Beta
×

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!

Number of GPL v3 projects tops 2,000

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the i'm-sure-rms-is-very-happy dept.

GNU is Not Unix 116

Da Massive writes "The number of open-source projects that use the GNU General Public License Version 3 has grown to more than 2,000, according to Palamida, which sells software and services for tracking open-source code within a customer's code base. 'Our database now contains over 2,000 projects that are using the GPL v3. "At this rate the GPL v3 is being adopted by 1,000 projects every 4-5 months, and if the trend continues, the license will be used by 5,000 projects by the end of the year," states a recent posting on Palamida's blog.'"

cancel ×

116 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Linear interpolation... (4, Insightful)

adpsimpson (956630) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939926)

"At this rate the GPL v3 is being adopted by 1,000 projects every 4-5 months, and if the trend continues, the license will be used by 5,000 projects by the end of the year," states a recent posting on Palamida's blog."

It could also mean there has been a rush to convert projects, or that there is an exponentially increasing number under the license.

A simple linear interpretation of the data isn't that useful - maybe I should RTFA to see if there's a graph or something?

But hey, this is slashdot! Read the article??!

Re:Linear interpolation... (4, Informative)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940012)

I wouldn't want anybody straining themselves, so I'll do it for you.

The article itself does not have a distribution, but the blog linked to by the article does: Palamida blog complete with chart [blogspot.com] . There was a definite surge last year of GPL3 projects, followed a sharp decline in December. The number of add projects, however, has been slowly climbing for the first few months of 2008.

Re:Linear interpolation... (1)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940052)

Also, a 5000 project end-of-year prediction seems very optimistic to me. I think a more reasonable prediction would be 3500-4000.

GPLv3 is for Fearless Freedom-Defenders. (1)

PaulGaskin (913658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22946006)

GPLv2 was good enough for a long time, but certain corporations have demonstrated a ways of exploiting the license. Now GPLv3 will protect the projects which matter, going forward. This train is bound for glory.

Re:Linear interpolation... (4, Interesting)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940112)

It looks like they're adding ~180 new projects per month. With nine months remaining, that doesn't come out to 4000 by year end, let alone 5000.

Additional thoughts:

1) Any time I read something involving "If this trend continues", even if it's based on solid data I hear it in my head in Disco Stu's voice, which tends to undercut its credibility.

2) This ("Four new GPL 3 projects this week!") is arguably the most boring blog in the world.

Re:Linear interpolation... (3, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940300)

There was a definite surge last year of GPL3 projects, followed a sharp decline in December.

This makes it sound like there was a decline in GPL3 projects, which isn't the case. There was a decline in the growth rate of GPL3 projects, meaning that the number of GPL3 projects grew, only not as fast as in previous months.

Re:Linear interpolation... (3, Informative)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940394)

You're right: my bad. Describing statistics can get very wordy, and I was trying to mitigate the wordiness - I guess I got carried away.

Just as an aside, I am in no way trying to detract from the accomplishments here; this is a very nice v3 adoption rate. I was just agreeing with the original poster that the statistics deserve better interpretation than a 'grade school average over time'.

Re:Linear interpolation... (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941516)

This makes it sound like there was a decline in GPL3 projects, which isn't the case.

It's probably not the case, but it's hard to say. How many GPLv3 projects get abandoned per month? Without that statistic, it's impossible to estimate the change in the total number of GPLv3 projects.

Re:Linear interpolation... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940544)

SO there are a bunch of projects that can easilly be converted to GPL3. By December most of the Really Easy Ones were ported, then they needed development time in to move anything that couldn't be GPL3 and make GPL3 versions of such. And the slow climbing is the fact that the GPL3 Apps are being completed at different rates.

My main problem with the GPL/3 (well the GPL in general) is that it is very strict and many of their followers are very religious towards the GPL, What RMS Says must be right additude. So there is a lot of extra work with little benefit just to keep your userbase up. Espectially if you work on the fringes of the GPL (Coding to the word of the GPL but not the spirit of the GPL) then you are volnerable to the whims of the GPL Comunity, who may be a major customer/user base.
While I can hear the argument you don't have to switch to GPL/3 but if you customers are demmanding it or work with other GPL/3 Code will work in GPL 2 code but not the other way around nessararly. So you are better off going GPL/3 for that reason. However I felt they should have made GPL/3 more umm... Open closer to the BSD License.

Graph (2, Informative)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940070)

A simple linear interpretation of the data isn't that useful - maybe I should RTFA to see if there's a graph or something?

The original source [palamida.com] has a graph, kind of, and the increase seems pretty much linear to me.

Extrapolation, not interpolation (1)

Adam J. Richter (17693) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941428)

If the estimated data point is not between known data points, then this process is extrapolation [wikipedia.org] , not interpolation.

GPL (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22939934)

Too bad the quality of the products will still be unfinished eternally beta like pretty much all FOSS.

Re:GPL (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940136)

I was going to ask - "how many of them ship something that a lot of people want to use and are fairly stable?" It sure won't be the whole 5,000 they are estimating. Maybe 500? Maybe 1,000 that will be decently usable?

yeah, like the quality of M$ stuff is better (2, Insightful)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940164)

Or Creative's drivers :) or anything else.
The only difference is that FOSS programmers are not forced to declare their stuff 'finished'.

Re:yeah, like the quality of M$ stuff is better (1)

Neil Hodges (960909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940450)

If you mean their X-Fi Linux drivers, those aren't anywhere near the beta stage. Their drivers don't even compile on my system, let alone work with the card.

If it weren't for 4Front's OSSv4 X-Fi drivers (which still need improvement), I would likely still be using my Live! 5.1 card.

