Slashdot Mirror
Clash of the Open Standards
Rollie Hawk writes "Open Source Initiative (OSI) and Computer Associates (CA) may agree that some housework is needed with open source licensing, but they may not be able to reconcile their views on the best solution.
CA has a couple of possible solutions in mind for its proposed Template License. This license will likely be based on either Sun's Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) its own Trusted Open Source License.
OSI, which does not favor corporate-centered licensing, opposes such moves on a number of grounds. Specifically, they point out that CDDL is not GPL-compatible. While acknowledging the problems with license proliferation, OSI prefers a solution involving stricter criteria (including that approved licenses must me non-duplicative, clear and understandable, and reusable) and is proposing a "three-tier system in which licenses are classified as preferred, approved or deprecated."
While there is no legal requirement for any open-source license to be approved by OSI, it is currently common practice for developers to get their license blessing from it."
Specifically, they point out that CDDL is not GPL-compatible.
Umm... so? Since when was the GPL the pinnacle of open source licensing anyway? Licenses pushing a corporate agenda aren't really any worse than the GPL which pushes a political agenda.
But the question really is, how much do people care about this? There seem to be a couple of licences most open source softwares use, being the GPL and the BSD licences, and only odd examples use others. Yes, the big big things like apache and the like have their own licenece, but for most people writting a small application, as well as a lot of larger projects, those two seem to cover it.
Free licence are free, and if they aren't, they shouldn't be portrayed as such.
We're not going into that debate again, I hope? the same thing with "which is more free: BSD or GPL".
There is NO difficulty here: BSD, by nature, is more free, yes. But to *keep* it free, GPL is better suited.
And such is the case with all 'open' licenses: some may be more free, others may suit some particular need better.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
When one looks closely at these licensing issues, one discovers that it ia always about the money and control. I will admit bias here. I read all the links with the bent mind toward the belief that it's always about the money.
It's open, but that doesn't mean that anyone can do what they want with it. That amounts to licentiousness, and not freedom.
Licensing open-source software ensures that the developers work is not abused or ripped off by companies seeking a quick profit. Any code written under an open-source license is to remain free forever, at least theoretically.
And before Slashdotters start asking why it's ok for developers to license code and not for the RIAA to license music, remember that the former means profit for the violator, while the latter doesn't.
Can someone give reason why CA should be solving FOSS license issues? Why is it an authority? Why not ask directly from Microsoft for a good suggestion on the next GPL?
Would it be feasible to define some standard groups of clauses for topics so you could just plug them together as components to get an actual license? Then you could just pick one out of several options for copying restrictions. Or if that's not possible, at least try to standardise it in some way. It'd make licenses a lot easier to read.
:)
But of course, IANAL, so there's probably a very good reason why this hasn't been done. Or maybe it has and I'm just ignorant
Take life easy: one bit at a time.
There are too many "The Only Right Ways To Go". Some of them are wrong. And some aren't even ways to go!
No we do not need *one* license.
BTW, if GPL ceased to exist somehow, the CDDL vs BSD flamewars will spread. Some people tend to like flamewars...
WYSIWIG, but what you see might not be what you need
I, for one, think that political agendas that aim to benefit people at large (and have a track record of success at doing so) are less immoral than corporate agendas that seek to enrich their investors at the expense of unwitting customers.
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Lawyers around the world are gearing up to make millions of dollars/euros/yen/... litigating the nuances of the conflicting "Open Source" licensing models.
Open source is an extremely revolutionary idea and fairly unique in the history of the world and I would be concerned at how a major corporation would interpret and alter the concept.
Another example of corporate involvement in revolutionary ideas is Slashdot itself. Every time I view a forum discussion a message from friendly Microsoft pops up telling me not to switch my operating system from Windows to Linux. This message also prevents me from reading replies and thus altering my pleasurable Slashdot experience.
This is my last post.
[6th Estate]
"Any code written under an open-source license is to remain free forever, at least theoretically."
