Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Year of GPLv3

CmdrTaco posted about 6 years ago | from the that's-one-better-than-two-right dept.

GNU is Not Unix 242

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."

cancel ×

242 comments

First (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24022249)

FP

Re:First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24022481)

what license is this first post released under?

Re:First (1)

CDMA_Demo (841347) | about 6 years ago | (#24023041)

General Trolling License?

Interesting.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24022303)

No, wait, the other thing - tedious.

promotional "studies" (-1, Flamebait)

spir0 (319821) | about 6 years ago | (#24022327)

And they feel they have to do these "studies" for marketing reasons. Just like Microsoft did "studies" that adoption of Vista was through the roof. This exists for no other reason than to allay the disinterest that everybody has.

GPLv3 = IPv6 = Vista = "wfc";

Re:promotional "studies" (4, Funny)

A beautiful mind (821714) | about 6 years ago | (#24022447)

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!)

Re:promotional "studies" (2, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | about 6 years ago | (#24023683)

And profit is the only reason for a person to try and bolster their image? Ideologists never do?

Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL. (4, Funny)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 6 years ago | (#24022497)

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

Palamida is a security company [palamida.com] . 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. (5, Funny)

afabbro (33948) | about 6 years ago | (#24022677)

Iditot.

Well, you sure showed him.

Re:Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL. (4, Funny)

S.O.B. (136083) | about 6 years ago | (#24022929)

Iditot.

Well, you sure showed him.

Maybe he's calling him a baby idiot.

Re:Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL. (2, Funny)

speilberg0 (1144645) | about 6 years ago | (#24025007)

damn replying to remove overrated instead of funny

Re:Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24023977)

...or IPV6 vs IPV4...

Keep in mind that MS Windows (all versions) is the main barrier holding back IPv6 [networkworld.com] . Other systems support IPv6 just fine.

Didn't even know it was "done"... (1)

bradgoodman (964302) | about 6 years ago | (#24022367)

I'm not "joking"..I mean - I don't recall seeing it being used in anything I've come across to-date. I'm not saying it isn't used - or maybe I haven't noticed it. I think in reality - the fact that Linux didn't use it means that certainly Linux modules didn't too - and it really got gummed up from there.

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"... (2, Informative)

pembo13 (770295) | about 6 years ago | (#24022563)

I'm pretty sure Samba uses.

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24022647)

and it really got gummed up from there.

Much like your sentence structure. Seriously, what? We have punctuation for a reason.

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 6 years ago | (#24024383)

One out of three piles of words you wrote was a sentence.

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"... (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 6 years ago | (#24024213)

I don't recall seeing it being used in anything I've come across to-date.

Does Qt or OpenOffice ring a bell?

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"... (1)

Ant P. (974313) | about 6 years ago | (#24024461)

I don't recall seeing it being used in anything I've come across to-date. I'm not saying it isn't used - or maybe I haven't noticed it.

Here's a few from a half-arsed package manager search in my already-installed stuff:
cp, mv, ls, tar, qt4, rsync, wget, cdparanoia, gnutls, gnupg

Anyone see much of a difference? (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 6 years ago | (#24022457)

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? (1, Troll)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | about 6 years ago | (#24022477)

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

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

I believe you mean freedom # -1 (5, Insightful)

FreeUser (11483) | about 6 years ago | (#24022559)

...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 (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | about 6 years ago | (#24022631)

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.

But see, that not what that section does. It restricts what hardware you may distribute the software on. The particular (mis)features of the hardware do not put "onerous restrictions" on the people buying it, they just make it somewhat less useful than it could be (but clearly still more useful than not having it at all, since people are willing to actually buy it).

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1 (3, Informative)

aj50 (789101) | about 6 years ago | (#24023221)

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 (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | about 6 years ago | (#24023663)

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.

"If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred..."

No, that's perfectly OK as long as the software is sold (or provided for free download) separately.

Being able to improve the software doesn't mean shit if you can't run your improved version in a useful way.

What, you expect them to have rewritten it in a device-specific assembly language or something so it can't be made to run on other hardware?

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1 (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 6 years ago | (#24023917)

...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.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1 (2, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 6 years ago | (#24023891)

It restricts what hardware you may distribute the software on.

This is a lie.

