Survey Says GPLv3 Is Shunned

willdavid writes in to note a survey of open source developers conducted by Evans Data that indicates a real rift in the community over GPLv3. The survey was based on in-depth interviews with 380 open source developers and no estimated margin of error was given. "Just 6 percent of developers working with open-source software have adopted the new GNU General Public License version 3... Also, two-thirds say they will not adopt GPLv3 anytime in the next year, and 43 percent say they will never implement the new license. Almost twice as many would be less likely to join a project that uses GPLv3 than would be likely to join... [Evans Data's CEO said] 'Developers are confused and divided about [the restrictions GPLv3 imposes], with fairly equal numbers agreeing with the restrictions, disagreeing with them, or thinking they will be unenforceable.'"

Slow adoption is to be expected

[A beautiful mind]

It is much easier for new projects to start out with GPLv3 than old projects to convert. Unless the committers transfer copyrights to a central body like in the case of the gnu tools and FSF, it is hard to move to another license if not bordering on impossible.

Re:Slow adoption is to be expected

[stinerman]

Not to mention any project with files licensed under GPLv2 or later is, for all intents and purposes, GPLv3 anyway.

Re:Remember!

[Lost+Found]

What the GPL is really concerned with beyond the code is protecting the freedom of the code's user. BSD aims to give the initial recipient of BSD-licensed code the freedom to make copies and changes in virtually any way they want whereas GPL aims to give those same freedoms and enforce them in second and third and fourth order copies, etc.

Re:Maybe I want my code to be used Commercially!

[Grishnakh]

The GPL isn't about preventing commercial use. If you bothered to read the license(s) you would know that.

It's about preserving users' freedoms. If a commercial entity uses GPL code and distributes that to end users (even paying ones), they're obligated to give them access to the source code. It's that simple. GPLv3 just adds some extra clauses to prevent companies from weaseling around the spirit of these simple terms by using any software patents or the like.

If you don't care about commercial entities taking your code, making changes, distributing it to users, and then refusing to give those users (which may include you) access to their modified code, then release your code under the BSD license, or into the public domain. It's your choice. Stop complaining about other peoples' choices.

Re:Remember!

[maxwell demon]

It doesn't restrict hardware. You can make your hardware DRMed like hell. You just can't run GPLv3ed software on that DRMed hardware. That's a restriction on the software (don't run it on DRMed hardware).

Re:Maybe I want my code to be used Commercially!

[Em Adespoton]

GPLv1 and v2 look at free software being sidetracked or misused by private interests who want to subvert it to their own goals. What GPLv3 has done is tackled the opposite problem... private interests attempting to subvert GPL'd code by contributing code to a GPL project which has other non-copyright restrictions attached to it (eg, patents). The idea here is that someone can contribute a key piece of code and have a submarine patent on the algorithm. The entire project becomes popular, things are modified over time, and then bam! Patent holder comes out asking everyone who uses that entire codebase for patent fees based on the algorithm they added. Often that bit of code can be replaced, but that's no so easy to do when you're dealing with embedded software already packaged or out in the real world.

Re:Slow adoption is to be expected

[hansonc]

wrong.

If I'm the user of the code e.g. Tivo and I don't decide that I want to comply with gpl v3 I don't have to in that case. For you to force me to comply with v3 you have to relicense it as v3 (or later) it's not a retroactive license which probably wouldn't be legally enforceable anyway.

Not exactly

[paladinwannabe2]

Something licensed that way can be used by both GPLv2 and GPLv3 projects, but can't use GPL3 code itself without converting to GPL3. It's still under GPLv2 until then.

Re:Slow adoption is to be expected

[Experiment 626]

Unless, of course, all the commits were "GPLv2 or later", in which case the project was effectively already under the GPLv3 from the moment it was released.

Wrong. The "or later" does not mean that whatever the most recent version of the GPL has been published is the one that applies. It means someone wanting to copy / distribute / whatever the software is free to do so under the terms of the GPLv2, or any later version that they might prefer the terms of. If the GPLv4 came out next week and said "to distribute software under this license, you have to send RMS a case of beer", you could distribute "GPLv2 or later" software by either providing its source (the GPLv2/v3 option) or by sending RMS a case of beer. New versions of the GPL give you more choices in licensing "or later" code, they don't retroactively change the terms of the deal like some shady EULA.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

Re:The takeup is actually pretty strong

[phantomlord]

After all, how many projects still use GPL version 1?

