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."
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
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.
I was going to ask - "how many of them ship something that a lot of people want to use and are fairly stable?" It sure won't be the whole 5,000 they are estimating. Maybe 500? Maybe 1,000 that will be decently usable?
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
http://www.kde.org/
Palm trees and 8
Is that number of new projects started with GPLv3 license or projects relicensed under GPLv3?
And 1950 of them are text editors. :)
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
GPL3 Compatible != Licensed under GPL3.
And you greatly overestimate the importance of the gnu userland+gcc(the only GPL3 project that anyone gives a fig about) on the world economy. If it disappeared, the old BSD userland would be ported in a few days.
...thats over 2k projects that are not free to be distributed with certain hardware.
If the estimated data point is not between known data points, then this process is extrapolation, not interpolation.
Anal? No, RMS is anal about copyright. If you want anal, read RMS' comments about the schism between GNU Emacs and XEmacs/Lucid Emacs. That's anal. I'm just trying to cover my legal arse, because, you know, lawyers tend to be far more anal than myself.
My blog
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!
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
If you take it to mean the author simply said GPL and did not mean "Gnu General Public License" then you have no protection at all.
I think you have a few things that would protect you both legally and in likely feelings of the author.
1) The meaning of GPL is quite clear in the context (Linux magazine, license for code) (This I think is legal protection).
2) It appears clear that the author does not look at this as a project, but a cool little tool they developed and wanted to share/brag about(the lack of any other reference anywhere else) (this would be a non-legal protection)
The author did leave an email and ask to contact, of course 4 year old email addresses at places of employment are often wrong. And yet...
I would email the guy, and lacking a response call him myself. License sloppiness should be punished, since it can be as damaging to the community as shared source style licenses. And a (one not a horde of assholes) stranger calling to clarify what you meant in a 4 year old article would be appropriate in my mind.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg