Number of GPL v3 projects tops 2,000 116
Da Massive writes "The number of open-source projects that use the GNU General Public License Version 3 has grown to more than 2,000, according to Palamida, which sells software and services for tracking open-source code within a customer's code base. 'Our database now contains over 2,000 projects that are using the GPL v3. "At this rate the GPL v3 is being adopted by 1,000 projects every 4-5 months, and if the trend continues, the license will be used by 5,000 projects by the end of the year," states a recent posting on Palamida's blog.'"
Linear interpolation... (Score:5, Insightful)
It could also mean there has been a rush to convert projects, or that there is an exponentially increasing number under the license.
A simple linear interpretation of the data isn't that useful - maybe I should RTFA to see if there's a graph or something?
But hey, this is slashdot! Read the article??!
Re:Linear interpolation... (Score:5, Informative)
The article itself does not have a distribution, but the blog linked to by the article does: Palamida blog complete with chart [blogspot.com]. There was a definite surge last year of GPL3 projects, followed a sharp decline in December. The number of add projects, however, has been slowly climbing for the first few months of 2008.
Re:Linear interpolation... (Score:2)
GPLv3 is for Fearless Freedom-Defenders. (Score:1)
Re:Linear interpolation... (Score:5, Interesting)
Additional thoughts:
1) Any time I read something involving "If this trend continues", even if it's based on solid data I hear it in my head in Disco Stu's voice, which tends to undercut its credibility.
2) This ("Four new GPL 3 projects this week!") is arguably the most boring blog in the world.
Re:Linear interpolation... (Score:4, Informative)
This makes it sound like there was a decline in GPL3 projects, which isn't the case. There was a decline in the growth rate of GPL3 projects, meaning that the number of GPL3 projects grew, only not as fast as in previous months.
Re:Linear interpolation... (Score:4, Informative)
Just as an aside, I am in no way trying to detract from the accomplishments here; this is a very nice v3 adoption rate. I was just agreeing with the original poster that the statistics deserve better interpretation than a 'grade school average over time'.
Re:Linear interpolation... (Score:2)
It's probably not the case, but it's hard to say. How many GPLv3 projects get abandoned per month? Without that statistic, it's impossible to estimate the change in the total number of GPLv3 projects.
Re:Linear interpolation... (Score:2)
My main problem with the GPL/3 (well the GPL in general) is that it is very strict and many of their followers are very religious towards the GPL, What RMS Says must be right additude. So there is a lot of extra work with little benefit just to keep your userbase up. Espectially if you work on the fringes of the GPL (Coding to the word of the GPL but not the spirit of the GPL) then you are volnerable to the whims of the GPL Comunity, who may be a major customer/user base.
While I can hear the argument you don't have to switch to GPL/3 but if you customers are demmanding it or work with other GPL/3 Code will work in GPL 2 code but not the other way around nessararly. So you are better off going GPL/3 for that reason. However I felt they should have made GPL/3 more umm... Open closer to the BSD License.
Re:Linear interpolation... (Score:1)
- Does that mean the surge is working?
Graph (Score:2, Informative)
A simple linear interpretation of the data isn't that useful - maybe I should RTFA to see if there's a graph or something?
Extrapolation, not interpolation (Score:2)
GPLv2 compliance-? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that the linked-to article, all the documentation that exists for GladeGen, only mentions that the code is GPL; it doesn't specify a version and there is no COPYING file or mention of a license in any of the files or source code. So I'm not entirely certain as to the legal status of the code other than it's probably licensed under some version of the GPL.
If David Reed or Linux Journal could come forward and clarify the legal status, that would be most helpful. Maybe someone with a legal background might provide some help, too.
Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (Score:2)
Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (Score:1)
Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (Score:1)
Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (Score:1)
Re:Being a bit anal about it, aren't we? (Score:1)
Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (Score:2)
It appears that the license references on the pages I could find simply point to a FSF site with the current GPLv3 license. This seems to violate the GPL in and if itself because you are supposed to reference the version and a statement about later versions on not. It could be that it is already incompatible with itself. Although as I understand it, LGPL licenses aren't incompatible with the GPLv3 by default. I can understand your frustration quite well. Perhaps this thread would bring some light to the situation.
Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (Score:2, Informative)
GladeGen also uses PyXML, which in turn uses libxml, which is MIT licensed. No problem there.
Most of the rest of the code Stylus Toolbox uses is offered under the PSF license, which is GPL3-compatible according to RMS.
PyGTK itself is LGPL and pexpect is PSF licensed.
Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (Score:2)
An interesting point someone made to me was that if no version number is present, then any version of the GPL could be applied. However, given your situation where none of the appropriate notices are present in the code like the license requires, there still is that realm of doubt. I mean if the article was wrong and it turns out to be some other license, it could mean a lot of hassle sorting it out. Best of luck to you.
Re:GPLv2 compliance-? (Score:2)
<IANAL>Then it has no license at all, and you are committing copyright infringement. I suggest you stop distributing your project until you've contacted the copyright holder of GladeGen and gotten him to properly license it.</IANAL>
And this matters, why? (Score:1, Troll)
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:4, Insightful)
My main gripe is that it doesn't do exactly what it claims to do because of the way the GPLv2 upgrade is worded and a few technical wordings. Other people don't like it because their projects are dependent on GPLv2 only software or semi-closed software which the GPLv3 doesn't allow. Projects like the linux kernel won't be moving to GPLv3 and it is pointless to dual license GPLv3 code do it creates a lot of confusion to boot.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPLv2 is the GPL we all have used since sometime in the 90's. The GPLv3 decide to add some activism onto it and as a result isn't compatible with the GPLv2 anymore.
The GPLv2 was also an implementation of activism and it too has plenty of detractors. Any license out of the FSF is going to be an implementation of activism. It's like the people who like Fox News "Because it is SOOOOO unbiased!". It's plenty biased but the bias lines up with their personal inclinations, causes little cognitive dissonance and is therefore seen as unbiased. In the same vein, the GPLv2 aligns with the goals of it's users and is thus seen as a purely practical tool for implementing them. What GPLv2 users who gripe about the GPLv3 REALLY mean is that they agree with some but not all of the FSF's "activism".
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:1)
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
So, I have two choices. I can use GPLv3 software and know I can't be screwed, or I can develop my own solution.
In this situation, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if you wrote the code or not, because it's not safe for me to rely on it.
You say you do not believe in telling others to share. That's not what this is about. The GPL does not give you that power in the first place, in any of its iterations.
This is about offering to share, collaborating with others who also wish to share, and everyone assuring each other that no one will attempt to impose a cost later that isn't transparent at the time of adoptation.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:1)
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:3, Informative)
Now, if you release something under the BSD, and you have a patent pending, and I use it to run my nuts and bolts factory, I could wake up one day and find out that you own all the profits my business generates.
If you released it under the GPLv3, I would already have a legally binding assurance that you won't do that to me.
Now, if there is a third party with patents involved, I don't have a legal release from their patents if they are not involved in our interaction.
However, one would presume that your GPLv3 code would constitute prior art in the majority of such cases, giving me a degree of relief from this risk.
If you, knowing that a third party had a previously issued patent, decided to write an implementation of that patent and release it GPLv3, then that would leave me and my nuts and bolts factory at risk.
All in all, GPLv3 is a big, big benefit for people who aren't in the software business. And, in my opinion, also a big benefit for people who want to be coders for a living. The more fat for custom work in your clients IT budget, the better. It's only those who want to be professional code owners that aren't going to benefit, overall. Personally, I'd just as soon shoot those people in the head as look at em, but that's just me.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:1)
Well... you gave an aspect of using the BSD license for me to investigate. So thanks for clarify your point of view.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
That's not the way patents work. A patent can't cause the user of a product to be liable for using something. It can only prevent the manufacture or distribution of the product in question (or, in some jurisdictions, contributory infringement, which is the manufacture or distribution of a product whose sole purpose is to build the product in question).
