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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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:
2005-07-06
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.