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

4 Licenses, not 3

[networkBoy]

Does the GNU FDL (Free documentation license) fit under the GPL in that case?
-nB

Re:4 Licenses, not 3

[k98sven]

He was talking about software licenses. Not licenses in general.

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:4 Licenses, not 3

[bcrowell]

The Debian folks have come out against the GFDL on the grounds that it's non-free (if you have invariant sections), and it can be incompatible with the GPL (if you have invariant sections, I guess), which means you may not be able to embed your GFDL's docs inside your GPL'd program. Their preferred license seems to be CC-by-sa.

Really, I don't see a huge problem with the number of software licenses -- GPL is by far the most popular, and people who aren't using GPL for new projects presumably are doing so for strong ideological, commercial, or practical reasons, and won't just change their minds.

What is a big problem is the proliferation of free-information licenses for books, documentation, etc. The GFDL really should have a stake driven through its heart, since it's even been rejected by Debian, which I would've considered the constituency most likely to love and cherish it in the first place. Apart from the invariant sections, it's too long, has an annoying political preamble, and it's hard to interpret. Unfortunately, Wikipedia uses the GFDL, so I don't think it's going away soon.

So here we have seven (I think) versions of CC, plus GFDL, plus OPL (which is dying now that its originator has thrown in his lot with CC), and even some other licenses people use for books and docs, like the design science license (IIRC). That's just way too many licenses. (And CC was even at one point discussing a license only for academic use -- yech.)

Actually if you browse the catalog of free books in my sig, you'll see that the situation is even worse than that. A lot of authors of free books don't even seem to know that copyleft licenses exist for books and docs.

For example, they put up their book with no license, which means that it's illegal to copy it (theoretically even illegal to download it, since that's making a copy!), and as soon as they get tired of hosting the book on a server, the book will evaporate, and can never be legally brought back by anyone else.

You'll also see people using software licenses like GPL for books, which is lame, or making them public domain (or stating on their web page that they're public domain, but then making it clear that they don't understand what public domain is, or why copyleft might be preferable). And the noncommercial flavors of CC are lame, too. A CC-nc book is really no more free than the free AOL disk you get in the mail. As soon as a CC-nc book's author gets tired of serving it up, it's gone forever.

IMO, the most important thing is just to get the word out to non-geeks that the CC licenses exist. It doesn't help that commoncontent.org, which had been one of the biggest boosters of CC, seems to have gone semi-dormant -- new submissions no longer seem to get processed. I've had one waiting to get listed for a couple of months now. Apparently they've had problems with spam submissions, and have just kind of thrown up their hands.

Re:4 Licenses, not 3

[bubkus_jones]

Doesn't the BSD licence allow anyone to use their code, whether it be an open or closed source project? What happens if a programmer doesn't want their code to be used by developers who don't share the same "philosophy" that they do? Is that fair to them? No, so they use one of the other licences, which will be more compatable with their goals for their code.

Re:4 Licenses, not 3

[Gherald]

No offence, but that has got to be the silliest assesment of BSD vs GPL I have ever read.

Re:4 Licenses, not 3

[Vystrix Nexoth]

Anyone, yes, but only for the first generation. They can modify it and release it closed-source... so the second generation doesn't get to use the modified code.

The GPL is designed specifically to mandate that it is not only available to the first generation, but that it is also available to the second generation, and to the third generation, and continues ever on. The only restriction is on those who want to stop this continuation, i.e. restrict it from future generations. It might be said that the GPL's restrictions are "meta-restrictions".

So, the BSD license is "fairer" for first-generation modifications only; future generations are subject to the whims of those who perform modifications. The GPL's restrictions on a given generation are from those who would restrict it from the next.

Ein Volk

[pair-a-noyd]

Ein License

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: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:Ein Volk

[Grishnakh]

That's incorrect. The GPL license forces you to share.

Only if you modify someone else's code. If you don't like it, you can write your own code instead of misappropriating someone else's.

Is this really so hard for you to understand? If you're going to use some other person's stuff, you have to do it under the terms and conditions they set. This is something most of us learned when we were small children: when you borrow your friend's toys, and he says not to leave them outside, then you do just as he says. Or were you the kind of kid that decided to "borrow" other kids' toys and break them?

