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."

Comments

Re:promotional "studies"

[A beautiful mind]

Yeah, right. I bow down before your sophisticated reasoning equating completely different kinds of things with each other. Clearly Richard Stallman, a known capitalist enterprenour made rich from GPLv2 royalties, tries to bolster GPLv3 adoption by commissioning groundless studies to deceive people.

(This post contains absolutely no sarcasm at all. Not even a very small amount. Nada. Zero. Look! Shiny!)

Anyone see much of a difference?

[Kjella]

There's two big news - the anti-tivoization and anti-patent clause. The rest are niceties like better internationalization, compatibility with other licenses etc.

Now, the anti-tivoization clause is rather weak as long as the kernel doesn't go GPLv3. It protects your work from being used in a tivo, but not creating a tivo. If the kernel went GPLv3 on the other hand, you'd have a big problem making any kind of tivo as any code running on top could be modified using a modified kernel. The scares of the "appliance PC-lookalike" seem quite overrated at this point, there's a few special appliance boxes but no big whoop. The anti-patent clause... well, I'm still waiting for anyone with serious patent claims to actually claim them. Didn't Microsoft have 200 or so? Or was that just a bunch of hot air. As long as it's nothing but hot air and FUD, it doesn't seem to change much at all.

Maybe RMS still is a visionary but I think in this case he's seen further ahead in the crystal ball than where we are. I still haven't seen any compelling cases where the GPLv3 is needed.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[McDutchie]

Maybe RMS still is a visionary but I think in this case he's seen further ahead in the crystal ball than where we are.

Uh, yeah. He always does. That's why he's a visionary.

Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

And they feel they have to do these "studies" for marketing reasons.

Palamida is a security company. They're not the FSF, who, unlike MS do not have reams of cash to promote the GPL.

GPLv3 = IPv6 = Vista = "wfc";

Uh-huh. Uptake of the GPLv3 (as a percentage of GPLv2 instances) is far higher than Vista (compared to Windows installs) or IPV6 vs IPV4

Iditot.

Re:Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL.

[afabbro]

Iditot.

Well, you sure showed him.

Re:Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL.

[S.O.B.]

Iditot.

Well, you sure showed him.

Maybe he's calling him a baby idiot.

I've seen an effect

[larry bagina]

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.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Darkness404]

I want to share the code, not enforce political views I disagree with.

No matter how good you think the intentions you have are. If *insert corporation here* wants your code they can take it and use it to create restrictions for the user. The GPLv3 allows the user to take away those and use it on the product. Hardly enforcing political views. Basically, the GPL is to allow the most freedom for end users and make sure that the end users can trust you. If say Linus was hired by MS and decided to close down all of Linux sites, you could still get the kernel. If MS wanted to make a backdoor in the kernel code and sell it as Windows 7, you had the right to take that out despite how much MS wants your computer to be zombified into submission to the *AA.

Re:I've seen an effect

[junglee_iitk]

Good for you. I personally have written a lot of little utilities (web-applications and other bullshit) which I released in public domain.

I never understood the whole point of BSD, ever. If you want to share the code, so much so that whether I am not using it at all or using it to earn millions is something you don't care, then why are you licensing it?

Not trolling... seriously I am asking.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Chemisor]

> If you want to share the code, then why are you licensing it?

Because of the liability disclaimer. Public domain does not provide you with any liability protection in the US, and while I have not heard of anyone being sued for his public domain programs, it could happen, and I certainly don't want to be the first.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Timothy Brownawell]

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.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Ed Avis]

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.

Re:I've seen an effect

[FilterMapReduce]

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.)

Re:I've seen an effect

[mrchaotica]

Wow, two misconceptions packed into one sentence! Impressive!

• If (and only if) it's Public Domain then you don't need a license. That's what Public Domain means!
• In all cases, even including proprietary stuff, you already have the right to use it. It is only distributing copies of it (modified or unmodified) that you do not have the right to do. Without making a copy, copyright law never kicks in.