Re:yeah, like the quality of M$ stuff is better (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940482)

FOSS programs are "finished" when development has stopped.

Re:GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940194)

nice troll.

Re:GPL (1)

Arccot (1115809) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940418)

Too bad the quality of the products will still be unfinished eternally beta like pretty much all FOSS.
It beats paying for closed source beta-but-claiming-its-not software.

GPLv2 compliance-? (1, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939948)

I wonder if all of them are off the dependency of GPLv2 code and don't cause a violation in the process of going GPLv3. It must be a pretty hard task making sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot while moving from one license version to an incompatible one.

Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (5, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940180)

This is exactly what's stopping my project from adopting GPLv3. Stylus Toolbox uses GladeGen [linuxjournal.com] for some of its more complicated windows (I did the initial design using GladeGen, but the rest of the project just uses stock PyGTK code).

The problem is that the linked-to article, all the documentation that exists for GladeGen, only mentions that the code is GPL; it doesn't specify a version and there is no COPYING file or mention of a license in any of the files or source code. So I'm not entirely certain as to the legal status of the code other than it's probably licensed under some version of the GPL.

If David Reed or Linux Journal could come forward and clarify the legal status, that would be most helpful. Maybe someone with a legal background might provide some help, too.

Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940340)

It should say at the top of every source code file.

Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940442)

I know you're trying to be helpful and I'm not trying to pick on you, but lots of people seem to not read what I write before replying. I'm not singling you out, just letting everyone know that if you're going to reply to me, at least read I wrote:

The problem is that the linked-to article, all the documentation that exists for GladeGen, only mentions that the code is GPL; it doesn't specify a version and there is no COPYING file or mention of a license in any of the files or source code.

Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (4, Informative)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940408)

This may help

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Emphasis mine

Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940454)

Hmph. I wonder how legally binding that is. Because the article doesn't actually say "GNU General Public License", it just says "GPL."

Being a bit anal about it, aren't we? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22941336)

If the author(s) don't care enough to specify exactly what they mean, the only reason to undo the changes for GPL3 inclusion is to show them respect for their divergent wishes. Legally, you're OK and the worst they can do is fork it to a version that specifies more exactly what they want. Doing any more than that on your behalf is because you want to.

So change already.

Re:Being a bit anal about it, aren't we? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942124)

Anal? No, RMS is anal about copyright. If you want anal, read RMS' comments about the schism between GNU Emacs and XEmacs/Lucid Emacs. That's anal. I'm just trying to cover my legal arse, because, you know, lawyers tend to be far more anal than myself.

Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943596)

How very interesting. I have forgotten about that.

Thanks.

Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941488)

That is pretty tough to discern. I imagine that it has to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 though. It seems that GladeGen Uses GTK which is LGPLv2 and Gnome (libglade)libraries which I can't seem to find a hard license version over.

It appears that the license references on the pages I could find simply point to a FSF site with the current GPLv3 license. This seems to violate the GPL in and if itself because you are supposed to reference the version and a statement about later versions on not. It could be that it is already incompatible with itself. Although as I understand it, LGPL licenses aren't incompatible with the GPLv3 by default. I can understand your frustration quite well. Perhaps this thread would bring some light to the situation.

Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942336)

libglade is LGPL, so the version it's associated with doesn't matter much. All versions of LGPL are compatible with GPLv3. Most, if not all, of the GNOME libraries are also LGPL. Not like the mishmash of licenses in KDE :) *ducks*

GladeGen also uses PyXML, which in turn uses libxml, which is MIT licensed. No problem there.

Most of the rest of the code Stylus Toolbox uses is offered under the PSF license, which is GPL3-compatible according to RMS.

PyGTK itself is LGPL and pexpect is PSF licensed.

Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943662)

Well, it sounds like you got most of your answers.

An interesting point someone made to me was that if no version number is present, then any version of the GPL could be applied. However, given your situation where none of the appropriate notices are present in the code like the license requires, there still is that realm of doubt. I mean if the article was wrong and it turns out to be some other license, it could mean a lot of hassle sorting it out. Best of luck to you.

Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944874)

...it doesn't specify a version and there is no COPYING file or mention of a license in any of the files or source code.

<IANAL>Then it has no license at all, and you are committing copyright infringement. I suggest you stop distributing your project until you've contacted the copyright holder of GladeGen and gotten him to properly license it.</IANAL>

And this matters, why? (1, Troll)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939952)

Not trying to be a wiseass (well, yeah, maybe I am), but why is this important. I never really understood the whole "V2 VS V3" thing, and a succinct explanation would be appreciated.

Re:And this matters, why? (3, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940020)

The GPLv2 is the GPL we all have used since sometime in the 90's. The GPLv3 decide to add some activism onto it and as a result isn't compatible with the GPLv2 anymore.

My main gripe is that it doesn't do exactly what it claims to do because of the way the GPLv2 upgrade is worded and a few technical wordings. Other people don't like it because their projects are dependent on GPLv2 only software or semi-closed software which the GPLv3 doesn't allow. Projects like the linux kernel won't be moving to GPLv3 and it is pointless to dual license GPLv3 code do it creates a lot of confusion to boot.

Re:And this matters, why? (5, Insightful)

domatic (1128127) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940272)


The GPLv2 is the GPL we all have used since sometime in the 90's. The GPLv3 decide to add some activism onto it and as a result isn't compatible with the GPLv2 anymore.