Re:Ein Volk

[squiggleslash]

None of the examples I gave included the GPL. The GPL is a neutral copyleft. The major problem is not the neutral licenses, but the licenses from groups like Apple and Sun who want to treat modifications to code they've produced as "owned" by them. The result is that different projects cannot share code.

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

[Swamii]

Doesn't that [commercial GPL] kind of go against the grain and nature of the GPL?

Uh no. The GPL is not about giving away software for free. It's about the sharing of information in the form of source code, without restrictions.

If GPL doesn't have some sort of commercial counterpart, the company I work for will never use it -- after all, we're a company like any other, we exist to make money and earn a decent living.

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.

Re:Commercial GPL

[reynaert]

LGPL is what lets me use things like libPNG or ZLib in my commercial application

Neither libpng nor zlib is LGPL-licensed. Both use a unique, BSD-like license. Seeing you claim to develop commercial application, I would have hoped you were more careful with licenses.

Re:Commercial GPL

[sepluv]

What exactly would a commercial GPL be like?

That is a very good question because commercial use (inc. copying, distribution and modification) has to be allowed in order for any license to meet the terms of the OSD (to be OSI-certified). The GNU GPL seems to be very commercially viable (indeed the most commercially-viable free-software license) and many software companies are making money from using it. How could a license be more commercial? Surely whether a license is commercial is an either/or thing.

We need to ask exactly what their "commercial version of the GPL" mean exactly. Are they proposing a new sort of license that doesn't currently exist?

Doesn't that kind of go against the grain and nature of the GPL?

Not at all--see above. GNU GPLed software has been commercially used/distributed/copied/modified since the license was first was used in the 1980s. You will notice in the GNU manifesto and the FSF's information about the writing of the GNU GPL that the first consideration when writing the GNU GPL (and inventing copyleft) was making sure it was commercially viable.

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"

You are clearly confused:

commercial n. (relevant OED definition): Of or pertaining to commerce or trade

Re:Commercial GPL

[sepluv]

This is rubbish. How you link makes no difference. What makes a difference is if it effectively forms part of the same work or if it can stand on its own as a program (or work of literature).

If what you say is true, I could just produce diffs for a work of literature and argue that I wasn't actually modifying the work (which would make a mockery of copyright law).

Your idea that copyright law (which long predates software) somehow makes an explicit differentiation between different types of linking is, frankly, crazy.

Read the GNU GPL FAQ or your local copyright laws or any good book on copyright if you don't believe me.

Re:commercial GPL

[sepluv]

I've never read so much bullshit as that page. It has all sorts of BS about the BSD and GNU GPL licenses like "[the GNU GPL] allows companies to release source code to their customers, without allowing them to use the code in competing products."

So, apparently this license "permits incorporating into proprietary products" and "ensures derivative works will also be open source". Raiightttt....

Here's the license (which needless to say isn't free and probably isn't even a valid license) for those who can't be bothered clicking the link and want a laugh:

You may use this product in any way you choose. If sold commercially, you have two years from the date of the first sale before you are required to release the complete derivative product, if any, and it's sources under the most recent version of this same license.

Disputes involving this license are to be judged and decided solely by Zesiger Inc., or whoever the company chooses to assist or serve in it's stead, with the GPL and BSDL serving as guides. Penalties, damages, awards, and/or fees may be assessed for any or all parties to the dispute, as deemed reasonable or necessary.

This license may be modified at any time, even retroactively, by Zesiger Inc., or whoever it chooses to serve in it's stead, in order to preempt all possible legal issues which may pervert the intent of this license.

Re:Commercial GPL

[Tassach]

[The GPL is] about the sharing of information in the form of source code, without restrictions.

Not entirely accurate.

Public Domain has no restrictions whatsoever.

The BSD/MIT style licenses have no restrictions other than the fact that you must give credit where credit is due.

GPL has an important restriction -- you MUST give your changes back to the community if you want to distribute them.

Now, this may be a noble and community-minded goal, but it's still a significant restriction on the programmer's freedom to license HIS contributions as HE sees fit.

GPL uses property law to force property to be public instead of private -- instead of locking the code up behind closed doors, it's locking the code up on the village green.

