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."
I'm pretty sure Samba uses.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
2) The intentions are clear and well recognized. With some code, it's not quite clear what license (if any) it's under, restrictions, where it's from, etc.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
No it doesn't, it prevents you from creating hardware which will only run approved binaries and distributing approved free software binaries for it.
Being able to improve the software doesn't mean shit if you can't run your improved version in a useful way.
I wish to remain anomalous
I'd guess that the primary effect is notification of whose code it is, since the copyright notice has to be included in the code or documentation. It probably also provides better protection against someone else claiming copyright on it, since in the public domain case there is no real copyright holder to sue them and make them stop.
You might want to look at what happened to the Java Model Railroad Interface project. They used a permissive licence, only to find that someone else got a patent (of dubious validity, but nonetheless good enough to shake people down for money) which is claimed to cover their code, and then sued the original developers to stop distribution of the free version, while taking the code (as permitted by the licence) to sell a proprietary version themselves. You might want to choose a licence which gives you some defence against patent aggression, and GPLv3 is the latest and greatest in this respect.
But from other people's point of view, BSD licence (without the obnoxious advertising clause) is fine. They can still incorporate the code into GPLed programs if they wish, so there is no real licence fragmentation. Much better than one of the Yet Another Licences which end up fragmenting code into immiscible globs.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
The previous replies to the parent post are correct, and in addition, it is doubtful whether it is legally possible to write "public domain code" at all. You automatically hold an exclusive copyright to anything you write (assuming it isn't a work for hire); in order to allow others to freely reuse your code without worrying about getting sued, you need to surrender those rights somehow. A BSD-style license is the simplest way to do that. You could accomplish the same thing by stating that you are placing it in the public domain, but that creates gray areas; the law supports licensing much more unambiguously than self-divesting of copyright. (And the license has the disclaimer of warranty and so forth.)
If I'm wrong about this--please correct me; I'd love to know that the GPLv3 doesn't prevent us from doing this! Our company uses x264 in commercial products and abides by the GPL. One thing we are considering is creating an FPGA-based addon card using a low-cost FPGA to accelerate the motion search. The code for this FPGA would be released as GPL also. However, there is no open source driver to load code onto the card--in fact, one requires the developer kit in order to modify the code on the FPGA. We would be selling these boards individually, without the developer kit (an extra $1000 purchase or similar). Therefore, its a closed platform... but we can't do anything about it. GPLv3 would, in my understanding, prevent us from distributing such boards. So we're sticking to GPLv2.
"...this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code..."
Ask your legal department about whether that line might help, and also about whether "buy a dev kit" is valid as part of the installation information. And find out whether a dev kit is really required, or just a JTAG cable and appropriate compiler.
Wow, two misconceptions packed into one sentence! Impressive!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Er, no. The GPL builds upon state protected monopoly rights as well. Otherwise, how could it be enforced?
By market forces. The goal is that the market moves to the point where it will not accept a closed-source product, just as today the automobile market will not accept cars with their hoods welded shut. At that point there is no need for the GPL.
An accurate name for source licensed under GPL and similar licenses would be "Communal" -- or "Community" -- or perhaps "Cooperative" if you want to avoid the philosophically accurate association with "Communism". "Free", however, is not.
It all depends on your definition of "Free." RMS's "Free" applies to the liberty of the source code, not the liberty of the developer. RMS's "Free" means that the source can never be locked up in a proprietary prison. Your version of free seems to allow that. You are free today, GNU is free forever.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
"that means if you don't give the source code to all the people using the app you are infringing the license"
WHAT !!!
The GPL requires me to do something in order to benefit from the software... teh fascists !
But seriously, i think you will find you only have to offer the source code to people using the app, you dont have to force it on them.
All you need to do is put a notice about how to obtain the source code on the internet amongst all the other legal fine print the user has to agree to when signing up.
Its not like your forced to build a USB slot into the ATM.
Uh, how about GCC and just about everything else maintained by GNU? If you're using Linux, chances are you're using a lot of GPL 3 stuff without even knowing it. Stallman isn't entirely crazy for wanting it called GNU/Linux
Maybe not
From the article you linked to, the reason that IPv6 had problems on Vista is because of issues with tunnelling over IPv4 and a lack of diagnostic tools and responses - if the entire world switched to IPv6 tomorrow, Vista would be fine.
That's not to mention that the article you cite is nearly a year old - and in my office and here at home we have Vista machines running IPv4 and IPv6 with no problems at all, which would suggest that it's no longer an issue.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Well, considering that Larry Lessig (EFF/Creative Commons/Change Congress) and the FSF have been advising Sen. Obama, I'd be willing to put money on the proposition that he's at least heard of "free software."
I'm saying that Lessig and Obama are friends who used to teach together at the University of Chicago law school. I'm saying that Obama called Lessig up when he was going to run for president in order to discuss his internet/technology policy. I don't have the source for this, but I'm not making it up--hopefully my credibility on Slashdot is sufficient.
There has even been speculation by people outside the tech industry that Lessig may be tapped for the Supreme Court in an Obama administration. I've even come across fervently anti-Obama blogs that discuss their fear that Obama will appoint "communist Lessig" to the Court--so it's not just Lessig lovers who are suggesting this appointment may happen.
I think maybe Lessig mentions as much in his 20-minute presentation here. I don't want to watch the 20 minutes on my slow-as-molasses computer right now, though.
Also, Obama has invited Lessig to speak with him. source
Whoops, I forgot to mention this, too.
That doesn't really change the fact that Obama has even extended the term "open source" to refer to a way he wants to implement democracy in the US. sources list, quick and dirty
This implies that he (or an advisor) at least knows what open source is enough to extend the term's meaning in an analogous way.