The GPLv2 was also an implementation of activism and it too has plenty of detractors. Any license out of the FSF is going to be an implementation of activism. It's like the people who like Fox News "Because it is SOOOOO unbiased!". It's plenty biased but the bias lines up with their personal inclinations, causes little cognitive dissonance and is therefore seen as unbiased. In the same vein, the GPLv2 aligns with the goals of it's users and is thus seen as a purely practical tool for implementing them. What GPLv2 users who gripe about the GPLv3 REALLY mean is that they agree with some but not all of the FSF's "activism".

Re:And this matters, why? (2, Interesting)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940524)

Agreed. I have a problem with the viral aspect of it since you're telling people it must be wide-and-open. If I ever start a project I'll keep it open because I believe in sharing. I do not believe in telling others to share because that's for them to decide. I'll stick with the BSD or even better the beerware [wikipedia.org] license. In my definition of free, they're more free than the GPL, despite RMS's opinion.

Re:And this matters, why? (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940818)

I often thought about using a modified Beerware license which, rather than granting the author the right to buy me a beer, imposes considering buying me a beer as a condition of the license. Because the license imposes a condition not present in the GPL, it would be incompatible with the GPL, but compatible with pretty much every other Free Software license.

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941048)

I like your thinking :)

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940868)

When you release a piece of code under the BSD license, if I adopt it, build a business around its use, and then you get a patent on the technology in the code, I'm screwed.

So, I have two choices. I can use GPLv3 software and know I can't be screwed, or I can develop my own solution.

In this situation, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if you wrote the code or not, because it's not safe for me to rely on it.

You say you do not believe in telling others to share. That's not what this is about. The GPL does not give you that power in the first place, in any of its iterations.

This is about offering to share, collaborating with others who also wish to share, and everyone assuring each other that no one will attempt to impose a cost later that isn't transparent at the time of adoptation.

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941020)

Good points, I see what you mean. You seem to have a pretty good understanding of it so I have a question for you. When you say

that no one will attempt to impose a cost later that isn't transparent at the time of adoptation.
do you mean
  • the current code/software that you're using has a cost retroactively put on it?
  • that code/software built from that could have a cost on it?

Re:And this matters, why? (2, Informative)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941662)

I'm referring to people who are building a business using the software, or using a modified version of the software, as a tool to do their day to day operations. Not people who make code for third parties as their day to day business operations.

Now, if you release something under the BSD, and you have a patent pending, and I use it to run my nuts and bolts factory, I could wake up one day and find out that you own all the profits my business generates.

If you released it under the GPLv3, I would already have a legally binding assurance that you won't do that to me.

Now, if there is a third party with patents involved, I don't have a legal release from their patents if they are not involved in our interaction.

However, one would presume that your GPLv3 code would constitute prior art in the majority of such cases, giving me a degree of relief from this risk.

If you, knowing that a third party had a previously issued patent, decided to write an implementation of that patent and release it GPLv3, then that would leave me and my nuts and bolts factory at risk.

All in all, GPLv3 is a big, big benefit for people who aren't in the software business. And, in my opinion, also a big benefit for people who want to be coders for a living. The more fat for custom work in your clients IT budget, the better. It's only those who want to be professional code owners that aren't going to benefit, overall. Personally, I'd just as soon shoot those people in the head as look at em, but that's just me.

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942412)

Got yah. It's hard to think of it from that angle. I guess that's why even the FSF has modified the GPL throughout the years as they've encountered loopholes. I definitely agree with you about owning code. The idea that their code is somewhat special (and not ultimately derived from somewhere else) is ridiculous.

Well... you gave an aspect of using the BSD license for me to investigate. So thanks for clarify your point of view.

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942462)

Now, if you release something under the BSD, and you have a patent pending, and I use it to run my nuts and bolts factory, I could wake up one day and find out that you own all the profits my business generates. If you released it under the GPLv3, I would already have a legally binding assurance that you won't do that to me.

That's not the way patents work. A patent can't cause the user of a product to be liable for using something. It can only prevent the manufacture or distribution of the product in question (or, in some jurisdictions, contributory infringement, which is the manufacture or distribution of a product whose sole purpose is to build the product in question).

Now, if there is a third party with patents involved, I don't have a legal release from their patents if they are not involved in our interaction.

And that's why GPLv3 still wouldn't protect you any significantly more than a BSD license because it is a million times more likely that the open source/free software is infringing someone else's patent than a patent by the creator of the software....

About the only thing the GPLv3 might do usefully is protect against business process patents, e.g. using a piece of software in a very specific way as part of a manufacturing business. That's a very limited protection of very little use to most people, though, and even that protection might not stand up to legal tests if, for example, the software in question is a generic piece of control software and the process patent involves using that software in a very specific way. One could legitimately argue that it does not violate the GPLv3 terms to distribute it under that license because using the software in general does not violate the patent, and there's likely no such thing as software that doesn't have at least one use that would violate at least one business software patent for some very specific use, so either no software can be distributed under GPLv3 or the software in question can be....

However, one would presume that your GPLv3 code would constitute prior art in the majority of such cases, giving me a degree of relief from this risk.

If it is truly prior, so would the BSD code. If it is not, neither would the GPLv3 code.

All in all, GPLv3 is a big, big benefit for people who aren't in the software business. And, in my opinion, also a big benefit for people who want to be coders for a living. The more fat for custom work in your clients IT budget, the better. It's only those who want to be professional code owners that aren't going to benefit, overall. Personally, I'd just as soon shoot those people in the head as look at em, but that's just me.

All in all, GPLv3 is a big, big benefit for the proprietary software vendors by fragmenting the FOSS community and its projects in an incompatible way. Beyond that, the anti-patent text offers some protection for people doing software distributions, and little more.

