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.
proposing a "three-tier system in which licenses are classified as preferred, approved or deprecated.
With all the nuanced licenses appearing, this is good to see. Then again for my needs all I want to know is GPL-compatible or not.
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.
1. In your mailbox, you discover a subpoena.
2. ????
3. (Profit)!!!
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
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.
"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."
allofmp3.com would like to disagree with your assertion that you don't make money by violating music "licensing"...
...is there are so many to chose from!
I was referring primarily to students and the like who download, but don't make a profit.
My bad.
Not to ask a stupid question (I know there are no stupid questions, just stupid questioners), but:
Exactly how many open source licenses are there? When I first started looking at open source, I only knew of GPL. Then I learned of BSD. Up till now, I was under the impression that those two were the only open source licenses.
Free MacMini
Why is CA involved in this in the first place?
Their #1 revenue model is to buy a software product from someone else, cut development and rake in maintenance checks. Are they branching out?
CA won't let its developers use even LGPL libraries (except on Linux platforms). I always found their OSI involvement a little premature...
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?
Licenses are important but different developers see licenses differently. I think it is rational to offer a license of choice by the author of the software. I wouldn't want a standards committee telling me what my license should be and I wouldn't want a RIAA/MPAA-type organization either. While I'm at it, why make a license compatible with another? If I want my license to be compatible with GPL, why not just use the GPL? The BSD vs. GPL is a matter of what freedoms one wants in their license. As long as there is a license to protect the author, it should be fine.
except that allofmp3.com does NOT violate any law and has properly took a license from the proper russian administraton.
#include "coucou.h"
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
For example, a TLA should be registered and if there are two TLA that are the same, then they should have a .x after them, where x is a number.
For example
OSI stands for Open Systems Interconnect, and OSI.1 stands for Open Source Inititive
PSP stands for "Paint Shop Pro" and PSP.1 stands for Play Station Portable.
Okay, it defeats the purpose of TLAs by making them FLA.2* (Five letter abbrieviations) but hey it's all too confusing!
* FLA stands for Finance and Leasing Association, and FLA.1 is Fair Labor Association.
try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die
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.
I ask myself that from time to time: why do I bother to put so much work into OSI? But there are enough people who respect the "open source" name, and who look to us for guidance on it, that I am enheartened. Of course, *you* are not likely to be one of those people, but so what?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I agree with your statement, which is why I said BSD is, on itself, more free then GPL, BUT the latter makes more sure things stay free.
This always brings with it some form of dilemma. It's the same with being a libertarian and to allow others to express themselves: will you go so far as to allow that expression of someone else to curtail yours (or of a third party?). In my view, this is not a good thing. The core element of free speech/expression is that it has to remain free, and THAT is what you have to fight for.
another example: On itself, a country of pacifists wouldn't last long among countries of agressors, unless they have muscle and willigness enough to fight off those other countries.
So, sometimes, it's better to fight for the principles you believe in, so they are preserved. After all, of all things, it's better to be forced more freedom then anything else. (and, within a society, one is ALWAYS forced to something).
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
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]
OSI is formed because they want to make free software more appealing to corporations by supressing essential discussions of freedom. This leads to a profusion of 'open source' licenses. Sensing opportunity in the confusion rapacious corporations hatch their own restrictive licenses and call them 'open source'. OSI responds by aligning more closely with GPL. There is a lesson here. To all of you 'open source' advocates, stop writing licenses! Use GPL and let Stallman think for you!
an ill wind that blows no good
"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.
Whether a company uses the software or not, they cannot prevent others from using the software. It remains open source. How is the company treading on the rights of others when they use the software?
If I write software as open source, and a company uses it to make a profit, great. It just shows the software has real economic value. And most of the companies' revenue will likely go to paying salaries and taxes anyway. I actually don't mind companies making a profit.
You're vague wording hides just another tiresome political agenda.
Not really. The scientific community has been doing "open source" for several centuries. Even Eric Raymond pointed that out in one of his various books on the subject.
