You guys are probably all aware about the coming release of GPL version 3. What you might not be aware of though is that development on GPLv4 has already begun! [wink]

Why does the license require constant updates? Are the principles it espouses that nebulous, or is it compromised at every turn by extremism?

Original BSD hasn't changed, AFAIK, in close on thirty years, while revised BSD simply removed the onerous licensing clause in 1999. What's so wrong with GPL that a version 4 has to be planned before 3 is released?

Feeping creaturism.

[Edit: Please tell me this isn't some sort of daft joke. The constant tinkering with the GPL is a serious matter with serious ramifications for free and open source software because so many developers use it without examining it in detail - largely because so many developers use it.]

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
[Edit: Please tell me this isn't some sort of daft joke...]

I'd hate to say it... :)

Quote: In a surprising twist, RMS has come out saying that he originally wrote the GPL as one of his many silly MIT antics when he used to break down office doors and steal terminals. RMS: "It still amazes me that GNU -- which started out as a practical joke -- has turned into the world's most powerful computer operating system. Fortunately, there was Linus who understood my humor and developed a joke of a kernel.

I'm gonna go with joke. This quote implies some semblance of sanity in connection with RMS, and that's obviously bogus.

Unfortunately, at the time I responded to this thread the gplv4.org page would not load. Now able to read it, it becomes obvious that it's a joke.

My comments, however, are not. Further, I won't be surprised to actually see a GPL version 4 in 10 years or less.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Unfortunately, at the time I responded to this thread the gplv4.org page would not load. Now able to read it, it becomes obvious that it's a joke.

It loads now, but i think it's a joke too:

Quote: Rumoured clause to be included in GPLv4 will mandate the usage of GNU/Emacs for all GPL software development.

[lol]

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Why does the license require constant updates? Are the principles it espouses that nebulous, or is it compromised at every turn by extremism?

Original BSD hasn't changed, AFAIK, in close on thirty years, while revised BSD simply removed the onerous licensing clause in 1999. What's so wrong with GPL that a version 4 has to be planned before 3 is released?

Feeping creaturism.

[Edit: Please tell me this isn't some sort of daft joke. The constant tinkering with the GPL is a serious matter with serious ramifications for free and open source software because so many developers use it without examining it in detail - largely because so many developers use it.]

Has it been getting "constant updates"? It's been at version 2 without change for quite a few years. As far as I know, the principles behind it never changed; the technology that makes use of it has.

I don't expect that anyone could get the GPL to be perfect for all time, no one is expecting drastic changes to be made to it, and it hasn't been forked into 15 or 100 versions, so I don't understand why the perception of constant change exists. The GPL is a bit more complex than the BSD license, and I think that complexity has more to do with any updates than "nebulous principles" would.

On the other hand, I agree that if there was "constant tinkering" that it would be bad and confusing for developers, customers, and users. As it currently stands, the GPL is confusing for certain nations that have different copyright laws than the United States, and a number of advances in technologies have made the GPL less clear in certain (now common) cases here as well. Updating the GPL should help to actually clarify the license for use in business situations and to make a common legal document that is valid in as many nations as possible.

If it was as simple as the BSD license, I don't think it would have these issues. The concept of Free Software is a bit more complex than what people commonly perceive it to be: "giving away everyone's hard work at no cost". As such, the GPL has to be more complex, and so it is expected that it can't be perfectly written. Legal wording can have bugs just like code. Sometimes those bugs don't manifest until you move it onto a more modern system or port them to another. The GPLv2 was more appropriate in an era when the Internet didn't exactly exist, for example.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Why does the license require constant updates? Are the principles it espouses that nebulous, or is it compromised at every turn by extremism?

Original BSD hasn't changed, AFAIK, in close on thirty years, while revised BSD simply removed the onerous licensing clause in 1999. What's so wrong with GPL that a version 4 has to be planned before 3 is released?

Feeping creaturism.

[Edit: Please tell me this isn't some sort of daft joke. The constant tinkering with the GPL is a serious matter with serious ramifications for free and open source software because so many developers use it without examining it in detail - largely because so many developers use it.]

Man I love anti-linux people, so much more entertaining than the anti-windows crowd. The only group that's more fun to create dancing issues is the pro-linux/gpl group, as they make by far the funniest reactions to fake stuff.

The law is malleable so your licensing agreements have to be as well.
Other large software companies revise their licensing agreements on every product, update, and sometimes patch they release!

An analysis of the GPLv3 draft .

Seems that the new language helps to clarify a number of key points, especially along the lines of Digital Restrictions Management and software patents. It also seems to clarify how you would combine GPL-covered work with other licenses.

Apparently even Sun's free-but-not-GPL-friendly license can be compatible with the new GPL.