IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I care about this, Peter.
If the GPL's progress is imeded by developers just accepting this like sheep, then GPLed software will NOT be used in business. And business is where I use most software. Proprietary crap is what makes my life miserable; having crap changes forced on me by vendors with a marketing agenda, and NOT being able to fix problems with the software as I encounter them. GPL(v2) software offered a way out - v3 cuts off that hope. If my interpretation of it is correct, anyway, and being that you simply accept that interpretation, I must believe that it's a fair one.

Let's put it this way - I _DO_ do due diligence, and with GPL3, there is far less advantage to using GPLed software. The source becomes useless to business. Unless they want to be a software publisher - and, guess what? That ISN'T what most businesses want to do.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New I don't doubt that you care.
I do, however, doubt that the developer community at large will either (a) care or (b) understand. More likely, they'll be somewhere between (a) and (b).

If the only people using GPL3 software are the FSF, then the problem will cure itself; people will move to a more relaxed licence or will stick with GPL2, which will remain a valid licence.

Storm in a teacup, matey.


Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Expand Edited by pwhysall Aug. 8, 2005, 02:44:15 PM EDT
New It's true that it may be less of a problem
than my paranoia screams, but if so, it will only be because of paragraph 9 re: successor licenses:
The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

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.

IOW, if you get old versions of the software with v2 in the license when v3 comes out, they will be 'forkable' to new projects using the good v2 licensing.

I truly hope that won't be necessary though - I'd prefer to see the 'web services' clause mitigated by the time the license is released.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


     This has been bugging me. - (imric) - (72)
         It's the usual cack. - (pwhysall) - (13)
             Nonsense, Peter. - (imric) - (12)
                 I repeat. - (pwhysall) - (3)
                     I care about this, Peter. - (imric) - (2)
                         I don't doubt that you care. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             It's true that it may be less of a problem - (imric)
                 the fact that you dont distribute your software - (boxley) - (1)
                     disgruntled >>--> Whistleblower laws. -NT - (imric)
                 Also, looky here: - (pwhysall) - (5)
                     ICLRPD (new thread) - (Steve Lowe)
                     Woo hoo. - (imric) - (2)
                         Remember, existing GPLv2 software will remain GPLv2 - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             ROFL - just posted that is a mitigating factor... - (imric)
                     He who controls the compiler... - (ChrisR)
         How is it ridiculous? - (JayMehaffey) - (36)
             Bravo. -NT - (folkert) - (23)
                 Guess you don't want to use application source - (imric) - (22)
                     Here is my grounds for poo-pooing your concern. - (folkert) - (6)
                         No. Wrong. And this is why - (imric) - (5)
                             Exactly the kind of response I expected. - (folkert) - (4)
                                 Horsecrap. - (imric) - (3)
                                     The binaries have not been distributed . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                                         And then GPL4. - (imric)
                                         Or most OSS used for web services won't be GPL3 -NT - (tonytib)
                     Another train of thought, I need to mention. - (folkert) - (5)
                         question, using go-global - (boxley) - (1)
                             I knowest not. -NT - (folkert)
                         Since MS software is licenced per user - (imric) - (2)
                             No... there is only one user. - (folkert) - (1)
                                 Again, ridiculous. - (imric)
                     Excuse me. I am a programmer. - (ben_tilly) - (8)
                         there is a place for all kinds - (boxley) - (1)
                             Perl's licensing situation is interesting - (ben_tilly)
                         Not at all, Ben. - (imric) - (5)
                             Perspective is all - (ChrisR) - (4)
                                 Pirates? - (imric) - (3)
                                     Pirate analogy is a different issue - (ChrisR) - (2)
                                         I disagree - (broomberg) - (1)
                                             The original instigation for FSF - (ChrisR)
             How is that a 'loophole' unless - (imric) - (11)
                 It's a loophole for the FSF. - (pwhysall) - (6)
                     http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=21 - (imric) - (2)
                         Your point? - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             I started this - (imric)
                     Business Interests - (ChrisR) - (2)
                         Most businesses... - (pwhysall)
                         Same difference, if the apps are GPLed. -NT - (imric)
                 It's contrary to the spirit of the GPL - (JayMehaffey) - (3)
                     Except, of course - (imric) - (2)
                         Not anti-Buisness - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                             *shrug* same as BSD - (imric)
         Sorry Skip, you are lacking some significant clues - (ben_tilly) - (3)
             Ruining business? - (imric) - (2)
                 And you're still missing the point - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                     And that's what I did - I slept on it. - (imric)
         I was going to say something smart-ass here, - (broomberg) - (14)
             No. You are not listening. Just like the rest. - (imric) - (13)
                 Re: No. You are not listening. Just like the rest. - (bepatient)
                 Religion? - (broomberg) - (5)
                     Listen carefully, now. - (imric) - (4)
                         A collective yawn - (ChrisR) - (3)
                             Long term = 0 - (bepatient)
                             I don't think he's talking about selling mods . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                                 Correct - reselling not the point. - (imric)
                 I think I understand where you're coming from. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                     Yeah. I think the 'coming fork' is a bad thing, though -NT - (imric)
                 I think this is where you are going wrong - (JayMehaffey)
                 I am not missing this point. - (folkert) - (2)
                     I see what you're saying - (imric) - (1)
                         BTW, this discussion should really be moved to (new thread) - (imric)
         Several things - (ubernostrum) - (1)
             More good points (new thread) - (imric)

Sounds like a horse. Maybe it was.
173 ms