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."

Interesting date to choose...

[onemorehour]

GPL v3 + iPhone in one day = collective nerdgasm?

Re:

[1110110001]

Finally there's something happening on my birthday =) June 29th needs more great events than "Canada House opening in London" or "Coal is discovered on Vancouver Island" or a building collapse. But I guess iPhone release or GPL3 isn't something you could tell your grandchildren. At least Ray Harryhausen and Bernard Herrmann were born on the same day - now I only need to meet someone who knows who they are ..

Re:

[Tokerat]

hey, it's my birthday too! I keep seeing this date everywhere....weird. Well, Happy Birthday!

What are the odds

[h2g2bob]

Two people with birthdays on June 29 - thus proving Slashdot has 730 (and a half) users.

Re:

[mattpalmer1086]

No - birthday paradox refers to the chance of any two people sharing *a* birthday. Not the chance of two people sharing a specific birthday.

Re:

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

But I guess iPhone release or GPL3 isn't something you could tell your grandchildren.

iPhone release? Probably not. GPL3? Quite possibly, though if you were around for GPL2, that would probably be better.

Re:Interesting date to choose...

[Alphager]

The FSF is not about pleasing everyone. It is about solely furthering the goals of Free Software (not Open Source, not Linux). They will succeed in that.

Re:

[FudRucker]

i believe RMS's intent is to disable corporate interests such as the Microsoft/Novell deal & other similar deals from exploiting GPLed software, it basically closes a loophole, RMS is free to license his code however he sees fit...

Re:

[smclean]

Well, how does it hurt it? I mean, its the release of a new software license.. it's unusual that there are any festivities at all. Do you really think they have much hopes for major press coverage?

I'm glad that some people didn't feel the need to clear their schedule because a new phone is being released. I'm glad I don't spend much time surfing the internet on the weekends; I'll remain unexposed to the epicenter of the hype.

Re:

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Oops...you are right, this is better than nothing for the FSF. The timing coincidence may even help, I realize...
Oh, and the iPhone hype is on the mainstream media, too.

Re:

[rumblin'rabbit]

If Torvalds were dead he would be rolling in his grave now.

Created the sofware? Not quite. Aggregated it and provided a license for it, sure.

Most of the software would surely exist without the FSF, just under a different license.

So hard for GNU to get even a share of credit.

[jbn-o]

Linus Torvalds didn't write today's entire Linux kernel either, he has long aggregated portions of the kernel from plenty of contributors. Credit for creation of software isn't going to get you anywhere in this debate. RMS initially wrote GNU EMACS, GDB, and GCC, three incredibly influential and useful programs among many others. RMS wrote GCC for freedom [com.com]; it's not much of a stretch to infer he wrote other GNU programs for freedom as well. Yet under the specious creation argument all of RMS' work deserv

Re:

[sumdumass]

All those programs run on BSDs and Unix. Are we supposed to call them GNU_BSD or GNU_HPUX or GNU_Unix when they do?

Seriously, It isn't as if linux wouldn't have ever happened without them. It's inception and concept was being tried before the GNU started happening. Minux comes to mind. Sure the landscape might look a little different had they not been here, but it wouldn't be another world.

Linux is Linux, Operating systems are linux with extra stuff often called distributions. Mandrake is mandrake, Slackwar

Re:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Most of the software would surely exist without the FSF, just under a different license.

Gentle reminder. Linux & most other free software couldn't exist if RMS hadn't written GCC. Do you have any idea how much toolchains cost prior to GCC?

Not something your average hobbiest could afford.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Giving people their due is hard for some.

[jbn-o]

Yes, I realize that RMS differs on the topic, but really we're all about doing the same thing: making great software available for everyone to share, copy and modify to their heart's content. Can't we all just get along?

But you don't seem to realize why RMS differs. So do compare that ESR essay to "Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software [gnu.org]" which, among other things, asks you to consider what is being proposed by the two movements and to give each movement their due. The free software movement isn't just about making software (in fact a lot of people in the free software community aren't programmers at all). The way you frame the issue, it seems that everyone getting along is fine so long as we all choose to call everything "open source" and toss aside the pursuit of freedom and social solidarity that are at the heart of the free software movement (and which the open source movement was built not to talk about).

