Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.
There are legitimate objections to GPLv3, such as its increased complexity. This license modernization was designed not by an individual as with past versions, but by the feedback of the large economy built around it, so the additional complexity was inevitable.
Linus' primary opposition to the license is, however, based on misinformation. He believes the license forbids him as the owner of a computer to use GPLv3 software to lock it down so that users (such as his children) can't modify the software and do things the owner doesn't want them to do. Not only is this a false impression, but that the GPLv3 was designed specifically to ensure that the owner of the computer was the only one allowed to lock down the computer using GPLv3 software and not any third party - be it the hardware manufacturer or his children.
This is why you sometimes need to hire a lawyer to get clarification on a software license, not a computer hacker. While I'm not a lawyer (IANAL), I do hang around enough with my policy work that I have learned how to read contracts, acts of parliament, and court judgments.
I don't entirely understand why Linus has the impression he does, or why trusted close friends haven't been able to convince him of what is really going on. I suspect it really comes down to personality conflicts between Linus and specific members of the Free Software Foundation, and does not relate to anything that anyone should base business decisions on.
The big news today is that SugarCRM has bowed to community pressure and will release the next version of its CRM software under an OSI-approved license.
The bigger news may be the identity of the license, GPLv3.
Currently Sugar uses a version of the Mozilla Public License, adding a non-standard “attribution” requirement on user screens which the OSI objects to. It has also used the Microsoft Community License.
CEO John Roberts told C|Net that Sugar will continue to offer a “Professional” version of its software under a proprietary license, which prohibits distribution of the source code. VARs will doubtless be encouraged to push customers toward it.
But the real significance of the move may be what it says about the battle between the GPLs.
Linus Torvalds has identified himself publicly with the GPLv2, and GPLv3 advocates like Richard Stallman have been called anti-capitalist. But here we have a profit-seeking company, previously unwilling to support any standard OSI license, now supporting the GPLv3.
So who’s commie now?
UPDATE: In a move that certainly smells like compromise, the OSI has approved a Common Attribution License, submitted by SocialText.