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 1, February 1989

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007

Mind to venture a guess how many non-FSF/GNU projects were created in the 28 months that the GPLv1 was the current license versus how many projects were created in the 16 years that the GPLv2 was the current license? Predicting the dominance of the GPLv3 based on the current usage of GPLv1 is a little disingenuous.

As for the GPLv3 being the dominate license in a few years, I've read that RMS already wants to get a GPLv4 out soon. If it's within the next 3 years, the GPLv3 will barely have time to catch on and the rapid license changes will make the GPL look unstable to non-FSF zealots.

Re:Remember!

[A beautiful mind]

Actually, the GPL was always good at using the opponent's tools against them. It is after all using copyright to achieve it's goal. Without copyright, there would be no need for GPL, as we'd have a pretty level playing field, as all code would be practically BSD licensed. In such a world the advantages GPL provides for free software authors wouldn't be necessary anymore.

Re:Maybe I want my code to be used Commercially!

[huckamania]

It's more likely that a patent infringement would be added unwittingly by a third (or fourth) party. The GPLv3 does what it can, but it can't magically give immunity from patent infringement. Well, except for the case you outlined which is probably the least likely to occur.

Still, SAMBA!

There's a difference

[GroundBounce]

The change from GPL1 to GPL2 was more of a no-brainer. Even Linus adopted GPL2, and he's pretty much on the "business-friendly" side of the spectrum.

The thing that's new about GPL3, is that it tries to not only keep the code itself open and free, which I believe is a valid goal of a software license, but it tries to control *other* behaviors of an organization that are more marginally related to the code itself, such as patent cross-licensing agreements, etc. If a piece of software does not violate any known patents, then the license for that software should not restrict or control how a user conducts their patent cross-licensing or other aspects of their business.

Even though I may agree with some the philosophical aims of GPL3, I have a problem with a software code license that tries to reach out and control general business behavior of individuals or organizations. The GPL3 is basically an attempt to try to force organizations not to just keep the specific code open and free, but to align philosophically with more general business practices.

Re:Slow adoption is to be expected

[swillden]

Not necessarily. GPL version 3 only provisions do not apply to it, unless it is changed to be licensed under GPL 3 (only, or "or later").

One key clarification here: You can't change the license on a piece of code unless the license gives you permission to sub-license. Otherwise, only the copyright owner can change the license on a file from, say, GPLv2+ to GPLv3+. Someone else can come along and add some GPLv3+ code to the GPLv2+ file, and the result will only be distributable under GPLv3+ but this doesn't mean the original GPLv2+ code has been relicensed. If the GPLv3+ code is removed, then the result will again be distributable under the terms of GPLv2.

Re:Slow adoption is to be expected

[dosius]

Important, yes, important enough that I insist on staying with 2, or using a more liberal license.

-uso.

Re:Remember!

[Ginger Unicorn]

it also doesn't restrict how you *run* it. Run it on DRMed hardware to your heart's content. It just specifies what information you must include should you wish to redistribute it.

Re:Slow adoption is to be expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Your original post is wrong because you said they were effectively GPLv3, when that is not the case. They are effectively GPLv2, since that license is less restrictive. They are not even really technically GPLv3 until someone explicitly redistributes as GPLv3.

The only thing that can really be said about "GPLv2 or later" projects is that they can be easily forked to GPLv3.

No.

[keeboo]

The copyright holder may license each different version as he pleases, he may even make a parallel commercial release.
The one able to violate such license is the one who receives the code already under such license.

Re:Not exactly

[sumdumass]

What? How can you claim something falls under a license when I can ignore a good portion of the limits the license imposes?

No, Section 9 says you have the option of following either version. You would have to change the license in order to have it count as GPLv3. Otherwise there would be nothing stopping me from ignoring your GPLv3 restrictions and just using the GPLv2. The GPLv2 says that derivative works much use that license (GPLv2). It also says no further restrictions so I'm not sure if you can even use GPLv3 code with it. Although some are saying the original work, unless changed by the copyright holders can have the GPLv3 code with it. But that would fly against the FSF's own compatibility matrix that says the two licenses are incompatible and cannot be used together in the same project.