Does GPL v3 Alienate Developers? 430
An anonymous reader writes "Via Wired, a blog post in which BMC Software's Whurley and Google's Greg Stein agree that the GPL v3 is currently on a path that will alienate developers. Stein has an interesting theory called 'license pressure' which is similar to 'pricing pressure'. 'Due to pressure from developers, all software is moving towards permissive licensing" translation, the GPL and developers are moving in opposite directions ... Developers care about the licenses on the software they use and incorporate into their projects, they like permissive licenses, and they will increasingly demand permissive licenses.'"
Impression (Score:2, Insightful)
Any developers willing to comment on what they want out of a license?
Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
I respectfully disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
As an "open source" developer for some time now, I disagree. In fact, once I am ready to release I doubt it will be under any version but the GPL v3. Why? Consider one question: Does the FSF and EFF back most or indeed any of the other versions of an OS license?
Because only the GPL has the full faith and backing of the FSF and the EFF. In the era of expensive patent and "anti patent" litigation, I want those organizations on my side for the same reason that --though I consider myself quite conservative in most political positions --, I don't automatically dismiss the ACLU as a leftist liberal organization. They have a good track record of protecting the important parts of our "electronic civil rights."
Pffft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever. I don't see GPLV3 causing any major shift in the open source/free software community
Interesting "theory" (Score:5, Insightful)
The "problem" with the GPLv3 isn't that it will allienate developers, it's exactly the opposite: most people against the underlying principle of the GPL - and especially those who have been relying on loopholes created by the changes in technology and society - are scared that it will actually be adopted - which I think it will, replacing the GPLv2 in new projects as the "de facto" copyleft licence. Don't like it, don't use it, but especially don't bitch about others using it, fell free *not* to use the code in the first place.
Projection (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure certain companies would like GPLv3 to be alienating open-source developers, but frankly I don't see that happening too much. The only people it's alienating are people who would never use the GPL anyway. I've heard this tune sung before, when GPLv2 was being introduced: all those unrealistic, idealistic, totally unneccesary changes RMS was introducing would completely destroy the license and developers would abandon the GPL as unworkable. We can see how accurate that prediction was.
Re:Nope (Score:1, Insightful)
From my perspective, GPL v3 is overly restrictive and imposes too many limits upon those using my software; that is, v3 released software is no longer "free", it is instead burdened with a lot of FSF philosophy.
Re:Impression (Score:1, Insightful)
Greg Stein's view is maybe even not personal but Google's.
I am anonymous since I was flamed for having criticized Google's hand on open-source, who modify and tune up the linux kernel without giving back their optimisations to the communinity.... It was two years ago, no single Google critic was allowed. I never logged in since.
I'll be brutally honest (Score:2, Insightful)
My drive is in writing code, and being able to look at other code that has what I want, plain and simple. In that sense, the GPL made it easy to do those two things: all technology is driven by convenience. PHP isn't popular because of its "enterprise-class frameworks", it's popular because it's easy to grab code from elsewhere, easy to write code in. Windows is easy because it comes with your computer. The GPL made it easy to be open-source.
In the past few years it seems everyone has become a zealot for something in computing, not because they're a visionary, but because they're a bully. And to be honest? I don't really give a fuck. I don't plan on using licenses for the advancement of some idealogue's great Cause, and I don't plan on consulting a lawyer just to write code and see if I'm Compliant.
So in the past few years I've released stuff as BSD/MIT/etc. (Gasps.) Do I care that people can use my code and not contribute back to the "community"? Not really. For one, I haven't found that to be the case. But secondly, it's just easier. It's easy to use code and to release code. No Visions, no Causes, no lawyers, no Compliance and papers-please-style-development. Just some guy on the internet putting his code up for use.
Re:Pffft. (Score:5, Insightful)
We would really like to get all the code with no strings attached so we can add our own strings to it. We dislike the GPL as is and really dislike the new one since it focus on fixing some clever ways we had of bypassing the spirit of the licence. Ideally we would like to get all the code - doesn't matter that we didn't wrote it or that we don't share it ourselves. GPLv3, BAD!
Straw Man (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Impression (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking for myself - I just want my code to be used. If I let people use it for free, there's still a decent chance that they'll offer any improvements back to the community. The free software concept is now sufficiently well understood that this tends to happen anyway.