Re:And this matters, why? (2, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941244)

Just don't forget that with the GPLv3 or BSD, if he released the code, you build a business around it, and I get a patent on the technology in the code, your still just as screwed.

In fact, there is very little protection difference in this respect between the GPLv2 and GPLv3 let alone BSD and similar licenses.

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942904)

Only if you had the patent before he wrote and released it. Otherwise, the prior art that the code represents destroys your patent.

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943840)

I could be using the technology in my own product for years before I patented it. I would still have "the" prior art.

In fact, this is how almost 90% or better of the patent threats to free software happens. There has been a very little presence of someone submarining patents into the mix. It has primarily been third parties working by themselves.

I guess the benifit of the GPLv3 is that in the license, it is written that you have to stop distributing it if a situation like that occurs. The down side is that it sort of gives evidence to the person who put it under the GPLv3 as they have to assert that they have the ability to pass all the right along with it. I suppose that is something is still being distributed after it is known that a patent is connected to it and the project doesn't have permission to use the patent according to the GPLv3, it could become retroactive on whoever put it in.

This is something people have to understand could place some risk of liability on them if they convert someone else's program to a GPLv3 license. Whoever does so is basically saying you have the right to any patents in this code/program. It may not seem obvious, but then a lot of the lawsuits aren't obvious either. They tend to be fringe examples of some violation where people think they didn't do anything wrong.

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944814)

There is no "the" prior art if you didn't file your patent. The transaction is, the act of filing is your payment, the patent is societies return payment. If there is any publicly released prior art and you haven't filed your patent, then there was no need for your filing, and you get nothing. You can't sit around hoarding a secret process, then file patent after someone else goes public with your method after having figured it out on their own.

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944978)

I could be using the technology in my own product for years before I patented it. I would still have "the" prior art.

But your patent would still be destroyed anyway, so it doesn't matter.

The world is upside down (1)

extrasolar (28341) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943322)

You know, I thought this stuff has been hashed enough YEARS ago: you know, when the whole free software concept was fresh and new?

The question really comes down to what sort of rights do you think people should have to their software? If you don't have an opinion on this matter, or if you don't think people really should have many rights at all, or only the rights that they've paid for, then your way of looking at it makes sense.

But if you think that people should have full rights to the software they use, then the GPL isn't really viral at all. The GPL is really for people who disagree that copyright should be applied to software, as it causes an imbalance in *control* of the technology. For instance, with current copyright law, you're forbidden from disassembling the software you use.

I think you can use the classical negative/positive freedom distinction with regards to free software. It seems that we all have the *ability* to disassemble our software, so that's negative freedom that would give us the right to do so. The only thing in the free software definition [gnu.org] that corresponds to a positive freedom is the right to source code, which requires the author of modifications to the software to then distribute the source along with any binaries.

So, to some extent, I do see the point of people who would want to confine the free software definition to only negative freedoms: that is, all rights to the software except the requirement to pass along software. But, I also see the FSF's point that, without the source code you really don't have much practical control over what the software does on your machine, which puts that control in the hand of other people: businesses, governments, crackers, or religions/cults.

And I think sometimes the discussion gets a little obscure when they don't see any need for software by someone who doesn't program. That's not the point at all. We all have the right to bear arms, even if you're never going to hunt. We all have the right to peacably assemble, even if you're never going to protest. So the FSF is saying we all have the right to modify the source code of the software on our computer, even if we're never going to program.

Honestly, I don't think it's all that extreme at all, it just seems so in this cynical mindset the computing world is in.

Re:The world is upside down (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943558)

You know, I thought this stuff has been hashed enough YEARS ago: you know, when the whole free software concept was fresh and new?
Perhaps, but that's not true for the people not around at that time it was new. It's one of the annoying things about this field. A lot of people forget that everyone was once a 'newbie'. Regardless of that comment, thanks for the summary... I sometimes get tripped up by the rest of the rhetoric on the FSF and GNU websites.

Re:The world is upside down (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#22945124)

You know, I thought this stuff has been hashed enough YEARS ago...

It was!

As far as the FSF is concerned, the rights they believe "people should have to their software" * haven't changed. All that's happened is that the FSF has realized the old version of the license (GPLv2) didn't quite reflect those beliefs completely because of a legal tactic they didn't anticipate.

In other words, they discovered a bug in the license and released a new, patched version to fix it. The intent never changed because it was supposed to be like the GPLv3 (or more accurately, like whatever the final version of the GPL will be) from the beginning)

* Note: "people" refers to users, not developers, and "their software" refers to "software they use," not "software they own the copyright of." See the GNU Manifesto for more info.

Re:And this matters, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940602)

It's like the people who like Fox News "Because it is SOOOOO unbiased!". It's plenty biased but the bias lines up with their personal inclinations, causes little cognitive dissonance and is therefore seen as unbiased.

Offtopic, but you brought it up. What you have stated above is also true of other media besides Fox.

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941156)

I never thought the GPLv2 wasn't ripe with activism. It was just that it is the license we are accustom to. The differences between the GPLv2 and GPLv3 is that the GPLv3 added _some_ activism to it. OR should I say added more to it.

Not everyone is into the activism. They saw the GPLv2 as a practical license. They don't like the activism associated with the GPLv3, I am one of them.

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944982)

While it is true that both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are 'activist', GPLv3 made the jump from software activism to software related activism. So it is a bit of a conceptual leap (since it now restricts hardware behavior for instance)

Re:And this matters, why? (4, Informative)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940312)

The GPLv3 is important for reasons that include:

1) If you receive software and hardware together from a vendor, and the software is released under the GPLv3 license, you have legal assurance that they will not attempt through hardware to prevent you exercising your right to change the code and deploy your changes. If you receive software released under the GPLv2 license, you do not have these assurances. You can reasonably expect that the pressure on the vendor to increase revenue will lead to them attempting to rent out the control they have over you to third parties.

2) If you use or redistribute software, and the software is released under the GPLv3 license, you have legal assurances that you will not wake up one morning and find that the software you have come to rely on is now subject to patents that the vendor received. If you receive software released under the GPLv2 license, you could suddenly be forced to pay large sums of money or stop using the technology. This is a large risk that can tank a business model that relied on having liberty to grow without increased intellectual property costs and suddenly does not have that liberty.

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

Froqen (36822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940820)

>2) If you use or redistribute software, and the software is released under the GPLv3 license, you have legal assurances that you will not wake up one morning and find that the software you have come to rely on is now subject to patents that the vendor received.

Actually for number 2, it only helps you if the person who wrote/distributed the software has the patents. You still have just as much risk against anyone else (which is where the real risk is anyways).

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943020)

Other companies are the bigger risk, but the license can do little about that. But there have been a couple of companies which released GPL'd software without a sufficiently broad licenses for their own patents to actually let you use it as GPL'd software (ie. you could not in good faith redistribute it). It's not just a theoretical problem.

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942028)

1) If you receive software and hardware together from a vendor, and the software is released under the GPLv3 license, you have legal assurance that they will not attempt through hardware to prevent you exercising your right to change the code and deploy your changes.
No, they can't do that anyway, you can always run it on non-crippled hardware. What it prevents them from doing is selling hardware that's crippled to only accept their version(s) of the software, ie the software license is dictating features of the hardware.

Re:And this matters, why? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#22945432)

ie the software license is dictating features of the hardware.

Not really; the software license is only dictacting lack of mis-features of the hardware.

Twice nothing is still nothing ... (2, Insightful)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939984)

At this rate the GPL v3 is being adopted by 1,000 projects every 4-5 months, and if the trend continues, the license will be used by 5,000 projects by the end of the year," states a recent posting on Palamida's blog.

Put it into perspective ... without a comparison to the number (and importance) of GPLv2 projects, it is one of those meaningless statistics.

You'd think this was a press release from Microsoft ...

How many GPLv2 projects are there out there? Easily over 100,000. Call me back in 5 years.

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940022)

I wouldn't call SAMBA a "nothing" project.

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940076)

I wouldn't call SAMBA a "nothing" project.

For those of us who have moved completely away from Microsoft, it IS nothing ...

Where I am, all the important stuff is on linux or bsd machines - you want it, you can get it via svn or ftp or http or ssh. If you can't figure that out, you don't need access to it anyway.

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (4, Interesting)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940296)

For those of us who have moved completely away from Microsoft, [Samba] IS nothing ...
False. Samba is a fantastic utility, and a very acceptable protocol (it would be great if it were completely open). It is mountable in a unix filesystem, it can be safely authenticated over untrusted networks, it is spoken by countless devices and operating systems (not just Microsoft), supports two way transfers, supports simultaneous transfers, and it is reasonably fast. You stated 4 replacement protocols. Here is an analysis of where and why they fail my criteria set.

  • svn - its none-trivial usage aside, it is not designed for the same kinds of transfers as Samba. Primarily, it isn't designed for streaming. For instance, I wouldn't consider it viable for the archival of playback of music and movie collections.
  • ftp - stop joking with me. Usually single threaded transfer, laggy, not usually viable as a mounted disk (unless Fuse is used), and unsafe authentication in untrusted environments. This protocol is ancient, and it shows its age badly.
  • http - by default, unidirectional. Requires specific and non-standardized handlers to send information the other way. Also, no standard for file permissions, no safe method for authentication (without https).
  • ssh - The only one in this bunch that actually has a shot. It meets most of my requirements, especially now that you can mount an ssh filesystem with Fuse. However, that is still a fringe mechanism for mounting. Most embedded devices (even Linux based ones) do not support this. They support Samba. For examples (in case they are demanded), look at Media and Content streamers at AVS Forum [slashdot.org] . Many of them are Linux based, but almost all of them support Samba, uPNP, and possibly Apple Rendezvous (or whatever it is). None of your protocols can be found.
  • nfs (which you forgot) - Also close. I spent a lot of time trying to make NFS work in my network, but much to my chagrin, it simply isn't safe over an untrusted network. You can always spoof file UIDs, file GIDs, and IP addresses (unless you have really nice switches).

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940526)

I also left out fish://, (and sftp), but let's face it - people using Mr. Softie aren't going to be using fish:// any time soon.

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (4, Informative)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940930)

Since you want to split hairs, SSH isn't a file transfer protocol. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that when you said "ssh", you meant "sftp/scp". These, by the way, are trivially different. They both use SSH has a delivery mechanism. In my experience, servers and clients that support one probably support the other. Read the following for more information Overview of SFTP, FTPS, SCP, FTP [geekswithblogs.net] .

As for FISH (another protocol using the SSH delivery mechanism), you still have the obscurity problem (worse than ever).

people using Mr. Softie
I'm confused; are you talking about Samba here? Do you think that avoiding Samba makes you "harder" or something? Simply, Samba/CIFS is often the best tool for the job, even when Microsoft systems are not in play. Maybe you think it makes you more hardcore to use a huge hammer when you should be using a screwdriver, but it doesn't. It makes you a moron.

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941196)

No, I just like keeping my systems free of any possible "patent issues" or other FUD avenues.

Unlike samba [microsoft-watch.com] , which, by licensing Microsoft's IP, is actually helping to maintain Microsoft's dominance.

