Slashdot Mirror

Open source doesn't mean the software is FREE, it just means it is open source.

The Open Source Definition, for what it's worth, was originally based word-for-word on the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

Techonologically, a lot of software just inst available as open source.

I'm aware that video games are in this situation, but this article is about the public sector. Could you describe a couple genres of software used by the public sector that have no Free equivalent? Even electronic medical record software is free software, thanks to VistA CPRS developed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

So for a long term saving, it's often cheaper to stay with what you've got

Until it's end-of-lifed. Migration costs from Microsoft Office 2003 to Microsoft Office 2007 aren't necessarily less than to OpenOffice.org unless employees need, for example, the Access component.

There is a basic rule about writing programs - choose not a vendor specific language, and the useful lifetime of your program will surpass the life of your hardware.

F# is really just an OCaml variant anyway. Why should I buy something that is locked into a particular vendor and OS when I can get the same thing for free and run it on all the systems I own?

Once the final version of F# is released (as part of VS2010), the plans are to make it open sourced under Ms-PL. Combined with Mono, that would mean no vendor lock-in. There is no OS lock-in already, since F# supports Mono on Linux and OS X.

As to why you'd prefer F# over OCaml - it depends. Maybe you want proper Unicode support in the language. Maybe you want to use the large number of libraries targeting .NET available out there (Gtk# comes to mind - I think it's more up-to-date, and covers more Gtk/GNOME APIs, than LablGTK). Maybe you don't mind Windows, and want a good IDE.

ffmpeg-nonfree = OSS

The H.264 patent license does not meet the Open Source Definition, which is almost word for word identical to the Free Software Guidelines used by Debian (and hence Ubuntu). It requires a royalty in some cases, discriminates against fields of endeavor, and does not apply to redistribution.

"Open source" is a trademark of OSI, who fortunately are not evil AFAICT.

No, it's not. According to their own page their trademarks are for OSI, Open Source Initiative and the OSI logo. If you don't believe me here's the quote:

OSI, Open Source Initiative, and OSI logo ("OSI Logo"), either separately or in combination, are hereinafter referred to as "OSI Trademarks" and are trademarks of the Open Source Initiative.

You're thinking of Ms-RL which is much like GPL. The Ms-PL is more like BSD with a poison pill for patent litigation. (license ends if file a claim against a contributor)

In many ways I like the Ms-RL better than GPL, it's shorter and clearer. Even though I'm a total anti-MS person, they did write a more elegant license. (why can't their operating systems be so simple?)

You're thinking of Ms-RL which is much like GPL. The Ms-PL is more like BSD with a poison pill for patent litigation. (license ends if file a claim against a contributor)

In many ways I like the Ms-RL better than GPL, it's shorter and clearer. Even though I'm a total anti-MS person, they did write a more elegant license. (why can't their operating systems be so simple?)

Ok, wait, this looks suspiciously like Microsoft coming in late to duplicate effort and have things done the One Microsoft Way.

Q: Why should I care? ... What kinds of things do you foresee doing that will actually facilitate growth or change for the better in the open source community?

A:
Sam: The three specific things that the CodePlex Foundation can do are:

1) Establish a standard process and set of licenses for contribution to open source projects. No such standard currently exists, which results in duplication of effort across projects and new foundations, and increases anxiety for corporate contributors.

Excuuuse me? Isn't this what the Open Source Initiative does already? Of course, not all of the licenses and processes are standardized, because there will always be someone who doesn't agree and wants to do his/her own thing, but what makes Microsoft think they can come in here and be successful in standardizing everything?

2) Provide a legal entity for ownership of copyright for specific projects. Many projects have disorganized copyright ownership, which prevents them from relicensing and commercialization.

Doesn't the EFF ask you to transfer ownership/copyrights to them so they can take care of copyright issues?

3) Popularize a set of best practices established in the industry for sustained corporate contribution to community open source projects. Many corporations are interested in contribution and in open source licensing but lack a codified approach to doing so.

I shudder when Microsoft tries to: a) "standardize" something, and b) "popularize" it.

