June 29, 2007

Today the GPL version 3 was released.

\o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/!! <- A crowd of happy hackers.

The full notes are found on the FSF webpage. Love it or hate it, the GPL is the most popular free software license in the world. It is one of the building blocks for great software like Ubuntu or Amarok or emacs etc etc.

To support the FSF, please consider supporting freedom and joining the FSF. Unfortunately, I have not joined yet, which I intent to do after I pay some bills (college is expensive), which makes me a bit of a hypocrite…gah.

I’ve donated to the FSF to give back for all they great work they do. I’m against saying you should…but you should 🙂

Today is a good day.


  1. $10 isn’t so bad, which is what I do on my contribution level. I mean, don’t get Starbucks twice in a month and that is taken care of!

    http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=5003 – here, even a referral link ready for you. 😉

  2. […] Fonte Freddy Martinez su Planet Ubuntu […]

  3. Well, the GPLv2 is the most popular license.

    It remains to be seen if that popularity transfers over to a license that is less accessible to the average programmer.

  4. Thanks for your comment Scott. Whoever, as I understand it, the GPLv2 is the most wideless used, but lots of people release under the statement: GPLv2 or later.

  5. Nothing wrong with it! They are incompatible with each other, as such the nature of copyleft, but it doesn’t mean they *can’t* interoperate, along with open source licenses. If there is one significant change from V2 to V3 is that the new one is compatible with the APL. This is very, very important.

  6. I like Apache but I disagree with the ability to make closed source and proprietary. For that reason I dislike the BSD-style licenses but its better than nothing! I like the GPL though, you raise a good point. These license aren’t clashing, but can live happily together. thanks for your comment!

  7. I am not sure what you mean exactly with regards to the ability of making closed sourced or proprietary. You make it sound like its a sweeping clause in the licenses! Remember that a good portion of a distribution, a major one at that is the Apache HTTP server. Some part of commercial software may have parts of software under the APL but sold commercially, but that’s alright, its legal as long as the clauses of the APL is specified. Most of the licenses issues won’t affect users much, as its alright to have various kinds of software in various licenses running along, on top, etc. It gets more complicated when you *DO* create software.

  8. […] sumo als diversos posts al planet anglès i felicito a tots els membres de la Free Software Foundation per […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: