Here I am, reading about one particular detail about GPLv3 at ZDnet, how GPLv3 is closing down a loophole. The loophole is supposedly that companies can use GPLed software to offer services over the web...

Well, d'uh!

The suggested solution is to have those pieces of software include a command to be used specifically to offer it's own source code. At least, that's how I understand what's written in the article.

Let's see, I'm sure there's a GPLed FTP server somewhere out there, probably even a GNU one (no, I haven't looked). Does that mean that everyone using that for their FTP server now will have to hold it's source in some repository?

If what's written at ZDNet is accurate, I think the GPL has passed the line of absurdity. Sorry, Richard. I love your quest for software freedom and I totally support it. However, I think this step just doesn't take it in the right direction.

I wonder how all those people who license their software with terms like the following will think about this new GPL:

licensed to the public under the terms of the GNU GPL (>= 2)

are they ready to uphold GPLv3? I've been worried about the way the GPL has been refered to for a long time. ">= 2", right... Do all these people really know how to predict the future, because if they do, I'd love for them to share the secret with, as I'm seriously lacking in that department!

blog comments powered by Disqus