The Free Software Foundation has published the first draft of the GPL v3, the successor to the most popular open source license. The rationale behind some of the changes are here, while comments are here. Danese Cooper of OSI has posted her comments too. Update: Stallman: "We've partly removed the inconveniences of preventing a user from combining code from various free software packages." More here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
bornagainenguin: GPL = businesses have to share what programmers freely develop.
You are actually wrong about the GPL license.
It does NOT require people to share what they wrote. In fact, this is precisely why SOME people love it.
It requires companies like Microsoft (for example) to share, but companies that use the software entirely inhouse (for example) do not have to share. (There are some others that would have to share, as well as some others that don't.)
In fact, this is one of the reasons that some OTHER people don't like it. They believe it puts an unfair emphasis on software companies like Microsoft (for example), while other people can do whatever they jolly well please with it.
To some people... It appears as if supporters of the GPL want the whole "retail software industry" to be punished (or even outright destroyed), along with a few others who do some similar things with software, because a few companies decided to do a number of things that are unpopular and managed to make a lot of money while doing it.
Member since:2005-08-07
To some people... It appears as if supporters of the GPL want the whole "retail software industry" to be punished (or even outright destroyed), along with a few others who do some similar things with software, because a few companies decided to do a number of things that are unpopular and managed to make a lot of money while doing it.
I understand what you're saying and you're right in saying that the GPL doesn't care if the code is used internally, only if it is intended for commercial use. Yet you somehow manage to side step my entire point here. It is absolutely hypocritical for people to attack the GPL and then hold up the BSDL (or the MITL) as their preferred alternative as being somehow better or less selfish. It is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrisy to run around bemoaning that the GPL 'costs programmers' jobs!!1111' like we've seen posted on OSNews.com before. Especially when regardless of license you're talking about someone sitting down and using his or her talents to write code that will be given away to the community.
The only appreciable difference in each license's use is that at the end of the day the GPL user knows he'll be getting back feedback in the form of bugfixes and and improvements via patches. The BSDL user may get credit for writing the original code but there's no guarantee that he'll be informed that his code was used and there's no way for the BSDL user to know how much of their original code was used or added to or really if anything was changed at all before someone started to claim ownership of something he or she may have sweated long hours over. The GPL user knows where his code is (or should at any rate if people follow the license) the BSDL user doesn't have a clue where his code is.
Maybe a good way to say it is GPL users care more? ;P A joke! a joke I tell you! ^o~
Okay, let's try this: It's 9:00pm, do you know where your code is? ;P
--bornagainpenguin
Edited 2006-01-17 13:10
Member since:
2005-08-07
I've always found it odd that the people who sling mud at the GPL always praise or offer the BSDL as an alternative more in tune with what they want, while claiming the GPL users are selfish, hurting businesses\stealing programmers' jobs ect....
Hello?
The GPL has always been about ensuring the programmer can improve his or her programs and others can continue to do so long after the original programmer has lost interest. The only requirement is that you must share and share alike. No one gets to use a GPL'd bit of code to make something nice and run off without sharing back what he did so the original programmer can learn from it and add their own twist to thing s creating a cycle of constantly improving programs.
BSDL means that anyone can take whatever they want with or without changes and call it theirs, closing it off for the purpose of selling it and no one-- not even the original developer-- gets a say in anything or a dime for their work.
And they say the GPL is selfish? The GPL is what steals programmers' jobs? The nerve of these people! We should switch to the BSDL because the GPL hurts businesses? Utter hogwash! Complete bullshit!
Here's the clue...
GPL = businesses have to share what programmers freely develop.
BSDL = business do NOT have to share what programers freely develop.
Both cases have programmers sharing freely what they freely created but only in one case must the businesses give back.
Think about it.
--bornagainpenguin
Edited 2006-01-17 00:55