If GPLv3 were a human being, one would say that it has delusions of grandeur. It thinks it is a law rather than a license.
Yup.
eee_eff
· 2 years ago
Hmmm...The right wing is all for voluntary contracts, until someone comes up with a voluntary contract that they don't like.
Well, Solveig and James, I suggest you not release any of the software you care to write under the GPL 3.0.
So the very big difference between GPL and a government is the GPL is a VOLUNTARY contract.
If you don't like it, don't use it, and don't use any GPL code.
It really is THAT SIMPLE.
Richard Bennett
· 2 years ago
You seem a little testy, enigma. Does it bother you that Linus Torvalds says he's totally not into GPL 3?
Gary McGath
· 2 years ago
The implied words in enigma_foundry's statement are, "If you don't like it, don't use it, and don't use any GPL code -- AND KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT." But the fact that something is a voluntary contract, and possibly a bad one, is not a reason to exclude it from public discussion and criticism.
Doug Lay
· 2 years ago
According to CNet, Torvalds is "pleased" with the latest revisions to GPL 3.0, although still noncommittal about migrating the Linux kernel to the new license. Apparently the anti-DRM language has been greatly toned down in the latest revision, which seems prudent. Stallman and the FSF will compromise when they feel it's in their long-term interest (LGPL, anyone)?
I don't think Linus has spoken out against the anti-software-patent language in GPL 3, but I could be wrong. It may be that the kernel developers are willing to accept language that targets "side" IP covenants like the MS-Novell deal.
MikeT
· 2 years ago
enigma_factory,
That's why some of us generally avoid GPL software when there is something better. Have you not noticed that most good OSS is in fact dual-licensed or licensed under a BSD or MIT license? Apache's projects, OpenOffice, Mozilla's projects, need I go on?
Jeff Macdonald
· 2 years ago
Richard, you haven't seen the latest statement from Linus regarding the lastest draft:
"Linus Torvalds is 'pretty pleased' with the current GPL v3 draft"
And Gary, those implied words are yours, and only yours unless enigma_foundy says otherwise.
Jeff Macdonald
· 2 years ago
MikeT, none of those products use BSD or MIT license. They all have their own license. OpenOffice actually uses the LGPL. I know of 2 products that use the GPL but offer dual licenses, MySQL and SleepyCat DB (Berkely DB). They offer dual licenses for a price. GPL is free, another license costs $$.
I'm curious, what is your defination of 'something better'? Is it something along the lines of 'I can claim the code as my own'?
eee_eff
· 2 years ago
Well, the reason I commented on this is that the original post said:
"But the GPLv3 was apparently drafted on the assumption that it is something quite different —that it is a regulation controlling a range of general behavior by software users, and that it is being promulgated by a governmental body with law-creating power."
And my post reminded all that the GPL 3.0 is in fact a voluntary contract, because James seems to want very much to paint the FSF in an "anti-freedom" light, which is basically a smear.
Freedom is what the GPL is all about.
"You seem a little testy, enigma. Does it bother you that Linus Torvalds says he's totally not into GPL 3?"
Actually, as I had predicted here and elsewhere, the Novell deal and the inclusive revision process will bring more and more developers into GPL 3.0 camp. Some of the messiness that we see is just a community building consensus.
As for being testy, it seems to me that those who would detract from the GPL are in fact quite testy. They really abandon their supposedly freedom-based orientation as soon as they are confronted with something unexpected.
But the possibillity of unexpected emergent phenomena is exactly what makes freedom a good, and efforts to bound freedom, in the absence of a compelling rationale, wrong.
Richard Bennett
· 2 years ago
Linus Torvalds doesn't support GPL3.
I see the GPLers are trying to twist Torvalds' statements on GPL out of context. He said he's "pleased" that the latest draft of GPL3 is "better than the first draft", but he's made it clear that it's still not good enough for him to submit to.
The money guys who actually fund Linux development - IBM and HP - aren't on board either, so GPL3 is going nowhere.
Noel Le
· 2 years ago
If GPL3 goes nowhere, what will happy to the great proletarian revolution?
MikeT
· 2 years ago
Sorry, I meant to imply that they are licensed under licenses similar to the MIT or BSD licenses, no the GPL. By better I mean just that, better. My views on OSS are more anarchistic than Stallman's. The plugins and scripts I have written for WordPress, for example, are released with IP anarchy in mind. I honestly don't care if someone were to take them, modify them and sell them. I find it highly pretentious to think that using a few lines of code from an other OSS project should infect your entire code base. But, as I have said, I define liberty in terms of a vacuum of power and authority, not in policy, the way that many libertarians do. Liberty to me is best defined as a lack of being told what to do.
Stephen Pollei
· 2 years ago
MikeT, I think you mean that you have Ochlocracy rather than Anarchist views. An anarchist still has rules.
All Comments
Yup.
Well, Solveig and James, I suggest you not release any of the software you care to write under the GPL 3.0.
So the very big difference between GPL and a government is the GPL is a VOLUNTARY contract.
If you don't like it, don't use it, and don't use any GPL code.
It really is THAT SIMPLE.
I don't think Linus has spoken out against the anti-software-patent language in GPL 3, but I could be wrong. It may be that the kernel developers are willing to accept language that targets "side" IP covenants like the MS-Novell deal.
enigma_factory,
That's why some of us generally avoid GPL software when there is something better. Have you not noticed that most good OSS is in fact dual-licensed or licensed under a BSD or MIT license? Apache's projects, OpenOffice, Mozilla's projects, need I go on?
"Linus Torvalds is 'pretty pleased' with the current GPL v3 draft"
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/...
And Gary, those implied words are yours, and only yours unless enigma_foundy says otherwise.
I'm curious, what is your defination of 'something better'? Is it something along the lines of 'I can claim the code as my own'?
"But the GPLv3 was apparently drafted on the assumption that it is something quite different —that it is a regulation controlling a range of general behavior by software users, and that it is being promulgated by a governmental body with law-creating power."
And my post reminded all that the GPL 3.0 is in fact a voluntary contract, because James seems to want very much to paint the FSF in an "anti-freedom" light, which is basically a smear.
Freedom is what the GPL is all about.
"You seem a little testy, enigma. Does it bother you that Linus Torvalds says he's totally not into GPL 3?"
Actually, as I had predicted here and elsewhere, the Novell deal and the inclusive revision process will bring more and more developers into GPL 3.0 camp. Some of the messiness that we see is just a community building consensus.
As for being testy, it seems to me that those who would detract from the GPL are in fact quite testy. They really abandon their supposedly freedom-based orientation as soon as they are confronted with something unexpected.
But the possibillity of unexpected emergent phenomena is exactly what makes freedom a good, and efforts to bound freedom, in the absence of a compelling rationale, wrong.
I see the GPLers are trying to twist Torvalds' statements on GPL out of context. He said he's "pleased" that the latest draft of GPL3 is "better than the first draft", but he's made it clear that it's still not good enough for him to submit to.
The money guys who actually fund Linux development - IBM and HP - aren't on board either, so GPL3 is going nowhere.