GPL is working (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, I'm very glad. I wanted to base my application on another project which was very similar to my own. But that person chose not to release the source to their application, so I was forced to go this route. It doesn't matter - this was a free tool and a useful experiment in learning to code for a new device. And the GPL source made it take 1/10th as long. I'm actually frustrated at the people who write code and horde it, so in some ways, I'm glad the GPL is forcing things to open-up.
Of course, I'll change my tune next week when I have an app I want to write where one library is GPL and the rest is not, and I'll have to go rewriting things.
Re:Pffft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, this guy is clearly talking about the wrong community. I think in the free software community it will get a lot of support from developers.
If you want an Open Source license, then use one. If you want a Free license then use one of those instead.
Crisis averted.
Re:I'll be brutally honest (Score:5, Insightful)
Said elsewhere, but I haven't seen it like this: (Score:5, Insightful)
GPLv3 really just seems to be an attempt to make things explicit which were implied in GPLv2. Personally, I think that's a step in the wrong direction, because the moment you enumerate which things you can or can't do, as opposed to just blanket saying: "you can't, in any way, distribute this software if you, in any way, prevent others from distributing this software", people will say "oh, you said "patent", not "Billy's Intellectual Voucher Certificate", so my way of restricting use
Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nope (Score:1, Insightful)
GPL3 is only more restrictive to people who want to steal and lock up your code.
Exactly that's why! (Score:4, Insightful)
Joke Joke!
There's an old rule of marketing which states "You can charge too little for a product". Just look at most people's gut reactions, GPL'd software is more valuable than public domain software. For developers and corporations like IBM, GPL'd software is more valuable than BSD software because of the GPL's additional sine qua non provisions. The spirit of fairness that is at the basis of RMS's 4 freedoms has value to developers and coporations. For most developers, protections against corporate profiteering preserve their personal ability to profit from their labor. The only people alienated are freeloaders.
Overlooked something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, there are roughly 3 types of OSS licenses.
The article states "look at the proliferation of licenses", as a sign that the GPL isn't filling a need. The simple facts are that the first two licenses are pretty much in the bag. Nobody writes new licenses that attempt to the accomplish the first two. Pretty much to a person, everyone uses Apache 2, BSD or the GPL to accomplish those goals. If you start looking down the list of other one-off licenses that are for OSS. Those are all about filling the need in the third item. If anything, it could be said that the LGPL is "failing". It isn't the "one true license" to accomplish the task. Essentially the proliferation of license's is about finding a "share and share alike" that can exist in a corporate environment. Where the core technology can be shared and developed by many folks, while the extensions and non-core pieces can be value-adds that are solve for money.
Greg Stein's a brilliant guy, and one hell of an engineer. But I think he's living in his own little world here. Lot's of folks like and enjoy writing software under the premise of the second type of license. Some folks do it under the first. In the end, the collaborative effort will virtually always win out. So in a lot of ways it doesn't matter if you use a license from the first or second group. That's why Apache has never been taken and had a closed competitor that is more used. Sure some commercial products are based on it, but none of them will ever quash Apache out of existence because they are so popular.
All the action is how to have an open source commercial license. The LGPL has a few terms that are a bit harsh on business, and have little to say with respect to patents or trademarks. In this day and age a license must address those.
Kirby
Makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
This just makes no sense. The difference between GPLv2 and v3 is negligible compared to the difference between the GPL and other licenses.
It's basically the same license, it's just that it's written in a more legally robust way, more explicitly enforcing the things that GPLv2 is already supposed to enforce.
It's also had the most thorough community review process ever, for these sorts of things. Every word of GPLv3 has been debated by everybody who bothered to get involved, including all the major commercial users.
All news like this is just FUD.
Re:Nope (Score:3, Insightful)
yes, GPL is a commercial licence (Score:5, Insightful)
Enabling businesses to be built up around free software is essential for the progress of the free software movement. Our licences just have to ensure that those companies cannot harm the movement (neither intentionally nor under pressure from MS).
So if you distribute the software, you can't hide the source, and you can't sue the users for patent infringement, and you can't put it on a device that is set up to allow you to continue to modify without also giving the recipient that freedom. (Boo-hoo, you lose the "freedom" to screw others.)
And in the other direction, there is a warranty disclaimer so that distributing the software doesn't put people's business at risk.
