Slashdot Mirror
A Year of GPLv3
javipas writes "GPLv3 and LGPLv3 were released one year ago, on 29 June 2007. Palamida, who tracks Open Source projects, has made a study of the current situation of these licenses along with AGPLv3, which was released later, in November. The number of projects that have made the transition to these licenses has grown over the last months, and it seems than AGPLv3 has captured a great interest lately. Black Duck Software, a company that tracks Open Source projects too, has made its own study with similar results, and although GPLv3 and its variants have a good adoption rate, the interviews published on the Palamida site (Stallman, Chris Di Bona) show that the acceptance of GPLv3 has still a long way to walk."
He's simply expressing displeasure about GPL folks being supposed defenders of freedom while pushing their political agenda down everyone's throat.
GPL promotes free (as in $0) software, while condemning anyone that makes an income off software as greedy and immoral. The whole license seems to be designed to prevent making profit from software. Combine outsourcing + GPL, and in less than 10 years, software will cease to exist as a real profession, paying only slightly more than burger flippers' salary. The closed source model is perfectly fine -- they demand profit in return for product, unlike open source, which encourages product for slave wages.
Just the first sentence of GPL is arrogant and deceiving:
Umm, what freedom? You didn't create the software so you don't own it and don't have the right or the freedom to change and share it. Just as I don't own a 5-star hotel, therefore I can't change the furniture or allow my friends to share it. This is similar to the stupid argument the communists used to take over russia.
What part of "commercially successful" do you fail to understand?
The guy's point was that GPL proponents are communists.
I claimed that the only seriously money-making projects are GPL licensed.
You responded with a list of projects that receive code -- not money -- in return. That's not being commercially successful, if anything that's communism.
As for the other people claiming parts of BSD are used in routers and what-not - those are closed source projects it is the sale of routers and support for them making the money, not the sale of the source code and support contracts for it. FreeBSD and its ilk are barely hanging on, often begging for donations, unlike RedHat.