Why I won't use GPLv3 software
I've discussed in the past some of the problems I have with the GPLv3. I still don't understand why the FSF insists that hardware vendors allow the software on their systems to be modified.
I've discussed in the past some of the problems I have with the GPLv3. I still don't understand why the FSF insists that hardware vendors allow the software on their systems to be modified.
By all accounts, Torvalds is very annoyed with the GPLv3 process. The reasons aren't hard to understand, however, particularly given that he probably doesn't have much choice as to whether to use the new license.
A post on OSNews regarding Novell's official response to the recent draft of the GPLv3 led to a discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of the Novell-Microsoft deal. Not surprisingly, most respondents have a negative view of the agreement.
Some Talkback regulars noted that Torvalds may dodge the GPLv3 bullet because so little of the Linux kernel is dependent on third-party libraries. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that, in the real world, every Linux distribution will be bound by the GPLv3 copyright rules.
Last Friday, I wrote a piece describing why I wouldn't use GPLv3 software. As some pointed out, most of my complaints centered around the fact that I would never use a GPLv3 product as part of a development project, as I mostly opposed two things: a) that I can't control the software that runs on custom hardware when using GPLv3 code, and b) that I can't static or dynamic link to pure GPL code (version 2 or 3, a restriction that doesn't apply to LGPL code of either license version).
That, apparently, is the reason the release of GPLv3 has been delayed. The Free Software Foundation wants to ensure that verbiage in GPLv3 explicitly prevents arrangements wherein Microsoft signs a patent waiver with customers of a particular company (in this case, Novell).
Bill Gates recently commented that copy protections for digital media are too complex for most consumers. In the end of the day incentive systems (for artists) make a difference...
Apparently, as of January 2008, non-GPL Linux kernel modules will no longer be allowed. Technically speaking, however, a computer would have a hard time enforcing a licence.
Fans of the GPL are still acting like Microsoft ran over the family pet in its recent agreement with Novell. This example from Groklaw, to which Miguel de Icaza responded, is a good example.
Novell is of the opinion that their agreement with Microsoft conforms to the restrictions of GPLv2. Eben Moglen, who as legal representative for the FSF is not happy about the agreement, doesn't state explicitly that it isn't valid.