It's finished. It's done. GPVv3 that is.

It's finished. It's done. GPVv3 that is.

Summary: In addition to Linux, GPLv3 also faces threats from Google, which prefers Apache licenses that protect its commercial rights. So, are you making the switch?

SHARE:
TOPICS: Linux, Open Source
3

GNU from FSFWhy is this GNU smiling?

Because with a political flourish the Free Software Foundation has released the final versions of both GPLv3 and LGPLv3.

IBM has given its blessing but there is, as yet, no white smoke rising from Portland, where Linus Torvalds has expressed his preference for GPLv2.

The new license makes an explicit grant of patents on GPL code, and aims to prevent future Microsoft-Novell deals, in which patent claims are used for competitive advantage.

Torvalds is most unhappy about the "anti-Tivoization" provisions of the new license, which mandate that people be allowed to modify GPL code when it's found inside hardware. TiVos run on Linux, but can't be modified inside it.

In addition to Linux, GPLv3 also faces threats from Google, which prefers Apache licenses that protect its commercial rights.

So, are you making the switch?

Topics: Linux, Open Source

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

3 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Non-legal commentary

    Has anybody done a non-legalese commentary of the licence? I can't make head or tail of it.
    digitalbricklayer
    • Try this for size.

      A fairly thorough explanation in 4 parts.

      http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/06/26/gpl-v3-the-qa-part-1-the-license/
      http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/06/26/gpl-v3-the-qa-part-2-developers/
      http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/06/28/gpl-v3-the-qa-part-3-companies/
      http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/06/28/gpl-v3-the-qa-part-4-odds-and-ends/
      odubtaig
  • Yes, I will support GPLv3 in any way I can!

    I don't write enough code these days to be an influence on any project as a software author, but I am an advocate in this area and will prefer software that uses the GPLv3 or a license that is GPLv3 compatible over any other license.

    I'm not part of the "California consensus" that believes that legal problems are just damage that the technical community can "route around". This is in my conversations the origins of those who are not concerned by things such as "Tivoization" (The locking down of hardware that is bundled with FLOSS software such that modified versions can't run on the hardware we purchased).

    For me it is bad enough that it is legal for non-owners to put locks on things they don't own, and that there are anti-property laws that disallow the owners of this hardware from removing these invalid locks. It is entirely another thing to add massive insult to this human rights injury by using Free Software to circumvent peoples rights.

    I admire the Linux kernel team for their technical prowess, but when it comes to politics and the protection of human rights, I don't have much in common with them.
    russellmcormond