Number of GPL v3 projects tops 2,000

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...

[adpsimpson]

"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."

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??!

Twice nothing is still nothing ...

[trolltalk.com]

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.

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.

Who cares how many 'projects'?

[Megaweapon]

There's gobs of projects on Sourceforge that have a license stated, yet no code. A LOC number would at least be somewhat useful.

Re:And this matters, why?

[sumdumass]

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.

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.

How many of those projects are relevant?

[GreatBunzinni]

I mean, I've created a small library which is comprised of a few thousands lines of code and I released it under the GPL. Yet, although it is a GPLed project, I wouldn't even want to compare it to Apache or the linux kernel, let alone count it as an equal.

yeah, like the quality of M$ stuff is better

[someone1234]

Or Creative's drivers :) or anything else.
The only difference is that FOSS programmers are not forced to declare their stuff 'finished'.

Re:And this matters, why?

[domatic]

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:Calm Down

[domatic]

It's just another license to flamewar over. Additionally, almost any discussion about the GPL (any version), FSF, or RMS is almost automatically guaranteed to generate more heat than light. My own take on it is that if I'm capable of improving something I find useful then I'll improve it. I'll do it under whatever license it came under because "he who writes the code chooses the license". I do avoid things covered by "Jim Bob's Personal Open License" and stick to things covered by the majors: MIT, BSD, GPL (any ver after 2), X11, Apache, Mozilla, and Sun. Maybe I missed one or two but basically as long as it is mainstream and not abusive to devs (I'm liberal on this) and users (not so liberal on this) then I Just Don't Care.

Re:You used several of them to post here, AC.

[geminidomino]

GPL3 Compatible != Licensed under GPL3.

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:And this matters, why?

[TheRaven64]

I often thought about using a modified Beerware license which, rather than granting the author the right to buy me a beer, imposes considering buying me a beer as a condition of the license. Because the license imposes a condition not present in the GPL, it would be incompatible with the GPL, but compatible with pretty much every other Free Software license.

Re:And this matters, why?

[sumdumass]

Just don't forget that with the GPLv3 or BSD, if he released the code, you build a business around it, and I get a patent on the technology in the code, your still just as screwed.

In fact, there is very little protection difference in this respect between the GPLv2 and GPLv3 let alone BSD and similar licenses.