Expect to see the "same shit, different day" with MS-OOXML. the KDE team has it right - they will just ignore OOXML. Why waste time and energy, and further Mr. Softie's ends?

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (1)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941472)

I just like keeping my systems free of any possible "patent issues"
A worthy goal.

or other FUD avenues
Not as big a deal for me. I've been vaccinated against FUD.

The Samba/CIFS team is simply awesome. IMHO, they are open source heroes. By blindly reverse engineering the samba protocol, they gave us a stable and legally safe implementation of the protocol. How do I know this? Because Debian includes it in their main repository. The same Debian whose anality makes Nurse Ratched look like a hippie.

If you truly are concerned with Samba future legality and encumberance, I suggest you mention that fact next time. At the very least, avoid making slanderous implications about the protocol or its users, or dismissing it as useless.

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (1)

forsetti (158019) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940770)

* AFS - comparably complex setup, but does it all. Even makes me coffee in the morning.

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940828)

http - by default, unidirectional. Requires specific and non-standardized handlers to send information the other way. Also, no standard for file permissions, no safe method for authentication (without https).
Both WebDAV and HTTPS are IETF standards, and widely implemented (even Windows supports them). The combination supports bidirectional file transfer, authentication, versioning, complex permissions, and a lot of other features.

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22942108)

What about NFS over VPN? If you're concerned about sharing files over an untrusted networks, wouldn't you be using a VPN anyway?

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (1)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942414)

VPNs are needlessly painful. Why not make an appropriate single protocol that fulfills the requirements? If this kind of technology was infrequently needed, maybe we could make do with NFS through VPN or SSH tunnels. But we need it all the time:

The shocking thing is that almost every network is untrusted. Consider a business. The server will almost always have to have access privileges to prevent everybody's privacy. Thus, the network is untrusted - not everybody is allowed to view all data. You are proposing that every employee use a VPN to connect to a server while inside the building? Completely inefficient and unjustified.

The only networks that are truly ever "trusted" are server farm/cluster subnets that are behind a firewall and/or NAT. Unsurprisingly, these kind of environments are where NFS is used the most.

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22942648)

http - ... no safe method for authentication (without https)
What's HTTP Digest Auth, chopped liver?

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (2, Interesting)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940134)

How many GPLv2 projects are there out there? Easily over 100,000
Out of curiousity, where are you getting this statistic? It might be more accurate, but on the other hand, it is probably more reasonable to compare numbers in the same database (with consistent identification methods and all).

According to the blog [blogspot.com] , there are "6446 GPL v2 or later" projects in the database, and assuming that more than 2000 of those are v3, that leaves just a little bit over 4400 are v2. Assuming the databased isn't biased towards v3 projects in any way, that means that almost 30% of projects are v3.

I'm not necessarily saying that your statistic is wrong; I would just like to see a source, and I definitely would prefer to do apples-to-apples comparisons (consistent collection methods).

Internet statistics (2, Funny)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940218)

I'm not necessarily saying that your statistic is wrong; I would just like to see a source, and I definitely would prefer to do apples-to-apples comparisons (consistent collection methods).
Did you know that 91% of the statistics found on discussion fora is made up by the poster? And that research furthermore indicates that if the poster has "troll" in his handle, the likelihood increases to 97% Amazing, but true.

Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940354)

According to the blog, there are "6446 GPL v2 or later" projects in the database, and assuming that more than 2000 of those are v3, that leaves just a little bit over 4400 are v2.

You are misinterpreting the data. "GPL v2 or later" means that these projects originally chose the GPL v2 but used the FSF's recommended wording that automatically allows people to use a later version of the GPL. So 6446 is the number of projects that can be counted as both GPL v2 and GPL v3, and excludes the projects that are specifically GPL v2 only.

Who cares how many 'projects'? (2, Insightful)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939986)

There's gobs of projects on Sourceforge that have a license stated, yet no code. A LOC number would at least be somewhat useful.

9 month old? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22939994)

Counting backwards, there were nil gpl3 projects for 9 month ago?

John McCain - The War-Mongers' Choice (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940032)

Dear Slashdotters,

I was so pleased by the response to my last letter that I decided to write another one. Don't worry; I have plenty of new stuff to say about John McCain and his hired goons. Let me start by stressing that I am not attempting to suppress anyone's opinions, nor do I intend to demean McCain personally for his beliefs or worldviews. But I do feel that I must put an end to McCain's evildoing. He thinks it would be a great idea to squander irreplaceable national treasures. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed. He is still going around insisting that we should avoid personal responsibility. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to him that if we contradict him, we are labelled irritable bozos. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms.

Guess what? The first thing we need to do is to get McCain to admit that he has a problem. He should be counseled to recite the following:

        * I, John McCain, am an unholy serpent.
        * I have been a participant in a giant scheme to pollute the great canon of English literature with references to McCain's high-handed, querulous arguments.
        * I hereby admit my addiction to sexism. I ask for the strength and wisdom to fight this addiction.

Once McCain realizes that he has a problem, maybe then he'll see that you might have heard the story that he once agreed to help us focus on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what's happening in the world. No one has located the document in which McCain said that. No one has identified when or where McCain said that. That's because he never said it. As you might have suspected, McCain's crusades oscillate between unreasonable anarchism and froward irreligionism. Well, that's another story. To get back to my main point, I ought to mention that it's irritating for McCain to sully a profession that's already held in low esteem. Or perhaps I should say, it's fickle.

