As hoped (dare one say expected), GPLv3 appears to be getting a warm welcome. Here are a few articles which you might find informative.
“The Free Software Foundation listened to people outside its normal support base. The GPL 3 is better than the GPL 2,” said Mark Radcliffe, an intellectual property attorney with DLA Piper’s Silicon Valley office, during the Linux Foundation Summit.
Free Software Foundation (FSF) leader Richard Stallman said at the launch of the group’s new version 3 of the General Public License (GPLv3) that businesses are “foolish” not to adopt nonproprietary technologies as he contends that the continued use of paid products limits companies’ innovation and weakens security of their IT operations.
For example, he said that Microsoft’s process of removing support for various computing devices and applications in its products forces businesses into a never-ending cycle of “forced upgrades,” a system he said should be made illegal.
In another sense, onboard functions like Vista’s remote software upgrade feature allow Microsoft to essentially take control and manipulate end-users’ computers whenever they feel like it.
Overall, MontaVista which develops Linux for the embedded market, isn’t worried about the GPL version 3.
“Our customers are used to working with licenses that are much more restrictive than the GPL,” Wacha said. “In my opinion, typical proprietary licenses are much more restrictive in pretty much all instances than the GPL.”
Now, from China to India, from Venezuela to Brazil, from Tivos to cell phones: Free software is everywhere and it is slowly building a worldwide movement of users demanding that they have control over the computers and electronic devices they own.
In the following four-part series, a popular law student helps in clarifying frequently-miscomprehended clauses and consequences of GPLv3:
Update: Good news! The almighty Creative Commons supports GPLv3 as well.