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."
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
The GPLv2 is the GPL we all have used since sometime in the 90's. The GPLv3 decide to add some activism onto it and as a result isn't compatible with the GPLv2 anymore.
My main gripe is that it doesn't do exactly what it claims to do because of the way the GPLv2 upgrade is worded and a few technical wordings. Other people don't like it because their projects are dependent on GPLv2 only software or semi-closed software which the GPLv3 doesn't allow. Projects like the linux kernel won't be moving to GPLv3 and it is pointless to dual license GPLv3 code do it creates a lot of confusion to boot.
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.
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.
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
This is exactly what's stopping my project from adopting GPLv3. Stylus Toolbox uses GladeGen for some of its more complicated windows (I did the initial design using GladeGen, but the rest of the project just uses stock PyGTK code).
The problem is that the linked-to article, all the documentation that exists for GladeGen, only mentions that the code is GPL; it doesn't specify a version and there is no COPYING file or mention of a license in any of the files or source code. So I'm not entirely certain as to the legal status of the code other than it's probably licensed under some version of the GPL.
If David Reed or Linux Journal could come forward and clarify the legal status, that would be most helpful. Maybe someone with a legal background might provide some help, too.
My blog
The GPLv2 is the GPL we all have used since sometime in the 90's. The GPLv3 decide to add some activism onto it and as a result isn't compatible with the GPLv2 anymore.
The GPLv2 was also an implementation of activism and it too has plenty of detractors. Any license out of the FSF is going to be an implementation of activism. It's like the people who like Fox News "Because it is SOOOOO unbiased!". It's plenty biased but the bias lines up with their personal inclinations, causes little cognitive dissonance and is therefore seen as unbiased. In the same vein, the GPLv2 aligns with the goals of it's users and is thus seen as a purely practical tool for implementing them. What GPLv2 users who gripe about the GPLv3 REALLY mean is that they agree with some but not all of the FSF's "activism".
Is that number of new projects started with GPLv3 license or projects relicensed under GPLv3?
The GPLv3 is important for reasons that include:
1) If you receive software and hardware together from a vendor, and the software is released under the GPLv3 license, you have legal assurance that they will not attempt through hardware to prevent you exercising your right to change the code and deploy your changes. If you receive software released under the GPLv2 license, you do not have these assurances. You can reasonably expect that the pressure on the vendor to increase revenue will lead to them attempting to rent out the control they have over you to third parties.
2) If you use or redistribute software, and the software is released under the GPLv3 license, you have legal assurances that you will not wake up one morning and find that the software you have come to rely on is now subject to patents that the vendor received. If you receive software released under the GPLv2 license, you could suddenly be forced to pay large sums of money or stop using the technology. This is a large risk that can tank a business model that relied on having liberty to grow without increased intellectual property costs and suddenly does not have that liberty.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Agreed. I have a problem with the viral aspect of it since you're telling people it must be wide-and-open. If I ever start a project I'll keep it open because I believe in sharing. I do not believe in telling others to share because that's for them to decide. I'll stick with the BSD or even better the beerware license. In my definition of free, they're more free than the GPL, despite RMS's opinion.
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
And 1950 of them are text editors. :)
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.
I often thought about using a modified Beerware license which, rather than granting the author the right to buy me a beer, imposes considering buying me a beer as a condition of the license. Because the license imposes a condition not present in the GPL, it would be incompatible with the GPL, but compatible with pretty much every other Free Software license.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Just don't forget that with the GPLv3 or BSD, if he released the code, you build a business around it, and I get a patent on the technology in the code, your still just as screwed.
In fact, there is very little protection difference in this respect between the GPLv2 and GPLv3 let alone BSD and similar licenses.
I'm referring to people who are building a business using the software, or using a modified version of the software, as a tool to do their day to day operations. Not people who make code for third parties as their day to day business operations.
Now, if you release something under the BSD, and you have a patent pending, and I use it to run my nuts and bolts factory, I could wake up one day and find out that you own all the profits my business generates.
If you released it under the GPLv3, I would already have a legally binding assurance that you won't do that to me.
Now, if there is a third party with patents involved, I don't have a legal release from their patents if they are not involved in our interaction.
However, one would presume that your GPLv3 code would constitute prior art in the majority of such cases, giving me a degree of relief from this risk.
If you, knowing that a third party had a previously issued patent, decided to write an implementation of that patent and release it GPLv3, then that would leave me and my nuts and bolts factory at risk.
All in all, GPLv3 is a big, big benefit for people who aren't in the software business. And, in my opinion, also a big benefit for people who want to be coders for a living. The more fat for custom work in your clients IT budget, the better. It's only those who want to be professional code owners that aren't going to benefit, overall. Personally, I'd just as soon shoot those people in the head as look at em, but that's just me.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
libglade is LGPL, so the version it's associated with doesn't matter much. All versions of LGPL are compatible with GPLv3. Most, if not all, of the GNOME libraries are also LGPL. Not like the mishmash of licenses in KDE :) *ducks*
GladeGen also uses PyXML, which in turn uses libxml, which is MIT licensed. No problem there.
Most of the rest of the code Stylus Toolbox uses is offered under the PSF license, which is GPL3-compatible according to RMS.
PyGTK itself is LGPL and pexpect is PSF licensed.
My blog