This is just open/free source propaganda. Any code that is placed in the public domain or under a BSD-style license will "remain free forever" without a GPL style license. In other words, no corporation can make it illegal for you to use it or extend it.
A license like the GPL makes it impossible to "lock up" derivative works that are distributed, but that has nothing to do with the "freedom" of the original code.
Actually - I'd argue that GPL gives more freedom to the original developer. That is the freedom to use all derived works.
The original BSD developer for the TCP stack has no access to the MS implementation of that stack - since they slapped a proprietary license on it.
On the other hand, the original GLP developer of linux code has full access to the Linksys implementation of it - since Linksys is compelled to release updates.
You will note that while companies love BSD-licensed projects (since they can just steal code from them), they rarely distribute their own works under the BSD, and that limits your ability to profit even more than the GPL, and arms your competitors with your technology. Companies only release under BSD if they don't care about the code at all, or if it is a reference implementation of something that they actually want everybody to just use as widely as possible - probably because it interfaces with some expensive proprietary product.
BSD does let you do more with the code, but GPL does more to protect the open source community, and to protect the original developer - and that is the person whose blood, seat, and tears were invested in the first place...
When someone uses in the name of a product or service the words "trusted", "secure", "best", etc., it's a good indication that the product may be best only from the seller's point of view, may be insecure and definitely should not be trusted.
...
"Trusted" Computing? "Secure" online banking? Yeah, right
When a scientist makes a discovery and doesn't patent it (you know, the good ol' days), that discovery may be used by all of society in any manner what so ever. Is it immoral for a company to use that discovery? Not only is not immoral, by refusing to use the technology they would be depriving their customers of the benefits.
To declare that it's immoral to make use of the work of others to make a profit is to declare that all profits are immoral. That's not a political system I buy into it.
And your use of the word "quick" is silly and pejorative. While companies won't pass up quick profits, in real life they are far more focused on sustainable profits. Or they are if they want to be around for any length of time.
But the BSD might give the original developer the freedom to use more derived works, because more may exist. Heck, the original developer has the freedom to use all derived works if they just keep their source closed. Protecting the rights of the original developer seems like an odd standard to judge free/open source licenses on. We call them free/open because the original developer gives up some of their rights.
"You will note that while companies love BSD-licensed projects"
In the interest of full disclosure: I work for a company. Please don't hate me.
"(since they can just steal code from them)"
It's not stealing. The copyright owners have specifically authorised us to use the code. Presumably they even want us to.
"they rarely distribute their own works under the BSD"
We don't release all our works under the BSD, and certainly not those central to our competitive advantage, but we don't use others BSD code for that either, or there wouldn't be any advantage. However, when we use BSD code, we most certainly do release enhancements and bug fixes to that code under the BSD. Contrary to your imaginings, we release code under the BSD when we want others to be able to use and add to and our work.
The GPL only does more to protect the original developer, if the original developers wishes are what the GPL stipulates. I'm not sure the open source community needs protection; The BSD allows more people to be part of the open source community.
Saying one license is better then another is silly; they have different goals. People judge licenses by all sorts of different criteria, and judge "freedom" in all sorts of ways. Some of which seem pretty convoluted to me. Personally, I judge licenses by one yes or no question: "Can I do whatever the hell I want with the code?"
I like whatever-the-hell-you-want compatible licenses. You're free to like whatever licence you like. But arguing that any license is "more free" than a whatever-the-hell-you-want licence is going to require some pretty twisted logic.
On the contrary, in the GPL sense, I see open source as capitalistic.
You code an application and release it under GPL. A corporation finds the code useful, but wants a certain feature.
At that point they either pay you (the original developer) money to implement the feature, or implement it themselves and pay you with new code and an enhanced application.
Either way, you profit.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
Just copyright your code. No license at all. That's exactly what you are asking for.
Actually you did mention "allow forking if I discontinue the software". You might be able to write up a small license that says somebody can violate the copyright if you stop supporting the software, though exactly how to word that is questionable.