Comments on: Top Linux programmers pan GPL 3

High-ranking kernel coders join Torvalds in opposing the new license draft; some say it could harm open source.

[qwerty75]

Yeah GPLv3 is lame

But so what?

If you release your software under v2, there is no requirement to use v3 down the road.

[t8]

True but

You may not be able to bundle v2 and v3 packages together, thereby rendering the viral nature of free software into 2 incompatiable ecosystems.

[t8]

How far can you go?

I propose a GPL4 where you have pay the customer to accept a GPLed(4) program. That would be popular and no one but the customer could make money.

Think about it, do you want Windows for $300.00 or Linux GPL4 and we will give you $20.00.

How far do we go with free software?

So far that no one can make money or own intellectual property?

[aqvarivs]

GPL v3

"Beware the enemy amoung us". Isn't just a political worry. Those who wish to see open source fail have entered the ranks as "limited Proponents" willing to accept immediate benefit while working to limit any further commercial growth of the philiosophy of opensource/freeware.

[snoofy]

Even GPL 2 is bad

Let's say you write a 10,000 line code. You attach one GPL (not Lesser GPL) library to your code with the GNU compiler in the privacy of your own home computer. That make your entire 10,000 lines of code GPL (although you don't have to make it available to anyone else yet because you have not made it a distribution). But as soon as you give or sell your code to even one other person, you have to post your code in some way for the whole world to have (and you are saddled with the burden of doing this). This is GPL 2 by the letter of the law.

If you ever wish to sell your own code or keep it private, you should never use the GNU compiler or any compiler that links with open source libraries.

The problem with Richard Stallman is that he thinks every programmer has a tax payer subsidized academic job that allows him/her to program for free.

[rossaxe]

Sorry to reply to such an ancient comment, but I feel the need to correct a few things here in case anyone stumbles over this and gets the wrong idea.

Firstly, simply using the GNU compiler in no way requires you to license your program under the GPL, you can use any license you want. This is explicitly permitted.

Secondly, no, using a GPL'd library in the privacy of your own computer does not automatically place your code under the GPL. The GPL explicitly grants you unlimited rights to use the GPL'd code in any way you want, so long as you do not distribute it. This includes linking it against proprietary programs that you don't distribute.

Thirdly, and now we come to a kernel of truth, the rules do change if you distribute it, even to one other person. Even now though, your code doesn't 'automatically' get licensed under the GPL, you have to place it under the GPL yourself. However, if you do not license your code under the GPL then the GPL does not grant you a license to distribute at all (unless you obtain permission from the copyright holder of the GPL'd library). Also, you are not required to post your code to the whole world, only to the person you distributed the program to (although they, having received it under the terms of the GPL, may redistribute your code). And this, of course, only applies to GPL'd libraries; many other open-source licenses (e.g. LGPL, BSD, public domain, etc) do allow you to link proprietary software against them.

In short, you cannot copy code from GPL'd or LGPL'd software into proprietary software, nor can you link proprietary software against GPL'd libraries, but pretty much any other reasonable activity is fair game, such as linking proprietary software against LGPL'd DLLs or compiling proprietary software with GCC.

It's also worth noting that the things that the GPL prohibits you from doing are also prohibited by proprietary libraries, the difference being that the authors of proprietary libraries demand money, and Richard Stallman demands your code. If you don't like that, then don't use the library.