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.'"

Comments

Linear interpolation...

[adpsimpson]

"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??!

Re:Linear interpolation...

[qortra]

I wouldn't want anybody straining themselves, so I'll do it for you.

The article itself does not have a distribution, but the blog linked to by the article does: Palamida blog complete with chart. There was a definite surge last year of GPL3 projects, followed a sharp decline in December. The number of add projects, however, has been slowly climbing for the first few months of 2008.

Re:Linear interpolation...

[Otter]

It looks like they're adding ~180 new projects per month. With nine months remaining, that doesn't come out to 4000 by year end, let alone 5000.

Additional thoughts:

1) Any time I read something involving "If this trend continues", even if it's based on solid data I hear it in my head in Disco Stu's voice, which tends to undercut its credibility.

2) This ("Four new GPL 3 projects this week!") is arguably the most boring blog in the world.

Re:Linear interpolation...

[Bogtha]

There was a definite surge last year of GPL3 projects, followed a sharp decline in December.

This makes it sound like there was a decline in GPL3 projects, which isn't the case. There was a decline in the growth rate of GPL3 projects, meaning that the number of GPL3 projects grew, only not as fast as in previous months.

Re:Linear interpolation...

[qortra]

You're right: my bad. Describing statistics can get very wordy, and I was trying to mitigate the wordiness - I guess I got carried away.

Just as an aside, I am in no way trying to detract from the accomplishments here; this is a very nice v3 adoption rate. I was just agreeing with the original poster that the statistics deserve better interpretation than a 'grade school average over time'.

Re:And this matters, why?

[sumdumass]

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.

Calm Down

[stry_cat]

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.

Re:GPLv2 compliance-?

[morgan_greywolf]

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.

Re:And this matters, why?

[domatic]

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".

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ...

[qortra]

For those of us who have moved completely away from Microsoft, [Samba] IS nothing ... False. Samba is a fantastic utility, and a very acceptable protocol (it would be great if it were completely open). It is mountable in a unix filesystem, it can be safely authenticated over untrusted networks, it is spoken by countless devices and operating systems (not just Microsoft), supports two way transfers, supports simultaneous transfers, and it is reasonably fast. You stated 4 replacement protocols. Here is an analysis of where and why they fail my criteria set.

• svn - its none-trivial usage aside, it is not designed for the same kinds of transfers as Samba. Primarily, it isn't designed for streaming. For instance, I wouldn't consider it viable for the archival of playback of music and movie collections.
• ftp - stop joking with me. Usually single threaded transfer, laggy, not usually viable as a mounted disk (unless Fuse is used), and unsafe authentication in untrusted environments. This protocol is ancient, and it shows its age badly.
• http - by default, unidirectional. Requires specific and non-standardized handlers to send information the other way. Also, no standard for file permissions, no safe method for authentication (without https).
• ssh - The only one in this bunch that actually has a shot. It meets most of my requirements, especially now that you can mount an ssh filesystem with Fuse. However, that is still a fringe mechanism for mounting. Most embedded devices (even Linux based ones) do not support this. They support Samba. For examples (in case they are demanded), look at Media and Content streamers at AVS Forum. Many of them are Linux based, but almost all of them support Samba, uPNP, and possibly Apple Rendezvous (or whatever it is). None of your protocols can be found.
• nfs (which you forgot) - Also close. I spent a lot of time trying to make NFS work in my network, but much to my chagrin, it simply isn't safe over an untrusted network. You can always spoof file UIDs, file GIDs, and IP addresses (unless you have really nice switches).

Re:And this matters, why?

[ShieldW0lf]

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.

Re:GPLv2 compliance-?

[AvitarX]

This may help

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

Re:You used several of them to post here, AC.

[geminidomino]

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.

Re:And this matters, why?

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ...

[qortra]

Since you want to split hairs, SSH isn't a file transfer protocol. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that when you said "ssh", you meant "sftp/scp". These, by the way, are trivially different. They both use SSH has a delivery mechanism. In my experience, servers and clients that support one probably support the other. Read the following for more information Overview of SFTP, FTPS, SCP, FTP.

As for FISH (another protocol using the SSH delivery mechanism), you still have the obscurity problem (worse than ever).

people using Mr. Softie I'm confused; are you talking about Samba here? Do you think that avoiding Samba makes you "harder" or something? Simply, Samba/CIFS is often the best tool for the job, even when Microsoft systems are not in play. Maybe you think it makes you more hardcore to use a huge hammer when you should be using a screwdriver, but it doesn't. It makes you a moron.