What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
85 Comments
- Roger, on 10/11/2007, -4/+29OMG! I can't wait to upgrade to GPLv3!!1!
- mikesol, on 10/11/2007, -9/+33This is huge. The GPL is one of the best tools for preservation of freedom that the world has, and this new version helps us fight DRM and patents better than ever before.
Congratulations to the FSF, and many thanks to Lawrence Lessig and Richard Stallman for their hard work. With this tool, we can keep up the good fight to preserve software freedom for ourselves and for generations to come. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -13/+33Lets hope this teaches lawyers at Microsoft a good lesson.
- benanzo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14seriously...the Linux kernel is heavily reliant on the GNU toolchain (glibc, gcc, etc.) which will adopt GPLv3. Even if Linux doesn't go GPLv3 itself, the Free software world will be greatly affected by this new license since an awful lot of the code relies on RMS' work. I predict businesses will adopt the same as they did with GPLv2.
- GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15Not as good as GPLv2. He believes that a software license shouldn't dictate terms on hardware and I along with many others agree with him. Tivo should be dealt with but GPLv3 is not the correct way. Also GPLv3 does nothing to Novell, Linspire or Xandros. They have altered the terms so that all current deals are kosher.
- Rice, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18What's Linus' final stance on GPL3?
- shirwa23, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15@ thcobbs
all 5,384 GNU packages will straight switched to GPLv3, packages like Gnome, gcc, gpg, automake, Bash, Binutil, g++, gimp, tar, gnulib, grep, gzip etc.. - sigmaman2, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15I think you have to uninstall all previous versions of GPL before you upgrade!
- Roger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Safer to do a clean install.
- generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13Except Sun, IBM, and more. Small fry, they are.
- DrawingTheSun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11use the reply function please
- Philluminati, on 10/11/2007, -7/+15A lot of people think there is nothing wrong with Microsoft and that RMS is over the top. Well do you think GNU/Linux became what it is without RMS? Stallman is defending YOUR FREEDOM. Something your obviously too lazy to do. Something you take for granted. Well these people are the people that made Linux what it is. Microsoft doesn't want your freedom. They want to lock you into their OS. We see every year. They are our competitor and you should let the ***** get in your eyes. Linux only works if it's free in every sense of the word and this revision seals another hole Microsoft were looking to exploit so they can take your freedom from you.
Replace freedom with the word software and it's doesn't sound like i'm a radicalist does it? Freedom needs to be protected and in my rant Freedom = software choice. Congrats to Richard and friends. - maninblac1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8While i like the mantra of your comment, i don't think it is accurate. To say the GPLv3 is more restrictive than GPLv2, i'm not so sure, they're likely equal. It is however true that the GPL itself is restrictive and counter's the ideal it wishes to acheive. But, it is the best way to license software in a capitalist world if you're against software capitalism, (not saying the GPL is socialist, but it removes the ability to capitalize on it's work)
- benanzo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Many thanks to Eben Moglen. I didn't know Lessig was working on the GPL.
- MWeather, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6That depends on what you felt was worth complaining about.
- felyduw, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8May be good for some, not for him.
- MWeather, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9What makes the GPLv3 more incompatible with other licenses than GPLv2?
- jackkerouac, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7For those of you newbies who are looking to get the new GPLv3, simply open a terminal in your OS and type:
sudo apt-get install gplv3
There you go! ;) - generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6They're on one of the FSF GPLv3 committees along with a bunch of other companies' lawyers. But yes, they do seem to prefer the Apache Software License.
Good for them because the GPLv3 is now compatible with the ASL. - generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I disagree, the FSF made a compromise with the people who brought up legit concerns by changing the Tivoisation clause to apply only to "Consumer Products". People who don't care about Tivoisation can certainly keep using GPLv2 but it might bite them in the end, since the MPAA is lobbying heavily worldwide for the WIPO 1996 treaty to be implemented.
And if you really, really want to, why not dual license and get the companies to buy a proprietary license off of you? A la Trolltech. - init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The only businesses that hate the new version of the GPL are those that seek to exploit loopholes in the old license.
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5"The GPL is a restrictive license by definition."
That depends on whose definition of "restrictive" you use. To me, restrictive licenses are such licenses that try to impose more restrictions than copyright law imposes. Your definition is obviously any license more restrictive than the public domain.
By using different baselines for comparison, one can come to different conclusions on whether the GPL is a restrictive license or not. - generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6From Groklaw's newspicks, for those saying that business hates the GPLv3 (..even though they participated in committees during it's 18-month birth):
http://www.sifma.org/news/47167838.shtml
"WASHINGTON, DC, June 27, 2007 –The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) today commended the Free Software Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Center for their significant work in introducing Version 3 of the General Public License (GPL)." - finkployd, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Does that determine yours?