Here's a summary of what's new in GPLv3:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-
As is typical of this type of FUD article, the author talks nothing about the actual content of the licence, and instead just gives baseless summaries and gossipy predictions.
Re:I'll be brutally honest (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'll be brutally honest (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand where you're coming from but would like to point out that acceptance of the status quo is *not ideologically neutral. The status quo was created by ideologues who didn't like the previous status quo.
That doesn't mean you have be up in arms, or a "zealot" as people like to call anyone who talks about values. But be intellectually honest, and say that the prevailing Vision/Cause (and I guess lawyers) are, in sum, acceptable to you.
Re:Impression (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as you're the copyright holder you can change the license when you wish. Or put your contributions to a GPL project under revised BSD or even in the public domain.
"its hard to remember who wrote what."
Ah, there's the rub. That's hardly the GPL's fault tho, is it? That's copyright law and your failure to do what copyright makes it necessary for you to do. Join the crowd and work for copyright abolition if you dont want to bother with that part.
"I don't feel comfortable using my own code because its GPL'd."
You dont feel comfortable using _their_ code because it's GPL you mean. You could have asked for copyright assignment if you wanted to accept the patches in that case. This is not a GPL problem, this is a situation you've put yourself in.
Of course, if the license were not the GPL, or you required copyright assignment, then maybe those contributors wouldn't have contributed. I sure know I wouldn't contribute anything non-trivial under a non-copyleft (preferably GPL) license.
"BSD licensing is the way to go, imo."
Nah, seen too much BSD code get proprietarized and used to screw end users. Not with my code they dont. They can write it all on their own if they want power over others that bad.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Impression (Score:5, Insightful)
Horsefeathers. You can use your own code for any purpose you like, under any license you like. Releasing it under the GPL places obligations on others who acquire the code under that license. It doesn't place any obligation on you, nor prevent you from releasing your own code under multiple other licenses simultaneously. What you actually appear to be saying here is that you're no longer sure what code is actually yours in project X, and you're afraid of using other people's code, which they released under the GPL, in a closed source application. The real solution to that issue is good record keeping and an effective version control system, so you know what code is yours and what is not. Changing to a different license is a way to avoid the particular issue you're facing, but it's neither the only one nor necessarily the best one. If you've truly gotten lots of outside assistance on a project, the first question I'd ask is if the same level of assistance would have been available under another license. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm quite willing to help advance a project knowing that my efforts are protected by the GPL. I'm not so willing to pitch in and help out if I suspect that you're going to take the product of my hard labor, stick it in a proprietary application, and stuff the money you get for my labor in your bank account.
Re:Impression (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, yes. But at what point does a piece of code become tainted in that regard? Lets say I have a function that I put out, and then someone else fixes a few little bugs - an improperly initialized variable here, a null pointer check there... How does that impact the licensing of that code? Is that code now co-owned? Do I have to remove their fixes if I want to use it? They fixed bugs, things that I may have found over time. How does that legally impact that code?
If someone else releases some code, then I spend a few days fixing bugs in it, do I have copyright on those fixes?
The line is not so clear as one would like to think. And I tend to err on the of caution when it comes to these things.
Re:Impression (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd change that to "true when they are in the middle". Business on the recieving end _loves_ GPL code. It means they dont have to worry about a supplier going bellyup, it means they can change providers, it means they can hire outside help with the code, it means the software isnt going to fork into a bazillion proprietary incompatible versions and it means it's there long term, and that invested time and money isnt going to vanish.
It's the middlemen, who want to recieve freedom but not give it to anyone else who dont like the GPL.
That's something I can live with.
Google and Tivo don't like GPLv3 (Score:4, Insightful)
Tivo wants to use GPL code but prevent users from installing modifications to the GPL code on their boxes.
Google wants to use GPL code and add modifications that others are prevented from using or modifying by using software patents and lawsuits.
If you want to use free code and hide your changes, and further restrict users, BSD is the way to go.
Re:I'll be brutally honest (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not simply release your code to the public domain?
Trasnslation (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry for the flaming, but I hope you can see it's easy to lose patience with this sort of thing. And I lose patience with Slashdot for running this story over and over again.