Re:Commercial GPL

[Samrobb]

GPL has an important restriction -- you MUST give your changes back to the community if you want to distribute them.

<disclaimer type="IANAL">

Nope. The GPL says nothing about giving changes back to some "community". It does say that when you distribute a binary to someone, you must make the source code for that binary avilable to them (either as part of the distribution of the binary, or on request within a limited period of time.)

Practially speaking, this does mean that changes can and do make it back to "the community" in a lot of instances. However, it isn't required by the GPL.

To use your own analogy - the GPL doesn't force you to put your changes on the village green. It allows you to put them on the village green, and it also allows anyone who receives them from you (directly or indirectly) to put them on the village green. That allowance greatly increases the chance that someone will put your changes on the village green, but it doesn't make it a requirement.

</disclaimer>

Re:Commercial GPL

[Karma Farmer]

GPL has an important restriction -- you MUST give your changes back to the community if you want to distribute them.

No, it does not. You have to give the rights under the GPL to anyone to who you give the program. But, you can be as selective as you like about who gets your code; you don't ever have to give it back, and you can give it only to the people you want to give it to.

Of course, those people are free to do with it what they want...

Cant get rid of BSD

[OneArmedMan]

Unless of course, it dies!

LGPL? CC?

[Roguelazer]

What about LGPL and CreativeCommons licenses? Libraries and artwork (books, websites, etc) still ought to have their open-source licenses available...

Re:LGPL? CC?

[Hope Thelps]

What about LGPL

From one of the articles:

Fink is joined by John Swainson, chief executive at Computer Associates, who believes that there is a need for just three open-source licenses: the General Public license (GPL); the Lesser General Public license; and a version that has more restrictions for applications in commercial environments.

So it sounds like the list under discussion includes LGPL.

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?

[JoeBuck]

You're free to write whatever license you want; they are free to refuse to certify it.

The problem with the proliferation of licenses is that you can't mix and match software. Right now there are basically three types of open source (or free software) licenses:

• Copyleft. The GPL fits this category, as do a few other licenses like the OSL, IBM CPL, etc. Some of these exist for no other reason than to have something like the GPL without Stallman's rhetoric, but since the drafters weren't careful to maintain compatibility of conditions, you can't mix and match code.
• Copyleft restricted to a body of code; the code can be linked to other code that uses other licenses or is even proprietary. LGPL, MPL (Mozilla), and a whole host of licenses that differ just slightly from the MPL because some corporate lawyer wanted to fine-tune. Where the licenses conflict, you can still mix and match code as long as you preserve file or library boundaries.
• Non-copyleft (MIT/BSD style licenses).

These licenses differ from each other on technicalities, and on what happens with patents, or because someone wants to tweak a boundary case. Some of them give a privileged position to the original contributor, some don't.

The community would be better off if we could just get down to three basic license choices, and the use of "special exception" clauses where needed. For companies that want special privilege (like the ability to use code plus fixes using other licenses), they can ask for copyright assignment of contributions, and treat contributors well enough that they actually get it.

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.

Re:How can they do this?

[mdavids]

SourceForge does not accept projects that don't use OSI-conforming licenses.

Am I missing something? This definitely does not appear to be the case.

Re:How can they do this?

[KarmaMB84]

I'd like to see a commercial GPL that only required modifications or extensions (a new method in a GPLed class for example) to the GPL code to be contributed back rather than try to force the opening of any software it's embedded in.

Re:How can they do this?

[GeorgeMcBay]

Closer to the MPL, actually...

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?

[pclminion]

Though open-source may be great, why should I be *forced* to GPL my game code, which has little to do with LibSDL development?

The usual response to that is that if you aren't willing to play the OSS game, you aren't allowed to use OSS code.

I think it's a juvenile attitude. "I willfully don't profit off my stuff so nobody else should either."

Of course, people are free to license things as they wish. I just think it's elitist to redefine the meaning of Open Source on a whim so that people who choose to release their code without restriction are no longer creating "open source."

The LGPL is a good compromise between the GPL and BSD licenses, although it's a little too wordy for my tastes.

Re:LGPL?

[JoeBuck]

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

Re:LGPL?

[Mr. Slippery]

Though open-source may be great, why should I be *forced* to GPL my game code, which has little to do with LibSDL development?

