It makes one wonder ...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth Jul 02, 2009 5:27 PM EDT |
Is this a sign that more people are looking at GPL3 and finding it wanting in terms of freedoms? That some are of the opinion that you can not make something more free and accessible by piling more restrictions onto it? It's just conjecture on my part, but the trend does make me wonder. |
| tracyanne Jul 02, 2009 5:39 PM EDT |
In what way are you restricted by GPL3? |
| azerthoth Jul 02, 2009 6:00 PM EDT |
As compared to ... ? The big one that gets me, and the one that annoys me the most in GPL3 (and why I have refused to use it) is the blatant move from code to hardware. Its about the code and sharing it. It makes no difference at all if it works on platform A or B or at all. Its if you use it and change it then share it with everyone else. I dont care if what I release wont run on your system, I dont care if when you modify it so that it will that it then wont run on anyone elses systems. What I do care about is, that any changes that get made to it are subsequently released back into the wild. That way either I can learn from it, or someone else can use the same or adapt it as well. If you buy something with a lock without looking to see if you also had a key, then you were stupid enough to buy a lock without a key. Everything after that is just whining. *sigh* but we have had this conversation before. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 02, 2009 6:04 PM EDT |
Let's not go there again TracyAnne. That's the classical GPL vs BSD/MIT debate we have had dozens of times in these forums already. In any case, GPLv3 is doing fine and growing very fast. It's all GPLs together that has lost some market share. And that's only relative. GPL is growing, it's just not growing as fast as the total FOSS market. With the large number of projects coming out that aim at the corporate market that's not really a surprise. The corporate market usually prefers a BSD/MIT code base to build on. |
| tracyanne Jul 02, 2009 6:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:Let's not go there again TracyAnne. That's fine with me. Way too many of these debates go in similar circles. Dog chases tail, tail follows dog. |
| tuxchick Jul 02, 2009 10:25 PM EDT |
Ofer pity's sake:Quoting: The MS-PL has benefited from this trend to become the 10th most popular license in Black Duck's database, used by 1.02 percent of all the projects in the study, the company said. Quoting: the GPL's share of overall license-use dropped 5 percent, from about 70 percent a year ago to about 65 percent now. Mmmkay. The GPL is doomed and Microshaft wins again! |
| number6x Jul 03, 2009 9:18 AM EDT |
In some ways BSD is 'more free' and in other ways GPL is 'free more'. BSD lets receivers of other people IP have more choice in how the receiver's choose to license any changes in the original creators work. Some people consider this 'more free' than GPL. We know that large proprietary houses like Microsoft, Sun, and Apple use BSD licensed software. However they don't contribute all of their improvements back to the community. so at the end of the day there is less software that is free, and more that is closed. And the older closed stuff has not been improved for the community. But GPL creates more freedom by forcing code to remain free through multiple generations. Code that is GPL'd is free and will remain free. so at the end of the day there is more free software and the older free software has been improved for the rest of the community. These are both good things and they and are both beneficial, but in different ways. Besides it's a silly debate. Thanks to the extra kind of freedom BSD gives there is nothing stopping users from taking every BSD licensed software and re-licensing it under GPL. It would be nice if whoever adds to the GPL version would donate BSD licensed code for there improvements back to the BSD community. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!