Bruce
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this is true. If I take BSD licensed code and make a change to it and then license this new group of code as GPL, I don't think there is any problem. The GPL meets all the requirements of the BSD license. I can do anything with the BSD code I want so long as it is in compliance with the BSD license. The BSD license does not restrict me from not prividing the source, or selling the code, or licensing the code in some new way. MS took the entire TCP stack and so long as they keep the original credit in it, they can release it under their proprietary Windows license. The same is true for releasing it under GPL (as far as I know). Now if I have GPL code and I want to release it under the BSD license, I have a problem, because that does not meet all the criteria for the GPL license. To do that I do need permission from all the copyright holders who contributed.
On your first point, regarding GPL2 and 3, I agree by the way. I just believe you are incorrect about moving BSD code to GPL, which I think is perfectly legal.
Re:I'll be brutally honest (Score:4, Insightful)
But the GPL isn't just about visions and causes. It's about defenses against predatory behavior. The only reason that Microsoft hasn't gone after Red Hat demanding royalties for patent violations is because GPLv2 prohibits it:If Linux and the GNU project had taken your attitude of "hey, I'm just a guy putting up my code," then the community would be in a very different position today wrt. Microsoft's patent aggression.
Re:Pffft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhspa something to do with ease? BSD to GPL:
1. Start including GPL code. Done.
GPL to BSD:
1. Make a complete list of all your contributors, ever
2. Try to contact everyone, moved, missing, dead, whatever
3. Pray really hard everyone will want to relicense
4. Check all libraries and see that they're not GPL
5. Whatever code and libraries you can't relicense, rewrite
Of course, the BSD camp will take this as proof that BSD is "freer" than the GPL. And the GPL camp will take it as proof that exactly what's wrong with BSD/free is how easy it is to make it not BSD/free. To me it seems counter-intuitive to promote the ten freedoms [opensource.org] of open source as means when the ends typically is software that has none (i.e. proprietary, source-less derivates). It's like a living tree that spawns dead branches, does that make sense to anyone?
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Where "developers" = "proprietary leaches" (Score:4, Insightful)
As a developer, though admittedly a small-time developer (under 100k lines of source published under GPLv2 over the last several years), I see the GPLv3 much like a version upgrade of a library or operating system. The new one may have a few minor quirks, but they're well worth it for bugs fixed in the new version. As a developer who releases under the GPL, I especially see the "tivo" issue as something like a security hole, and I'm glad it's getting fixed!
The thought process behind all this wishful thinking seems to be that "developers" (proprietary leeches who want to use the code but not share their own additions) are somehow customers, and what they want matters. That would be true if they were paying customers. But the truth is, every time I publish any GPL code, I never expect to make a dime (other than perhaps people find me and want consulting on their projects). So all these "developers" who want more permissive, BSD-style terms don't factor into my decision making process. I want to share the code, and since I don't expect to make any money, it's only fair that anyone who uses it must share theirs too.
I'm not a developer TFA is talking about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Impression (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this is the crux of this discussion though... I write something and put it out for GPL, my ONLY option if I want to continue to have any control is to require copyright assignment to me for any patches/etc. However, would YOU contribute to any such project knowing that the copyright owner could flip it to BSD or propietary on a whim? I'm guessing "no", so you want to retain your copyright on the portions you contribute, which in turn make the original person (like the poster) effectively unable to control their code. You can't even fork it without stripping out all the non-copyright-assigned code if you want to switch licenses, for example. So, once it's been tainted with non-copyright-assigned GPL code, your project is never your own again, which puts off people like the parent poster who want to retain the copyrights on their code.
Alternatively, put your code out for GPL and rewrite all submissions for incorporation into your code so you can make the claim that you accepted the contributions, then rewrote and overwrote all those tainted pieces with your own code.
Re:Impression (Score:1, Insightful)
Something's Wrong with Slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
We need a real editor to double-check for FUD, Holy War/OS Spam, and the like - and remove it. This isn't newsworthy - it's just more flak from someone who won't even bother to name himself(and his site as pointed out is basically a huge wad of FUD and blathering.
As for the GPLV3? tough - suck it up. GPL by its nature was never intended to be worked around or filled with loopholes. The spirit of it is clear - no profit, no stealing, no typical corporate BS with the code. the current one locks it down much more tightly and I for one have no problem at all with it. Make your money off of your own code if you are so bright. Stop copying everyone else's work and claiming it as your own. Or better yet, learn to make your money through value-added techniques and services instead.