And that's why GPLv3 still wouldn't protect you any significantly more than a BSD license because it is a million times more likely that the open source/free software is infringing someone else's patent than a patent by the creator of the software....
About the only thing the GPLv3 might do usefully is protect against business process patents, e.g. using a piece of software in a very specific way as part of a manufacturing business. That's a very limited protection of very little use to most people, though, and even that protection might not stand up to legal tests if, for example, the software in question is a generic piece of control software and the process patent involves using that software in a very specific way. One could legitimately argue that it does not violate the GPLv3 terms to distribute it under that license because using the software in general does not violate the patent, and there's likely no such thing as software that doesn't have at least one use that would violate at least one business software patent for some very specific use, so either no software can be distributed under GPLv3 or the software in question can be....
If it is truly prior, so would the BSD code. If it is not, neither would the GPLv3 code.
All in all, GPLv3 is a big, big benefit for the proprietary software vendors by fragmenting the FOSS community and its projects in an incompatible way. Beyond that, the anti-patent text offers some protection for people doing software distributions, and little more.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, there is very little protection difference in this respect between the GPLv2 and GPLv3 let alone BSD and similar licenses.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
In fact, this is how almost 90% or better of the patent threats to free software happens. There has been a very little presence of someone submarining patents into the mix. It has primarily been third parties working by themselves.
I guess the benifit of the GPLv3 is that in the license, it is written that you have to stop distributing it if a situation like that occurs. The down side is that it sort of gives evidence to the person who put it under the GPLv3 as they have to assert that they have the ability to pass all the right along with it. I suppose that is something is still being distributed after it is known that a patent is connected to it and the project doesn't have permission to use the patent according to the GPLv3, it could become retroactive on whoever put it in.
This is something people have to understand could place some risk of liability on them if they convert someone else's program to a GPLv3 license. Whoever does so is basically saying you have the right to any patents in this code/program. It may not seem obvious, but then a lot of the lawsuits aren't obvious either. They tend to be fringe examples of some violation where people think they didn't do anything wrong.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
The patent can be files years before it is granted. This has happened several times in recent history where a patent was granted lat in 2000 but filed in the mid 90's.
And I think you have the concept of prior art incorrect. As long as I can prove that I am the inventor, I can file for a patent at any time. If I have proof, as in my product was produced first and marketed first, I can wait up to a year from the initial public disclosure before filing for the patent too. This mean I could introduce my product, someone else makes a BSD, GPLv2 or GPLv3 program concerning the new tech, I file for my patent and I can still spook you. I just have to prove that I was first which isn't that hard.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
You're talking out of your fucking ass. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Go do some research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art [wikipedia.org]
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
It is this simple. If I create something, I have up to a year to file for a patent from my initial public disclosure. If I wait 6 months and file, the current average is about 30 months between filing and grants. There's 2.5 years of waiting and 3 years that would have passed. In computer and related technology terms, that is a long time. Now suppose someone else attempts to file for a patent on the same or similar tech, then an interference process happens which could delay the grant of the patent from quite a while longer. Let's say it adds another year onto it to now make it 4 years until my patent was valid. But you have to remember that an average of 30 months or so is a combination of shorter and longer times that a person might have to wait. SO lets say we have to wait another 1-2 year above the average for whatever reason. SO now we have 5-6 years since I disclosed something before I am granted a patent. Certainly plenty enough time for someone to offer GPLed code covering the same tech. And it is certainly enough time for the tech to become a standard of sorts.
Prior art only works before my initial disclosure not when you are made aware of the patent or patent application. My disclosure is the prior art and wouldn't effect me.