The truth is that you can distribute GPL 3 code on any hardware you want, even hardware that refuses to run unsigned binaries, and including the fucking TiVo! All you have to do is give the user the key so that he can sign modified binaries himself and run them.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1 (2, Insightful)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | about 6 years ago | (#24023983)

Putting it in bold doesn't make it so.

There is no practical difference between "you may not distribute this on hardware with misfeature X" and "you may only distribute this on hardware with misfeature X if you make make misfeature X completely ineffective".

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1 (1, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 6 years ago | (#24024305)

There is no practical difference...

But there is a technical one. And your post was, indeed, technically untrue.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1 (2, Insightful)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | about 6 years ago | (#24024625)

Classical mechanics is also technically untrue, but I wouldn't call it a "lie". I suppose the more precise statement would be "it restricts the effective properties that hardware it is distributed on may have".

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1 (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 6 years ago | (#24024307)

The particular (mis)features of the hardware do not put "onerous restrictions" on the people buying it,

Putting it in italics doesn't make it so.

There is no practical difference between "you may not use this software on hardware with misfeature X" and "you may only use this software on hardware without misfeature X."

It is, in fact, the very definition of onerous, even though that term itself never even appears in the GPL.

How does a derivative work hurt me? (2, Insightful)

ClientNine (1261974) | about 6 years ago | (#24022881)

...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.

How is this "fucking your neighbor"? So we write some code, and now a cool new consumer product appears somewhere that I can buy (or not) if I want. I have one more option in my life, which means I am slightly better off than I was before and it COST ME NOTHING.

This is what free software is all about. It's not about trying to stop people from making money, it's about making cool stuff available so that people can have better lives.

Re:How does a derivative work hurt me? (0, Troll)

novakyu (636495) | about 6 years ago | (#24025043)

This is what free software is all about. It's not about trying to stop people from making money, it's about making cool stuff available so that people can have better lives.

Er, you couldn't be more wrong. FREE software is about FREEDOM. Having the "cool stuff" may be a frequent by-product of free software, but that is definitely not a main goal---on the other hand, if you are talking "open source", yes, they try to emphasize that aspect of free software so that the businesses will be more receptive of free software, but free software proper is all about freedom.

And whether to stop tivoization or not really comes down to: Should you have the freedom to restrict other people's freedom?

If your answer is "yes" to that, I hope you don't reproduce.

P.S. And, of course, free software does respect people's right to pursue happiness and makes no exclusion of commercialization of free software---as long as it does not infringe on others' freedom.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24023073)

But doesn't freedom -1 run afoul of commandment 6?

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1 (2, Interesting)

Egdiroh (1086111) | about 6 years ago | (#24023075)

No Freedom -1, is the freedom to be a douche, declare that you are rebranding another's project because your parallel project effectively failed and then refuse to talk to anyone that doesn't adhere to your rebranding. And RMS executes it everyday. For some people Free software is about the software. They don't care what TiVo does with it as long as everyone get's the improvements they get to the code, or in other words they get to use the best of breed code. For others it's about using software as a trojan horse to open hardware. They intend to write such good code so that people who would normally release closed hardware will use release open hardware instead to take advantage of the good code. And of course for some it's about both and for some it's about neither. Both opinions are fine to have. But the FSF is mostly about the hardware and RMS will get up in the face of any one who just cares about the software. When really what needs to happen is the FSF needs to change their name to the FHF, openly state their mission of opening hardware, and stop creating division and confusion amoungst two groups of people that should be able to mostly get long.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1 (1)

Ant P. (974313) | about 6 years ago | (#24024481)

So you're implying that BSD doesn't have that freedom? That it's less free than GPL? Or are you making the statement that BSD fanboys are douchebags?

Re:Anyone see much of a difference? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 6 years ago | (#24022543)

I see one big difference: the GPL is a distribution license, but the AGPL is a EULA. The best I can say for it is that it may not be enforceable [honeypot.net] .

Re:Anyone see much of a difference? (1)

gomiam (587421) | about 6 years ago | (#24022745)

And, of course, the non-lawyer has been lucky enough to catch that possible meaning which, by the way, seems to be much like the terms on the GPL: making the source code available through the network or on a physical medium.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 6 years ago | (#24022937)

Hey, someone had to be the first.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 6 years ago | (#24022811)

But EULAs usually aren't enforceable to restrict the user meaning, if the EULA says I can make no backup copies but say copyright law allowed me 2 backup copies, the company couldn't use the EULA to sue me. Now, if the EULA said you got say 120 minutes of tech support each month for this company, that is a right, not a restriction, so the company couldn't back down from that as it was a contract. So something using the AGPL has to provide source or else it is considered fraud/lying/whatever the legal term is.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference? (2, Interesting)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | about 6 years ago | (#24023587)

I see one big difference: the GPL is a distribution license, but the AGPL is a EULA.