- ronin691, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I will drink lots of Guinness to celebrate - Congratulations to all at the FSF!
- Smokezz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I'm not sure why tsaylor is being dugg down... he's right, there was tons of controversy when this was published and its gone through a lot of changes since then.
- TheNameless88, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Hopefully this means Linspire and Xandros are down the drain forever. Good riddance.
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7It was worth using from the beginning. The complainers were mostly people that today exploit loopholes in the GPLv2, and would lose that ability with the new version.
Yes, Novell and TiVo, I'm referring to you. - maninblac1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4They don't have to point to anything. It wouldn't change the fact that linux does or doesn't infringe on any. This is a case of schrodinger's cat, we only find out the final answer if we open the box, but that doesn't change the condition that linux does or does not infringe.
- generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4With a different license though. Same thing will happen to them that'll happened to the BSDs that were made proprietary.
- SmokedL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Linus has warmed to the later versions to the degree that he says he might consider switching to GPLv3 depending on what happens with for instance the hinted at switching of Open Solaris over to GPLv3.
- superterran, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Before I pop the bubbly, smoke a bowl and screw a stripper in celebration.... What does Linus think?
- generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The GPL prevents software monopolization, or support monopolization. I think it's all for capitalism though. The GPL is a great free market.
RMS lived off of selling free software for hundreds of dollars each for a while. - peep, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6If terms become to restrictive the big hardware manufactures as well as the for profit software and game makers won't play. Not saying that these new terms are wrong, but they should be very careful. They may run the risk of only making the closed systems stronger while seeking purity. To use an example It would be like voting for Nader.
- stev043, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3And just how would you recommend dealing w/ Tivo w/o GPL3? Nicely say "pretty please"?
- SmokedL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2He's not ecstatic, but has warmed to later versions to the degree that he has stated that if sufficient incentive arises he will consider switching Linux over.
As an example of such incentive he has mentioned the possibility of Open Solaris going GPLv3. Sun has made statements that they are considering using GPLv3 for Open Solaris. The incentive then would be enabling free movement of source between the kernels. - maninblac1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3A market that is free, (as in price free), is not a free market. It is a restricted market where the price of goods sold must be sold for $0. It is no different than if the government came in and mandated that all soft drinks be sold for exactly 10 cents. The only advantages in the market are if you offer a superior product, but there is no incentive to offer a superior product persay if you are forced to sell the product for the same price as every other competitor. Therefore, you are completely dependent on free supplies (programmers or are willing to volunteer). I can't think of a real life market where the price of supply and the price of product are essentially fixed that results in a capitalist market.
Thus, what we get are the Red Hat and Novell super conglomerate enterprises who bend ideology of the market, giving the user an excessively complex product, notably with all the bells and whistles they could want, and sells what can't be put under the restriction of the market. Service for making the software work (not patches etc, but phone support and installation etc etc.), this is the only way the Red Hat and Novells survive.
But what about ubuntu support isn't necessarily paid. What you have there are a bunch of endearing individuals whom whether knowingly or unknowningly give up their knowledge, which they paid money to get (college etc), for nothing. Which still, in the grand scheme of things, seems about as anti capitalist as you can get. - codeninja42, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Some people just never learned how to share...
- tsaylor, on 10/11/2007, -14/+16I remember gpl v3 being widely complained about when it was first published. Has it changed to make it worth using?
- sundancekid503, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Didn't IBM complain that GPLv3 was "too restrictive"?
http://www.internetnews.com/reporters_notebook/article.php/3672596
Have they since changed their stance? - generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The GPLv3 is designed to be more readable to lawyers _in order to make it more enforceable_. GPLv2, although you may think it's clear, obviously isn't since we have all these companies exploiting loopholes. The word it relies on as well, "distribution" and derivatives, don't exist outside of US copyright law. Internationalization was one of GPLv3's goals.
Otherwise, there's always the plain-English FAQ or rationale to read. - kaph, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2So what happens now if someone turns in one of those suse coupons?
- Phlosten, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Ditto, Good riddance to bad rubbish.
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The forum still appear to have a few bugs. One of them hides the reply buttons for some leaf posts (posts that haven't yet been replied to). This could be the reason for the top-level posting of a reply.
- Phlosten, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2A hole in the space-time continuum will be ripped open.
- valour, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Have you even read GPLv3? http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2007-05-31.html
- maninblac1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2My machine kernel panic'd after the update, what do i do?
- DrawingTheSun, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2whys that?
- maninblac1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3And i'd like to see the FSF actually try to defend that slim interpretation in the courtroom, and inevitabely lose.
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You have obviously not read the last draft. It specificly restricts the Anti-DRM clauses to consumer products. DRM is allowed with GPLv3 software if the product isn't a consumer product.
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is