OSNews

it has no real effect what so ever. Will it scare some off? well, it may, but only if they are stupid, and at that point, all i can think is... so what?

There is no restriction in either GPL v2 or in GPL v3 about use of a GPL program. In both cases you are free to use the program however you want to. This is one of the four freedoms that the GPL is all about trying to preserve for you (not restrict you in).

Restrictions apply in GPL v2 only when you distribute a GPL v2 program, and restrictions apply in GPL v3 only when you distribute or assist in distribution of a GPL v3 program. Even then, the restrictions really only amount to a requirement that you pass on to downstream recipients the same permissions that you received, and they only apply to the GPL code, not to your own code.

Compiling your own program is neither of those restricted activities. Go right ahead.

Edited 2007-07-22 14:49

There is no restriction in either GPL v2 or in GPL v3 about use of a GPL program.

Unless the program is on a server, and the guy on the client side demands your modifications. Closing the webapp "loophole" IS about restricting usage!

GCC has been used for decades to compile all manner of proprietary software, and the GPLv3 doesn't change this. Vendors that distribute development tools based on GCC should have their lawyers take a look. However, chances are that what they're doing is permitted under the GPLv3 if it was permitted under the GPLv2.

In general, the only people who should be concerned about the GPLv3 are distributors who were previously circumventing the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPLv2. The Linux kernel is really the only practical exception to this rule, as the controversial restriction on restricting users from running modified works is an issue that predominantly impacts kernel code.

All in all, the GPLv3 should be rather uncontroversial among those that like the GPLv2. Almost everybody likes the final patent language except for Microsoft and its shameful proxy vendors within the Linux community. It's compatible with the Apache license, forming a nice licensing continuum including non-copyleft (Apache), weak copyleft (LGPLv3), and strong copyleft (GPLv3) options. Together they represent a new generation of free software licenses that are boilerplate around the world and aware of the threats posed by software patents.

>>In general, the only people who should be concerned about the GPLv3 are distributors who were previously circumventing the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPLv2.<<

Not true: every project which combines GPLv2 only code (Qt, Linux kernel,...) with other code which goes from GPLv2 to GPLv3 has a problem.

>>All in all, the GPLv3 should be rather uncontroversial among those that like the GPLv2.<<

False also: as shown by Linus who likes the GPLv2 but don't like the GPLv3 (because of its "anti-DRM/tivoization" clause).

Sure the compatibility of GPLv3 with Apache is nice, the patent provision is nice too, but this is not a reason to put the rose glass and ignore that there are dissenting voice and issues that the GPLv3 will trigger (and not only with people which tried to circumvent the GPLv2).

GCC has been used for decades to compile all manner of proprietary software, and the GPLv3 doesn't change this. Vendors that distribute development tools based on GCC should have their lawyers take a look. However, chances are that what they're doing is permitted under the GPLv3 if it was permitted under the GPLv2.

Only if the GCC release has something akin to this again:

The source code of libstdc++ is distributed under version 2 of the GNU General Public License, with the so-called "runtime exception," as follows (or see any header or implementation file):

As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free software library without restriction. Specifically, if other files instantiate templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile this file and link it with other files to produce an executable, this file does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.

The GPL is a distribution licence and not a usage licence. You do not have to agree to anything within the GPL to use GPL software. You have to follow the terms of the GPL if you wish to *distribute GPL software*.

Edited 2007-07-23 11:15 UTC

You have to follow the terms of the GPL v3 if you wish to *convey GPL v3 software*.

"Convey" includes doing things like "give someone vouchers so they can obtain".