The FSF today released version 3 of the GNU GPL, the popular free software license. "Since we founded the free software movement, over 23 years ago, the free software community has developed thousands of useful programs that respect the user's freedom. The programs are in the GNU/Linux operating system, as well as personal computers, telephones, Internet servers, and more. Most of these programs use the GNU GPL to guarantee every user the freedom to run, study, adapt, improve, and redistribute the program," said Richard Stallman, founder and president of the FSF. This article has some interesting replies from the BSD community (right in the middle).
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-10-08
"Excuse me, but how exactly does GPL 3 affect their kernel or userland?"
In no regards, of course. An effect might occur for GPLed parts of the BSD OS which move from GPLv2 to GPLv3, maybe... The kernel is BSDL and stays BSDL, but there "still" are GPLed parts in the userland, such as /usr/bin/info.
"The GNU toolchain for instance, how does it affect the code created by using it? I think they will still be free to license their code under their will, just as they were in case of GPL 2."
I think so, too.
"I wonder which of the BSD lovers modded him up."
BSDL licensed software is free software par excellence.
"I am license neutral just as the parent. Both the GPL and the BSD camps (as well as other license camps) have produced excellent code."
Just as a sidenote, there are licenses that are similar to both GPL and BSDL (I think the Mozilla project uses such a license) and there's still the option to dual-license source code as long as there's no conflict by content.
"And they have coexisted, and they always will. If you don't like GPL, don't use it."
If a developer decides what to do with his source code (hide it, make it GPLv2/v3, BSDL or his own license), he is - of course - free in his decision as long as possible conclusions from a prior license apply (GPLv2 for instance). And it's completely okay for a developer to decide if and in which way his work may be a base for other developers, or even if a company may benefit and profit from his work (such as the BSDL allows).
"And if you never liked it, no use raising your voices now, you have your alternatives."
The alternatives to GPLv2 always existed and keep existing while GPLv3 is ready for use.
As you said: If you don't like it - don't use it.
I may add: Use the right tool for every task. Decide by yourself. Judge from and educated and healthy background.
The GPLv3 is an important license, and it will surely be able to help developing further great free software.
Member since:2006-01-01
" Personally, I'm not against GPLv2, GPLv3 or BSDL, because all of them have their place to exist and their chances to develop. "
true, but are not the GPLv2 and the BSDL left open for possibly patent attacks,lawsuits from companies like Microsoft, something the GPLv3 tries to be immune too?
Member since:
2007-04-06
Thank God for the few sane people left on Earth, what with everybody out there digging themselves in trenches. The article from the BSD community talks about some drastic 'effects' the GPL 3 might have on their projects. Excuse me, but how exactly does GPL 3 affect their kernel or userland? The GNU toolchain for instance, how does it affect the code created by using it? I think they will still be free to license their code under their will, just as they were in case of GPL 2.
People who are talking about GPL 3 as if it were some calamity were any way against GPL in general. They are just sharpening their saws. And among the anti-GPL3 comments, was one made by a person who is against free software in general! I wonder which of the BSD lovers modded him up.
I am license neutral just as the parent (and I am in favour of logical criticism). Just a small observation though. The new GPL 3 take away freedoms from the developer but gives more to the user (the user is able to modify and run code on embedded systems using GPL 3 for instance), hence it's claim to be a 'free' license.
Both the GPL and the BSD camps (as well as other license camps) have produced excellent code. And they have coexisted, and they always will. If you don't like GPL, don't use it. And if you have never liked it, no use raising your voices now, you have your alternatives.
Edited 2007-06-30 00:40