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!