If your game truly has little to do with LibSDL, it is not a derivative work, and therefore doesn't have to be GPL'ed. I doubt you could sucessfully argue that a game isn't a derivative work of the rendering library it depends upon, though.

The question of whether linking a library into an application makes the result a derivative work is an open one. The FSF has it's opionion, but as they note, "[it] is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide."

But want to make a derivative work, the cost is making it GPL'ed.

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, ...

Re:LGPL?

[pclminion]

It's a myth that is not possible to profit of GPL'ed code.

Only if you ignore the fact that most software companies' business models are based on selling software, not support. It's easy to just say "Well, they need to change business models" but that's not even approaching realistic.

The one argument against BSD-style licenses that makes at least partial sense to me goes like this:

Microsoft takes a piece of BSD-licensed software. They "embrace and extend" this software, causing it to be incompatible with the original version. Then, by leveraging monopoly power, they get the rest of the software world to use their version, thereby making the open version obsolete.

However, that only really matters to you if you have an ego. Really, who cares if anybody uses your software? You wrote it to fulfill your own needs, and the fact that it's been co-opted into something else doesn't change the fact that it still meets your needs and will continue to do so.

Re:LGPL?

[RedWizzard]

I think it's a juvenile attitude. "I willfully don't profit off my stuff so nobody else should either."

Juvenile? Isn't it the commercial entities who don't want to pay for development the ones with the juvenile attitude? "You gave these people your software for free, so why can't I have it for free?" What is stopping these commercial interests from approaching the authors and buying non-GPL licenses for the code?

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

[mpcooke3]

I don't know if you comment is a troll or not.

It's fairly well established that some people believe something is more free if it has a license that restricts users ability to make versions of the software non-free whilst some people believe that software is more free if you have the right to make non-free versions.

I think regardless of how you define "free" both the BSD and GPL style licenses have different purposes.

When you say that if something was 100% free it wouldn't need a license that might be true if the world had no laws or commercial interests. That extra waft in the GPL that makes it longer than the BSD license is to make it clear that the software can't be moved from the category of "free" software to the category of "non-free" software by commercial interests.

Imagine another world (as Stallman problably does) where the law by default rather than supporting commercial interests supported freedom of software. In this world the GPL would be short and the BSD license long because the BSD license would need to explain that future versions of the software could be taken by private companies and changes withheld unlike "normal software" where future versions of the free software must remain free by default.

Matt.

Re:Amusing

[mpcooke3]

There are currently legal restrictions that can be placed on future versions of BSD licensed software that would make the modified software non-free. Mainly these are artificial restrictions such as copyright or license agreement (legal) restrictions.

The restrictions mentioned in the GPL are there to negate these legal restrictions.

To draw a parallel the IBM open source license puts in a paragraph of legal waft to try to protect the free software from patent disputes. this makes the license longer and more complicated but it does help to ensure the sofware remains "free" by most accepted defitions of "free". Someone could contribute to a BSD or GPL project whilst holding a patent on key technologies and neither the BSD or GPL license currently try to prevent this.

What i'm trying to get at is that due to artificial laws already in place in most countries designed to restrict freedoms (copyright and patent laws) it is probably neccessary to make licenses longer to guarantee the software remains "free".

Are the extra limitations really "limitatation" if they are designed to cancel out limitation imposed by copyright or patent law? The BSD license doesn't have these restrictions to cancel out the future restrictions that could be placed by law on the modified software. So if I contribute a module to apache and then a software company modifies my contribution by one line and sells it, copyright law prevents me from taking the modified software even though i wrote most of it, and selling it myself or modifying that copy.If the module had been GPL the extra legal waft in the license effectively stops copyright law from kicking in and guarantees that modified copy is as free as it would be in a world with copyright law.

Re:Amusing

[RealAlaskan]

What freedom is being taken away from you?

The freedom to see, modify and share the code I use.

Why should you have a right to see code that somebody else wrote [and is a derivative of some third party's Libre code, and is being distributed to me] unless they want you to?

Why in the world should I not? The idea that you should be able to take and never have to give (as MS does with BSD code, for example) seems very odd. Notice my interjections to your quote. If the software is all yours, it's a different matter entirely. We're talking about derivative works, where you're adding something to someone else's code.

