News Blog

Palamida has been tracking the movement of open-source projects from GPLv2 to GPLv3 and estimates that 119 projects have converted (to GPL/LGPLv3), which represents less than 1 percent of projects using the General Public License, or GPL. Nothing to write home about, in other words.

Why is the uptake so tepid? Well, the rampant FUD around version 3 probably helped, but I don't think that's the main issue. I actually think the primary problem is that GPLv3 didn't go far enough, in many ways. It's an updated version of GPLv2, which is good, but it doesn't resolve some of the industry's most pressing issues, like the ASP loophole.

Instead, it tackles DRM (digital rights management), TiVo and other such issues that are salient to the Free Software Foundation but not so much to most of us.

Still, it's a good license, and I think the adoption will continue and accelerate as people grok it better. I particularly think that it will find adherents in companies and communities that have used quasi-open-source licenses. It allows for reasonable attribution, for one thing, which may serve to obviate the whole debate over Mozilla Public License (MPL) plus attribution.

You have to feel a little sorry for the Free Software Foundation, which launched the first overhaul of its General Public License (GPL) in 16 years on the same day that Apple's iPhone launch hogged the spotlight.

Future GPL 3 violator?

(Credit: Apple)

But the foundation, like everybody and his brother, couldn't resist looking for a piece of the iPhone action. It used the launch as an opportunity to preach the merits of its new license and raise the specter that Apple's iPhone will violate it.

"We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its Web browser, Safari, using GPL-covered work--it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software," said Peter Brown, executive director of the foundation, in a statement on Thursday.

That sounded a little vague, so I asked the foundation for some follow-up. Joshua Gay said he doesn't know what software is in the iPhone, but said, "If it's true that Apple can upgrade the software on the phone, but users can't, then distributing GPL 3 software on the iPhone would be a violation of the license."

Even if the iPhone uses GPL software, it's not clear whether Apple will employ GPL 3 versions of it at some point. What is clear is the foundation's loathing for what the iPhone represents.

Free software--that which grants anyone the freedom to see, modify and redistribute its underlying source code--is "radically reshaping the industry and threatening the proprietary technology model represented by the iPhone," the foundation said. On Friday, "Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner."

Specifically, the foundation decries what it calls "TiVo-ization"--the incorporation of GPL software into a device, such as a TiVo's personal video recorder, that stops working if its software is modified.

The GPL 3 attempts to block such behavior, though Linus Torvalds, leader of the Linux kernel project, objects to it vehemently as overreaching.

After 18 months of revision, the Free Software Foundation has released version 3 of the General Public License (GPL).

The license is both a legal foundation and a manifesto of the free and open-source programming movement. Not all are fully happy with the new version though, including Linux leader Linus Torvalds.

The text of the new license can be read on the FSF's GNU Project Web page.

The new license is geared to adjust to changes in the software industry that have arisen in the 16 years since GPL 2 was released. One of the biggest changes: the free and open-source programming movement has been transformed from an academic, legal and philosophical curiosity to a powerful force in the commercial computing industry.