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.'"
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: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: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).
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.
new projects?? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Twice nothing is still nothing ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And this matters, why? (Score:2, Interesting)