom to make copies and changes in virtually any way they want whereas GPL aims to give those same freedoms and enforce them in second and third and fourth order copies, etc.

Re:Remember!

[maxwell demon]

It doesn't restrict hardware. You can make your hardware DRMed like hell. You just can't run GPLv3ed software on that DRMed hardware. That's a restriction on the software (don't run it on DRMed hardware).

Re:Remember!

[Bogtha]

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but if you are, then please be aware that taking freedoms away to protect other freedoms is the basis of all law. You aren't free to hit me because you've had that freedom taken away from you.

Unless you are an anarchist, you really have no basis for criticising the GPL in this regard, because you agree with this logic applied to different areas.

Re:Remember!

[ScrewMaster]

Regardless, if the GP hits me I'm damn well going to hit him back.

Re:Remember!

[Ginger Unicorn]

it also doesn't restrict how you *run* it. Run it on DRMed hardware to your heart's content. It just specifies what information you must include should you wish to redistribute it.

Oh dear!

[mmcuh]

Oh dear! Another rift in the community, etc. Really, how many articles of this type have been posted to Slashdot in the last few weeks?

And the statement "Just 6 percent of developers working with open-source software have adopted the new GNU General Public License version 3" is obviously false, since the vast majority of GPL-licensed software have copyright notices that say that the software is available "under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" - which includes GPL version 3.

What is this "Evans Data Corporation"? It would be interesting to see any other press releases they have written.

Re:Maybe I want my code to be used Commercially!

[Grishnakh]

The GPL isn't about preventing commercial use. If you bothered to read the license(s) you would know that.

It's about preserving users' freedoms. If a commercial entity uses GPL code and distributes that to end users (even paying ones), they're obligated to give them access to the source code. It's that simple. GPLv3 just adds some extra clauses to prevent companies from weaseling around the spirit of these simple terms by using any software patents or the like.

If you don't care about commercial entities taking your code, making changes, distributing it to users, and then refusing to give those users (which may include you) access to their modified code, then release your code under the BSD license, or into the public domain. It's your choice. Stop complaining about other peoples' choices.

Fud-mongering

[Vainglorious Coward]

Only 6% of developers...have adopted GPLv3...Two-thirds say they will not be adopting GPLv3 anytime in the next year, and 43% say they will never implement the new license

Interesting to compare this "shunning" with Vista :

less than 2% of UK-based firms have already upgraded all their desktops to Windows Vista. Just shy of 5% said that they have begun a Windows Vista desktop upgrade program. 6.5% said they will upgrade in the next 6 months; 12.6% in the next 12 months; 13% in the next 18 months; and 18% in the next two years

Summary : GPLv3 is more popular than Vista

Vista?

[athloi]

You mean the GPL3 is the Microsoft Vista of the open source licensing world?

Not exactly

[paladinwannabe2]

Something licensed that way can be used by both GPLv2 and GPLv3 projects, but can't use GPL3 code itself without converting to GPL3. It's still under GPLv2 until then.

Re:Confused... M$? (or not)

[joe 155]

couldn't say who actually coughed up the money for this one, but they do list M$ as clients. We all know M$ aren't above what we might (generously) call "interesting" techniques when it comes to dealing with the GPL (not least, IIRC, calling it a "cancer"). Evans also list some (what I would call) nicer companies though - especially from the open source POV - including but not limited to RedHat and Sun. You can check out the full list here;

http://www.evansdata.com/company/clients.php