P.S. A good example of this is a company like Linspire. You pay for your Linux distro - but you also get a lot of back-end support with real people to call, everything easy to find if you are a newbie. You pay $50 for the ease of use and added value(s). Or get Freespire and do it yourself.
Re:Impression (Score:2, Insightful)
And the resentment isn't in using GPLed software. It is in being forced into using GPLv3 software. I thought that point was clear. I even quoted the only part of the post I was replying to. It said something like "What I can't understand is how 'GPLv2 or later' gets translated into 'GPLv2 unless GPLv3".
But seeing how the block quotes didn't end and the entire post ran together as if it wasn't separates, I can understand your confusion.
Re:Impression (Score:5, Insightful)
So why, precisely, should you have control over the code that I write? If I offer up a patch to project X, my intent is to contribute to project X. It's not to add to your personal code library. You have control over your code. You have control over your project. (Someone else, of course, can fork your project and create a derivative project over which you have no control. That project, of course, must be released under the GPL, so you'd still have access to it, just not control over it.)
which in turn make the original person (like the poster) effectively unable to control their code. You can't even fork it without stripping out all the non-copyright-assigned code if you want to switch licenses, for example. So, once it's been tainted with non-copyright-assigned GPL code, your project is never your own again, which puts off people like the parent poster who want to retain the copyrights on their code.
Any developer worth his salt is going to have copies of his original code and the patches he himself wrote. That code is his and he has full control over it. The code in the project isn't his code. It's an amalgamation of his and others' code. If he didn't write it, and he didn't pay for it, why on earth should he have absolute control over it?
If you want to maintain absolute control over all code in a project, write it yourself or pay someone to assist you in writing it. If you ask for and accept the voluntary labor of others to advance your project, you lost the ability to have absolute control over all of the code in the project. That's the whole intent and purpose of the GPL. It isn't a bug. It's a feature. If you don't want to make that trade, don't use the GPL. If you can convince others to contribute code to your project under a BSD or other such license, then more power to you.
Re:Trasnslation (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Impression (Score:3, Insightful)
PD source code does, and that is what we are talking about here. You can't win the argument by moving it to a new venue. However, since you brought it up, PD executables ensure that you can run the program and you can give it away; you don't have source code, so freedom to do things with said source code is entirely irrelevant. You don't have freedom to use resources on the author's computer, either, but again, such freedom wasn't offered, so it isn't relevant. And wouldn't you know it, the freedom to choose how to release a product rests with the author of the product. How weird is that?
Again, PD source code does ensure precisely that. And again, that's what the discussion is about.
I am aware of, and am not interested in being limited to, the FSF's four freedoms. With PD, I have more than those four offer, and the experience is broader, more empowering, less controlling of others, and of greater value to the end user community, in my personal opinion.
But for fun, let's look at 'em. 1 - "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose." Yes, PD source code gives me that. Only "any purpose" includes in aid of, or within as a part of, a commercial product without any restrictions or legal hurdles, so really, PD source code is a lot better than GPL'd source code here.
2 - "The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs." Yep, PD source code gives everyone that, too, and I'd say both PD and GPL source code do just fine in this regard.
3 - "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor." Yep, PD source code gives me that as well. But I can distribute them commercially without restrictions, so GPL'd source code doesn't measure up here - you can help more than your GPL-compliant neighbors with PD source code.
Lastly, 4 - "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits." And of course, PD source code gives me this too, only I can give it to a far wider audience, because I don't provide limitations with my offer. So the definition of "whole community" is a lot more accurate for PD source code than it is when considered in the limited context of the FSF's use of the term.
So as we can see, PD source code also offers everything in the FSF's fab four, while doing a better job of achieving the stated goals than GPL'd source code does at the same time.
But, wait, there's more! PD also offers the ability to embed that source code in a commercial app. It offers the ability to link it any way you want. It offers the ability to mix it with proprietary techniques. It offers considerably greater ability to avoid legal entanglements. You can make libraries, applications, distribute fragments, improvements, neglect to distribute them, put the code in a book... this is why PD source code is superior in every way unless your objective is not actually freedom, but a specific set of goals that you will accept as compensation. Which is what the GPL exists to do.
no, not THAT contract (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPLv3 tivoization clause says that you can't use DRM to prevent changing the GPLv3 code on a consumer device.
What makes a consumer device special? Ever wonder why GPLv3 has a hole?