No, AGPL is still purely a grant of rights that are normally reserved to the copyright holder.

The best I can say for it is that it may not be enforceable [honeypot.net] .

Very funny. Even if you somehow could get a judge to agree with that, you still haven't managed to keep your modifications to yourself.

If you really wanted to keep the source away from the users, I'd think you'd want to look into mechanisms that don't rely on making changes to the software. Something like putting it behind an apache instance with mod_rewrite to redirect the download URL to an error page, or an intelligent firewall that drops the connection when it sees the "fetch source" command, or something similar so that all of your copyright-license-required modifications very clearly follow the license.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 6 years ago | (#24023953)

I see one big difference: the GPL is a distribution license, but the AGPL is a EULA.

Tell that to the OpenOffice.org people -- they seem to think the GPL is an EULA too (because they include it in the installer where an EULA usually goes and force you to click "I Agree" to install).

Re:Anyone see much of a difference? (1)

torstenvl (769732) | about 6 years ago | (#24024385)

the AGPL is a EULA

[citation needed]

[EULAs] may not be enforceable

[citation needed]

Re:Anyone see much of a difference? (5, Insightful)

McDutchie (151611) | about 6 years ago | (#24022605)

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.

I've seen an effect (5, Interesting)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#24022535)

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 (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 6 years ago | (#24022741)

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 (1)

maxume (22995) | about 6 years ago | (#24022847)

Please explain how preferring user freedom to ease of code (re)use is not a political view.

Perhaps the OP is more interested in seeing his code used widely than he is concerned with what exactly the end uses are.

Re:I've seen an effect (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 6 years ago | (#24022917)

Please explain how preferring user freedom to ease of code (re)use is not a political view.



Tell me how preferring proprietary software is a political view. Wanting user freedom is as much of a political view as preferring proprietary software over free software. Within the user freedom comes freedom to have a more unified fork. For example, if Apple wanted to fork GPL'd software that is fine, all of Apple's patches have to be open source too, so you can add them back to the codebase.

Re:I've seen an effect (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | about 6 years ago | (#24023257)

If they prefer proprietary software *in principle* to free software, then it's equivalent (and very political). This is rare; people are more likely to prefer instances of proprietary software but be indifferent to principles, except that when they sell software they tend to prefer one or the other.

Politics politics /pltks/ Pronunciation Key - [pol-i-tiks]-- use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc.

We're talking about obtaining user freedom (user power & control), vs. the freedom (power & control) to re-use code in proprietary software.

Re:I've seen an effect (1)

maxume (22995) | about 6 years ago | (#24023273)

I don't follow what you are saying. Using BSD is being agnostic to end uses, not preferring proprietary software, so I don't see how that is related.

I'm not arguing that user freedom is bad, or worse, just that it is a preference that has political overtones.

Re:I've seen an effect (1, Troll)

Chemisor (97276) | about 6 years ago | (#24023183)

> 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.

Well, duh! The point is that I don't care. If they take my code and put restrictions on it, I still don't care: no matter what happens, I still have my code. Anyone who wants to get my code can still get my code. What they can't get is the *insert corporation here*'s code that they added to my code, and the one very important point the GPL camp misses is that only a communist would lay claim to that code. The corporation wrote it, it's theirs. They can keep it, or sell it, or give it away. But it is immoral for me to force them to give it away. I can do what I want with my free software; I have no right to dictate others what to do with the code they write, even if it is using my code that they legally obtained from me. When I release free software, it's free software. Period. No friggin' GPL strings attached.

Re:I've seen an effect (0)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | about 6 years ago | (#24023455)

and the one very important point the GPL camp misses is that only a communist would lay claim to that code.

That is an odd claim to make when you consider that all of the commercially successful open-source software products are GNU licensed.

Re:I've seen an effect (1)

samkass (174571) | about 6 years ago | (#24024263)

That is an odd claim to make when you consider that all of the commercially successful open-source software products are GNU licensed.