I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am truly horrified by McCain's devotion to the idea of a benevolent dictatorship of a self-appointed elite, by which I mean that if we are powerless to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against McCain's orations, it is because we have allowed McCain to hinder economic growth and job creation. His peons consider his tirades a breath of fresh air. I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of Comstockism. On the other hand, Bonapartism doesn't work. So why does McCain cling to it? The answer is almost totally obvious -- this isn't rocket science, you know. The key is that the ultimate aim of McCain's offhand remarks is to restructure society as a pyramid with McCain at the top, McCain's representatives directly underneath, fastidious, antihumanist enemies of the people beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable McCain to stir up class hatred, which makes me realize that it may seem at first that he would love to see me contract leprosy and be forced to live out my benighted days shunned by humanity, ringing a bell, and shying away from sharps and open flames. When we descend to details, however, we see that my goal is to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "poluphloisboiotatotic". I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that McCain is sympathetic to sinister causes of all stripes. But there is a further-reaching implication: If he can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If he can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it.

McCain doesn't care about freedom, as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him. He has a strategy. His strategy is to make libertinism socially acceptable. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with McCain.

This is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented fact. This is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to don the mantel of larrikinism and take us all back to the Stone Age. Not yet, at least. But we must focus on what unites rather than divides us. Only then can a society free of his shameless, nugatory stances blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that if the people generally are relying on false information sown by dotty misogynists, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation.

However deep one delves into the citations and footnotes of McCain's nostrums, and however poised and "mainstream" his apple-polishers appear once challenged, there is no way to forget that he thinks that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. McCain's mercenaries are hardly strangers to factionalism. In view of that, it is not surprising that I recently overheard a couple of bad-tempered wastrels say that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this McCain-induced era of slogans and propaganda. He is more dangerous than other lubricious creeps because the spoiled, pampered offspring of the cosseted upper class actually believe him when he says that he can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic, pink, pixie dust over everything that he considers dour or sinful.

I cannot, in good conscience, step aside and let the most beer-guzzling publishers of hate literature you'll ever see encourage men to leave their wives, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become the worst kinds of scary bludgers I've ever seen. Here, too, the exception proves the rule: McCain maintains that once he has approved of something it can't possibly be loathsome. This is complete -- or at least, incomplete -- baloney. For instance, McCain fails to mention that there are many illustrations of this. It is no more complicated than that.

I will not quibble with McCain as to whether or not this conviction of mine is as firm as a rock. Instead, I'll simply state that McCain makes up for his lack of wit by shouting like a Vogon and leave it at that. It's not just that McCain's not averse to preventing me from sleeping soundly at night but also that it is undeniable by anyone but snarky, jejune fanatics that I regard him the way I would the sort of stinking filth I might have to clean off my boots after a careless walk in a dog kennel. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that of all of McCain's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "A plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong. McCain says that he is known for his sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. What he means by this, of course, is that he wants free reign to operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience -- basis.

It seems to me that, as others have stated long before me, "irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors." Insidious hell-raisers who supplant one form of injustice with another might not recognize the incongruities in McCain's prognoses, but it has been said that McCain's fixation with what I call inerudite losers is frowzy. I believe that to be true. I also believe that over time, his ventures have progressed from being merely sleazy to being supersleazy, hypersleazy, and recently ultrasleazy. In fact, I'd say that now they're even megasleazy.

As someone who enjoys brandishing words like "macracanthrorhynchiasis" and "phoneticogrammatical" as a smoke screen to hide his propositions' inherent paradoxes, McCain must doubtlessly be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to his oppressive prank phone calls. I challenge him to point out any text in this letter that proposes that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing. He is thoroughly obdurate, as he has proved to my complete satisfaction. McCain has recently been going around claiming that the bogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to his demands. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. His allies are unified under a common goal. That goal is to cause dim-witted subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. In conclusion, let me just say that if the country were overrun by the worst types of otiose hypochondriacs I've ever seen, we could expect to observe widespread discrimination in our daily lives -- stares from sales clerks, taxis that don't stop, and unwarranted license and registration checks by police.

How many of those projects are relevant? (2, Insightful)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940038)

I mean, I've created a small library which is comprised of a few thousands lines of code and I released it under the GPL. Yet, although it is a GPLed project, I wouldn't even want to compare it to Apache or the linux kernel, let alone count it as an equal.

That's Nothing! (1)

bk_veggie (807894) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940048)

Sourceforge has close to 100,000 unfinished GPLv2 projects!

Calm Down (3, Interesting)

stry_cat (558859) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940088)

I'd like to know how many of the projects fall into the "Hey look my project which no one other than myself contributes to and uses, is now using GPL3" Until the kernel switches from GPLv2 it won't really be considered a success in many people's eyes.

However I have a more important question. Why is this written like it is a war between GPLv3 and other licenses? If the virus of GPLv3 doesn't spread we're all doomed. No folks that's not the case. Don't get so wrapped up in this stuff. So what no one uses GPLv3? So what if everyone uses it? If software doesn't meet one's needs (and that includes having cumbersome provisions in your license) one will either write their own or use someone else's software. Really this all works out in the end. Don't have so much emotion invested in things that you can't really affect the outcome.

Re:Kernel switching (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940142)

That's a damn shame for those people. It's not something that can be done in any sort of practical way.

Re:Calm Down (2, Insightful)

domatic (1128127) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940314)

It's just another license to flamewar over. Additionally, almost any discussion about the GPL (any version), FSF, or RMS is almost automatically guaranteed to generate more heat than light. My own take on it is that if I'm capable of improving something I find useful then I'll improve it. I'll do it under whatever license it came under because "he who writes the code chooses the license". I do avoid things covered by "Jim Bob's Personal Open License" and stick to things covered by the majors: MIT, BSD, GPL (any ver after 2), X11, Apache, Mozilla, and Sun. Maybe I missed one or two but basically as long as it is mainstream and not abusive to devs (I'm liberal on this) and users (not so liberal on this) then I Just Don't Care.