Re:

[PietjeJantje]

"Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software [gnu.org]" is exactly one of the reasons why so many dislike his redefinition of freedom and the RMS ideology.

That's a "great" way to discuss things. You start by saying a complete movement misses the point, and conclude that it must be FEAR.

Well really. Looks like someone is trapped in a small monkeysphere. I for one RESPECT the license choices others make and what works best for them. RMS should stop polarizing the hacker community like that and learn

Re:

[moderatorrater]

Yeah, the GPL shouldn't stick its nose into hardware at all. I understand why "Tivoisation" bothers them, but honestly, it's hardware guys, a fairly expensive piece too. The GPL isn't meant to deal with hardware and shouldn't.

Re:Interesting date to choose...

[Bruce Perens]

When GPL2 was written, people got music from phonograph records and a touch-tone phone was the most sophisticated input device available in most people's homes. The world changed a whole lot since then. One of the things that changed is that manufacturers gained the capability to lock down software in a way that they could change, but nobody else could. It's fine for them to have that ability, but I am not going to choose to let them do that to software that I write and they do not pay for. I don't see why anyone else would want to either. If they want to lock the code down, maybe it would be a good idea for them to find its authors and buy a commercial license.

Bruce

Re:

[iCEBaLM]

Well this certainly is out of the question for the Linux kernel and even most free/open software. With so many contributors and no central authority it would be a herculean task to get everyone to sign off on a commercial licensed version.

One has to wonder however how much cash a commercial license for some projects would bring in allowing for the funding and development for the free/open version.

Re:Interesting date to choose...

[Bruce Perens]

Well this certainly is out of the question for the Linux kernel

There is BSD for that.

One has to wonder however how much cash a commercial license for some projects would bring in allowing for the funding and development for the free/open version.

Dual-licensing brings MySQL 50 Million Dollars Per Year. Which means that the GPL is a really effective capitalist tool. Folks who oppose it are often looking for a gift, rather than sharing. It seems to me that they should be willing to pay. That would be more fair.

Bruce

Re:

[eviltypeguy]

No one has proven that is an effective capitalist tool for all types of software though.

For example, no one in the gaming industry has yet tried this approach from the outset.

The closest example would be iD Software's GPLing of various components years after commercial viability of an engine, but that doesn't really count...

Re:

[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 d

Re:

[G-funk]

No, the 3 is:

Game developers look through the GPL source code to IT5, learn the algorithms / ideas behind features X,Y, and Z, and simply add them to their copy of IT4, and iD makes nothing.

Re:

[Alphager]

The techniques behind the major 3D-Engines are published, well understood and taught in universities.

Re:

[Alphager]

You have the wrong assumtion that game assets have to be covered by the GPL. All 3D-engines nowadays are written in a way that lets the user change the core assets (like textures, models, scripts, maps, etc). You can take the GPL'ed Quake-Engine and program a commercial, closed-source game with it. YOur main executable (containing the engine code) would have to be Free, but the rest of the game can be under any license you want.

Re:

[novus ordo]

GPLed engines could work excellent in the gaming industry. Why you ask? Well the simple fact that the most creative and original work in a game is the interaction, the graphics the sounds. It isn't the gaming engine or the like. Most people don't care what API the developers use, all they care for is the end product. The other stuff in the game, the particle systems, the physical simulations, the mapping tools are remarkably similar. It's a shame developers have to start from scratch on the boring stuff whe

Re:

[tepples]

No one has proven that is an effective capitalist tool for all types of software though.

For example, no one in the gaming industry has yet tried this approach from the outset.

Several issues:

• Software without the digital signature of Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft won't run on their gaming hardware.
• Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft won't grant their digital signature to copylefted software.
• The median display of a desktop PC is much too small for four humans holding USB gamepads to fit around.
• Four people in a household can afford one computer and one console more easily than four computers.

Re:

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Who would pay for non-GPL'd MySQL if GPL'd MySQL didn't exist to get developer mindshare, or if MySQL was BSD-licenced?

