OSNews

Do you really think that? I'd imagine as time goes on and people have a chance to start using it, many will complain about things others rejoice.

Still, good to see it's finally done.

already right now there are literally hundreds of quite high profile projects under gplv3.. because they are using "or later". so its not like it wont be used.

me personally, i'll use it aswell.

You have to wonder how many projects will stay permanantly on "GPL 2.0" basis.

When people license software under the GPL and use the "or later" clause, the use of this wording doesn't imply retroactive changes to the licensing terms once a "later" revision of the GPL exists. The terms allows the users to distribute the licensed software under the new terms when they exist.

id est, now the gpl3 exists, all projects licensed under gpl2 or later are not automatically using the terms of gpl3. **the distributor of the software has to specify that they are offering the software under gplv3**.

"""
all the bickering is over and now
"""

You're ever the optimist. I'll give you that. :-)

Well, it was till Thom linked to that sensationally bad article from the Jem Report: which is the product of a fairly clever piece of trolling, or astonishingly ignorant and adolescent reporting.

It is wrong in almost every respect, and written with what is a clear bias.

I've written already, but I'll summarise some things here. The main issues with GPL v2 were

1) There were worries that it wouldn't stand up in foreign jurisdictions. This was an issue as developers all over the world were using it

2) There were worries people could incorporate GPL code into their products, sell those products, and prevent people using their changes as required by the spirit, and in theory the letter, of the license by abusing either the patent or DRM systems.

The fear that it wouldn't stand up abroad is why it was re-worded and why it now appears to be in legalese. The Jem Report author considers this to be a flaw, but what serious contract isn't written in legalese?! If I have to choose a license for my software, I'd prefer legalese to English, as ultimately it's lawyers that make the choice.

The patent and DRM restrictions are designed solely to plug the second loophole. They have been crafted after a lot of work. They do not seek to ban DRM entirely, only DRM that prevents you from reusing or altering the source-code to make derivative products.

All of this information is easily available from the Internet, and has been for some time. The GPL is not out to screw users, or to make cooperation impossible (indeed, they worked quite hard to try to make it compatible with the Apache license). It's just out to do what it's always done: protect those who share code from those who would try to use that code without sharing back. All that's changed is it's evolved to close new loopholes that have arisen.

The article was clearly written with a bias, without basic research, without consideration, and from what I can see, with a view to inflame passions. The question is, did OSNews pick such a flawed inflammatory article out of incompetence, carelessness, or a malicious desire inflame passions among its readers to maintain levels of traffic..

Edited 2007-06-30 02:02

all the bickering is over and now the licence can actually be used!

I really do hope linux (as in the kernal) adopts it else I fear linux will be a kernel that noone uses and all the 'war of words' will have been in vain.

;)