Now I suggest you get a fucking clue and stop talking out your ass. If you need to, sit down with someone smarter then you and have them explain what all the big words mean. Otherwise, I suggest you shut up before showing the world what kind of fool you are.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
One day you will wake up and realize the error of your ways. Until then, I am perfectly happy in pointing out how stupid you are. But you see, your actually dangerous with your stupidity, you actually think your right and attempt to ignore reality to show that. Hopefully you will wake up before you hurt yourself too bad. If not, oh well, I warned you and I don't care enough to worry about you harming yourself. Just don't run with pointed objects I guess.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
But your patent would still be destroyed anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
But if anything happened during that time, it wouldn't hurt my claims. At best, it would invoke an interference and if the facts are as I assert, I created the tech I would prevail. Something else could be that I filed for a patent before I introduced my software and it took 5 or 10 years to get through the process before being granted. This has happened a couple of times recently where something had been in use for so long, it is almost a standard way of doing something before the patent is awarded but the application was originally filed in the mid 90's or so.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
Releasing code that implements something that's "patent pending" ought to violate the GPLv3 too. (Note that "ought to" does not necessarily mean "actually would.")
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
The point is, unless the offending code was released by the person with the patent claim, then no one is safe when people for some reason think they might be. The same situations that could happen with someone releasing code then attempting to submarine a patent into the works can happen with a third party and you are no safer.
The world is upside down (Score:2)
The question really comes down to what sort of rights do you think people should have to their software? If you don't have an opinion on this matter, or if you don't think people really should have many rights at all, or only the rights that they've paid for, then your way of looking at it makes sense.
But if you think that people should have full rights to the software they use, then the GPL isn't really viral at all. The GPL is really for people who disagree that copyright should be applied to software, as it causes an imbalance in *control* of the technology. For instance, with current copyright law, you're forbidden from disassembling the software you use.
I think you can use the classical negative/positive freedom distinction with regards to free software. It seems that we all have the *ability* to disassemble our software, so that's negative freedom that would give us the right to do so. The only thing in the free software definition [gnu.org] that corresponds to a positive freedom is the right to source code, which requires the author of modifications to the software to then distribute the source along with any binaries.
So, to some extent, I do see the point of people who would want to confine the free software definition to only negative freedoms: that is, all rights to the software except the requirement to pass along software. But, I also see the FSF's point that, without the source code you really don't have much practical control over what the software does on your machine, which puts that control in the hand of other people: businesses, governments, crackers, or religions/cults.
And I think sometimes the discussion gets a little obscure when they don't see any need for software by someone who doesn't program. That's not the point at all. We all have the right to bear arms, even if you're never going to hunt. We all have the right to peacably assemble, even if you're never going to protest. So the FSF is saying we all have the right to modify the source code of the software on our computer, even if we're never going to program.
Honestly, I don't think it's all that extreme at all, it just seems so in this cynical mindset the computing world is in.
Re:The world is upside down (Score:1)
Re:The world is upside down (Score:2)
It was!
As far as the FSF is concerned, the rights they believe "people should have to their software" * haven't changed. All that's happened is that the FSF has realized the old version of the license (GPLv2) didn't quite reflect those beliefs completely because of a legal tactic they didn't anticipate.
In other words, they discovered a bug in the license and released a new, patched version to fix it. The intent never changed because it was supposed to be like the GPLv3 (or more accurately, like whatever the final version of the GPL will be) from the beginning)
* Note: "people" refers to users, not developers, and "their software" refers to "software they use," not "software they own the copyright of." See the GNU Manifesto for more info.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
Not everyone is into the activism. They saw the GPLv2 as a practical license. They don't like the activism associated with the GPLv3, I am one of them.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:1)
Or just look at their home page [fsf.org].
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:1)
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
I would be more weary of people blindly following something who disregard the warning of other then I would with someone who I know have an interest somewhere else. Obviously there is more then one idea of free software with all the different free licenses available. Who is to say the GPLv3 is the one true way?