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. Yes, that doesn't give you a monopoly on the other person's original, but it still seems really rude.

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

As I said, the extra freedom that the BSD license gives you comes at my expense. It's not more free, it's differently free. If it's more free for you, it's less free for me.

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.

Re:Amusing

[Kjella]

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.

In other words, free work for for-profit companies. By all means, be so altruistic, but don't count on a large following. If you're making a profit of my work, I'd like some kick-back. Buy a license (dual licenses), provide some code in return (LGPL in lesser degree, GPL in greater degree), an acknowledgement (old-style BSD) or something. If I wanted to do free work I'd do it for a non-profit or charity. Not to fund stock-holders.

Kjella

LGPL?

[cowboy76Spain]

The LGPL will be covered by the Commercial GPL? Many of the protocol implementations come with it. Anyway, after RTFA it seems that maybe it is not so important, the OSI does not decide which licenses are valid, it just enforces some of them, so those approved by the OSI would still be in use (Or at least this is what I understood from it)

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?

Re:Uhhh.. How does this impact SourceForge?

[Kristoffer Lunden]

They would probably be allowed to remain unchanged, there are even some old closed source projects remaining on sourceforge since before this requirement was put in place. Also, the demand that the licenses are OSI approved is most likely just a good way to streamline the process for approval.

Ah, standards.

[Tackhead]

> Right now there are about 50 approved licenses; incompatible licenses confuse and impede developers and end users alike.

But that's what's so wonderful about standards. There are so many to choose from. Besides, if you really have a problem with a certain license, you should have the right to view, modifiy, and release your own license based on the work of those who've written licenses before you.

Join us now and share the licenses!
You'll be free, lawyers, you'll be free!
You'll be free, lawyers, you'll be free!

Lobbyists get piles of money,
That is true, lawyers, that is true.
But they cannot help their neighbors;
That's not good, lawyers, that's not good.

When we have enough licenses
At our call, lawyers, at our call,
We'll throw out that dirty li*cough*software,
Ever more, lawyers, ever more.

Sorry, RMS, I had to. The muse knows what it wants, even if it wants to give me a first-class ticket to hell with window seating.

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.

We African Greys...

[African Grey]

prefer the BSD license. It's not that we don't want to publish the changes we make to source code, but a lot of parrots don't have decent net access, especially in Africa. IP over avian carrier just isn't very fast, and source is a lot bigger than binaries. If you humans would get your act together and bring some kind of decent connectivity to the jungles, you'd be able to see our coding prowess for yourselves!

No. It's called public domain

[sterno]

If you want no restrictions on your work at all, you put it in the public domain. Doing so would allow anybody to do anything with your work. It wouldn't allow them to claim copyright on your work because you were the creator.

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.

Here's a different idea...

[StevenMaurer]

I think they're going to run into the same problem that DRM manufacturers have: there's no benefit to the people who are untimately in charge.

In this case, it isn't the 'paying customers', it's the developing free software engineers. The proliferation of licenses comes directly from the fact that developers have found some aspect of the GPL or LGPL to be too onerous to release under. And there is no way you're going to get them to alter their license just because Stallman thinks they should.

So here's a different idea. Instead of trying to reduce the number of Open Source licenses, people should instead come up with a comparison chart. Much like the Unix rosetta stone except for legalese, identifying general contract features in common (or different) between them.

That way developers can see the difference in a single place, and pick the best license for their particular purpose.

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".

It's not too many licenses

[RealAlaskan]

It's that OSI has been too eager to approve licenses, and its standards are a little too lax.

If they had required that new licenses bring some real benefit to the community of users and developers, rather than merely benefitting the company which proposes it, there wouldn't be 58 licenses.

I don't think that 58 licenses is necessarily too many, but 58 infitesimally different, bad licenses is definitely too many.

I think that OSI can't afford to dump on the people whose licenses they've certified, so this talk of reducing the number of licenses to 3 is silly. I think that they could afford to deprecate most of those 58 (e.g., ``That license is still certified, but only for software which was issued under that license before Nonuary 2006.''), and make sure that they are a little more selective about what they approve in the future.

GPL - Preamble.

