To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"""...is the problem, again and again."""
Indeed, GPL is causing an increasing number of problems within the FOSS community itself. To make matters worse, as the FSF thinks it can get away with it, it tightens its grip. Even GPLv2 projects are vulnerable to the viral nature of the GPLv3 (draft).
I hate to admit it. But perhaps Balmer was right, and GPL really *is* a cancer.
Edited 2007-01-08 18:59
I hate to admit it. But perhaps Balmer was right, and GPL really *is* a cancer.
The GPL is a tool and like all tools needs to be used properly to be effective.
Despite it's shortcomings, GPL v2 has proven to be the most popular and, arguably, the most effective license for encouraging reciprocal development for OSS projects.
Yes, if people taint GPL projects with non-compatible code, there will be a problem but that is by design. It's up to developers to understand the licensing.
As for v3, it is incompatible with v2 by design so simply becomes a new licensing alternative. It's impact on current v2 projects will be minimal to non-existent; most of the core projects that would have the ability to impact that type of paradigm shift in licensing will either stay v2 (ie. the kernel) or will adopt v3 but still retain LGPL licensing (ie. the GNU projects) which minimizes the "viral" nature of a transition. So gcc switching to v3 doesn't force developers using gcc to produce v3 apps, and libc switching to v3 doesn't restrict it's useage to v3 apps, for instance. Developers will simply select v2 or v3 based on their objectives, much as they choose between GPL and BSD or alternatives today.
But dismissing the GPL because of it's intentional incompatibility with less restrictive licenses is a bit of an overreaction when it has proven so successful despite that. That restrictiveness is likely part of the attraction for the majority of devs that select it.
"No other oss license is so restrictive and incompatible with other licenses".
restrictive for whom.
"GPL v3 makes things worse" GPL3 makes my life *less* *restrictive* that the point or have you not been keeping up. Seriously you should read about the license.
"Not even the FSF lawyers seem to fully understand the GPL, even v2."
I'm absolutely certain underlying premise to GPL is really simple...the only debate *ever* is how to get around it.
Edited 2007-01-08 19:33
"restrictive for whom."
Everybody, developers and users.
"GPL3 makes my life *less* *restrictive* that the point or have you not been keeping up. Seriously you should read about the license."
The GPL v3 doesn't give me the right to decide whether I want use DRM software or not. How is this not a ristriction? Gimme a break...





Member since:
2006-12-15
...is the problem, again and again. No other oss license is so restrictive and incompatible with other licenses. The FSF and GPL become more and more annoying. If GPL v3 makes things worse (the current version in discussion really is), I hope we finally see more and more developers who choose a different oss license. Not even the FSF lawyers seem to fully understand the GPL, even v2.