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:5, Informative)
1) If you receive software and hardware together from a vendor, and the software is released under the GPLv3 license, you have legal assurance that they will not attempt through hardware to prevent you exercising your right to change the code and deploy your changes. If you receive software released under the GPLv2 license, you do not have these assurances. You can reasonably expect that the pressure on the vendor to increase revenue will lead to them attempting to rent out the control they have over you to third parties.
2) If you use or redistribute software, and the software is released under the GPLv3 license, you have legal assurances that you will not wake up one morning and find that the software you have come to rely on is now subject to patents that the vendor received. If you receive software released under the GPLv2 license, you could suddenly be forced to pay large sums of money or stop using the technology. This is a large risk that can tank a business model that relied on having liberty to grow without increased intellectual property costs and suddenly does not have that liberty.
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:1)
Actually for number 2, it only helps you if the person who wrote/distributed the software has the patents. You still have just as much risk against anyone else (which is where the real risk is anyways).
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:1)
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2)
Not really; the software license is only dictacting lack of mis-features of the hardware.
Twice nothing is still nothing ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Put it into perspective ... without a comparison to the number (and importance) of GPLv2 projects, it is one of those meaningless statistics.
You'd think this was a press release from Microsoft ...
How many GPLv2 projects are there out there? Easily over 100,000. Call me back in 5 years.
Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (Score:2)
For those of us who have moved completely away from Microsoft, it IS nothing ...
Where I am, all the important stuff is on linux or bsd machines - you want it, you can get it via svn or ftp or http or ssh. If you can't figure that out, you don't need access to it anyway.
Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (Score:2)
I also left out fish://, (and sftp), but let's face it - people using Mr. Softie aren't going to be using fish:// any time soon.
Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (Score:5, Informative)
As for FISH (another protocol using the SSH delivery mechanism), you still have the obscurity problem (worse than ever).
Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (Score:2)
No, I just like keeping my systems free of any possible "patent issues" or other FUD avenues.
Unlike samba [microsoft-watch.com], which, by licensing Microsoft's IP, is actually helping to maintain Microsoft's dominance.
Expect to see the "same shit, different day" with MS-OOXML. the KDE team has it right - they will just ignore OOXML. Why waste time and energy, and further Mr. Softie's ends?
Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (Score:2)
The Samba/CIFS team is simply awesome. IMHO, they are open source heroes. By blindly reverse engineering the samba protocol, they gave us a stable and legally safe implementation of the protocol. How do I know this? Because Debian includes it in their main repository. The same Debian whose anality makes Nurse Ratched look like a hippie.
If you truly are concerned with Samba future legality and encumberance, I suggest you mention that fact next time. At the very least, avoid making slanderous implications about the protocol or its users, or dismissing it as useless.
Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (Score:2)
Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (Score:2)
Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (Score:2)
The shocking thing is that almost every network is untrusted. Consider a business. The server will almost always have to have access privileges to prevent everybody's privacy. Thus, the network is untrusted - not everybody is allowed to view all data. You are proposing that every employee use a VPN to connect to a server while inside the building? Completely inefficient and unjustified.
The only networks that are truly ever "trusted" are server farm/cluster subnets that are behind a firewall and/or NAT. Unsurprisingly, these kind of environments are where NFS is used the most.
Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (Score:3, Interesting)
According to the blog [blogspot.com], there are "6446 GPL v2 or later" projects in the database, and assuming that more than 2000 of those are v3, that leaves just a little bit over 4400 are v2. Assuming the databased isn't biased towards v3 projects in any way, that means that almost 30% of projects are v3.
I'm not necessarily saying that your statistic is wrong; I would just like to see a source, and I definitely would prefer to do apples-to-apples comparisons (consistent collection methods).