Re:Calm Down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940410)

It's not a competition against other licenses. It's a competition against Palamida's own competition, namely Black Duck Software, Inc.

Re:Calm Down (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941026)

Until the kernel switches from GPLv2 it won't really be considered a success in many people's eyes
Or until another kernel (Hurd) can replace it. That would likely take a couple of years, too, considering how long it took for the Linux kernel to get the point where it was this reliable.

Why is this written like it is a war between GPLv3 and other licenses?
Because the GPL licenses have a tendency to not play nice with other licenses, effectively making it a war. Do the apache license and gplv3 play nice? Probably. Does GPLv2 and GPLv3 play nice? Probably not.

The other side of this is a fight between the two open source camps, the idealists and the pragmatists. Stallman is firmly in the idealist camp and he's the one that primarily wrote v3. Linus is firmly in the pragmatist camp. Linus made his problems with the v3 drafts known, and Stallman didn't address them, instead choosing to go the idealist route. It's a stupid, petty debate with stupid, petty people on both sides.

Re:Calm Down (1)

Dan Farina (711066) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942160)

In my recollection, lots of Linus' complaints were dressed in GPL3. GPL3 has turned into GPL2 with patent disarmament (and thus making it compatible with Apache2, whereas GPL2 is NOT compatible with Apache2) and some extra fuzz attached to make sure that you receive keys to hardware to ensure you can change and distribute modified source.

In particular, the DRM fuzz didn't make it.

It seems the reason for not migrating tends to be 1) logistics and 2) unperceived need.

Here are his comments in Git's COPYING file:

  Note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as this project
  is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
  v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

  HOWEVER, in order to allow a migration to GPLv3 if that seems like
  a good idea, I also ask that people involved with the project make
  their preferences known. In particular, if you trust me to make that
  decision, you might note so in your copyright message, ie something
  like

        This file is licensed under the GPL v2, or a later version
        at the discretion of Linus.

    might avoid issues. But we can also just decide to synchronize and
    contact all copyright holders on record if/when the occasion arises.

                        Linus Torvalds

Of course, you can also reference the ELER strip, which also represents the general ambivalence on the matter:

http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/sandals-not-flip-flops [geekz.co.uk]

Re:Calm Down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22941358)

I can't stop GWB nuking Iran to stone age but I still have a strong opinion about it... GPLv2 is good, GPLv3 is better. It's like comparing a TV to a color TV. Times change. It is a war of licenses going on. GPLv3 means freedom for people, other licenses mean subjugation.

and I probably use zero of them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940210)

ok I'm sure there are some that are great. But I think I could live without them

You used several of them to post here, AC. (1, Flamebait)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940322)

Apache is GPL3 compatible and Slashdot would not be possible without many supporting GNU utilities. If you posted from Firefox (80% of Slashdot users) or a Mac and most BSD, you got here by way of GCC compiled software. If all the GPL3 software were to vanish or somehow be taxed tomorrow, the US and world economy would collapse.

Re:You used several of them to post here, AC. (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940608)

I know you're trolling but yet I'll still bite (I just can't help it).

If all the GPL3 software were to vanish or somehow be taxed tomorrow, the US and world economy would collapse.
That's a meaningless statement. Everything in the world is connected. There's tons of things, that if suddenly taken away, stuff would go haywire. GPL3 is neither better or worse than other things in that regard. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove...

Re:You used several of them to post here, AC. (3, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940696)

GPL3 Compatible != Licensed under GPL3.

And you greatly overestimate the importance of the gnu userland+gcc(the only GPL3 project that anyone gives a fig about) on the world economy. If it disappeared, the old BSD userland would be ported in a few days.

Re:You used several of them to post here, AC. (0, Flamebait)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942746)

Even GCC, the only GNU project of consequence, is really not that important. If it went away tomorrow, LLVM [llvm.org] and clang [llvm.org] could take its place. It probably will anyway, eventually, since GCC is a maintenance nightmare from everything I've read and heard. In the end, the GPLv3 won't be what killed GCC, though it was definitely the straw that broke the camel's back and drove a bunch of people over to LLVM, thus increasing development on that project.

Re:You used several of them to post here, AC. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22941076)

If you posted from Firefox (80% of Slashdot users) or a Mac and most BSD, you got here by way of GCC compiled software.

If you posted from Windows (80% of Slashdot users), you didn't get here by way of GCC compiled software.

Re:You used several of them to post here, AC. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22943362)

If all the GPL3 software were to vanish or somehow be taxed tomorrow, the US and world economy would collapse.

Hahaha! Thanks for the chuckles twitter.

new projects?? (2, Interesting)

gnurag (969116) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940290)

Is that number of new projects started with GPLv3 license or projects relicensed under GPLv3?

Yeah (2, Funny)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940574)

And 1950 of them are text editors. :)

Re:Yeah (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942110)

And the remaining are IRC clients.

Wow, congratulations... (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941234)

...thats over 2k projects that are not free to be distributed with certain hardware.

5FP DOLL (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22941606)

Direct orders, or butts are exposed = 1400 NetBSD I'm sick of it.

Impressive (1)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942840)

That is an impressively large amount of code most people cannot ever use in any way or let near any of their code. That's very sad, but the reality of it.

It wasn't really that bad with GPLv2, but GPLv3 took a very strong F'-the-day-job attitude.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>