There is a big moral difference between receiving a financial benefit by saving money, and receiving the same financial benefit by exploiting the work of others.
Perhaps it is a fine line, but it is a line nonetheless.
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...
For instance if I were to have an idea several centuries ago, I doubt the scientific community would accept it, unless I too was a member of the scientific community. Cooperatives are an example of a an acient 'open source' based economy. But once again you had to be a member of the coop to take part.
What is unique about open source programming and even information sharing is that absolutely anyone can contribute, and if it's crap it's judged by absolutely everyone.
This is my last post.
[6th Estate]
I find that one problem is that Open source is not that revolutionary of an idea. When debating with my peers the advantages of Open Source, I sometimes have problems distinguishing it from communism.
My friends (and myself included) are very republican, and "Shared work by a community to reach a common goal" sounds very red to us. I can see how this model works in application to Free or Open Source software, but I have trouble explaining it to others.
I hate it when people are so completely blind-stupid about open source; they just listen to what they're told and don't bother to actually think, it's as bad as the people that blindly think a computer is Windows.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
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.
flagship PPronunciation Key(flgshp)
n.
A ship that carries a fleet or squadron commander and bears the commander's flag.
The chief one of a related group: the flagship of a newspaper chain; the flagship of a line of reference books
.
This program is copyright (c) 2005, AJS318 and will enter the Public Domain on 1 January 2005.
Above and beyond your statutory rights, permission is hereby granted {and you are encouraged} to copy and distribute this program in source or binary forms, with or without modification, subject to the following conditions:
- Distributions in source code form must include this copyright and permission notice and disclaimer of warranty {or, at your discretion, notice of a warranty underwritten by you}.
- Distributions in binary form must include this copyright and permission notice and disclaimer of warranty {or, at your discretion, notice of a warranty underwritten by you}; and an offer, valid in perpetuity, to supply on request the complete, machine-readable source code.
- The names of the copyright holders may not be used to promote or endorse any product without written permission.
- Translation of messages and documentation in the English-language version to other languages is permitted. However, this permission-to-translate clause must be replaced in the translated version by a clause forbidding any further translation.
THIS PROGRAM IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) IN GOOD FAITH BUT WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. THE USER ASSUMES SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY USE OF THIS PROGRAM. IF YOU ARE IN DOUBT, SEEK ADVICE FROM A COMPETENT PROGRAMMER.Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
somebody hit me with a stick of details please. the story so far:
cddl is an OSI approved license of sun's getting mixed reviews for not being gpl-compatible and raised eyebrows for coming from a corporation.
CA is another corporation with an osi-approved license called trusted open source. a vp there claims here that
some 60 percent of all our Linux revenue will come from outside the United States, and some 95 percent of the [Open Source Initiative]-approved licenses are unenforceable outside the United States
so they want to create one boilerplate license that they can tack on 'regional tweaks' to. people don't trust them, again presumably because they're a corporation (and also because according to the other article they are dreaming if they think they can possibly create such a license).
fill me in here - what were CDDL and TOS created for? what is the big scary conflict apparently brewing? is it the fear that CA's new license will take over open source and somehow lock everyone in to nefarious corporate terms? fill me in.
A good example for lawyers, and suits in general, is not accadamia, but case law. Not every case has to argue every point of law, or at least that argument can be reduced down to a citation. The ability to reuse the works of past lawyers sure has hell not destroyed the profession, or put them out of work.
Since when CA is the leader of FOSS and why do they feel they should present a 'vision' for entire movement licensing?
No, seriously, what the heck?! Why does anybody care about them? I looked at their web site and couldn't find anything related to FOSS. Can anyone provide links to a few major open/free software projects they lead/seriously contribute to?
companies love BSD-licensed projects (since they can just steal code from them)
It's not stealing if the license explicitly says you can use the source any way you like. Why is that so hard to understand?
and that is the person whose blood, seat, and tears were invested in the first place.
I just hate having to buy a new chair for each project.
There's no place like ~/
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.
The TCP protocol is more important than the BSD implementation of the TCP protocol. Therefore the developer is probably happy that Microsoft used their implementation and made a more compatible TCP stack than they would have if they had implemented from scratch. Why would the BSD TCP implementor want Microsoft's Windows-specific hacks back in the code base? Simiarly, Python's developers would be overjoyed if Microsoft adopted Python and embedded it in Windows and Office. They wouldn't call this theft. They would call this a new distribution channel for their code which is a good thing overall.
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.
First of all, who said anything about the customers being "unwitting"?
I find your moral paradigm fascinating... is it a sin to make money from your labors? And if not, why is it evil to do so through the vehicle of a collection of individuals with a common cause (i.e. a corporation)?
You must have a fascinating moral paradigm, in some sense of the word ``fascinating''.
``... corporate agendas that seek to enrich their investors at the expense of unwitting customers.''? That sounds like fraud, which we have laws against. If those laws are twisted (MPAA, RIAA), or aren't being enforced (maybe MS is an example?), it's largely because of ``political agendas that aim to benefit people at large'', people like shareholders and employees, who are also consumers, just as most consumers are also shareholders, directly or indirectly.
The political process is about stealing from the productive (since they're the only ones who have anything to take), and giving to the many or to the powerful. Some contries which have carried that to its logical conclusion include present-day Zimbabwe, the Soviet Union, Germany during the 1930s and '40s, and most of Africa and South America during most of the last century.
There are two variants of the political process: the one I mention above, and the one in which you wise, benevolent ubermensch straighten out all of us untermensch, who would otherwise waste our lives on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This also involves stealing from the productive, and giving to some favored group. Since the rhetoric here involves ``helping the dear peepul'' (have you read Babbit?), they usually get away with murder, sometimes literally. The most dangerous people aren't the ones with the guns and the knives and the napalm, they're the ones with the suits, who are here to help you. I think you were talking about the second kind of ``political agenda''. If that wasn't what you meant, you may substitute ``those'' for ``you'' in ``you wise, benevolent ubermensch''.
If we have fair, constitutional laws, corporations will be able to enrich their shareholders only by making their customers better off. If anyone, corporate, government or private, is able to prosper by fraud or force, the problem doesn't lie with the crooks, but with the laws that allow them to do so, and the political process, in either of the senses I used the term above, is where those laws come from.
See what I've been reading.
I meant "most commonly used FOSS license, in number of FOSS packages choosing it". After thinking about it, I think probably The Artistic License actually has more users, since Perl is almost ubiquitous. Sendmail's BSD-like license is another contender.
... hmm, interesting. Here is a cached page listing some numbers:
I think I'll ask Google
http://www.google.com/help/features.html#cached
GPL/LGPL ~77%,
BSD et al 12%.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Someone who uses the BSD license isn't "stealing" code. They're using the code in a manner consistent with the license it was provided under. Since it was the original author's choice to allow them to use the code in this way (making changes without requiring them to re-distribute the source), then what they're doing isn't "stealing", in any way, shape, or form. They're abiding by the terms of the license. The fact that you don't like those license terms, or the options that it gives someone, is irrelevant.
Besides - if you want to characterize the use of BSD code, in accordance with the license, as "stealing", then you'll need to accuse several prominent open-source projects of "stealing" code as well, since they include source code licensed under new-style (no advertising clause) BSD licenses.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Do you always go to the dictionary when you hear a joke?
Adieu
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Do you find the client contacts to technology companies are usually well-informed and make thoughtful and intelligent decisions.
Do you find that technology companies go out of their way to ensure that they do not take advantage of their client contacts' ignorance?
From my experience, I'd have to say a firm No! to both questions; hence "unwitting".
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Wrong wrong wrong. The point of the GPL is to protect the *end* user. I.e. the user of whatever derived works are made. The *users* of windows have no access to their TCP stack, wheras the *users* of the Linksys can see their code. That's why there's no requirement to license derivatives to the original author, they just have to be licensed to the end user in such a way that that user has access to the source.
