Open-source Licensing: BSD or GPL?

BSDForums.org writes "Mark Brewer of Covalent Technologies argues BSD is better for the enterprise. As open source licensing models, both the Berkeley Software Distribution license and the General Public License have advantages and disadvantages. But in the end, the BSD offers more benefits to enterprise customers. Matt Asay of Novell makes the case for GPL. He says, no one open source license is ideal in every circumstance. Different licenses serve different ends. Berkeley Software Distribution-style licenses have been used to govern the development of exceptional open source projects such as Apache. Clearly, BSD has its strengths. However, all things being equal, he prefers the General Public License (GPL ). The GPL is one of the most exciting, innovative capitalist tools ever created. The GPL breaks down walls between vendors and customers while enabling strong competitive differentiation. Which is a better licensing model for open-source applications: BSD or GPL? What do you think?"

Comments

And he is right too.

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL license is perfect for developers.

The BSD license is perfect for everybody else.

I vote BSD style (but LGPL's ok)...

[qaffle]

I work for a government lab that develops both free software and private software (specifically when under contract with private companies) and we have to deal with this issue constantly. We try our best to not reinvent the wheel and to use pre-existing libraries that are out there, but sometimes you find a perfectly fitting library only to find its GPL'd, which kills any possibility of using it since not all of the work a company like ours can do is able to have a GPL style license.

It is not logical to expect (IMO) that a company contracting another company is always going to want (or be willing to accept) a GPL style license, so GPL'ing something limits its use in corporate sectors (again IMO).

Now many times if you go and ask the library authors' they'll grant special permission especially in a case like this, but it's a hastle to work with. And you can argue that you should fight for free software all over, but it doesn't make business sense in every case, especially when your company is not in the business of providing support.

Also the LGPL solves this sort of issue to some extent, but I'd say the LGPL is more BSD then GPL, but that's a bit of an overstatement...

Re:I vote BSD style (but LGPL's ok)...

[AuMatar]

You see, as a GPL developer, thats exactly the reason why I only use GPL. You want to be able to take my work and sell it. Ok, thats fine. You want to be able to do so while not contributing back and improving the software for the rest of the users- you want all the benefits of open source with none of the responsibilities. Thats not cool.

My goal in life is not to be your free development resource. My goal is to produce software to help my fellow man. If your company can benefit too, thats a bonus. But if you aren't willing to do the same thing, then you can pay for my work to replicated on your own dollar. You can't have it both ways. Pay me in code, or pay me (or other developers) to do it in cash. But you will pay for the use of it in another project.

Re:Danger Will Robinson, Danger!

[AKAImBatman]

I'm certainly not arguing your point (although one needs to expect users to exercise their licensing rights to the fullest extent), I'm only arguing that businesses and developers have differing goals.

Where the BSD license really shines is in areas like the Apache project. Businesses donate to the project so that they don't have to reinvent the wheel every other day. They are then free to take the resulting work and bury it deeply inside the code where they don't worry about it any longer.

In the case of GPLed code, a business must make an up front decision to accept the change in business procedures that the GPL requires. This is good for GPL developers because they see a return on their work other than money. It's bad for a business because it may invalidate their business model. (i.e. How they make money.)

As with all things, everyone has to meet in the middle on this stuff.

Re:The GPL good when ownership is well-defined.

[Sheepdot]

Otherwise you're just doing free work for some software venture capitalist, which is stupid. I mean, if you want to help people, go spend time with sick children or something.

Apparently there are some mods who only read half of the comments.

So I suppose the Apache Foundation should just give up the work they've done? I suppose name-recognition for a popular BSD project isn't enough for you?

If anything, licensing under BSD instead of the GPL is the most selfless act a software developer can make. It means they are coding for the love of coding, not because of a political or philosophical agenda. Is there something wrong with that?

Likewise, is there something wrong with working for Habitat for Humanity, the Peace Corps, and The Hunger Project?

Re:Danger Will Robinson, Danger!

[GrouchoMarx]

Your analysis is blindingly oversimplified. Most companies would rather GPL their own code than release it under a BSD license, but would rather have others release their code under a BSD license.

Which is one reason I am personally fond of the LGPL. It says, in essence, "MY code is Free and must stay that way. Do what you want with you parts." It also has the side-effect of encouraging good, modular, component-based design. That's a win-win for everyone. Why people keep forgetting the LGPL in these flamewars I don't know, as it is a perfectly reasonable compromise between the "do anything" BSD and the "hand of Midas" GPL. I am particularly fond of it for libraries, frameworks, APIs, etc.

That said, can we mod this entire story flamebait? I mean really, is the next Slashdot story going to be "Vi or Emacs, what does Slashdot think?"

Re:Danger Will Robinson, Danger!

[R.D.Olivaw]

Note that the author doesn't have the right to complain. People (companies?) are using the way he licenced it. The GP was giving an axample of why BSD style licences are bad for authors if they expect something (code) in return. Some company and other developpers might contribute back to BSD projects but that relies completely on their goodwill.

GPL is the worst of both worlds

[Skuto]

TROLL

Because:

1) It offers *zero* real protection, *especially* for *small developers* with no legal team to back them up.

2) For people that *are* honest, it causes a hell of a lot of interworking problems.

These are quite simply the facts, regardless of all the religious beliefs that are continously being flaunted above by misguided GPL zealots.

END TROLL

I marked this as a troll because that is how most people will percieve it. Nevertheless it's the truth.

Re:Danger Will Robinson, Danger!

[Scarblac]

I've seen a bunch of projects that chose to go with the BSD style licence and it's bit them in the ass. People are using their code left and right, but hardly anyone is contributing back since they don't have to. [...] As long as there are human beings involved, there's going to be people taking advantage of you.

I don't get this. Surely he wanted everyone to use his code, without any further obligations? Since that's exactly the point of the license he used? How can you call that "biting him in the ass", or "taking advantage of"?

BSD is clearly too loose, if you don't want people to keep their changes for themselves. But well, duh, don't use that license then. Most people in the BSD projects are perfectly happy if there code is used somewhere, regardless of ever seeing anything back (or so I've heard - I'm a Linux weenie).

Anyway, in between GPL and BSD license, there's always the LGPL.