GPL 3 Launch Date Announced

Joe Blakesley writes "Today, the Free Software Foundation announced that version 3 of the GNU General Public License will be released on Friday, June 29 at noon (EDT). Live video footage of the GPL's unveiling by Richard M. Stallman will be available as a stream on the FSF's website."

Java and OpenSolaris Going GPL 3?

[javacowboy]

Excellent news!

I'm curious about when Sun plans to GPL 3 Java, OpenSolaris, along with ZFS, DTrace, and hopefully NetBeans.

It's not to hide the rollout

[Infonaut]

There are some things in the GPLv3 that will eventually blow up on them, doing this to hide the publicity amongst the Apple fanfare is just par for the course.

You seem to be implying that Stallman is announcing this on June 29th so he can hide behind the big iPhone rollout. I haven't met Stallman in person, but nothing I've heard indicates that he would ever try to hide one of his announcements. He has a lot of ego invested in the GPL. My guess is he's deliberately announcing it on June 29th because he'll be able to leverage the iPhone launch. I could see him calling attention to the iPhone and the perils of hardware companies and content providers limiting our options.

He's going to try and pull a judo move on the 29th.

Re:Interesting date to choose...

[Mattintosh]

It would work fine. Let's just use iD as a stand-in example for any developer, and we'll use their IT5 engine as a stand-in example for any game engine. We'll also use GPL as a substitute for a suitable game-engine-tailored license with a similar spirit.

1) iD makes IT5.
2) iD releases IT5 under dual-licensing. With the GPL version, the engine, any additions to the engine, and any game assets must be under the GPL. Any mods made for your game must be under the GPL, even if you didn't make them (your fanbase did). With the commercial license, the engine is still iD's engine, but modifications and game assets are yours and do not have to be released as source, and fan-made mods belong to the fans that made them and do not have to be released as source.
3) ???
4) Profit!

The ??? in 3 is this: game companies afraid of changing the way they do business will license the engine from iD the way they do already. Nothing will change there. But indie developers will get the GPL version for their first few games, make a little money (there's always a few who appreciate your work enough to pay), and grow into a larger developer (that can afford to pay iD for the commercially licensed engine and all the perks that come with it, such as not having to give away your livelihood). It's the best of both worlds. iD makes enough money to roll around in all day, and the indie guys get an equal shot at the "big-time" with the already-established commercial developers.

I'd love to see this. It would drastically lower the cost-of-entry barrier for game development.

Re:Video streaming?

[jZnat]

They could just use Icecast from Xiph (the same people who develop the standards for Ogg, Vorbis, Theora, FLAC, XSPF, etc.) I believe.

Re:Timing

[fsmunoz]

Hey, do I actually have to care about the FSF to get one of those c00l fsf.org email addresses?

No, not at all. Just to pay them monthly, you can otherwise loathe them.

I need a new permanent email provider

Well, they are just redirects, 5 in total IIRC.

and fsf.org would be teh shizznikegnite. Think of all the geek cred.

I don't need to think, I expererience it everyday. I just flash it and the kids just go, like, awesome ma nizzle. Fo' shizzle. (more seriously though, see https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join _fsf [fsf.org]? or https://www.fsfe.org/en/fsfeuser/register/(set)/1 [fsfe.org] if you're at all interested).

Le Denounement

[matt me]

How can you unveil something that's been through a year of public drafting?

It means a lot to users; someone must make sw!

[dwheeler]

The GPL doesn't limit USE of the software, so in that very narrow sense it doesn't matter to users. But that's such a narrow sense as to be meaningless.

If you want to use software, you must have software to use. If you want to have software to use, there must be a way to develop it. The GPL has been the "Constitution" enabling the development of a vast amount of really useful software; indeed, the majority of Free-libre / open source software (FLOSS) uses the GPL [dwheeler.com]. And people are finally realizing that most FLOSS is commercial software [dwheeler.com]; it's no longer exclusively "just a hobby". Before the GPL, the only ways of creating software were complete proprietary control (often by a company intent on preventing you from switching) or public domain/BSDish licenses (which sometimes works very well, but sometimes get sucked into proprietary projects often enough to die or live only on life support). So yes, if you wish to be able to use software in the future, the GPL is important; it establishes a viable method of making the software that people would like to use. In fact, it's been extraordinarily effective at doing so.

Even you don't write code yourself, you can still hire someone to write or change code. So the GPL provides additional capabilities to users, even if the user can't write code him/herself. And even if you use proprietary software, GPL'ed software has had a profound impact on limiting the costs of much of that software, which is also great for end-users (and again matters to them).

Here's an analogy - that statement is like saying that agriculture doesn't matter because many people aren't farmers. But non-farmers must eat too! Having viable methods to grow food - and a competitive system to lower costs and raise quality - are still of vital interest to the users of products from farmers. Unless you want to stop eating.