I am trolling
So, basically, CA's plan is to come up with a Creative Commons-type license structure for software? Sounds good to me.
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/
I agree it can be hard to describe, but if you just replace "communism" with "socialism" I think you make more progress. Then have them look up what socialism is. Many of the core concepts are the same as communism, but without the negitive preceptions people have of "red" (you know world domination, Stalin killing thousands of opponents, etc) ;-)
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Are you really suggesting that your brand of 'conservatism' precludes any form of collective labor whatsoever?
Even in the absence of government coercion?
I think there's a dank cave out there somewhere with your name on it.
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.
My company loves BSD licensed software because it is such a pain to send the source to those few customers who request it.
As a developer I love the BSD license because I don't have to think twice about using it, I know I legally can. (Particularly if there is no advertising clause) Everytime I consider a GPL program that might be useful I have to figure out how to make sure it is not linked into my code. This is a pain, but I do it.
We do give our changes to BSD code back. Someday we will want to upgrade to a newer version of the program/library, and that will be much easier if we don't have to examine all our past bug fixes to see if they still need to apply, or if the community has found the bug separately and fixed it in a different way. (This is particularly hard if they find parts of the problem, some that we did not find, and we have some they did not find because now we need to fix the entire thing. So we send those patches back - it saves us effort and money in the long run.
Mind we are careful not to give our advantage away. However much as I want to write a kernel, we don't have any reason to develop our own kernel when *BSD fits our needs.
The GPL does not force you to do anything. By their explanation Ford motor company is "communist" because to use their cars you are "forced" to give them money.
More than one project has gotten all the developers together and switched from a GPL license to a BSD license. It doesn't happen often, (And the attempt sometimes fails when someone disagrees with the change) but once in a while it happens. If developers cared about license issues this could not happen. In the real world programers like to program, not deal with legal stuff.
I've heard (but not encountered myself) that some projects just slap GPL on software because it is the only license they know about. When contacted these projects have instantly given permission to use a different license, and didn't understand why there was a question at all! (Obviously this can only apply to small one or two person projects)
If only I could eat "enhanced application".
;-)
Until computer programs become editable (or a form of currency), I still need some cash to buy food
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
I am not a lawyer, but clearly you need to consult one. Your "license" will not, and cannot hold up in court.
The phase: will enter the Public Domain on 1 January 2005. conflicts with everything else. When you place something into the public domain you cannot place other restricts on it like your 4 clauses.
Your first clause states: must include this copyright . This is not possible, because you have already stated it is public domain, and therefore it is not copyrighted!
A real lawyer can find other problems with this license.
Note that lawyers are not sure current copyright law even allows the possibility of placing something in the public domain. Everything is automatically copyright by you when you create it, and nothing in the law says you can give that up.
I can't talk about "good" licenses or "bad" licenses in the abstract without some concrete definition of "good" and "bad". I can think of lots of arguments that go both ways. I prefer the GPL.
Now if you propose some specific goal, then we can talk about whether licenses are "good" or "bad" for achieving that goal. Or, omitting relative virtues, we can discuss the social effects (PLURAL!!) of each particular license.
But I can't rate most licenses in the abstract as "good" or "bad". (I can think of a few exceptions...but they are always made so difficult to read that it's impossible to have a reasoned discussion about them.)
I prefer the GPL. It's pretty good at achieving the goals I want for my software, and I'm quite comfortable with the limitations that it places on my actions. And it's quite reasonable for other people to have other preferences. Actually, if the situation were assymetrical, then I might prefer to chose to recieve code under the BSD license, and offer it under my own, but I would consider it unreasonable to expect people to go along with that. And I'm comfortable with the GPL in a symmetrical context.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
This is just one example of how Red Fever has irreparably damaged this country. You can't talk about doing ANYTHING for ANY reason other than money before the spectre of the Red Demon gets trotted out. McCarthy should be proud of himself. 50 years later and we have a software development method that is modeled more on the scientific method than any political ideology and some people can't resist red-baiting.
