OSI Hopes To Decrease Number of Licenses

Noksagt writes "Various outlets report that the OSI may cut down the increasing number of Open Source licenses. Right now there are about 50 approved licenses; incompatible licenses confuse and impede developers and end users alike. The OSDL has been pushing hard for this at LinuxWorld. Sam Greenblatt, a member of the OSDL board, said 'Eventually there should be three licenses: The GPL, a commercial version of the GPL, and, of course, there will be the BSD because you can't rid of it.'"

Comments

Commercial GPL

[ebooher]

What exactly would a commercial GPL be like? Doesn't that kind of go against the grain and nature of the GPL? Because when I think commercial I think "We made a change, then closed it, now we won't let you know what that change is or how it affects other GPL'd software"

Re:Commercial GPL

[Ark42]

Commercial GPL is something like the NPL/MPL licenese that let Netscape keep some code to themselves while still sharing and modifying the Mozilla codebase, I think.

Of course, I see a clear need for LGPL as well here, since that is different than just GPL or MPL or BSD, and very useful indeed.
LGPL is what lets me use things like libPNG or ZLib in my commercial application without giving away the unrelated source code to my entire program. LGPL is a good thing if you value PNG support in other programs that aren't going to be using GPL themselves.

How can they do this?

[nlinecomputers]

I can create any damn kind of license that I want. What are they going to do. Claim it is not "Open Source" by changing the definition of Open Source. Sure it is confusing but all the different licenses exist because someone finds the GPL or the BSD license doesn't support how they want software to be distributed. Fix people then you can fix this mess.

Re:How can they do this?

[Yobgod Ababua]

What they really want to do is find out what your licensing goals are and encourage you to use a pre-existing license that fits those goals, rather than creating your own possibly incompatible license.

Why they want to do this is because the fewer number of licenses that are in use, the more likely it will be that your software's license is compatible with another piece of software's license... permitting both of you to benefit from each other's work and allowing all of your end-users, in turn, to benefit.

Keeping a small number of licenses also makes it easier for people to regularly review them and make sure that, legally, they are doing what they are intended to do. This can be a much more difficult endeavor than you think, especially when we want licenses to work across international and legal boundaries.

Sure, you can always roll your own, and no one can stop you from offering your copyrighted work under whatever license you choose, but if you pick from a limited set of known and tested licenses, you benefit from knowing that it's solid, you benefit from knowing that it's compatible with all the other software released under the same license, and we all benefit from having fewer 'license glitches' get in the way of what we care about... making better software (some us want to charge for it, some don't, that's not really relevant).

Re:How can they do this?

[pclminion]

That's fine, and I can refuse to certify theirs back. That doesn't change whether my license, or theirs, is open source.

True, but they can prevent you from hosting your project on SourceForge. SourceForge does not accept projects that don't use OSI-conforming licenses.

Stunts like the one we're discussing right now make it abundantly clear why relying on SourceForge to host the majority of OSS projects was a BAD idea. People come to rely on the services SF.net provides, but the OSI license requirement gives them a stranglehold over you.

Re:How can they do this?

[argent]

What they really want to do is find out what your licensing goals are and encourage you to use a pre-existing license that fits those goals, rather than creating your own possibly incompatible license.

That's great , but that's not going to get anywhere NEAR three licenses. At the very least you'll need:

1. Something like QMAIL's license.

2. The Aladdin license.

3. The two main forks of the BSD license.

4. The GPL.

5. The LGPL.

6. The non-transitive GPL-alikes.

7. No commercial use variations.

That's just off the top of my head.

LGPL?

[Sim9]

I'll admit, I'm not quite sure what the "Commercial GPL" is, but I really hope that LGPL isn't eliminated. [The LGPL allows users to use a library, and not release your code that uses the library. Changes to the library source itself must be released].

Let's say I have a write a game that uses the popular library, LibSDL (a rendering library). Though open-source may be great, why should I be *forced* to GPL my game code, which has little to do with LibSDL development?

Re:LGPL?

[JoeBuck]

My guess was that the LGPL was what the guy was thinking of by "commercial GPL".

Re:LGPL?

[femto]

Yet

"I willfully don't profit off my stuff so nobody else should either."

Is the same logic as

"I'm willfully profiting off my stuff so nobody else should.",

which is the attitude of most companies, people and other copyright holders.

