cies' blog

Yea great, thanks Samba. Now Qt/KDE can't link to your new versions. I really don't see how that helps the open source movement to force people to use older versions of your software or construct complex non-linking solutions. It certainly doesn't hurt MS...
 

I'm also a big fun of GPLv3, and now that Linus is not willing to go for it and Microsoft is tring to split the opensource community we really need some big project willing to swtich to GPLv3!
 

Torvalds is not supporting GPLv3.
What do you think?
Not compatible licenses, I've seen the same with doc documents from different version of M$ Office.
Is this the breakdown of the fellowship?
=(
 

Na, I don't think this is comparable to different DOC files, Carlos... yet it IS sad they're not compattible. But everyone should license their code under GPLv2 OR LATER anyway, imho...
 

Damn idealism. I would much rather have a few companies like Tivo taking advantage of GPL code without allowing people to modify it than the mess that will now surely ensue with various incompatible GPL licensed projects. This is a huge threat to KDE! What if Trolltech decides never to license Qt under anything but the GPL2, as is their right?
As smaller libraries that KDE uses slowly switch to GPL3, KDE will be forced to develop hacks or drop functionality to avoid violating the licensing.
WTF is the point of that? I really don't see that the GPL2 was so bad that it would justify so much pain and wasted effort. It wasn't perfect, but you need a hell of a better reason to break compatibility than a few minor loopholes. Forget Microsoft, incompatible licensing is the major threat to the free software systems now. As if businesses weren't wary enough of licensing turmoil on Linux before.
 

IMHO, it's really TrollTech's fault that we have this mess, as well as Linus's and of the others who refused to use the "or later" clause.
 

yeah, time to get rid of all that freedom idealism stuff. Sure, it got 'us' (the free software world) this far and made us the only viable alternative to the MS juggernaut and sure other, more permissively licensed, OS projects haven't managed the same success because, among other reasons, corporations don't want to spend time improving products that their rivals can then take, close and profit off of...

But now free software has had a bit of success I'm sure everything will just run completely smoothly and all that stuff that got us where we are today is just dead weight... I mean, companies like MS aren't trying to shut GPL down, trivialize, patent encumber and otherwise harm free software anymore. And of course companies and individuals alike will happily keep contributing to a codebase that their competitors can then sell with more 'protection' from MS than the original authors themselves have.
 

@kevin It's Trolltech's fault that they don't blindly trust RMS and the EFF not to screw them over with subsequent licenses? For any company that survives on its code, it would be insanity to include the "or later" clause.

@nathan Nice strawman. I never said the freedoms given in the GPL2 were bad. I never even said the GPL3 was bad. I just said that releasing the (necessarily) incompatible GPL3 is a huge threat to the continued progress of many big software projects. KDE is a prime example. By releasing the GPL3, KDE's continued success pretty much rides on Trolltech deciding to adopt the GPL3. Of course they might, but if they don't, it would prohibit KDE from using (without hacks) any GPL3 libraries. It starts with Samba, but I'm sure many other libs will switch to GPL3 in time and cause lots of problems for the projects that rely on them.

Of course Microsoft was trying to shut Linux and free software down, but they've been having no success. I don't see any reason to be worried about their efforts, because there's no sign that they're working. Despite all those efforts, Linux continues to grow. The momentum behind it is big enough that none of the companies with invested interest (IBM, Intel, Sun, Google, etc) will allow Microsoft to seriously threaten it.
 

@leo those freedoms have already been compromised in GPL2 hence the requirement for 3.

You didn't say '...that releasing the (necessarily) incompatible GPL3 is a huge threat to the continued progress of many big software projects' you said: 'I would much rather have a few companies like Tivo taking advantage of GPL code without allowing people to modify it than the mess that will now surely ensue with various incompatible GPL licensed projects' and my 'strawman' was an attempt to illustrate that that is simply not a feasible position to take for anyone who respects the freedoms of the GPL to trade off short term convenience for long term loss of freedom.

KDE may take a little while to work out the best way to go forward with GPL3 libs etc, but as in all reciprocal arrangements, eventually a position that serves everyone's needs will be established and progress on KDE will continue. Thats a small price to pay for closing off the narrow end of the wedge that Tivo and Novell/MS represent.
 

Leo: That would be the FSF, not the EFF.