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.
So you think it's immoral to sell stuff?
First, the GNU General Public License is not "open source" except that the Open Source Initiative happened to define their terms broadly enough to allow the GPL to qualify as an OSI-approved license. The GPL was written by the FSF (most notably RMS) for the free software movement years before the open source movement existed. Even a cursory glance of the GPL's terms will confirm it speaks to a philosophy the open source movement rejects.
Second, to equate a corporate agenda to a social movement's agenda is to understand the import of neither. The GPL grants all of the meaningful rights of copyright law to licensees in exchange for terms built to maintain licensee equality. Corporate-made licenses are far more likely to grant power to the licensor beyond that which copyright law already does. The intitial versions of the Apple Public Source License, for example, required notifying a central authority of changes and publishing one's changed version of an APSL-covered program in most instances so that the central authority could pick up a copy and incorporate the changes in their fork of the program if they desired. Apple was that central authority. Apple wanted not just an OSI-approved license, but a free software license as well, so they made the v2 revision that qualified for FSF imprimateur. But what this really points to is that the free software definition stands for something more beneficial to users than the open source definition, thus giving Apple (and all other licensors) something better to aspire to.
Third, the GNU GPL is the most popular free software license. It is a major practical problem to write software that is licensed in a GPL-incompatible way. Programmers in the free software community want to make improved versions of programs by sharing code. Copying code from one program into another program requires license compatibility in most cases (outside of fair use).
Your assessment vastly oversimplifies the situation and glosses over some of the most important reasons why the free software community was formed in the first place. The people working for the GNU project (most notably again, RMS) knew these things would come and wrote licenses and software to give us our software freedom. My account discounts the open source movement's input because most of the foundation for this work happened well before the open source movement began. It's a shame that your article has received such a high moderation. Perhaps it points to how much misunderstanding there is amongst hackers and how much education has yet to be done.
Digital Citizen
- As a template license, it contains no corporate proper names, so it is usable by others without modification.
- The initial contributor sets the jurisdiction.
- Patent rights transfer is optional.
- Allows any licensee to enforce the license and go after violators. Therefore, you don't need to collect all the copyrights of the contributors' code before going after violators, which is nice.
- There are clear distribution obligations.
-
There is an explicit definition of independent module. Therefore you can combine code under multiple licenses without contamination, as long as they are independent modules.
I think the APL as a template license helps address license proliferation problems that have been plaguing the OSI. Hopefully, the Adaptive Public License becomes one of the top-tier recommended licenses.http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apl1.0.php
"There is no spoon." - The Matrix
Yes. Your stupidest assumption must be the truth. Telling, I suppose.
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Ah-umh. Yes, they did, but on their own terms (also known as laws), and not according to the record companies dreams.
#include "coucou.h"
I think you missed the third one, Do you find that technology companies spend millions of dollars to mis-inform their potential customers about the true value of their products.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
The problem with the GPL and the reason some people do not like it is because it has very dubious interpretations. A close look at the GPL reveals an outdated and old license that creates a political and legal minefield for both the software developers and commercial distributors.
On top of that licsences such as the BSD and LGPL do a lot better job at describing its limitations and uses so there is less to be left to legal interpretation by the courts. In addition the BSD and LGPL help both businesses and individual,m so everyone wins. While the GPL is more focussed on noncomerical use.
The biggest problem with license proliferation is that you can't combine OSS/FS programs with each other unless the licenses are compatible. So if your OSS/FS code isn't compatible with the most common OSS/FS license, there's a problem. Especially when you consider that the other OSS/FS software not licensed under the GPL is usually GPL-compatible (BSD-new, MIT, LGPL). If you make sure your license is at least GPL-compatible, then the problems of "how do I combine this software" generally vanish... no matter what, you can license the combination under the GPL, and use the results.
You don't need to agree with the GPL at all; lots of companies who certainly aren't wholehearted supporters of it use the GPL for completely pragmatic reasons.
For more info, see Make your Open Source Software GPL-compatible. Or Else.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)