NationStates Jolt Archive

As you might not have heard, the most important license for free software has reached a new version to deal with new issues such as software patents and TiVOization. What do you think of the new work of the GNU? What do you think of the new GNU General Public License, version 3 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html) and the new Lesser GNU General Public License, version 3 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) ? Do you think it will be relevant seeing that the Linux kernel remains under the GPLv2?

Poll coming.

To be honest, I doubt anybody other than the lawyers who draft these things will care any more about the GPLv3 than the GPLv2 or any of the licence agreements that come with commercial software.

Also, has any licence agreement ever been held up in court as worth the paper it's written on? Only in the USA? Or have they never actually been tried?

Can I refer you to: http://www.gpl-violations.org/ which follows lawsuits around the GPL and the LGPL. Okay, as private person it is very unlikely that you do anything that violates the GPL, but companies have lost already.

To be honest, I doubt anybody other than the lawyers who draft these things will care any more about the GPLv3 than the GPLv2 or any of the licence agreements that come with commercial software.

Then you are sorely mistaken. Also, please note that the GPL is not an EULA. As a user you don't have to agree with the GPL in order to use the software; it only comes into play when you modify and redistribute GPL software.

Then you are sorely mistaken. Also, please note that the GPL is not an EULA. As a user you don't have to agree with the GPL in order to use the software; it only comes into play when you modify and redistribute GPL software.
Hey another GNUite. :) You have to accept it, but it does not limit your usage if you do not distribute or modify it or more exactly, if you want to distribute modified versions. The GPL only becomes a limiting factor at these points

Hey another GNUite. :) You have to accept it, but it does not limit your usage if you do not distribute or modify it or more exactly, if you want to distribute modified versions. The GPL only becomes a limiting factor at these points

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works.

But you were right about not being allowed to modify it, even for personal use, without accepting it. I suppose that really depends on local copyright laws, though.

I'm not really a GNUite. I don't much like licenses, or copyright in general, but the GPL is one of the licenses I think is pretty OK, as it encourages corporations to work on open source. It's hard to argue with results, especially when they form the OS you're running.

thank you for correcting me!

Linus said that OpenSolaris using GPLv3 might force him to use it on the kernel deal. I like GPv3 only for the fact it can prevent more MS deals.