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."
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!)
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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.
...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.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Uh, yeah. He always does. That's why he's a visionary.
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.
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.
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".
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