I'm willing to call most copyright holders juvenile. Are you?

Stop acting like a child William, RIAA, MPAA, ...

Amusing

[bonch]

Though I understand the ideas behind all these licenses, it occurs to me how amusing it is that if something was truly 100% free, it wouldn't have or need a license at all. BSD comes closest to that.

Re:Amusing

[pclminion]

The BSD license does not restrict your freedom to see code which was already in the open. It simply makes it possible for people to make their OWN modifications private.

You make it sound like the BSD license could be used to close a previous open piece of software. That's impossible. BSD license simply gives you more powerful rights over your own modifications to that software. Some people see that as a flaw, others (including myself) don't see what the big deal is about allowing other people to profit as long as it doesn't restrict our own rights to use the code we've written.

Re:Amusing

[pclminion]

Your idea seems to be that it's ok for you to take something someone else made, and have a monopoly, not only on your additions to the other person's work (which the LGPL allows), but the portions of the original you incorporated with them.

I don't look down the pipe that direction. To me, it's about being generous and not being hung-up about whether other people might benefit from something I've done. I honestly don't expect anything in return. For me, the mere fact that somebody else found my code useful enough to incorporate into a product is thanks enough.

Thus my prior comment about ideologies in Open Source. To me the most ideology-neutral thing to do is to just throw the code out there and not worry about who might use it in what way.

Then there's the practical problem the BSD license opens up by allowing embrace-and-extend, but let's not chase that rabbit.

I understand that argument, and it makes a bit of sense to me. It's just not important enough to change my choice of license.

Uhhh.. How does this impact SourceForge?

[pclminion]

In order to host your project on SourceForge it must use an OSI-conforming license. If the list of OSI-conforming licenses is drastically reduced what will happen to all the projects on SourceForge which don't use the GPL or BSD licenses? Will they just be booted off the server? Forced to switch licenses?

Yes. That's exactly why they'll do

[sterno]

What they are doing is branding the term "Open Source" and this will not change the meaning of "open source" (note small "o" and small "s"). One of the big problems in software licensing in general is that every license is different in subtle or sometimes huge ways. If you want to do any sort of development that involves integration of pieces of other software, it can get quite complicated quickly.

Does this mean that you can't make your own license? Of course not. What it means is that if you want their official seal of approval, you likely won't get it.

I think 3 licenses might pass as a sort of Platonic ideal, but I can't really see that covering all needs in the real world. However, establishing a base line of a few simple licenses could make life much easier for smaller developers that don't really have an interest in paying a lawyer to craft them something more complex.

There will always be Freedom, always be BSD...

[nweaver]

BSD will always stick around, because there are some of us who view the BSD lisences as MORE free: someone can create a derivitive work without having significant liscence restrictions on that derivative work.

I work on computer security. I don't like viruses, either in my code or in the liscencing.

BSD license is't dying

[Doc Ruby]

What's wrong with BSD? It's GPL, without requiring release of source code, even if you distribute a revised, executable version. It's not as viral, but many developers don't require that perpetuation, and many developers require that source we use not require that perpetuation. It shouldn't - and won't - disappear, because it has a very useful function.

Put away your crack pipe

[QuantumG]

Maybe it's time for the "Open Source" movement to die. After all, the founders of this movement (Eric S. Raymond, Bruce Parens, I'm lookin' at you) havn't had anything official to say about Open Source in a while (oh wait, there was that Java thing, you're ok Bruce). I thought "to reduce confusion" was what the Open Source movement set out to achieve, being that Free Software just wasn't straight forward enough for them. The result of this mess has been one person after another putting the "openness" of the source code ahead of the freedom to modify and redistribute the source code (yes, Microsoft, Sun, X11, Apache, and that worm who wrote the packet filter the OpenBSD project rewrote in a week). It's amazing to me the number of people who have no problem understanding exactly what I'm talking about when I say Free Software, compared to the number of people who are now confused about Open Source. Maybe it's the use of capital letters. Ahh, what irony that is, we could have avoided endless debates about Free Software vs Open Source if we'd just capitalized "free".

GPL - Preamble.

[temojen]

Businesses don't like the rant at the beginning, but do like the terms and conditions.

OSS is about choice

[lakeland]

... and you really can't stop people from making bad choices.