That is an odd claim to make because it's utterly untrue. The flaw in your logic stems from your assumption that, like GNU requires, all open-sourcing be an all-or-nothing deal. There is a LOT of BSD-style licensed code and libraries used within successful commercial code. My guess is far more than is GNU licensed, but there's no way of knowing since BSD doesn't shove its license down the end-user's throats.

Re:I've seen an effect (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | about 6 years ago | (#24024665)

I've heard that the BSD networking stack was very successful in commercial products. How are you defining "commercially successful", GPL/proprietary dual license like QT?

Re:I've seen an effect (1)

fsmunoz (267297) | about 6 years ago | (#24023845)

I understand what you're saying, but there are some points that I would like o comment; all these points are just a curiosity and they don't affect the one very important point you made: it's *your* code and *you do what you want with it*, including choosing the licence that you think better fits you. If it's a free software licence, all the better.

To the points:

-Corporation-friendly BSD vs. Communistic GPL: as someone else already said all the successful free software commercial products I remember are GPL. Asid from this you are not considering one important point: corporations vastly prefer the GPL when it's their turn to *release* the code, since they won't give a competitive advantage to their rivals by virtue of the need of sharing the changes. They *do* prefer BSD code when it's code made by others, of course.

-It's their code: people - and corporations - are free *not* tu use GPL code,or BSD code, or whatever. Just because the licence allows for vastly greater uses then proprietary software doesn't mean that the wishes of the people who chose a specific language should suddenly stop counting because the code "was just there and we needed it". Anyone who doesn't want to feel limited by the terms of the GPL is free to use something else, just like someone who doesn't want to feel limited by the BSD licence terms shouldn't use it. I mention this because I remember that recently many in the BSD community were suddenly quite vocal about the usage of their code in GPL'ed projects, and I witnessed many right in on /. drooling in ecstasy by the prospect of BSD code not being usable in GPL'ed projects.

- My software is free software: as I said, even the ISC licence has restrictions. As such, anyone who wants the supposedly better "real freedom" should just put the code in the Public Domain. Since I know no OS that promotes such a usage I guess that some liberties are better than others.

- GPLv3 criticism is generally done by those who also disliked the GPLv2: this is not directly related to your comment but it's something that crops in this kind of discussions; suddenly the GPLv3 is attacked because of stuff that was already part of the GPLv2. This reinforces the idea that *in general* the GPLv3 closes the holes that some had found in the GPLv2. I said in general because others simply dislike the new terms of the GPLv3 while agreeing with the ones in the GPLv2.

Re:I've seen an effect (1)

synthespian (563437) | about 6 years ago | (#24024959)

Corporation-friendly BSD vs. Communistic GPL: as someone else already said all the successful free software commercial products I remember are GPL.

You just forgot to mention that they either have licenses (per-seat, for example), are hardware manufacturers (ergo, the software is just a commodity), or dual-license (and therefore, are fucking hypocrites/wiseguys).

Let's keep it honest, shall we?

Re:I've seen an effect (1)

bug1 (96678) | about 6 years ago | (#24024121)

"But it is immoral for me to force them to give it away."

You are putting the interests of individuals before the interests of society at large, the GPL tries to maximise freedom for all users, not specific individual users.

You may well consider it immoral to force people to give away their code, i consider it unethical to authorize other people to use your code to be used to exploit society.

Comparing copyleft and non-copyleft licences is like comparing Apples and Oranges.

GPL sharing vs. BSD sharing (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24022805)

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

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. Some people think that code that is shared should stay shared otherwise the point of sharing is largely defeated. If you feel that way then a GPL license is what you need. It's not about politics - it's just about choosing a license that fits your view of what 'shared code' should mean.

Re:GPL sharing vs. BSD sharing (5, Interesting)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 6 years ago | (#24023275)

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?

Re:GPL sharing vs. BSD sharing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24023623)

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?

If you had kept reading you'd have found the answer to your question in the parent post a couple lines down:

it's just about choosing a license that fits your view of what 'shared code' should mean.

Your view of what 'shared code' means isn't necessarily the same as everyone else's. That's why there are different open source licenses for people to pick from - so people can choose to make sure that the code they've shared stays shared in the way they want it to. That's OK with you, isn't it? You're not advocating that everyone use a BSD style license merely for your own ego, are you?

Political Views (3, Insightful)

ClientNine (1261974) | about 6 years ago | (#24022853)

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 (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 6 years ago | (#24023023)

If the company is sensible, it doesn't do anything of the sort. It merely states that they need to make the source available in some manner to the person who buy's the product. It in no way prohibits them from making money.

