FSF Compliance Lab online meeting addresses license questions

,----[ Quote ]
| "Different people," said Smith in the meeting, "want to benchmark GPLv3's
| success in different ways. Some people want to do it by the number of
| projects who have adopted it. Others want to measure the number of projects
| that intend to adopt."
|
| Smith says that since the survey doesn't say what projects the developers
| queried by Evans are working on, the survey tells you "basically nothing....
| Maybe they all work on one of the BSD distributions, or Apache projects. If
| that's the case, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that they have no
| plans to use GPLv3. It would be more interesting to poll people already
| working on GPLed projects, but even that wouldn't necessarily reveal the
| whole story. Some projects probably intend to upgrade, but simply won't get
| around to it until they do another major release. Others might be waiting for
| a library that they use to upgrade -- I know that this is the case for a
| handful of KDE programs at least, for example, since Qt is unfortunately
| released under GPLv2 only."
`----

http://www.linux.com/feature/120277


Related:

GPLv3: past the 5K mark, and going strong

,----[ Quote ]
| 1. Or later – 4708 of 9082 projected – 52%
| 2. LGPLv3 – 30 of 723 projected – 4%
| 3. GPLv3 – 5100 of 13078 projected – 39%
| 4. GPL, not converted – 5086 projected (GPL projects times (100% - 72%
| * *convert rate))
| 5. Non GPL license – 3722 projected (Active projects – (Active GPL projects +
| * *not converted))
|
| All this in one month.
|
|
| So, what is the summary?
|
| Adoption and projects released under GPLv3 are as expected. The part that is
| often overlooked is the long standing impact of the "or later" clause,
| initially put into effect more than a decade ago as part of the language
| surrounding the GPLv2 License, or later, at the time and now, common among
| GPL licensed projects. This clause in effect guaranteed a wide
| spread "potential" of adoption of the license the day it was released. * *
`----

http://gpl3.blogspot.com/2007/08/gpl...ng-strong.html


Why does Microsoft seem scared of GPLv3?

,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft is extremely keen to avoid "legal debate" over whether its recent
| partnerships with Linux firms such as Novell, Xandros, and Linspire, mean
| Redmond must assume any of the new licenses' legal obligations.
`----

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/softwar...9279673,00.htm


Microsoft disses GPLv3 (and rocketman Kirk)

,----[ Quote ]
| This is Thursday's IT Blogwatch: in which Microsoft squirms out of GPLv3's
| clutches, perhaps.
`----

http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/5823


The Badger Game

,----[ Quote ]
| So, by threatening everything and promising nothing (because would Microsoft
| really sue anyone for patents, knowing how many competitors in the Linux
| community have patents of their own?), Microsoft has skillfully managed to
| get open source players to endorse Open XML. A variant of the classic Badger
| Game if I ever heard one.
|
| Faced with cons like this, I am beginning to realize that having something
| like the GPLv3 around is a very good idea. Even though the new GPL could not
| have prevented this scam, it may help in the future.
`----

http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastruc...71302826OPMSPB