Incidentally, it's a pity how the CodePlex Foundation just happened to have the same name as Microsoft's forge. I mean, it's not like Microsoft has teams of lawyers just waiting to pounce on a remote name resemblance so they can sue for trademark issues. It's not like there are any corporate resources to do a name search just to see if, you know, "<your organization name>.com" has already been taken, where <your organization name> = "codeplex". I mean, being a small poor non-profit with no big corporate sponsorships from a software giant, they probably used up their meagre funds doing a domain name search for codeplex.org, codeplex.net, codeplex.tv, codeplex.mobi, codeplex.IGotMyOwnTLD, etc. Maybe they used Bing for the search.

So, I do get that CodePlex Foundation is more for corporate than homebrew projects. But I can't help but think that this is more of Microsoft throwing more money at a problem that they are culturally incapable of understanding, hoping that they can grasp and master that market.

Tired of all the pointless drama? Looking for a way to encourage the open source movement to stop wasting time on boring stuff that ultimately doesn't really matter and just keep on producing cool and useful stuff? Then step right up, the solution to our problems has finally arrived!... several years ago.

Major correction. We do want people embracing open source [...] If it happens to be free software as well, they just need to release the source code to their new product as well.

You are aware that the GPL is both an Open Source and a Free Software license, right? How does the label you choose to attach to it (OSS vs. FS) change what the redistributor has to do? Right, it doesn't. I think you're confusing OSS with F/OSS and Free Software with Copyleft.

See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical -- you'll notice that the GPL is on there. And here's the definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Very few open source licenses forbid the commercialization of code.

That would be zero. "The license shall not restrict any party from selling [...]". It's the same for free software.

We want people embracing F/OSS, taking the code, creating their own product, and selling it, as long as they are in compliance with all the relevant licenses, no matter whether those licenses are Open Source, Free or both; no matter whether the licenses are copyleft or not. Make a killing, and we're all happy as long as you stick to the licenses.

Major correction. We do want people embracing open source [...] If it happens to be free software as well, they just need to release the source code to their new product as well.

You are aware that the GPL is both an Open Source and a Free Software license, right? How does the label you choose to attach to it (OSS vs. FS) change what the redistributor has to do? Right, it doesn't. I think you're confusing OSS with F/OSS and Free Software with Copyleft.

See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical -- you'll notice that the GPL is on there. And here's the definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Very few open source licenses forbid the commercialization of code.

That would be zero. "The license shall not restrict any party from selling [...]". It's the same for free software.

We want people embracing F/OSS, taking the code, creating their own product, and selling it, as long as they are in compliance with all the relevant licenses, no matter whether those licenses are Open Source, Free or both; no matter whether the licenses are copyleft or not. Make a killing, and we're all happy as long as you stick to the licenses.

You've got the history wrong. There was "free software," such as TeX, before the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project, but, as Stallman explained the story, no one called it that -- sharing source code was simply the way hackers did it. Stallman launched the GNU project in 1984, after realizing that the "hacker" ethic he believed was being wiped out as hackers were being hired by commercial enterprises, and software was being enclosed within copyrights, patents, and non-disclosure agreements. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html. The Open Source Initiative was founded in 1998, explicitly to break with the FSF's perceived hostility towards commercial software, in order to create the possibility of partnerships between open source software developers and commercial enterprises. See http://opensource.org/history Personally, I have issues with both camps. Free software is a public good, but it doesn't trump all other considerations, ethical and practical. Practical success matters -- widespread adoption matters -- but not at the cost of abandoning the ethical principles. You must be consistently ethical and practical to succeed.

If you ask MS, sure.

If you ask, say, the people who coined the term, not so much.

Here's the definition.

Just because they open source it doesn't mean they don't prohibit you from modifying, distributing, or otherwise using it as you wish.

Allow me to quote the Open Source Definition (from http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php)

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software [...] The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software [...] The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

If they truly Open Source it, then in fact it does mean they allow you to modify, redistribute and use it for whatever you want.

(and people complain that "free software" is easy to misunderstand...)

Hahaha, nice one.

In case you're not getting the joke: The very definition of open-source states that modification and distribution must be allowed.

So yes. If it is open source, you _are_ allowed to distribute and modify, exactly as I stated.

Also, Free software and open source software are _not_ different things (and neither does the article referenced by the parent claim they are). The difference is not in the software, but in the philosophy: open source is the apolitical term, whereas Free software is the term preferred by those who wish all software to be Free software.

``Just because someone allows you to use the source of a program doesn't mean you can legally do anything you want with it.''