Re:Political Views (5, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | about 6 years ago | (#24023215)

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 (4, Interesting)

Snocone (158524) | about 6 years ago | (#24023541)

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:Political Views (2, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 6 years ago | (#24024149)

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.

Re:Political Views (1)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | about 6 years ago | (#24024903)

Er, no. The GPL builds upon state protected monopoly rights as well. Otherwise, how could it be enforced?

You're right, but that's a narrow interpretation of intent. As much as the GPL builds upon state protect monopoly rights, it does so as a means to void* said state protected monopoly rights indefinitely for all such licensed code. Things like the public domain and various BSD-like licenses only attempt to void** state protection as far as their own distribution goes. The real end goal by some, but not all, supports of the GPL is to end state protected monopoly rights fully, thereby voiding the concept of enforcement or the need to fight towards the legal use of code from whatever code made available. Considering that such is unlikely to happen any time soon (ie, within the lifetime of most people today), the GPL is the best license so far readily avaiable to avail themselves towards that end.

*This isn't entire true, obviously. The GPL doesn't merely grant reuse/redistribution rights. It comes with it the burden of releasing source code. Obviously, if copyright didn't exist, there are many people who would refuse to release the source code, which would require disassembling binaries to reconstitute source code***. This, btw, is obviously a huge pain in the ass and many who support the GPL are unwilling to allow copyright to disappear completely because the perceived trade-off of legal reuse/redistribution rights of all code versus the actual hurdles introduced from people legally close-sourcing any or all code is too great. Obviously, this is a selfish abuse of state monopoly rights.

**While the public domain does void use of all state monopoly rights, BSD-like licenses are different. Specifically, like the GPL, BSD-like licenses rely upon redistribution rights to obtain indemnity of various kinds. In theory, something released under the public domain that did harm would put the author in legal jeopardy under which they would not be if said code where BSD licensed. Truthfully, except in malicious cases, there is de facto indemnity over public domain code--and in malicious cases, no license or lack there of is likely to help. In short, those who use BSD-like licenses are selfishly covering their ass through abuse of state monopoly rights.

***One could make a derivative of the GPLv2 that removed the source code requirement and the legal liability indemnities. If anything, I believe that this license would actually be more free than a public domain license because it exerts the most effort to usurp the infringement of the inherent right to copy with the least inclusion of other, selfish wants. Now, obviously this license could be said to be selfish on its own too, but then the desire to use one's own inherent rights can obviously be said to be selfish, but justiifable. Certainly, so long as laws are created to infringe such rights, there is no perfect solution.

PS - Yea, I realize, I'm retreading a lot what you've said. I just wanted to, selfishly, spell out the issues more thoroughly.

Re:Political Views (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | about 6 years ago | (#24024701)

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.

Your code isn't "donated"--you're still profiting from it, you're just not charging for it. End users would be able to use your code wherever and whenever they wanted. What you're really saying is that you want access to Tivo's code in exchange for giving them yours for free.

That's not intellectual freedom. That's cross-licensing. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't hide behind a bullshit philosophy and claims of "freedom". Tivo isn't preventing the end user from seeing, having, modifying, using, or pissing on your code, and your argument is just a pile of steaming dung.

If Tivo's abuse of the intent of GPL prevents products _better_ than Tivo from appearing, I'd say that's a Bad Thing.

Tivo hasn't abused anything. No one is "prevented" from doing something better than Tivo. They have access to the same starting point that Tivo had. If they really had the skill to outperform them, they wouldn't need the handicap. They'd write better code, and people would buy their product and not Tivo's.

They do, however, have a problem with someone else harming others.

Then why do they do it? GPL zealots are rabid, angry, superior assholes who give the open source movement as a whole a bad name. They're hell-bent on pushing their own greedy restrictions down the throats of everyone, while mocking other approaches, all in the name of "freedom" (where freedom is selectively defined).

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

no strings attached. The GPL patently falls outside this category. They are tying the hands of would-be competitors by limiting their options. You'd have to be deluded to believe otherwise. The GPL builds on the same state-protected monopoly rights and would be utterly unenforceable without them.

Absolute competition means accepting the possibility that someone will abuse your hospitality and generosity. That is why a truly free market does not work, unless you ignore the environment, human health, and business survival.

