Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "GNU General Public License" in Galician language version.
MIT License 32%, GNU General Public License (GPL 2.0) 18%, Apache License 2.0 14%, GNU General Public License (GNU) 3.0 7%, BSD License 2.0 (3-cláusula, nova ou revisada) License 6%, ISC License 5%, Artistic License (Perl) 4%, GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 2.1 4%, GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 3.0 2%, Eclipse Public License (EPL) 1%, Microsoft Public License 1%, Simplified BSD License (BSD) 1%, Code Project Open License 1.02 1%, Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.1 < 1%, GNU Affero General Public License v3 ou posterior l < 1% ...
"...This page presents the opinion of some debian-legal contributors on how certain licenses follow the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).;... Licenses currently found in Debian main include: MIT-style licenses
It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever. This is not a mere license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is incompatible with this or that free software license: it's that it is fundamentally incompatible with any free software license whatsoever. So if you write a new program, and you have no commitments at all about what license you want to use, saving only that it be a free license, you cannot include GFDL'd text. The GNU FDL, as it stands today, does not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines. There are significant problems with the license, as detailed above; and, as such, we cannot accept works licensed under the GNU FDL into our distribution.
So while the BSDs have lost energy every time a company gets involved, the GPL'ed programs gain every time a company gets involved.
GPL 60.5%, lGPLv2 6.9%, GPLv2 1.9% GPLv3 1.6%
Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-4' ... found 298
Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-1' ... found 962
Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-3' ... found 649
Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-1' ... found 727
"... This is the previous version of the GNU GPL: a free software license, and a copyleft license. ... Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3. However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well. When this is the case, you can use the code under GPLv3 to make the desired combination. ..."
"...This is the latest version of the GNU GPL: a free software license, and a copyleft license. ... Please note that GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2 by itself. However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well. When this is the case, you can use the code under GPLv3 to make the desired combination. ..."
We recommend that people consider using the GNU AGPL for any software which will commonly be run over a network. The latest version is version 3.
No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2. However, if code is released under GPL “version 2 or later,” that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits.
In some ways, Linux was the project that really made the split clear between what the FSF is pushing which is very different from what open source and Linux has always been about, which is more of a technical superiority instead of a -- this religious belief in freedom," Torvalds told Zemlin. So, the GPL Version 3 reflects the FSF's goals and the GPL Version 2 pretty closely matches what I think a license should do and so right now, Version 2 is where the kernel is.
The only one of any note that I'd like to point out directly is the clarification in the COPYING file, making it clear that it's only _that_ particular version of the GPL that is valid for the kernel. This should not come as any surprise, as that's the same license that has been there since 0.12 or so, but I thought I'd make that explicit
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
GPLv3 broke "the" GPL into incompatible forks that can't share code. ... FSF expected universal compliance, but hijacked lifeboat clause when boat wasn't sinking. ...
... the unfortunate situation with support for DWG files in free CAD software via LibreDWG. We feel, by now it ought to be closed. We have the final answer from FSF. ... "We are not going to change the license."
Second, the war between Linus Torvalds and other Kernel developers and the Free Software Foundation over GPLv3 is continuing, with Torvalds saying he's fed up with the FSF.
Walter van Holst is a legal consultant at the Dutch IT consulting company mitopics. ... Walter instead chose to use data from a software index, namely Freecode ... Walter's 2009 data set consisted of 38,674 projects ... The final column in the table shows the number of projects licensed under "any version of the GPL". In addition, Walter presented pie charts that showed the proportion of projects under various common licenses. Notable in those data sets was that, whereas in 2009 the proportion of projects licensed GPLv2-only and GPLv3 was respectively 3% and 2%, by 2013, those numbers had risen to 7% and 5%.
The current version (Discussion Draft 2) of GPLv3 on first reading fails the necessity test of section 1 on the grounds that there's no substantial and identified problem with GPLv2 that it is trying to solve. However, a deeper reading reveals several other problems with the current FSF draft: 5.1 DRM Clauses ... 5.2 Additional Restrictions Clause ... 5.3 Patents Provisions... since the FSF is proposing to shift all of its projects to GPLv3 and apply pressure to every other GPL licensed project to move, we foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanisation of the entire Open Source Universe upon which we rely.
..."The following licenses have been approved by the OSI.""...GNU General Public License version 2 (GPL-2.0), GNU General Public License version 3 (GPL-3.0)...""
Both LibreCAD and FreeCAD both want to use LibreDWG and have patches available for supporting the DWG file format library, but can't integrate them. The programs have dependencies on the popular GPLv2 license while the Free Software Foundation will only let LibreDWG be licensed for GPLv3 use, not GPLv2.
MIT License 32%, GNU General Public License (GPL 2.0) 18%, Apache License 2.0 14%, GNU General Public License (GNU) 3.0 7%, BSD License 2.0 (3-cláusula, nova ou revisada) License 6%, ISC License 5%, Artistic License (Perl) 4%, GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 2.1 4%, GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 3.0 2%, Eclipse Public License (EPL) 1%, Microsoft Public License 1%, Simplified BSD License (BSD) 1%, Code Project Open License 1.02 1%, Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.1 < 1%, GNU Affero General Public License v3 ou posterior l < 1% ...
GPL 60.5%, lGPLv2 6.9%, GPLv2 1.9% GPLv3 1.6%
"... This is the previous version of the GNU GPL: a free software license, and a copyleft license. ... Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3. However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well. When this is the case, you can use the code under GPLv3 to make the desired combination. ..."
"...This is the latest version of the GNU GPL: a free software license, and a copyleft license. ... Please note that GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2 by itself. However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well. When this is the case, you can use the code under GPLv3 to make the desired combination. ..."
..."The following licenses have been approved by the OSI.""...GNU General Public License version 2 (GPL-2.0), GNU General Public License version 3 (GPL-3.0)...""
"...This page presents the opinion of some debian-legal contributors on how certain licenses follow the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).;... Licenses currently found in Debian main include: MIT-style licenses
Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-4' ... found 298
Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-1' ... found 962
Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-3' ... found 649
Showing comments in file 'gplv3-draft-1' ... found 727
... the unfortunate situation with support for DWG files in free CAD software via LibreDWG. We feel, by now it ought to be closed. We have the final answer from FSF. ... "We are not going to change the license."
Both LibreCAD and FreeCAD both want to use LibreDWG and have patches available for supporting the DWG file format library, but can't integrate them. The programs have dependencies on the popular GPLv2 license while the Free Software Foundation will only let LibreDWG be licensed for GPLv3 use, not GPLv2.
So while the BSDs have lost energy every time a company gets involved, the GPL'ed programs gain every time a company gets involved.
GPLv3 broke "the" GPL into incompatible forks that can't share code. ... FSF expected universal compliance, but hijacked lifeboat clause when boat wasn't sinking. ...
