Slashdot Mirror
Number of GPL v3 projects tops 2,000
Da Massive writes "The number of open-source projects that use the GNU General Public License Version 3 has grown to more than 2,000, according to Palamida, which sells software and services for tracking open-source code within a customer's code base. 'Our database now contains over 2,000 projects that are using the GPL v3. "At this rate the GPL v3 is being adopted by 1,000 projects every 4-5 months, and if the trend continues, the license will be used by 5,000 projects by the end of the year," states a recent posting on Palamida's blog.'"
It could also mean there has been a rush to convert projects, or that there is an exponentially increasing number under the license.
A simple linear interpretation of the data isn't that useful - maybe I should RTFA to see if there's a graph or something?
But hey, this is slashdot! Read the article??!
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
Too bad the quality of the products will still be unfinished eternally beta like pretty much all FOSS.
I wonder if all of them are off the dependency of GPLv2 code and don't cause a violation in the process of going GPLv3. It must be a pretty hard task making sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot while moving from one license version to an incompatible one.
Not trying to be a wiseass (well, yeah, maybe I am), but why is this important. I never really understood the whole "V2 VS V3" thing, and a succinct explanation would be appreciated.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Put it into perspective ... without a comparison to the number (and importance) of GPLv2 projects, it is one of those meaningless statistics.
You'd think this was a press release from Microsoft ...
How many GPLv2 projects are there out there? Easily over 100,000. Call me back in 5 years.
Kevin Smith on Prince
There's gobs of projects on Sourceforge that have a license stated, yet no code. A LOC number would at least be somewhat useful.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Counting backwards, there were nil gpl3 projects for 9 month ago?
Dear Slashdotters,
I was so pleased by the response to my last letter that I decided to write another one. Don't worry; I have plenty of new stuff to say about John McCain and his hired goons. Let me start by stressing that I am not attempting to suppress anyone's opinions, nor do I intend to demean McCain personally for his beliefs or worldviews. But I do feel that I must put an end to McCain's evildoing. He thinks it would be a great idea to squander irreplaceable national treasures. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed. He is still going around insisting that we should avoid personal responsibility. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to him that if we contradict him, we are labelled irritable bozos. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms.
Guess what? The first thing we need to do is to get McCain to admit that he has a problem. He should be counseled to recite the following:
* I, John McCain, am an unholy serpent.
* I have been a participant in a giant scheme to pollute the great canon of English literature with references to McCain's high-handed, querulous arguments.
* I hereby admit my addiction to sexism. I ask for the strength and wisdom to fight this addiction.
Once McCain realizes that he has a problem, maybe then he'll see that you might have heard the story that he once agreed to help us focus on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what's happening in the world. No one has located the document in which McCain said that. No one has identified when or where McCain said that. That's because he never said it. As you might have suspected, McCain's crusades oscillate between unreasonable anarchism and froward irreligionism. Well, that's another story. To get back to my main point, I ought to mention that it's irritating for McCain to sully a profession that's already held in low esteem. Or perhaps I should say, it's fickle.
I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am truly horrified by McCain's devotion to the idea of a benevolent dictatorship of a self-appointed elite, by which I mean that if we are powerless to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against McCain's orations, it is because we have allowed McCain to hinder economic growth and job creation. His peons consider his tirades a breath of fresh air. I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of Comstockism. On the other hand, Bonapartism doesn't work. So why does McCain cling to it? The answer is almost totally obvious -- this isn't rocket science, you know. The key is that the ultimate aim of McCain's offhand remarks is to restructure society as a pyramid with McCain at the top, McCain's representatives directly underneath, fastidious, antihumanist enemies of the people beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable McCain to stir up class hatred, which makes me realize that it may seem at first that he would love to see me contract leprosy and be forced to live out my benighted days shunned by humanity, ringing a bell, and shying away from sharps and open flames. When we descend to details, however, we see that my goal is to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "poluphloisboiotatotic". I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that McCain is sympathetic to sinister causes of all stripes. But there is a further-reaching implication: If he can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If he can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it.
McCain doesn't care about freedom, as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him. He has a strategy. His strategy is to make libertinism socially acceptable. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with McCain.
This is not wild speculation. This is n
I mean, I've created a small library which is comprised of a few thousands lines of code and I released it under the GPL. Yet, although it is a GPLed project, I wouldn't even want to compare it to Apache or the linux kernel, let alone count it as an equal.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Sourceforge has close to 100,000 unfinished GPLv2 projects!