Re:Political Views (1)

setagllib (753300) | about 6 years ago | (#24023439)

The GPLv3 doesn't prevent products like Tivo from appearing, it limits the limitations they can place on users. The products will be made anyway, because the market is there for them, and as long as using GPL code is still a net win for the company, it will have to tolerate restrictions placed on itself as well. It's just economics for them - the GPL may give them some new costs but the code involved saves them a lot of costs.

Re:I've seen an effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24022857)

The first line of the GPLv3 throws me off: the bullsh1t word "copyleft" has no place in a copyright licence. Is there a licence equivalent to the GPLv3 that excludes the political rhetoric? Other than parts of the preamble and section 3, it seems like a good licence to me. If such a licence exists, then I might use it for my own stuff. Otherwise, no.

Unfortunately, the FSF denies people the right to distribute modified copies of their licence. How consistent of them.

Re:I've seen an effect (1)

AnyoneEB (574727) | about 6 years ago | (#24023093)

Copyleft [wikipedia.org] is a technical term in the field of copyright licenses. The GPLv3 (like the GPLv2) is a copyleft license. It seems proper for them to use the term.

Re:I've seen an effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24024069)

The article you linked states that "Copyleft is a play on the word copyright". When the word "copyleft" acquires an internationally-recognized legal meaning, then it will be appropriate to use in a copyright licence. As it stands, the discussion of "copyleft" in the GPLv3 is meaningless political rhetoric. Which, IMHO, has no place in a legal document.

Re:I've seen an effect (4, Insightful)

junglee_iitk (651040) | about 6 years ago | (#24022899)

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 (1)

aurasdoom (1279164) | about 6 years ago | (#24023021)

Maybe because
no license = no right to use the code ?

Re:I've seen an effect (3, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 6 years ago | (#24024103)

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.

Re:I've seen an effect (2, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#24023113)

1) The BSD license has a disclaimer of warranty, whereas public domain doesn't.

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.

Re:I've seen an effect (4, Interesting)

Chemisor (97276) | about 6 years ago | (#24023125)

> 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 (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 6 years ago | (#24023757)

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.

Which pretty much sums up all that's wrong with the crippling legal system in the US. It's the kind of "I'd walk down the sidewalk but I'm afraid a car driver might be distracted and sue me for it. I've never heard of it happen, but it could happen, and I certainly don't want to be the first." I guess it's a natural response to the environment, but looking from some distance away it seems completely crazy.

Re:I've seen an effect (3, Informative)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | about 6 years ago | (#24023255)

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 (1)

setagllib (753300) | about 6 years ago | (#24023475)

The minimal 2-clause BSDL only staples your copyright and disclaimer to the source. That's "enough" for many developers. Some people don't even care about that, and go public. Some people want more, and go GPL or EPL or whatever.

Functionally, 2-clause BSDL is identical to MIT. The slightly more common 3-cause BSDL includes a clause which basically says "don't use the developer's name for endorsement of derivative works".

Re:I've seen an effect (1)

FilterMapReduce (1296509) | about 6 years ago | (#24023909)

Functionally, 2-clause BSDL is identical to MIT. The slightly more common 3-cause BSDL includes a clause which basically says "don't use the developer's name for endorsement of derivative works".

IANAL, but I think BSD and MIT are functionally equivalent whether or not you use the third clause of BSD ("Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission"). Using someone's name or likeness for an endorsement without their permission is prohibited anyway; the clause to that effect is the BSD license is (I've read) just an avoidance-of-doubt thing. Of course, it could conceivably help you out in a court case some day—not to mention educate people on your personality rights—so maybe it's a good idea anyway.

Re:I've seen an effect (3, Informative)

FilterMapReduce (1296509) | about 6 years ago | (#24023839)

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 (1)

howlingmadhowie (943150) | about 6 years ago | (#24022985)

if you want to share your code, you can use a bsd-style license. if you however want your code to be shared, you should use a copyleft license like the GPL.

Re:I've seen an effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24023143)

Sounds good (like some clever little saying), but it's a false statement. With BSD, your code is shared by definition and that's the end of it... anyone can take it and do with it what they will. GPL forces everyone who modifies your code to share theirs as well. It's all about the downstream use, not the use of the actual code you produce. Theoretically, if some device uses some other distribution intact (no modifications required) they shouldn't have to distribute jack. Also, if someone makes a device even with modifications, if they give out the source but have no way to hack the system (all the code is in ROM), it doesn't do much good, either.

Re:I've seen an effect (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 6 years ago | (#24023343)

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.

Does the GPLv3 prevent any new projects from adopting the GPLv2 license? (With or without the "or any later version" statement).

Just like the old (GPL incompatible) BSD license was changed to the new compatible one (removing the "advertising clause"), but projects have gone ahead and used the old BSD license anyways (because they want the advertising clause, for example).

Re:I've seen an effect (4, Informative)

Ed Avis (5917) | about 6 years ago | (#24023353)

You might want to look at what happened to the Java Model Railroad Interface project [sourceforge.net] . 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 (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | about 6 years ago | (#24024373)

They can still incorporate the code into GPLed programs if they wish

And not give it back to the BSD devs. Woo!

While they're under no obligation to do so, you'd think that the GPL-using devs who feel so strongly about giving back their code would give back to the people they built their code upon.

GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit (3, Insightful)

DVega (211997) | about 6 years ago | (#24023509)

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:GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit (0, Troll)

vakuona (788200) | about 6 years ago | (#24024363)

That's what Stallman would have you believe. The dirty (not so) secret is that Stallman hates DRM, almost as much, if not more, than he hates proprietary software.

Tivo released all the improvements they made to the software they used. What they did was prevent users being able to modify software on the Tivo, and pass it off as a Tivo. GPLv3 tries to make it so that a user can modify a system, and be able to pass it off as the original. It makes DRM impossible. This is not something "unintended". I daresay, RMS designed the GPLv3 to do this. To make it impossible to use GPLv3 software in DRM applications.

Re:GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit (0, Troll)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | about 6 years ago | (#24024391)

Your right to "hack" with the source code has been abolished.

No it hasn't. You can do whatever you please with the source. Their hardware just has the right to not accept it. Surely you l33t GPL devs could go build an identical system that doesn't require verification, right?

Oh, wait. The FSF doesn't give a shit about free software. They just want to tell people what they can do with their hardware.

Not again ! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24022623)

On no, its bedtime in jolly old England again and I just can't nod off. I'm wearing my nightgown and cap, I've drunk my cocoa, I've tried counting sheep but nothing works. Hold on a minute, what's this

provide accurate counts and clear validation. For each of the more than 15,000 projects collected for this project from more than 500,000 reviewed, the sources were reviewed, proper license references (sound of loud snoring......) and attributions verified, and the license text, unchanged, was identified. While we used some level of automation, we felt that there were problems that required lots of hands and eyes on the problem. Among these were missing license text, no license information in source headers

Palamida's numbers are meaningless (4, Interesting)

ArcRiley (737114) | about 6 years ago | (#24022777)

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 [ohloh.net] to track license adoption.

I believe you'd find, when these other data sources are included, the numbers are very different.

Fw: A Year of GPLv3 (1)

meuhlavache (1101089) | about 6 years ago | (#24022835)

AGPLv3 has captured a great interest lately

Did I read the number of projects is not as good as we hope?

A problem with the GPLv3 (1)

Silverlancer (786390) | about 6 years ago | (#24023351)

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.

No, you're ok. (1)

DrYak (748999) | about 6 years ago | (#24023857)

GPLv3 would, in my understanding, prevent us from distributing such boards.

No, you're confusing stuff.
GPLv3 is about using DRM to reject modifications that would otherwise be possible.
- In your case, any potential developer could pay a developer kit and then, once that piece of hardware secured, run any modification he wants on any of your product - both his own or anyone else's. It is possible, although it costs some money, to modify the code and your company isn't actively trying to pull tricks to prevent modifications. It's just that the hardware requirement aren't cheap. But that has never stopped GPLed software : there *IS* GPLv3 software running exclusively on windows (even if windows isn't open at all and does cost money), and in a way, any free[dom] software requires the hacker to at least own a computer (which costs money. not as much as the dev kit, but does anyway).

- In the TiVo case, signing keys are required to pass the DRM, *BUT* users have *no* way to obtain keys to run modification on your own hardware or anyone else's - it's not a problem of price, it's a problem of complete lack of availability. DRM is used to lock the user out and the user can't do anything about it. Had TiVo provided each user with a key he can use to upload his very own modification inside the TiVo, the software would have been compatible with GPLv3.