That is correct, but just being allowed to use the source in some way does not make the software open source, in the same way that not being charged for the software doesn't make it Free software. Some of Microsoft's earlier "shared source" initiatives can serve as an example of this: you get to see the source code, but you are not allowed to modify and distribute it - therefore, it is not open source.

``Just want you all to know the difference so you're not confused in the future.''

I hope that my post has managed to clear up some confusion. And please, don't go off misrepresenting open source anymore.

Because the thread you responded to discussed the question of "what is open source" in reference to violations of the GPL. I assumed that in asking that question of who gets to define the term Open Source you were asking who gets to define the requirements regarding making your modifications to GPLed code be themselves open source.

If I was wrong in assuming that, I'm very sorry I wasted your time and mine. If you were asking in the narrow sense about who gets to define the term Open Source, I would reply that the question is both irrelevant to this case - since the GPLv2 does not anywhere in its text refer to the term Open Source, and only refers to Richard Stallman's preferred term (Free Software) in the nonbinding preamble - and bearing of multiple answers. The most "official", insofar as any non-legal terminology is official, is that of the Open Source Initiative, which I don't really care to look up (if you'd like to, their web site is here)

You're the perfect anti-GPL troll. You act like the GPL is the only, or strictest, license in existence.

Version 3 of the GPL is the most restrictive FOSS license in existence.

Here; go and look it up. I'll wait.

in addition to this, teaching people to install plugins is bad because a plugin could very well contain malware/viruses.

True, but then so could the browser. Yet there really haven't been problems with people going to mozilla.com or getfirefox.com and worrying about whether they are getting the real Firefox and not a trojaned browser

Because Firefox is a well-known brand, people know that the software from getfirefox.com is trustworthy. The Ogg brands are not as famous, and people won't be able to tell the page hosting the official Theora installer for Windows from an equally polished site carrying a trojaned codec.

If the plugin is Open Source (GPL or BSD license or similar) then there's probably no reason that it can't just be included with the browser to eliminate this problem.

YouTube, a U.S. based web site, uses H.264 video. The standard patent license for H.264 in the United States is incompatible with licenses meeting the Open Source Definition.

The GPL is considered both an Open Source License and a Free Software license. This is one of those "a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square" situations.

To back up this statement, please note that the GNU GPL is an OSI approved open source license.

I do not think that that is what "Open Source" is generally taken to mean.

Well, yes, it is. That's why you will so frequently see people insist that "Free Software" is a better term.

Well, actually, no it's not. Go check the definition at OSI's page. (Really. Have a look. http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd) Open Source is more than mere availability of source code. There needs to be a grant of certain privileges to modify and distribute the code.

The difference between Open Source and Free Software tends to be more of a political or ideological nature. Generally both prefer to have software with licenses that would meet OSI's definition. The Free Software crowd tend to lean toward requiring software under such licenses or nothing at all. It's a Freedom Movement. The Open Source crowd tend to view code with Open Source license as superior due to the flexibility they allow. It's a pragmatic means to getting better software.

That isn't Open Source under the OSI definition either. No free redistribution, derived works, or anything. Just because the source code is available doesn't make something open source.

And open source does not even means giving work away for free. If somebody sells their code, it is open source, for example.

Neither does free software mean it is free. Free software == libre software.

When we talk about open source, we talk about OSI accepted licensed, that includes GPL. http://www.opensource.org/

EU follows the http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

And open source does not even means giving work away for free. If somebody sells their code, it is open source, for example.

Neither does free software mean it is free. Free software == libre software.

When we talk about open source, we talk about OSI accepted licensed, that includes GPL. http://www.opensource.org/

EU follows the http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

The document defines openness as companies/organizations collaborating, sharing and debating. No mention of who owns the knowledge. The simple fact is - that if the source ain't open then the 'standards' can't be open.

'Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: Free Redistribution, Source Code, Derived Works, Integrity of The Author's Source Code, No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor, Distribution of License, License Must Not Be Specific to a Product, License Must Not Restrict Other Software, License Must Be Technology-Neutral ..'

--

Minion: We can't compete against open source
Boss: lets promote a paradigm shift and say it's not about 'open source' but about 'open standards' and then get 'open standards' to mean using our software.
Minion: That's so evil boss !
Boss: I know ..

Ubersoft

FakeSMC is not Open Source Software, for reasons similar to the ones that Microsoft Shared Source is not open source.