A simple linear interpretation of the data isn't that useful - maybe I should RTFA to see if there's a graph or something?
The original source has a graph, kind of, and the increase seems pretty much linear to me.I'd like to know how many of the projects fall into the "Hey look my project which no one other than myself contributes to and uses, is now using GPL3" Until the kernel switches from GPLv2 it won't really be considered a success in many people's eyes.
However I have a more important question. Why is this written like it is a war between GPLv3 and other licenses? If the virus of GPLv3 doesn't spread we're all doomed. No folks that's not the case. Don't get so wrapped up in this stuff. So what no one uses GPLv3? So what if everyone uses it? If software doesn't meet one's needs (and that includes having cumbersome provisions in your license) one will either write their own or use someone else's software. Really this all works out in the end. Don't have so much emotion invested in things that you can't really affect the outcome.
That's a damn shame for those people. It's not something that can be done in any sort of practical way.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Or Creative's drivers :) or anything else.
The only difference is that FOSS programmers are not forced to declare their stuff 'finished'.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
ok I'm sure there are some that are great. But I think I could live without them
Is that number of new projects started with GPLv3 license or projects relicensed under GPLv3?
Apache is GPL3 compatible and Slashdot would not be possible without many supporting GNU utilities. If you posted from Firefox (80% of Slashdot users) or a Mac and most BSD, you got here by way of GCC compiled software. If all the GPL3 software were to vanish or somehow be taxed tomorrow, the US and world economy would collapse.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
And 1950 of them are text editors. :)
...thats over 2k projects that are not free to be distributed with certain hardware.
If the author(s) don't care enough to specify exactly what they mean, the only reason to undo the changes for GPL3 inclusion is to show them respect for their divergent wishes. Legally, you're OK and the worst they can do is fork it to a version that specifies more exactly what they want. Doing any more than that on your behalf is because you want to.
So change already.
If the estimated data point is not between known data points, then this process is extrapolation, not interpolation.
Direct orders, or butts are exposed = 1400 NetBSD I'm sick of it.
That is an impressively large amount of code most people cannot ever use in any way or let near any of their code. That's very sad, but the reality of it.
It wasn't really that bad with GPLv2, but GPLv3 took a very strong F'-the-day-job attitude.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
You know, I thought this stuff has been hashed enough YEARS ago: you know, when the whole free software concept was fresh and new?
The question really comes down to what sort of rights do you think people should have to their software? If you don't have an opinion on this matter, or if you don't think people really should have many rights at all, or only the rights that they've paid for, then your way of looking at it makes sense.
But if you think that people should have full rights to the software they use, then the GPL isn't really viral at all. The GPL is really for people who disagree that copyright should be applied to software, as it causes an imbalance in *control* of the technology. For instance, with current copyright law, you're forbidden from disassembling the software you use.
I think you can use the classical negative/positive freedom distinction with regards to free software. It seems that we all have the *ability* to disassemble our software, so that's negative freedom that would give us the right to do so. The only thing in the free software definition that corresponds to a positive freedom is the right to source code, which requires the author of modifications to the software to then distribute the source along with any binaries.
So, to some extent, I do see the point of people who would want to confine the free software definition to only negative freedoms: that is, all rights to the software except the requirement to pass along software. But, I also see the FSF's point that, without the source code you really don't have much practical control over what the software does on your machine, which puts that control in the hand of other people: businesses, governments, crackers, or religions/cults.
And I think sometimes the discussion gets a little obscure when they don't see any need for software by someone who doesn't program. That's not the point at all. We all have the right to bear arms, even if you're never going to hunt. We all have the right to peacably assemble, even if you're never going to protest. So the FSF is saying we all have the right to modify the source code of the software on our computer, even if we're never going to program.
Honestly, I don't think it's all that extreme at all, it just seems so in this cynical mindset the computing world is in.
GPLv2 was good enough for a long time, but certain corporations have demonstrated a ways of exploiting the license. Now GPLv3 will protect the projects which matter, going forward. This train is bound for glory.
Freedom is free.
Except, of course, for Gnome, KDE, Samba, xfce, etc, etc. (Well, most of gnome/xfce are still GPLv2 or later, and KDE allows 2 and 3, but parts of each are v3 only.)
Not a sentence!