[temojen]

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

Not a simple task - 1 license, many OPTIONS

[QuietRiot]

This won't be easy - tearing people away from their, "but I need this clause" licenses.....

How about taking the 3 or so licenses as mentioned, but allowing each (or some) to have a number of options that could be opted for on a case by case basis? Rather than a one-size-fits-all, perhaps an aproach like the various Creative Commons licenses would be better for the entire community?

Find some common elements from a large number licenses from the "Approved" Open Source License Collection and make some of the most common language available as "plug-ins" to some sort of meta-license that encompasses a large cross-section of what's currently being used.

Rather than chooing a particular license just because it has some sort of attribution or distribution clause the author is interested in, bring consistency to the community but still allow individuals to apply special clauses to the documents that protect (or ensure the freedom of) their work.

Just an idea...

Someone set us up the optimist.

[argent]

This is supposed to be funny, right?

Commercial != Proprietary

[jbn-o]

Sam Greenblatt, a member of the OSDL board, was quoted as saying something very unclear: "Eventually there should be three licenses: The GPL, a commercial version of the GPL...". The GNU General Public License (GPL) allows one to distribute copies of covered works for a fee. Many people have turned GCC (the GNU Compiler Collection), one noteworthy GPL-covered program, into a commercial work by distributing copies of it for a fee, some have also based for-hire consulting services on GCC. These consultants develop GCC as a business activity.

Most of the time when people say "commercial" in this context, they don't mean that. That word was just a poor choice which may stem from not fully understanding what software freedom entails. What they really meant to say was "proprietary", which is something different. In this case, I don't know what that other meaning would be; a proprietary GPL would not be the GPL, it would be a perverse opposite of what the GPL stands for and accomplished long before the open source movement existed. Thus I'm left thinking Greenblatt's statement is at best unclear, non-sensical at worst.

still want to disclaim liability if you dedicate

[faceword]

The BSD license does more than purely dedicate code to the public domain. The license also disclaims tort and contract liability for any problems resulting from the code.

So, for example, if someone uses your code library as part of the software in a dialysis machine, and a bug in your code winds up crashing the machine, and killing the patient, you theoretically cannot be sued for wrongful death. However, no one, to my knowledge, has actually tested the legal validity of the disclaimer in court at this point.

IANAL (yet).

Been there, done that.

[sleepingsquirrel]

So here's a different idea. Instead of trying to reduce the number of Open Source licenses, people should instead come up with a comparison chart. Much like the Unix rosetta stone except for legalese, identifying general contract features in common (or different) between them.

You looking for something like this perhaps?

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.

Martin Fink wants to decrease the # of licenses

[bettlebrox]

I heard the speech, Martin Fink said it was his opinion that there were too many licenses and not OSI's opinion. I don't remember him saying that OSI would do this, but as a member of the board of OSDL he would be asking them to do so. I think the article explains it better than either of the articles posted above.

Now before people starting giving out about the Fink, he is one of people who got HP to start supporting Linux (and especially Debian). And has done a lot of evangelical work for Linux, Open Source, & Free Software.

He also talked a little about software patents, and how that even if one disagrees with them that one still need to pay attention to them. And that it's not the fact that one has patented something, but what one does with a patent that counts. Only problem with this is that any of us came up with a great software patentable idea, we probably couldn't afford the fees involved in patenting something and then allowing free use of it.

Fink is the head of Linux services at HP, he is also VP or director at OSDL, see his bio at the Linux Expo site.

RMS is going up in the world

[Hope Thelps]

From one of the articles:

"God created GPL for a reason," Swainson said in a presentation at LinuxWorld, claiming that it is the best license around.

Sounds like Saint Ignucius got a promotion.

"Approved licenses" vs freedom

[EmbeddedJanitor]

So how do you reconcile the idea of freedom with an "approved license"? Suddenly we have a body claiming to be in control of the freedom to generate licenses!

WTF?

Re:"Approved licenses" vs freedom

[Noksagt]

Suddenly we have a body claiming to be in control of the freedom to generate licenses!

No--generate any license you wish. We have a body owning the right to call something "OSI Certified." We've had that body for a long time. It has helped set standards and criteria & prevents bad licenses from getting very far in the community. It also helps cut down on the confusion of having too many license (though, according to the article, not enouch).