Internet statistics (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (Score:2)
You are misinterpreting the data. "GPL v2 or later" means that these projects originally chose the GPL v2 but used the FSF's recommended wording that automatically allows people to use a later version of the GPL. So 6446 is the number of projects that can be counted as both GPL v2 and GPL v3, and excludes the projects that are specifically GPL v2 only.
Who cares how many 'projects'? (Score:3, Insightful)
How many of those projects are relevant? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's Nothing! (Score:1)
Calm Down (Score:3, Interesting)
However I have a more important question. Why is this written like it is a war between GPLv3 and other licenses? If the virus of GPLv3 doesn't spread we're all doomed. No folks that's not the case. Don't get so wrapped up in this stuff. So what no one uses GPLv3? So what if everyone uses it? If software doesn't meet one's needs (and that includes having cumbersome provisions in your license) one will either write their own or use someone else's software. Really this all works out in the end. Don't have so much emotion invested in things that you can't really affect the outcome.
Re:Kernel switching (Score:1)
Re:Calm Down (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Calm Down (Score:2)
The other side of this is a fight between the two open source camps, the idealists and the pragmatists. Stallman is firmly in the idealist camp and he's the one that primarily wrote v3. Linus is firmly in the pragmatist camp. Linus made his problems with the v3 drafts known, and Stallman didn't address them, instead choosing to go the idealist route. It's a stupid, petty debate with stupid, petty people on both sides.
Re:Calm Down (Score:2)
In particular, the DRM fuzz didn't make it.
It seems the reason for not migrating tends to be 1) logistics and 2) unperceived need.
Here are his comments in Git's COPYING file:
Note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as this project
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
HOWEVER, in order to allow a migration to GPLv3 if that seems like
a good idea, I also ask that people involved with the project make
their preferences known. In particular, if you trust me to make that
decision, you might note so in your copyright message, ie something
like
This file is licensed under the GPL v2, or a later version
at the discretion of Linus.
might avoid issues. But we can also just decide to synchronize and
contact all copyright holders on record if/when the occasion arises.
Linus Torvalds
Of course, you can also reference the ELER strip, which also represents the general ambivalence on the matter:
http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/sandals-not-flip-flops [geekz.co.uk]
new projects?? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
Wow, congratulations... (Score:2)
Impressive (Score:2)
It wasn't really that bad with GPLv2, but GPLv3 took a very strong F'-the-day-job attitude.
Re:GPL (Score:1)
yeah, like the quality of M$ stuff is better (Score:3, Insightful)
The only difference is that FOSS programmers are not forced to declare their stuff 'finished'.
Re:yeah, like the quality of M$ stuff is better (Score:1)
If you mean their X-Fi Linux drivers, those aren't anywhere near the beta stage. Their drivers don't even compile on my system, let alone work with the card.
If it weren't for 4Front's OSSv4 X-Fi drivers (which still need improvement), I would likely still be using my Live! 5.1 card.
Re:yeah, like the quality of M$ stuff is better (Score:2)
Re:GPL (Score:2, Informative)
Re:GPL (Score:1)
Re:GPL (Score:2)
Re:You used several of them to post here, AC. (Score:1)
Re:You used several of them to post here, AC. (Score:4, Insightful)
And you greatly overestimate the importance of the gnu userland+gcc(the only GPL3 project that anyone gives a fig about) on the world economy. If it disappeared, the old BSD userland would be ported in a few days.
Re:You used several of them to post here, AC. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Even GCC, the only GNU project of consequence, is really not that important. If it went away tomorrow, LLVM [llvm.org] and clang [llvm.org] could take its place. It probably will anyway, eventually, since GCC is a maintenance nightmare from everything I've read and heard. In the end, the GPLv3 won't be what killed GCC, though it was definitely the straw that broke the camel's back and drove a bunch of people over to LLVM, thus increasing development on that project.
Re:The only GPL3 project that anyone gives a fig.. (Score:2)