This is to allow various types of devices where the customer (usually a business) actually wants the DRM being used against them. Typically this is for legal reasons. The device might be safety-critical stuff: a medical implant, aircraft flight control software, nuclear reactor core monitoring equipment, etc.
The proper distinction here is that the customer actively participated in writing the contract. (freely offered to dig his own grave) Normal customers don't get to do that; you don't get a tivo if you demand that tivo executives first sign something your lawyer wrote.
So this is a minor inaccuracy in the GPLv3. It covers both more and less than it ideally ought to. Yuck.
Re:Impression (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh. Pleased to meet you.
Um, no. You can't "hijack it." It's yours. You know, PD = Public Domain. You're the public. It's yours. But thanks for improving it. That's great. You say users prefer your version? Because it's better? Maybe users are smarter than some people give them credit for. Good for them. And good for you!
Um... so something you didn't ask for payment for, you're not going to choose to spend more time on? Ok, that seems like a perfectly reasonable choice. After all, no one paid you, so no obligation has been established. The producers of the original PD work might have made the same choice, in fact, perhaps that's why the project was PD in the first place. Of course, that's just speculation and in no way impugns what you've done.
Well - let's be clear here - you can kill your enhanced free version (and/or your paid version), but you can't do anything about the actual PD project, of course. It's still out there, and it's still PD, and anyone can still do anything with it that doesn't infringe on any IP you may have invested into your version. Now that your free version is discontinued, you've even provided an incentive to begin extending the PD version in new directions. Just so you know.
So what you're saying is that the free version really did add value, or else people would be using the PD one. In fact, it added enough value to serve as a "get them in the door" tease for an even more advanced product. This is sound, smart business, and does no harm whatsoever to the PD project, plus, all of your customers will benefit, plus, you'll pay more in taxes, people will be employed, society gains ground because your product adds efficiency and/or cheer to people's lives and/or businesses undertakings, and all because you were a good citizen and took the gift of a lowly PD project and moved us all forward. This is simply wonderful. I'm going to speak to the mayor and nominate you for the keys to the city. Seriously.
Well, of course. You didn't release your improvements as PD, did you? So why would anyone allow your stuff to be stolen, just because you accepted a freely offered gift? That'd be like me giving a bicycle to my kid, he goes out and creates a paper route business with it, and then I try to take his paper route, reasoning that because I gave him the bicycle, he somehow owes me something. But the bicycle was a gift; that route is his, and his alone. As are your improvements. Unless he, or you, choose to do something along those lines. You know, choice...
Re:Impression (Score:3, Insightful)
And what I am telling you is that source code that is PD is also protected just as well, plus it is useable by many more developers, regardless of people's prejudices for or against how they choose to develop, and that it in no way denies you the right to study, modify, extend and distribute the PD code itself. What it does not do is magically give you the right to person B's invention, just because person A decided to put out their invention. It leaves decisions in the hands of the inventor at every level, instead of taking those decisions and pre-determining what they must be.
In the meantime, my PD code is available to you without any conditions at all, and your GPL code is not available to me unless I toe some very specific lines that I am entirely disenchanted with. So where does the maximum promotion of freedom really reside, eh?
I like the GPLv3, and I write code. Others do too (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly people who don't like GPLv2 won't like GPLv3, but why would you expect anything different? And those who have been most outspoken against earlier drafts of GPLv3, like Linus Torvalds, seem to be much happier with the latest version (they might not use it, but it's hard to claim they're alienated). And kernel developers are certainly not uniform (in anything!); Torvalds didn't like earlier drafts, but Alan Cox has spoken very positively about the GPLv3. The Apache License 2.0 compatibility and internationalization are enough reasons all by themselves to upgrade. And I don't have any trouble with the new "must be able to change the software" rules; if I start a project, I want to be able to use arbitrary later versions extended by others, and I can't without these new GPLv3 clauses for anti-Tivoization and anti-DRM. Yes, in some cases there are other conditions I want more instead, but in those cases I'd use a different license.
I don't license everything under the GPL, because I have different motives for different projects. Indeed, over my lifetime I've licensed stuff under the GPL, LGPL, MIT, and proprietary licenses, depending on my circumstances. But if you're trying to make sure that you get to use future versions of a project you start or contribute to, the GPLv3 is a pretty good way to get there. It certainly isn't "alienating" me. Instead, I now have a new choice, one that better reflects my goals when I choose to release code under the GPL.