One of the fundamental requirements requirements for software to be open source is No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.

That is, if the license of the software says you can't use the software freely, then it's not open source at all.

It's called "freely available, but restricted", i.e. not open.

Don't forget OSD (ten commandments) and Linux (prophet Torvalds)...

Cult: " Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing."

*Chambers a round - you aint getting me alive!*

What is the use of have access to the source code when the license forbids you to modify it?

That's the different between Open Source Software and Free Open Source Software.

Wrong. All open source software is modifiable.

The terms free software and open source are synonymous from the developer standpoint. While they originated from slightly separate cultural vantage points and carry nuances that matter to some pedantic speakers (such as RMS), they are essentially two different names for the same thing. (Unlike Microsoft's "shared source", which, as you indicate, is pretty worthless because of the restrictions.)

See my other post: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1414861&cid=29842015

From http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd:

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Also

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

I don't think the licenses you talk about are Open Source by what we might want to call the official definition.

That's the different between Open Source Software and Free Open Source Software

I don't know what dictionary you're getting your definition of open source from; but I take it you're not using http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd. It says

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

I don't see anything in the definition which precludes 3-clause BSD licenses, and as a matter of fact, they are open source. The definition does not preclude PD code either.

I don't see anything in the definition which precludes 3-clause BSD licenses, and as a matter of fact, they are open source. The definition does not preclude PD code either.

RedHat (current owner of Cygnus) has made a successful business providing high quality support for FOSS software, and I think that's great! However, the $1T estimate seems like it might just be a tad biased and perhaps ignoring some hidden costs, but I can't tell from the FA because it just references the figure without any details for the estimate.

It does provide a link to the paper that is the source of the estimate, but I suppose clicking the link would be too much to ask.

Actually, my project's under GPLv3 so they won't host it. I guess MS doesn't like the extra patent protections.

I doubt it, since Ms-PL itself includes a patent clause:

Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.

And a patent nuke clause:

If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.

What licenses does CodePlex support?

Project coordinators can select from a list of the following OSI licenses: Apache License 2.0, Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), Eclipse Public License (EPL), GNU General Public License (GPL) v2, GNU Library General Public License (LGPL), Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL), Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL), Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL), New BSD License, and The MIT License. If your project requires a license that is not on the list, you can request a custom license using the contact us form.

All of these are open source licences (the two Microsoft ones are approved by the OSI here and here; the FSF also acknowledges them here as free licences, though not recommended).

A pity that GPLv3 isn't allowed, but maybe they'll add it if asked.

What licenses does CodePlex support?

Project coordinators can select from a list of the following OSI licenses: Apache License 2.0, Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), Eclipse Public License (EPL), GNU General Public License (GPL) v2, GNU Library General Public License (LGPL), Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL), Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL), Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL), New BSD License, and The MIT License. If your project requires a license that is not on the list, you can request a custom license using the contact us form.

All of these are open source licences (the two Microsoft ones are approved by the OSI here and here; the FSF also acknowledges them here as free licences, though not recommended).

A pity that GPLv3 isn't allowed, but maybe they'll add it if asked.

Well, that seriously depends on who you ask.
The FSF, for example:
would not agree with you it seems. :)

In any case, OpenVMS still has nothing to do with being "Open Source". This goes over the source of the 'Open' buzzword (now largely disused) and its relationship to POSIX as opposed to this new fangled F/OSS stuff.

You mean the zealots? Yes, I've heard them. Of course, they're wrong.

So wrong. The Term Open Source is not ambiguous. It was well defined when it was first used/coined, by the Open Source Initiative, a non-profit who is responsible for beginning the use of the term open source, and who maintains The Definition of Open Source.

The way you are claiming the term "Open Source" is being used is in clear contradiction to the definition. In fact, THE VERY FIRST LINE of the definition is:

"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:"

Not a lawyer. IMO.

Problem being that without a license, nobody else is permitted to distribute your software. Depending on your and their local laws, they might not be allowed to copy or run it. And if the software causes any damages, you're quite likely liable for them. So, to protect both yourself and the recipient, always specify an explicit license.

The other part is that licenses need not be complicated. The Simplified BSD and MIT licenses are about as trivial as it gets: keep this label, and don't sue me bro. The GNU GPL is much longer, because it's approaching a harder problem: making sure that people who extend your software don't limit their users.

