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."

Comments

GPL-compatible

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:GPL-compatible

[Otter]

And OSI has an official standard that doesn't demand GPL compatibility. I sympathize with their opposition to license proliferation (although in the absence of proliferation, why would licenses need to be certified?), but it seems inappropriate to deny certification to licenses that meet their published standards.

Re:GPL-compatible

[squiggleslash]

The GPL is a neutral copy-left. It doesn't give special rights to the "initial developer". It's well understood, there's a large body of code licensed under it, and whether you agree with the politics behind it or not, it's a good baseline for those who want a copy-left license.

Why is this important? Because most developers want compatability with some common license. If the MPL and CDDL were compatable with the GPL, then there would be ways of mixing code licensed under one with the other.

Not having compatability harms Freedom. It means that you cannot "use" code under circumstances that most Free Software advocates, and probably most Open Source advocates, would consider reasonable and a requirement for software to be considered Free or Open Source.

Yes, it doesn't have to the GPL. But there are no other real candidates. The BSD license doesn't do it because it has no requirement that further conditions be eliminated, so while BSD code can go in an MPL project, the fact the CDDL is compatable with the BSD license doesn't mean CDDL code can go into an MPL project.

Other licenses are, for the most part, more obscure and are no better than the GPL, or are not neutral. Some are even incompatable with themselves as they grant special privileges to an "Initial Developer", which means two projects under such licenses with different initial developers cannot share code.

So for the time being, GPL compatability needs, as far as many people are concerned, to be the baseline test of whether a license is a good one, regardless of whether - on the surface - it is "too political".

If you hate the fact that software can be called Free or Open Source and yet you can't use code from one project in another, you should be opposed to incompatable license proliferation. Incompatable licenses are killing Free Software.

Re:GPL-compatible

[marvin2k]

While I understand the need for different licenses like GPL - LGPL - BSD, creating several licenses to serve the same purpose is a waste for everyone.

What worries me is that most people seem to be so fixated on the GPL that they don't realize that this license simply doesn't work for everybody. I think there need to be three "template licenses" instead of one:

One "I only want to make my work available to other open source authors" license (GPL).
One "It's ok if my work becomes part of a non-open-source product but I still want that people contribute any changes to my code back to the community" license (LGPL).
And finally one "I don't really care" license (BSD).

I think trying to force everyone to use the GPL simply *has* to end in things like the CDDL because the companies don't feel they have any other choice.

Kudos for some simplicity

[syntap]

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.

Actual impact

[danbond_98]

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.

licensing-nonsense

[N3wsByt3]

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.

Look closely

[bogaboga]

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.

Re:Licensing Open Source: Is this really necessary

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

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.

The great thing about standards...

[00squirrel]

...is there are so many to chose from!

Who cares what CA thinks?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

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?

Corporate ownership of all that is revolutionary

[sellin'papes]

It seems to me that corporations are struggling to find what is cool and then immediately take ownership of it. The CDDL open source is an example of this.

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.

Re:Licensing Open Source: Is this really necessary

[ClosedSource]

"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.

Society and Profit

[rumblin'rabbit]

All companies use the work of others to make profit. They have access to all of the science and technology (except for the small percentage under IP protection) that has come before. They have access to lessons learned by past companies. Even social infrastucture plays a vital role. Profits are not something companies alone generate, but something societies generate.

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.