Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Apr 2012 19:25 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "A new analysis of licensing data shows that not only is use of the GPL and other copyleft licenses continuing to decline, but the rate of disuse is actually accelerating." This shouldn't be surprising. The GPL is complex, and I honestly don't blame both individuals and companies opting for simpler, more straightforward licenses like BSD or MIT-like licenses.
Thread beginning with comment 515250
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Practical considerations
by Valhalla on Sun 22nd Apr 2012 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Practical considerations"
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24


Just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist. Have you actually read the licenses of all the software you use? I can think of about half a dozen, besides the Linux kernel, which don't specify the "or later" version and won't (or can't) update to GPLv3.

You stated that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible and they are NOT, Linus modified the GPLv2 licence he uses to be incompatible with GPLv3 (or any other later version) by removing the 'or later' clause because he was fully content with GPLv2. Standard GPLv3 and standard GPLv2 are compatible.

Also you say you can think of 6 projects which states GPLv2 only, I could think of two: Linux and Git, both originating from Linus Torvalds. Are you really saying that half a dozen projects stating 'GPLv2 only' is an issue?

Reply Parent Score: 2