What you *CAN'T* do is name that software "Gnu-{something}" for that requires the software to be built with freedom components all the way down. As an example the open source password management "Palm Gnu Keyring" has been renamed into "Palm Keyring" because it only runs on 1 single platform and that platform is proprietary.
(As opposed to the countless software like GIMP that have a Windows-port [proprietary] but also have a Linux-port thus enabling users to use them on system that are entirely free (as in freedom) )

Re:A problem with the GPLv3 (2, Informative)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | about 6 years ago | (#24023865)

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.

Re:A problem with the GPLv3 (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 6 years ago | (#24024291)

Disclaimer: IANAL. Do not take this advice without consulting one and confirming that it is correct, especially since you're talking about a company's actions.

The GPLv3 does not require that you help the user modify the code on the device; it only requires that you don't hinder him. In fact, you could burn GPLv3 code into ROM (which would, of course, be entirely unmodifiable) and be okay. It is only when you artificially disallow modification that would otherwise be technically possible by using DRM that you violate the license.

Of course, I'm sure it would be appreciated if you picked a board capable of modifying the code on the FPGA if a suitable driver existed, and released the information necessary for the community to write one. I don't think too many people would complain about you not spending the effort to write a Free driver yourself in that case.

Re:A problem with the GPLv3 (1)

Ant P. (974313) | about 6 years ago | (#24024583)

From what I understand of the GPL, as long as anyone else is able to hack the code by buying themselves a dev kit at fair price (the $1000) then it's OK. If you were actively preventing anyone else from getting access to the developer stuff (say by charging $15m for it) then that'd be not OK.

Affero GPL is nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24023581)

jPOS [slashdot.org] has recently changed its license from GPL to AGPL. jPOS is a basically a trasactional switch where POS devices send message to and then the switch relay it to the authorizer(a bank or another processor) at the end a response is send it back to the POS.

Affero requires that the complete source code be made available to any network user of the AGPLed work. How in the hell you could do that?.. I mean, in a network like this you have many POS conected to the switch.. the users of this devices are the merchants and the cardholders.. everytime you pass your card and enter your PIN in the POS you are using the app over the network... that means if you don't give the source code to all the people using the app you are infringing the license..

If you dont want jPOS with AGPL you need to buy a commercial license. So what's the point of AGPL.. it is not like a trial shareware app?.. if you need it in production your only choice is buy the commercial license, so whats the point .

Re:Affero GPL is nonsense (2, Informative)

bug1 (96678) | about 6 years ago | (#24024297)

"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.

Palamida (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24023967)

Interesting article summary, mentioning Palamida ahead of Black Duck. The mere fact that Palamida has gotten mention in this article summary is absurd.

Anyone worth their salt strongly sees Palamida as the joke of the small-yet-growing OSS-component license management industry.

Palamida has a very well-developed habit of scraping their GPLv3 metadata (Google searching for 'GPLv3' wouldn't surprise me in the least), and subsequently not bothering to verify most, if not all/any of it. A large amount of the time Palamida's GPLv3 data is grossly inaccurate in regards to both the specific license, as well as the whether or not a project has even yet been released.

They're wasting the time of their clients, and the money of their investors. Each move they make looks more and more like a desperate attempt to stay afloat in a sea of mercury.

When WILL they go away?

or later (2, Insightful)

sentientbrendan (316150) | about 6 years ago | (#24024933)

The actual number of projects using GPLv3 seems quite small, about 3000, and of course the most important GPL project, the Linux kernel, will never change for both legal reasons (not all committers are available), and Linus' ideological reasons.

Is the GPLv3 even meaningful if the kernel does not change licenses? My understanding is that it was primarily designed to undermine Tivo and DRM, which cannot be done in a meaningful if the kernel isn't part of the deal.

The article tries to conflate licenses issued with the "or later" clause as GPLv3; however, I think they misunderstand the legal implications of that clause. It means that the *user* may follow the terms and conditions of later licenses; however, the user does not gain any further rights in GPLv3 as I understand it, the author merely loses rights (to use the resulting binaries under locked down hardware). Since the *author* can still use the code under the GPLv2 and so can tivo, there is effectively no change until the license itself is changed, so GPLv2 with "or later" clauses don't matter.

GPLv3 seems dead on arrival. A number of FSF projects will use it, but I don't know of any FSF projects where the anti tivoization stuff would even have any effect, unless I don't understand the new restrictions properly.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...