I believe you mean freedom # -1

[FreeUser]

...the tivo makers would switch to using BSD, or something else with a license that doesn't infringe freedom 2 (freedom to redistribute).

The GPL doesn't inhibit freedom 2 at all, unless you wish to use it to remove freedoms 0-n from everyone else.

What you're thinking about is freedom -1: The freedom to take someone else's work for free, modify it, and put onerous restrictions on everyone further along the distribution change. Or more succinctly put: the freedom to fuck your neighbour. Which yes, the GPL v2 tries to prevent, and the GPL v3 prevents more successfully.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[aj50]

It restricts what hardware you may distribute the software on

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.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[mrchaotica]

...it prevents you from creating hardware which will only run approved binaries and distributing approved free software binaries for it.

Not quite. You can even do that, if you also give the user the ability to "approve" binaries himself.

Palamida's numbers are meaningless

[ArcRiley]

It appears that their tracking of adoption rates are based solely on projects hosted on Sourceforge.

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.

Political Views

[ClientNine]

I agree. I think the outrage over Tivo is missing the point-- TIVO ISN'T HURTING ANYONE. The availability of the software has enabled the creation of an interesting consumer product, giving all of us the free choice to buy one or not.

If the GPLv3 prevents products like Tivo from appearing, then it's a Bad Thing.

People really need to realize that someone else making money doesn't harm them. This "I want everyone else to suffer" pseudo-socialism is NOT making the world a better place, just a slightly more egalitarian one.

Re:Political Views

[Znork]

giving all of us the free choice to buy one or not.

And when I donate source code I donate it with the intention that any end user be allowed to modify and run it, wherever or on whatever they recieved that code from. If Tivo wants to prevent the end user from doing that they have the free choice to not use my code.

If the GPLv3 prevents products like Tivo from appearing, then it's a Bad Thing.

If Tivo's abuse of the intent of GPL prevents products _better_ than Tivo from appearing, I'd say that's a Bad Thing. And finding examples where customers would have a better product if they could load modified software on their Tivo ain't exactly hard.

People really need to realize that someone else making money doesn't harm them.

Most Free software proponents have no problem with someone else making money. They do, however, have a problem with someone else harming others.

pseudo-socialism is NOT making the world a better place, just a slightly more egalitarian one

Free software is the epitome of free market economics; it's the enforcement of absolute competition.

Considering that 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.

Re:Political Views

[Snocone]

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".

Re:GPL sharing vs. BSD sharing

[Darinbob]

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?

GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit

[DVega]

If you disagree with GPLv3, you also should disagree with GPLv2. The spirit is the same "dont let anyone take a free-software piece of code, modified it and ban you from modify his modification".

But GPLv2 had a bug. TIVO has found a way to do that. You can modify the code, but the hardware will reject your modification. Your right to "hack" with the source code has been abolished.

I dont see any reason why you should like GPLv2 and not GPLv3.

If you think there is nothing wrong with people taking your code and not letting you play with his code, you should have gone with a BSD-style license. Otherwise GPLv3 is an improvement of GPLv2.

I know that some people think that GPLv3 is bad (most notably Linux Torvalds) but after reading their objections I really dont understand their logic. It seems to me more of an ego fight against RMS than sensible disagreement.

Re:or later

[drfireman]

Is the GPLv3 even meaningful if the kernel does not change licenses?

The incompatibility of GPLv2 and GPLv3 makes it a little viral. I have a fairly small open source project, but we depend on three libraries that have gone with GPL3. I didn't really want to switch, but if I want to use the latest versions of those libraries, I have no choice.

I suspect that the number of projects going with GPLv3 would be greater if people met their legal obligations.

dan

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"...

[jlarocco]

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

Re:Summary of Stallman Interview

[TheoMurpse]

a "political movement" that no one in the US congress has ever heard of

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."

Re:Stallman hasn't gone to hell yet?

[Per Wigren]

How about "free as in free to use something else that has another license, reimplement the functionality yourself or pay someone to reimplement it"? It's not like you are forced to use GPLed software. If you want to just benefit from free code without giving anything back to the community then you are a leech and get treated as such.