Re:

[dkf]

Great, now we gotta go get that POS operating system that SQL Server runs on?

So run PostgreSQL (or one of the commercial DBs if you need to scale larger) on a real OS. Duh!

Re:

[rockhome]

I think that is a great sentiment, but the mere fact that you release the source to world means that someone is going to make a buck off of it.

One thing that I truly don't understand about certain provisions of the GPL is why the punitive, capricious actions are necessary.

If somebody chooses to make a buck from your work, without letting you make changes in a specific environment, so what? Why not create an environment
of your own in which to run the software. A lot of people are very quick to create emula

Re:

[sumdumass]

The problem is, the Tivo is an appliance device. You want to use it as a general purpose computer. They gave the code, they just didn't let you run it on the appliance device. You can change it, buy the part and assemble your own appliance and get it to run however you want.

And that is the difference between hardware and software.

Patents and TOS

[tepples]

They gave the code, they just didn't let you run it on the appliance device. You can change it, buy the part and assemble your own appliance and get it to run however you want.

TiVo owns patents that would prevent use of its software and service with unauthorized hardware. And how would we be sure that TiVo wouldn't cancel the service of anybody who uses unauthorized hardware?

Re:

[sumdumass]

Why would that matter, Tivo is an appliance that some company built for a specific purpose. That is what an appliance is, You know this when buying it. Now, if you change things around, there is nothing stopping Tivo from disconnecting your service. There isn't anything in the GPLv3 stopping it.

And as far as I know, they don't hold any patents on the GPLed software. just the hardware, concept and their software. so this isn't a real issue

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'

Re:

[ispeters]

I'm not a lawyer, but it would depend on how they worded the application of the GPL to their code. Many GPL'd applications are licensed under GPL version 2 "or any later version", but some aren't (most notably the Linux kernel). If they applied the GPL with the "or any later version" clause, then, yes, you can release your code under GPL v3. Otherwise no, you have to wait for them to do that. Of course, if you release a GPL v3 version of QT4 and Trolltech doesn't, then I think you would have effectively

Timing

[Achromatic1978]

Who'll be watching? They'll all be queued up at the Apple store to buy into the hysteria.

Re:

[badboy_tw2002]

Right, because otherwise the servers would be flooded by people clamouring to see the latest GPL! But stick with the Apple story, it will make people feel better :) (Its not our fault, people just like dumb ol' apple, that's all!)

Re:Timing

[eln]

I don't know about anyone else, but I plan to camp out all night in front of the FSF so I can be the first to get a copy of the final version of the GPLv3. Then I'm going to sell it on eBay.

Re:

[sepluv]

To quote TFA, "if you are in the Boston area you can also join us at the FSF offices from 11:30am. Please let us know at if you would like to attend.".

So they won't let you in until 11:30 and you should contact them first so they can make sure not to let in capming crazies like you (or, on second thoughts, maybe you'd fit right in). Just don't tell them you are selling it on the website of evil software patenting nazis.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, fuck you! I'm going to give it away for nothing.

Re:

[Spy der Mann]

I don't know about anyone else, but I plan to camp out all night in front of the FSF so I can be the first to get a copy of the final version of the GPLv3. Then I'm going to sell it on eBay.

I'm already in line for that, and I'm going to redistribute it under the BSD license, MUAHAHAHAHAHA!

Re:

[ImaLamer]

I'll be orgasming on my iPhone when it's streaming Stallman's speech.

Re:

[fsmunoz]

"No retroactive effects on the MS deal. More lines than GPLv2. Lame."

Re:Timing

[Bruce Perens]

) "No retroactive effects on the MS deal.

Actually, there are. Novell got let off easy in a way because FSF feels it's more important to use the Microsoft "coupons" to go after Microsoft's remaining patent rights with GPL3 (after doctrine of Laches, etc. has already cost MS most of those rights). But I don't think Microsoft would be very happy about Novell using GPL3 software because of that. How this plays out will be interesting.

Bruce

Re:

[fsmunoz]

Damn, you had to spoil it for me. It's the only "No" thing I remembered.

More seriously, I agree with your view, it will be interesting, and tactically it was well played.

