This post is part of a series where I try to make outlandish predictions for 2008. `Read the introduction for more details.`_

3. GPLv3 will become more widely adopted than GPLv2 for new projects

Why? Because it is better! Of course, I am not a lawyer, but I will try to tell you why I think that.

Most open source licences get written by a lawyer working alone in an office somewhere and then published as a finished article. GPLv3 is the first ever software licence created using the open source methodology. There was a two- year open public comment process where everyone could have their say using a brand new special tool on the FSF's website that allowed you to write comments over the draft. These comments were grouped together with similar comments and processed (in the open) by large committees of open source folks. Even if the all suggestions were not accepted, a reason was provided for their rejection. This process can to a close in 2007 and GPLv3 was published this last summer.

A lot of rhetoric was levied against GPLv3 even before the comment process opened, and in contrast GPLv2 suddenly became perfect, God's Personal Licence. Some people were sacred off GPLv3 because of the strength of the discussion, but that is why open source is better, because it openly competes on the merits rather than marketing.

However, I think as the noise generated during the discussion phase is forgotten and the open source world gets back to business, I think increasingly in 2008, many people will recognise GPLv3 as the best open source licence available today.

Firstly, the most vocal critics of the GPLv3 were the Linux kernel community who refused to even get involved in the process. Their issue was with the fact that the GPLv3 does not allow software to implement hardware-assisted integrity check restrictions to prevent software modification by the end user, a process known as 'trusted computing' or 'traitorous computing' depending on who you are talking to. The important point is that this controversy does not apply to the majority of open source projects, because most projects are not producing hardware drivers.

Secondly, the criticisms about the stipulation against granting discriminatory patent licenses don't apply to most open source projects, because most open source developers do not have a huge pile of patents to grant discriminatory licences for. (Incidentally, those in the open source community with huge piles of patents don't actually seem to have a problem with GPLv3).

Thirdly, most software licences are written with United States copyright law in mind. This can have strange consequences when the software is used outside America. Judges in other countries understand Copyright and other legal concepts such as 'distribution' differently. For example, Microsoft has problems in the past with some of its licences being declared unenforceable in Germany. The GPLv2 was no different, it was written in Massachusetts in 1991 without too much thought about the fact that the US does not equal the world.

GPLv3 is the first ever software licence based on international agreements such as the Berne convention on copyrights. It should therefore work the same in every country in the world.

Those who are in the US and expect their software to be used outside the US (i.e. if they are offering for free on the Internet), will begin to consider GPLv3. Likewise, those who are not in the US, where the company/project wants to operate under their country's laws rather than US laws, they will look carefully at GPLv3 for this reason.

Fourthly, the source code requirements in GPLv3 are more rational for the age of the world wide web. If you distribute other people's software under GPLv3 then you can provide a link to an arbitrary server; with GPLv2 you have to be willing to send people source code in the post or host the code yourself according to some very strict requirements.

Lastly, if a licence is 'compatible' with GPL, that means you can take code licenced under that licence and use it directly in your GPL licenced project.

GPLv3 is compatible with more open source licences than GPLv2. GPLv2 had small incompatibles with some other licences, these were removed in GPLv3. The most famous open source licences that are now compatible with GPLv3 are the Apache Software licence, the XFree86 licence and the Affero GPL.

So the two reasons people moan about the GPLv3 are not even relevant to the majority of projects, and there are at least three reasons why GPLv3 is better than GPLv2. So in 2008, people will realise this and will start using GPLv3 more than GPLv2 for new projects.

4. A US/global recession may affect the corporate uptake of Linux Desktop

The 27th of February 2002 was an otherwise inconspicuous day. It was the birthday of Constantine the Great and the Independence Day of the Dominican Republic. The main news on that day was that quick-witted comic and star of the Goon Show, Spike Milligan, did not quite make it to his 85th birthday and passed away. It will perhaps be remembered as the day the dollar started its slow but inexorable decline.

On that day, a dollar was worth one euro and sixteen cents. A year ago today, a dollar was worth only 76 euro-cents, yesterday it was worth less than 68 euro-cents; meaning the dollar is worth over 40% less than it was when Spike Milligan died, and it lost over 10% of its value in 2007 alone.

While it is true that under Bill Clinton, America somehow managed an economic golden age, while under George W. Bush, the real Goon Show, most of those gains have been thrown away. However, there is perhaps a larger trend, the world is slowly realigning.

If the dollar continues to head downward in 2008, then the standard of living between America and Europe will continue to equalise. New York shopping trips, here we come.

The big question that we all care about is that if the US economy falls into actual recession, then how will that affect the IT industry?

Moving on to the specific point, to provide a Linux desktop, you do not need to pay for software licences and most people agree that Linux has lower system requirements than Windows Vista. Taking just one element of the computer, 512MB to 1GB of memory will make a quite usable Linux desktop for many years to come, while to provide a satisfactory level of performance under Windows Vista, you are talking about minimum of 2GB for the system to feel responsive.

One might think that in harsher times, companies would consider moving to Linux desktops and OpenOffice to save money. It would seem to be instinctive that poorer companies are more likely to use cheaper Linux computers.

However, I am not sure it works out like that. It seems that the more money your company has, the more likely you are to move to Linux desktops. Rich companies like to hang on to their money and not spend it on proprietary software licences if they can possibly avoid it; whereas poor organisations are poor because they are badly managed, and bad managers are sheep that always take the easiest route.

So this unintuitive trend is summed up by the following two lists:

Moving to Linux: Movie Industry, Financial Industry, Weapons Industry, Military, Universities.

Moving to Windows: Communist dictatorships, poor African countries, software pirates, primary schools, failing companies.

Yes it is all ruthless capitalists, not freedom loving kindergarden teachers I'm afraid.

Here is a photo of some typical corporate Linux users (is that guy on the right Eric Raymond?):

So it is hard to say how a recession will affect Linux Desktop uptake.

Rolling out Linux desktops is not hard on a technical level, but as we have discussed before, getting the staff up for it and willing and able to use the cheaper and different option is the hard part.

There will come a stage where the process of how to get your staff using Linux desktops will be so well known and abstracted that any organisation can do it; if there is a recession in 2008 (I really hope there is not) then it might provide a bit of extra motivation for some more companies to take the plunge.

Discuss This Post - Leave a Comment