Club Linux Coffs Harbour

This article by Rob Enderle, who less kind people than myself dismiss as a shill for a certain proprietary software company, claims that the aforementioned company has lots to celebrate about the new version of the GNU General Public License (GPL), the most widely-used free software license. I got caught up responding to this... ahem... provocative article, and since nobody's posted about GPL3 here yet, I thought it was worth re-posting my comment here, as it fairly succinctly sums up the justifications for a new version of the license:

GPL3 is not "different".

GPL3 does not represent the slightest change in the objectives of the license since GPL2.1, rather it reflects changes in the environment in which the license operates.

In 1991 it was not possible to use software idea patents or DRM/DMCA to restrict the freedom of computer users. In 2007 it is possible to do so in many parts of the world, so it is necessary to close these loopholes for the license to continue to work as it always has. Additionally, GPL3 has some extra provisions which make it more compatible with other free software licenses.

If you're currently using GPL2 because you support the objectives of the license, not because you've found a loophole to circumvent them, then migrating to GPL3 is the way to guarantee that other parties can't turn your work into their proprietary product. If you want people to be able to do that, you should be using a non-copyleft license anyway.

It is stunningly disingenuous to claim that "if you can’t code, you can’t use the freedoms [of the GPL] anyway". I'm not a mechanic, but I'm very glad that I don't have to return my car to Toyota every time it needs a service. I'm glad that adding a CD player to it won't require Toyota's permission. I would no more hand the keys to my data to Microsoft or TiVo than I would hand the keys to my car to Toyota.

Of course this metaphor breaks down very quickly (not unlike my car, boom-boom) because I can't make a limitless number of perfect copies of my car at near zero cost, something you can do with software, even if you're not a programmer, provided of course the software's license allows it, and it is not additionally encumbered with patents or some tivoization mechanism.

That fact that companies that produce (effectively) proprietary software won't be able to use GPL3 code in their products is simply not a cause for concern for anybody except these companies. Saying that Microsoft will gain some short term advantage over other proprietary software companies due to GPL3 is gloriously irrelevant. As long as GPL3 does the job it is intended to do, the long term prospects for proprietary software vendors are not good; even Microsoft understand this (Gates is retiring, Ballmer is fishing for a government posting, and they've just kicked off their terminal SCO-esque stock-pumping kamikaze IP FUD strategy, which may last for years, but not decades).

The fact that you are trying to obscure here is that in the 21st century there is no rational argument for preferring proprietary software.