2013/11/14 Carlos sanchiavedraz :
I've made a quick search in Sourceforge to see the number of projects
with each licence and related to Audio:
* GPL2/GPL2+: they are a vast majority, maybe just because It's older
than v3. Here you can see some of the projects that we love at Musix
and myself: Ardour (in its own repo), Qsynth, Qjackctl, (all the rncbc
stuff), Rakarrack Hydrogen, LMMS
* GPL3: Here we have Guitarix (also has GPL2 and BSD), Virtual MIDI
* AGPL: not much
You can check also the chapter "Adoption" Wikipedia as part of the
article on GPL. There you can read:
In 2011, four years after the release of the GPLv3, according to Black
Duck Software data, 6.5% of all open-source license projects are GPLv3
while 42.5% are GPLv2. Google open-source programs office manager
Chris DiBona reported that the number of open-source projects licensed
software that had moved to GPLv3 from GPLv2 was 50% in 2009,
I thought at the beginning that choosing GPLv3 was the way to go
nowadays: It's newer, and takes into account problems like
"Tivoization", patents and stuff.
And also AGPL is one for me to consider because many of my projects
could benefit from its protection against being "cloud-servified"
against your will, let's say.
But then I see that big projects (reference for me in the FLOSS world)
like Ardour, Jackd, Qjackctl, Qsynth, Rakarrack are GPL2+ and others
just GPL2, so I wonder if they just keep going on with what was chosen
in first place (backwards compatibility I guess) or they just don't
like GPLv3 yet even with those mentioned potential benefits.
I'd be very appreciate to know in particular the experience of these
projects I mentioned and that of people who actually make a living
developing floss software and have a business model that supports
and/or benefits from it.
Thanks so much anyways you all.
* Musix GNU+Linux
Linux-audio-user mailing list