Re:Timing

[Bruce Perens]

And you should not be bothered by the more lines, either. Compare them to the more lines of "intellectual property" legislation like DMCA and the more lines of case law. GPL has to deal with all of that or it will progressively weaken. So what you are really seeing is FSF running as fast as it can to stay still in the context of new law.

Bruce

Re:

[fsmunoz]

Bruce (sorry for the first-name basis, but I've been hearing about you for so many years now that it's hard to avoid it), it was an attempt at a joke (remember, the CmdrTaco comment about the iPod? "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."). You're really preaching to the choir, look at my email. I would sign the GPLv3 in blood if I had to. Actually, *that* would be something worth streaming.

Re:

[Bruce Perens]

Trust me to miss any reference to pop culture. Not enough time in my life. Not even enough sleep, this time.

Re:

[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/ass [fsf.org]

Re:

[NamShubCMX]

Being an associate (which is 120$/yr - tax-deductible) gets you five, IIRC.

Re:

[Animats]

The line for the iPhone hasn't quite started here in Palo Alto yet. I saw three girls standing in front of the closed Apple store on University Avenue last night, and asked if they were in line for the iPhone launch. But no, they were just waiting for their ride.

People are already lining up in New York, though, according to press reports. People will stand in line for stuff in New York. Here, they usually go elsewhere.

Video streaming?

[dougmc]

Does the FSF often do video streaming? Are there any video streaming methods/codecs/packages that are are sufficiently `free' for the FSF's tastes, and are installed already on enough systems that somebody might be able to view it?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any video streaming methods/codecs/packages that are are sufficiently `free' for the FSF's tastes

It's going to be a Windows Media file...

Re:Video streaming?

[fsmunoz]

Yes, they use video streaming [fsf.org] sometimes. "Often" is to strong a word, but they have been doing it more as of late due to the GPLv3 process. To sum it up, it's Vorbis and Theora.

Re:

[sepluv]

I think you've missed the point. Those are just videos downloaded via HTTP (which, sure, you could, from the users' point of view, stream, although it mightn't be very reliable and isn't what HTTP is designed for). With this video, it will be live so they will have to use a specialist streaming protocol (e.g.: RTP) as the video won't be completed when you start downloading it.

Re:

[fsmunoz]

You're right. I didn't actually miss the point, just assumed that they were archived but that they were - some of them - streamed live (got that impression from "...You can listen to and watch online the proceedings of the 2nd International GPLv3 Conference, part of the Seventh International Free Software Forum..."). I'm curious now though, will investigate further.

Re:

[fsmunoz]

Right, so I've been searching and the FSF Europe has been using live streams more than the FSF. They reference "...the Free Software activists of the Politecnic University of Torino, though, who volunteered to use their Free Software video streaming software to stream the entire sessions live, and who will be offering recordings of the sessions online..." in all the places streaming is referenced.

This seems to be a reference to Feng [polito.it], a "... multimedia streaming server compliant with the IETF's standards

Re:

[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:

[sepluv]

I'm the submitter and TFA doesn't actually say video, just live streaming. I was embellishing as I kind of assumed it would be video as audio wouldn't really be very interesting—I guess RMS would have to read the GPL or something...or maybe he could sing it (for wide values of sing).

I guess they'd use Theora over RTP (draft RFC) [xiph.org] although I'm not sure how well implemented that is (even in clients that support Ogg Theora).

Why date linked?

[sepluv]

I submitted this and am intrigued by why ScuttleMonkey has made one change to the story as submitted: moving the link to the announcement from the word "announce" to the date (which isn#t even the date of the announcement). Bizarre.

Re:

[Hatta]

The W3 does not recommend hyperlinks on verb phrases [w3.org].

Re:

[sepluv]

The note you link to is for when the verb relates to the reader, their UA or the author. When the linked verb has the same semantics as a noun that describes the target, as in this case, that is different (and I'm sure I've seen the W3C doing that). It is the semantics not the part of speech which are important.

Anyway, that still doesn't explain why he linked to the date which has nothing to do with the link.

Re:

[sepluv]

BTW, they are called the W3C. The W3 is the World Wide Web.

