GPLv3 is out – The G-Loaded.eu views
Despite the third version of the GPL being released (read the GPLv3 legal code), all software, which has been published and hosted on G-Loaded.eu and is subject to the terms of the GPLv2, remains under its current license (GPLv2) until further notice. This is not because I consider the 3rd revision of the license as bad. I just believe it has less value than v2 for the following reasons:
- The GPLv3 seems like it has been primarily written with the FSF’s business-world wars in mind and not the adaptation of free software to our world.
- The GPLv3 seems like it has been written with a dream world in mind and not the real world conditions. An example: medical devices, security devices etc, which may use embedded free software, must be fully hackable by design… At this point let me wonder if we all live on the same planet after all… (Seriously, what is the matter with you people? The world is _not_ only about multimedia players, network devices and document formats!). [Update: also, read my comment about this license condition.]
- The GPLv3 seems like a first step in an attempt to adapt the world to the free software principals, while, IMHO, we should move towards the exact opposite direction, aka adapt free software to our world.
- The 3rd revision of the GPL has become a bit restrictive, so it is only a matter of time until someone manages to legally bypass those restrictions. So, I predict that v3 will not last for as many years as the 2nd revision has lasted. I dare to state that it won’t last more than 5 years.
In short, I would say that while GPLv2 is a diachronic license, v3 includes some restrictions that reflect the current times, therefore, even if it might have great value as a license today, it is almost certain that it won’t be that valuable in the upcoming years, as things in the software industry change rapidly.
Anyhow, despite all the above “reasons not to like GPLv3“, I will probably re-license all the released GPLv2 code to GPLv3 at some later time. Honestly, it is of little importance to me if it is GPL v2 or v3.
Moreover, I may try to use some other license as my main license for future code releases. I must admit that I am very attracted to the Creative-Commons licenses. This will depend on numerous factors, which I won’t outline at the present time.
You can read a series of quality comments about the GPLv3 in this comment thread on OSnews.
What I would like to write as a conclusion is taken from the aforementioned comments:
v2 is about “can’t we all just get along?”; v3 is about “no, we can’t”
PS: Comments are on, but I will not be following the discussion for the following days due to other obligations. Feel free to write your opinion, but do not expect any answer soon.
Related Articles
- Best Practices of Software Licensing
- The G-Loaded Experiment – 5 years of tech blogging
- Microsoft releases part of Web Sandbox code under the Apache License
- New stuff on G-Loaded
- G-Loaded Feeds
Tags: Announcements, License, Opinion, Publishing
July 1st, 2007 at 2:37 am
MIT for the win! ;-)
July 1st, 2007 at 3:07 am
Next time I’ll try to find the best software-license comparison chart that exists on the internet, so to get a quick overview of all the available licenses and choose the one with a small number of discussions around its name ;-)
Thanks for the recommendation of the MIT license, seems interesting. (I’ve noticed that you use it for all your releases)
July 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
1. If the free software were to be adapted to our world then it would have been created by Microsoft. Our world currently stinks.
2. I fail to understand you. When GPL2 came out Free Software did not exist. Were you to ask then if they could think of an OS with the power of GNU/Linux being given for free, along with thousands of applications, they would have laughed at your “Dream World”. If there is a reason why we have these things today it is because people followed their “dream”. Do you disagree that medical machines and security devices should be hackable, or do you just think it will never happen?
If it is the first, the you fail to provide any arguments and if it is the second, then history has already proven you wrong.
3. That is the same as point 1 as far as I can see. I see no problem with trying to make a better world than keeping the same one and toning down what we already have.
4. Licenses are not security locks. If they are bypassed it’s only because of something that the drafters did not think of, (as in the tivoization) and not because the advancement of technology. GPL2 was bypassed by tivoization and Patent Deals and we need something to protect against those threats which go against the ideals of GPL.
If you’re happy for g-loaded software to be used in devices and then subsequently being denied any right to modify you own software in the device, then I guess you can be happy as you are.
Also, what you write as a conclusion is quite misleading. Unless you consider “getting along” to equal “being stepped on”
July 1st, 2007 at 6:35 pm
First of all, I haven’t written anywhere that GPLv3 is a bad license. I expressed my opinion about why it has less value than v2.
To sum it up, the real problem with GPLv3, as I perceive it, is that it has been written around the FSF activities. It advances the FSF’s role to a protector of the user freedoms. This is something I particularly dislike about the license. They clearly state it within the license legal code:
About the security/medical/etc devices… think again how easy it is going to be for someone, who has physical access to a security system that uses embedded GPLv3′d free software, to hack it to his/her advantage. I do not say that it cannot happen now, but this license condition makes mission critical devices extremely vulnerable. This, consequently, turns such devices into useless pieces of hardware, eliminating any business opportunities at the same time.
From the license legal code:
This GPLv3 condition is a clear sign that the license was actually written with multimedia players in mind.
As for the conclusion, it is the biggest truth I have ever read about the GPLv3 (unfortunately the quote is not mine as I have stated inside the article above). The GPL has become restrictive, this is a fact.