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."

BSD and the "can't get rid of it" thing

[ulib]

BSD and GPL have a *very* different spirit. The first one is strongly academic (making the source available with no strings attached, just requiring the user to give credits where they're due), the latter is strongly political (anti-proprietary, and openly communistic since it aims to abolish private property as far as software is concerned).

I don't know about Sam Greenblatt, but the fact that you can't get rid of BSD makes most professional developers very happy.
--
Requiem for the FUD

Re:BSD and the "can't get rid of it" thing

[Homology]

I think the GPL is more academic in that regard. You are certainly correct though about the reasons the GPL exist.

Why Researchers Should use a BSD-style License Instead of the GPL

Re:BSD and the "can't get rid of it" thing

[ulib]

The new version of the BSD license states the opposite

This is totally false. The clause you quoted is about endorsement and promotion, it has *nothing* to do with giving credits.

If you use any BSD code in your software, you MUST give credit to the author by distributing the BSD license along with your software, because that license is *still* covering the code you imported.

This is a widespread misconception in the GPL world - that you can "relicense" the BSD code. No, you can't.
This misunderstanding is often used by some people who, like religious zealots, are out to "convert" the BSD code into GPL code. The latest case I saw was the arrogant (and anonymous..) creator of the GPL'd g4l project, who included code from the BSD'd g4u project but stripped away the original license. The copyright infringement is documented here by the g4u author.
For the record: the creator of the g4l project "disappeared" and a new (also anonymous..) maintainer "appeared". This guy now claims that the current version of the g4l project doesn't infringe any copyrights. Even if this were the case, no public acknowledgement and no public apologies were ever made by the g4l maintainer(s) for what has been an episode of blatant code theft.
--
Requiem for the FUD

More proof...

[eno2001]

...that BSD is NOT dying: "You can't get rid of it" RE the license. Hahaha... laugh it's funny! ;P

What about Clasifing licenses into Types/Catagorie

[ralatalo]

The way that I see it there are 4 types of licenses, and within each type there are all kinds of variations.

** Truely Free - Incorporate the code into open or closed projects:

- BSD style licenses

** Forced Open - You can only incorporate the code into projects where both the new and old code is also Forced Open:

- GPL

** Kept Open - You can incorporate the code as long as you keep the the original code and modifications to it open as well, but code not related to the original code can be licensed as desired:

- LGPL

** Dual licensed ( commercial/open) - You can incorporate the code as per one of the open licenses or you can pay to use the product under some other license.

So, I think the first thing is to identify the different classifications of licenses and then for each class identify compatible and incompatable terms of the different licenses. Then they can start working on generic class licenses.

I personally think that the FSF should review compatability of/with the GPL. Right now, the only code that is compatable with GPL is code that can be relicensed under the GPL. I would love to see the compatablity extended to allow compatability with other licenses which force the resulting code to be also be open. This would allow mixing of GPL code with Sun's CDDL where the the resulting code would not be under a single license but all open and usable for future development.

Re:What about Clasifing licenses into Types/Catago

[Trillan]

BSD isn't that great an example of a truly free license, as it requires credit. The BOOST license is a bit better for that.

I think you've got a very good list, though.

Non-OSI Certified/Non-Free Licenses

[Noksagt]

While there is doubtlessly reasons for all the licenses you mention, they are not all now currently OSI certified or "Free."

1. The license of Qmail is not a free software or an OSI Certified license because it mostly prohibits the distribution of modified versions.

2. Aladdin, too, does not fit license because it does not allow charging for distribution, and largely prohibits simply packaging software licensed under it with anything for which a charge is made.

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

7. None of the no commercial use variants are free/open source, as they discrimiante against fields of endeavor.

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.

Not a good idea.

[GeorgeMcBay]

I can imagine the outrage there would be here if Microsoft announced that software had to be one of three specific licenses to be "Windows certified".

All this will do is alienate businesses that might have opened their source with their own licenses and cause them to either not open their source at all, or just ignore the OSI completely (thereby removing any power the organization might have had).

Wait this sounds like...