Also, further to my previous post, looking at it again, I admit they do explicitly say no verb phrases. However, too quote from the start of the note you link to, a link should:

1. provides some information when read out of context
2. explains what the link offers
3. doesn't talk about mechanics
4. not be a verb phrase

The first three are most important. Now I think the last one is a mistake and the rest of the document makes it clear that they haven't

Re:

[mrchaotica]

What, and you think what is optimistically called a Slashdot "Editor," of all people, would know (let alone care) about W3 recommendations?! HA!

Re:

[Blakey Rat]

They did that to a submission of mine, also. I was linking to an article about a study, and they moved the link to make it look as if I was linking to the study itself. I can only assume the "editor" either didn't read my submission, or read it and didn't understand it. (Or, they just meddle and make random changes to justify getting paid for this.)

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

They probably meddle and make random changes because of the whiners.

How are they going to unveil it?

[ChrisMounce]

I mean, it isn't a physical object. Print it out and frame it? Throw copies into the crowd? A reading by Stallman himself (followed by a license signing)?

Re:How are they going to unveil it?

[heinousjay]

A reading by Stallman himself (followed by a license signing)?

If you could somehow bottle that concept you would cure insomnia the world over.

Re:

[fsmunoz]

Print it out and frame it? Throw copies into the crowd? A reading by Stallman himself (followed by a license signing)?

I'm not sure if you're kidding or not. I can see them all happening. Seriously. There is already a GPL for framming available at the FSF shop, several tunes with RMS reading from "Free Software, Free Society". Throwing copies I haven't seen, but an ordered line of people receiving a first copy (think "soup nazi") would be something I wouldn't be surprised.

Re:

[Joseph Vigneau]

Throwing copies I haven't seen, but an ordered line of people receiving a first copy (think "soup nazi") would be something I wouldn't be surprised.

And, if you're the first person in line, you can copy it, and sell the copy to the guy behind you! Of course, you can't restrict that guy from selling copies of their own, either.

Re:

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Just write it out, in its entirety, on a giant poster, or engrave it in its entirety on a large metal plaque. Use a large font and all-caps. Cover the engraved GPLv.3 with a cloth until the time of unveiling; then lift the veil, and there it is!
Stallman should probably read it out as well.

Re:How are they going to unveil it?

[Fozzyuw]

...then lift the veil, and there it is!

At which time a large audible *gasp* from the crowd, and sweeping pan of the aforementioned veiled area shows that, in-fact, the GPL has been STOLEN! An audible laughter is heard over the loud speakers...

In A.D. 2007, GPL3 was beginning.

Stallman: What happen ?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the iPhone.
Operator: We get signal.
Stallman: What !
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Stallman: It's you !!
JOBS: How are you gentlemen !!
JOBS: All your publicity are belong to us.
JOBS: You are on the way to destruction.
Stallman: What you say !!
JOBS: You have no chance to survive make your time.
JOBS: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
Operator: Stallman !! *
Stallman: Take off every 'Zig' !!
Stallman: You know what you doing.
Stallman: Move 'Zig'.
Stallman: For great justice.

Re:

[Jose]

A reading by Stallman himself (followed by a license signing)?

did you mean to say 'singing'?

that would be cool!

Le Denounement

[matt me]

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

Woah!

[overshoot]

Richard Stallman and the Deadly Hallows!

Re:

[moderatorrater]

Deathly Hallows, sir. It's Richard Stallman and the Deathly Hallows.

No offense, but with his hair and beard, I've always thought of him as more of a Hagrid.

Re:

[geminidomino]

Funny, I always looked at him more as Moaning Myrtle...

SPOILER WARNING

[tepples]

if we are going to venture into this, i'd have thought [Mr. Stallman] would have to be dubledore becausee is the antithesis of all evil, the beard even fits... even balmer/gates fit as voldermort.

question is: where does jobs fit in?

Snape kills Dumbledore [youtube.com].

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.

SP1

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to wait for SP1 before I upgrade.

Tattoo

[athloi]

Gotta update my tattoo, Which was the GPL-2, But from the looks of v3, Should be hours of agony!