Since editors are overused as an example, lets try CD burners. There are two that most people will know: k3b and nautilus. Yet a quick search on freshmeat will return literally dozens of CD burners. Why did those authors write a CD burner when excellent ones already existed? Maybe for experience, maybe due to a missing feature... it doesn't matter. The point is they can, so they will.

Choosing an open-source licence is the same: There are a couple basic smart choices, but there is no way you're going to get everybody to agree to only use them. As a random example, one of the programs I use is only free if the kernel of the computer you run it on is open source, weird huh? It is the OSI's job to try and simplify things as much as possible so people can understand what's going on. Sure, they can discourage wacky choices, but they shouldn't be outlawing them from the OSS definition.

PS: A google for licen{s,c}e returns the GPL as the number one hit.

Re:Ein Volk

[squiggleslash]

GNU/Linux works as well as it does because developers can freely share code amongst one another. Incompatable licenses impede this. This is why we've seen a growth in the number of "dual licensed" projects, from Mozilla to QT, often (Mozilla, OpenOffice.org, etc) where the original project-specific license was open source, free software, compatable but not GPL compatable.

Yes, different developers have different needs. But much of the cruft that passes for alternative licenses these days ultimately is unnecessary and incompatable with other licenses for the sake of being so. A Solaris user will not, when the OS is opened, be able to include code from Darwin and redistribute the results. An X.org user cannot include parts of XFree86 and redistribute the results. There's little reason for this: Sun and Apple want to distribute closed code and aren't willing to work with each other. Some of XFree86's developers unilaterally decided that the usual copyright attributions weren't credit enough for their work. None of these really have much to do with the type of code being written.

It sucks. It's hard to figure something's "free software" if you're not allowed to include code from other "free software" and still treat it as free software. Incompatable licenses undermine software freedom.

Re:Ein Volk

[sepluv]

No. They are saying that there should be multiple licenses (for the different free-software distribution systems). However, we should also cut-down the number of licenses that are similar to each other by removing licenses that are functionally the same as another commonly-used license.

If your license genuinely embodies another distribution/licensing system for free software (other than copyleft and effective public domaining), I'm sure they won't have a problem adding your license to the list that they encourage people to use (after it is properly checked), but most licenses are just rewordings of old ideas (with a new person/company's name at the top).

The current number of licenses causes confusion (for prospective licensors and licensees); encourages people to write even more licenses (without properly considering alternatives, and without making sure they are legally watertight or make sense); and, worst of all, means that licenses exist which are effectively the same as each other but are incompatible (which discourages the mix-and-match creative commons which is the primary reason for software freedom in the first place).

Re:Anti BSD Bias

[BlueLightning]

The GPL is not viral. It does not infect software of its own accord. You make a choice whether or not to include other people's code in your software, and if you do so, you must abide by the conditions under which the author of said code released it. If you don't like that, don't include the other person's code. It's really as simple as that.

To quote you: "dont bash it or those that choose to use it."

Re:Ein Volk

[sepluv]

>>Or does your reasoning apply only to everyone else except the GPL?

No. It applies to everyone equally. You clearly haven't read my post.

I would support any license that is genuinely different from those that currently exist. As you seem interested in the GNU GPL, I will use that as an example.

The GNU GPL embodies a particularly system called copyleft. As it was the first copyleft license (and is legally watertight) it is unnecessary to create further licenses which effectively do the same thing. Indeed, it is a bad idea, because they would be incompatible (so that people have to needlessly do the same work again), cause confusion, and wouldn't have stood the test of time and many legal eyeballs (as the GNU GPL has).

Re:4 Licenses, not 3

[servanya]

"'Eventually there should be three licenses: The GPL, a commercial version of the GPL, and, of course, there will be the BSD because you can't rid of it.'"

How about... there will be BSD because its the only FAIR license that allows ANYONE to use the code? Bah.

Re:Non-OSI Certified/Non-Free Licenses

[tpv]

Only the "new" BSD license is considered Free/Open Source

The original BSD license is considered free (but flawed) by the FSF http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list .html#OriginalBSD

I believe it is considered free by Debian (and their guidelines formed the OSI guideliens)

The OSI hasn't certified the original BSD, but I believe that is primarily due to the fact that it was replaced by the new BSB before their certified list came out. They do accept other "advertising" licenses.