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."
the GPL 3 convinced me to use a BSD-style license for my projects. I want to share the code, not enforce political views I disagree with.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Most GNU projects are hosted on Savannah, many are hosted on GNA!, and many are self-hosted. It would be more accurate to use a service such as Ohloh to track license adoption.
I believe you'd find, when these other data sources are included, the numbers are very different.
OK, I can understand wanting to share code but with a BSD style license the people you're sharing your code with are under no obligation to keep sharing it.
And what exactly is wrong with that? Some people want to share software with everyone, even if they are douchebags. So some company doesn't share it, but the original code is still out there. If people prefer the rebranded version and the original dies a slow death, then so what? It's not like people are writing open source for their own ego are they?
Free software is the epitome of free market economics; it's the enforcement of absolute competition ... proprietary software builds upon state protected monopoly rights and, as is becoming quite obvious, has more in common with former soviet style state factories (you _will_ use Vista and you _will_ like it; no alternate providers here), I'd say comments about socialism are weak.
Er, no. The GPL builds upon state protected monopoly rights as well. Otherwise, how could it be enforced?
If your license is anything other than "public domain" then you are, indeed, forcing your wishes upon others backed by the power of the State.
Source is not truly "free" unless everyone is FREE to disregard your wishes completely. Setting rules they must abide by, which the GPL does, makes it NOT free.
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. Only public domain source does not rely on the coercive power of the State, and therefore only public domain source can be claimed with intellectual honesty to truly be "free".