Re:Tattoo

[Bruce Perens]

Hah! See what you get for not including that "And any later version" language.

Re:

[ImaLamer]

I'm adding wrinkles to my new Gnu tattoo.

So...

[Xenographic]

If you have a GPL tattoo, do you get any women by claiming "Hey baby! Derivative works are free!"

Yeah, I really didn't think so... :]

Does it still have that web distribution clause?

[mark-t]

The one where if you modify software that had a "web distribution function" (from my recollection, an optional function within web-based software that enables a remote user to obtain the source code), and then run the modified program on your website, you are required to disclose all changes even if you don't distribute the software?

Re:Does it still have that web distribution clause

[Bruce Perens]

That is the Affero GPL, a separate license.

Re:Does it still have that web distribution clause

[frogstar_robot]

It isn't in the license by default. It is a restriction that can be added; this was done for compatibility with the Affero GPL.

Re:

[david_thornley]

No, they dropped that from the later drafts of GPLv3. The FSF recently released a draft of the Affero GPL, which at first glance is pretty much the same as GPLv3, except that it does have the web distribution clause. From the FSF rationale documents, it sounds like they thought it tricky to get right, and probably thought they'd rather get GPLv3 out first and worry about the Affero part later.

File under: world imploding

[mrsteveman1]

Things necessary for the world to implode:

Richard Stallman will start using Vista cause it looks kewl
Apple will go back to PowerPC cause of all the people stealing MacOS (see: kext)
George Bush will physically launch himself at the evildoers in a selfless act of courage
Microsoft will sue everyone, everywhere, for everything. Its all MS property Bitches.

Ok that last o

Re:Is it just me???

[fsmunoz]

You don't need to agree with the GPL to use the software. For an end-user that just uses the software the GPLv3 doesn't change anything, and most of it doesn't apply anyway, since its focus is on redistribution, code availability and code change. The GPL is however important for people that develop the software and that is why the GPLv3 is important.

Re:

[ClosedSource]

"You don't need to agree with the GPL to use the software."

Doesn't that depend on how the installation procedure is written? Some people argue that you aren't legally required to agree to an EULA to use closed source applications either, but even if true, you still can't install the software without clicking "yes".

Re:

[Tim C]

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that some GPLed software requires you to click "I agree" to the GPL in the installation process. It may be meaningless, but that doesn't make it any less irritating (if anything, it makes it *more* irritating). In fact, I'd say it's dangerous, as it helps to dilute the message that you don't need to agree to the GPL to just use the software. The more software that forces agreement like that, the more people can point to it and say "See? You *do* have

Re:

[dkf]

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that some GPLed software requires you to click "I agree" to the GPL in the installation process.

Having been through this process a few times recently, I agree with your comments on the stupidity of treating the GPL like a click-through EULA. On the other hand, they could fix it by allowing you to proceed on to the next panel whether or not you say that you agree to the GPL, thus capturing the true spirit of it. :-)

But I really just suspect lazy programmers using someone else's installer generator without thinking about it, and that code requires that the "license" be filled in. Still, it's yet anothe

Re:

[Shados]

Well, my understanding is that the GPL is a -distribution- license, not a user license...so to the user its SUPPOSED to be pointless, and putting it in a click through is dumb, because you dont need to agree to the GPL to use the software, but only to redistribute it (which a normal end user will not do)

Re:

[ChrisA90278]

GPL really does not even apply to end users. It comes into effect when you distribute copies of the program. As long as you only run the software there are no requirements on what you must do. End users have no reason to care about this.

Re:

[babbling]

The GPL only comes into effect when you decide to distribute the software. Until that time, you have not agreed to the GPL. You can receive, examine and modify for your own use GPL'ed software without worrying about what the GPL says. Only once you decide to distribute have you implicitly agreed to the GPL. (if you don't implicitly agree then you are infringing copyright by distributing)

Anyway, the great thing about the GPL is that most end users don't need to know what it says. It stays out of the way of e

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

Re:

[ClosedSource]

Let's hope not. He might feel obligated to distribute the changes he made to the water.

Re:

[Jugalator]

I'll make the popcorn!