No he isn't. The difference between Open Source and Free Software is an issue of copyleft - whether your modified version of the software can only be distributed under that same license or whether you can release the software under any license you wish, including incorporating it into proprietary works.

I have seen lots of debates over what the "correct" (as opposed to official) definition of Open Source Software should be, and over what license is "best". But never in all my years have I seen anyone seriously suggest that a license that doesn't even allow you do redistribute the modifications qualifies as an Open Source license. I am shocked to see so many people claiming that today, and actually be modded up +5. WTF has happened here?

Non-advertise clause BSD meets those terms perfectly - http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php. You can allow *more* things, you just can't allow *less*.

Those people did essentially come up with the term "open source", using their definition seems reasonable. Of course they couldn't trade mark it since it's a descriptive term.

"Free software" clearly means "software without cost" but using that definition in a discussion about "open source" and "free software" licenses is retarded.

http://opensource.org/docs/osd

There's quite a few more requirements than just having the code be available.

Yes, and those requirements go beyond open source; it's more a definition of free software than open source. While many peopel view open source and free as one and the same I think it's worthwhile to differentiate between the two.

BSD, for example, is an open source project with a license that differs from the above in allowing for proprietary use as well.

http://opensource.org/docs/osd

There's quite a few more requirements than just having the code be available.

Open Source Definition

Introduction

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

7. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

- Open Source Initiative, http://opensource.org/docs/osd

If anti-copyright proponents would be unhypocritical, they would demand that software be downloadable for "sharing" among friends.

Yes, if only someone would demand software be downloadable for "sharing" among friends. Damn those hypocrites!

The nethack license http://www.opensource.org/licenses/nethack.php seems to do this fine, without appearing viral.

their own version of the GPL or maybe LGPL so even if I'm only using a library I have to consult a lawyer

According to this there are only 9 "popular and widely used" open source licenses. Looking at the packages I have installed, GPL + LGPL alone cover 95% of them.

Are you seriously suggesting that this is worse than windows or osx, where pretty much *every* third party program and library has it's own license? :-/

Same thing with installers; OSX seems to have a standard in theory, but I've seen several wildly different variations; Windows apps use MSI about 25% of the time, the rest is scattered over many .exe variants; compared to ".deb or .rpm", where the experience is unified by the OS's package manager, not splintered by the developer's pet installer (and most users don't even see that one choice, as the manager does it behind the scenes), I'm also unsure how this is worse...

Build tools I don't know about on other platforms, it would be nice if there was one which was great for everyone -- but for as long as I've been using debian, I've never found one where the hassle of installing was any more than "apt-get install $buildtoolname" :-p

Open source only means that the source is available to the users of the product.

Nope, OSI defines open source software as software that:

A. Free Redistribution
B. Includes Source
C. Allow Derived Works

And a lot of other stuff. See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php for more info.

If Microsoft wanted an OSI-approved open source license, the shortest distance between point A and point B would be to go ahead and use the GPL. That's easier and less expensive than paying your legal team to draft an entirely new license.

You should have told this to the developers of Apache, Python, Perl*, and PHP about this revelation! After all, none of them use the GPL, but all of them have their own OSI-approved licenses...

Like it or not, the GPL is not a one-size-fits-all license.

* Perl is dual-licensed, but I included it on this list anyway, because its Artistic license is OSI-approved.

If Microsoft wanted an OSI-approved open source license, the shortest distance between point A and point B would be to go ahead and use the GPL. That's easier and less expensive than paying your legal team to draft an entirely new license.

You should have told this to the developers of Apache, Python, Perl*, and PHP about this revelation! After all, none of them use the GPL, but all of them have their own OSI-approved licenses...

Like it or not, the GPL is not a one-size-fits-all license.

* Perl is dual-licensed, but I included it on this list anyway, because its Artistic license is OSI-approved.

If Microsoft wanted an OSI-approved open source license, the shortest distance between point A and point B would be to go ahead and use the GPL. That's easier and less expensive than paying your legal team to draft an entirely new license.

You should have told this to the developers of Apache, Python, Perl*, and PHP about this revelation! After all, none of them use the GPL, but all of them have their own OSI-approved licenses...

Like it or not, the GPL is not a one-size-fits-all license.

* Perl is dual-licensed, but I included it on this list anyway, because its Artistic license is OSI-approved.