[xgamer04]

Three Licenses for the GNU-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Corporate-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Hacker Men doomed to die,
One for Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond on their dark throne.
In the Land of CVS where the Versions lie.
One License to rule them all, One License to find them,
One License to bring them all and in the darkness bind() them.
In the Land of CVS where the Versions lie.

Sorry, had to be done. :)

Re:Try answering the question...

[creysoft]

It depends on your perspective. If you consider the right to freely view, modify, and redistribute source code as a natural right, then ANY infringement of that right is "restriction."

You're looking at it from a the perspective that such things AREN'T a natural right, and therefore allowing them is granting rights.

In other words, it's the difference between a philosophical and legal view. Legally, according to US Copyright, you're granting them rights. Philosophically, according to copyleft, you're restricting their rights. You're both right, so there's no reason to keep arguing about it.

Re:What about Clasifing licenses into Types/Catago

[argent]

I personally think that the FSF should review compatability of/with the GPL. Right now, the only code that is compatable with GPL is code that can be relicensed under the GPL.

Well, that's kind of the point. :)

Re:Try answering the question...

[Theatetus]

Upon purchase, the source code would be freely available, modifiable, and so on.

That's the GPL. You don't have to give away your sources and binaries for free, you just have to include the sources (and the right to modify, redistribute, etc.) to all parties who receive the binaries from you. Hell, RMS used to charge $100 just for emacs, and they still charge more than a grand for GNU.

Except in certain specific circumstances involving derivative works, the GPL never requires you to distribute binaries and sources to anyone in particular; you alone decide the criteria for distributing your work. If you want to charge $3000 for your GPLd CRM solution, feel free. You don't have to offer free downloads or sources to people who haven't bought them from you.

So, again, what would you change about the GPL to make it "commercial", since you can already make the receipt of sources and binaries contingent on purchase?

Re:Try answering the question...

[antoy]

So, again, what would you change about the GPL to make it "commercial", since you can already make the receipt of sources and binaries contingent on purchase?

The fact that once someone purchases your software, he is given the right to distribute his derived work for free. Quote from the FSF:

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Copy code, slightly modify, provide for free. Not a term commercial software companies would agree with.

Non-GPL changes or links to GPL works

[Jamesday]

If there's nothing copyrightable the combined work is still (for copyright purposes) the same work as it was before, so there's no basis for an infringment complaint. A typo correction in a large body of text is one example of such a change which is ineligible for copyright coverage. Some bug fixes may also qualify, depending on significance to the work as a whole.

A public domain (rather than ineligible for copyright) change would be more interesting but that's completely free, even more so than the license-restricted GPL, so it's not very useful to take any legal action. What copyright law basis would you use for arguing that a linked component dedicated to the public domain was a license infringment? Take care that you don't end up accidentally arguing that you can't use public domain pieces in GPL programs.

The lawyers would also need to consider whether the change was either de minimis or fair use.

I know I wouldn't want to argue that a bug fix or security flaw closing modification wasn't fair use.:)

When something isn't a derived work

[Jamesday]

Consider the Linux kernel. That uses headers with substantially the same functionality as those of Unix. It's conceivable that you can build under Linux a program using those headers which will function correctly on a Unix system. Does that make it a derived work of Unix?

The question here is the difference between linking and compatibility. Linux can use those Unix values without infringing the copyright of Unix. Otherwise Linux is greatly threatened by the SCO action. Similarly, it's conceivable to produce a Linux-compatible program which isn't a derivative work of Linux.

Whether you're doing so depends on the details of what is happening. If it's just the facts of an interface, it's going to be tough to argue that it's linked when that's contrary to the specific laws regarding reverse engineering for compatibility being legal. Someone may try anyway, of course.

Very great care is needed here, lest you end up using arguments which in effect make every Windows program and the WINE project derivative works of Windows because they are compatible with it or programs which work with it.

Re:Is this allowed under the GPL?

[TeknoHog]

Could I sell my binaries for X dollars, sell my source for Y dollars (under the GPL of course)

No. You can sell the binaries, but everyone who gets binaries must have access to the source upon request.

Technically, it is possible to charge for the source, but only to cover media and shipping expenses. It would be more sensible to provide online access to source for registered users. Or include the source on the same media with the binary.

This is the main requirement of GPL, and you could sell upgrades as well, provided source access is similarly granted.