Slashdot Mirror
FOSS License Proliferation Adding Complexity
E5Rebel writes "Business is embracing open source like never before, but the effective demise of SCO's claims against Linux doesn't mean an end to licensing problems, an analyst warns. The debate on Slashdot seems to focus on the GPL and its virtues, but there are 1,000-plus open source licenses (according to analyst Saugatuck), and businesses face having to manage multiple licenses within a single open source product. What can be done to minimize multiple-license pain for corporate open source adopters?"
Open source has a long ways to go to match the number of different closed source licenses and eulas. Amateurs....
I'm pretty sure there are no 1000+ OSI approved licenses.
10 OSI approved licenses probably cover 90% of all open source.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
They cover a broad range of licensing needs. If there are hundreds of different licenses out there, it's only because the lawyers working for the firms involved have sold these companies on the notion that they need a custom-crafted license.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
If you use open source software, and not redistribute it you can mostly ignore the open source license. You can use it on as many computers as you like with many strange license combinations. For closed commercial software you have to track all the licenses, for open source you do not have to track the number of uses.
The real question begins if you want to distribute a packet of open source software and want to know if they are license compatible. ANd the real trouble starts if you want to use a loophole of some license to sell it bundled it together with your own commercial software.
Don't most open source licenses have one thing in common: you can use the software and install it on as many computers as you want free of charge. The problem comes up when you modify the code and then want to redistribute it. My question is how many businesses are modifying tons of different programs so that they have to worry about tons of different licenses? And if your company is big enough that you are modifying tons of programs then don't you have legal department with an army of high priced lawyers who would love to do nothing else but make sure you dotted all your i's and crossed your t's when it comes to the licenses? Maybe I missed something.
This article is semi-FUD, anyway. FTFA: Business users of open source software should review their Open Source licensing agreements, audit their use of Open Source and create formal policies for managing source code, especially mixed-source code. Which a business that is distributing code is doing anyway, via their legal department, outside counsel, and/or consultants. This issue has been highlighted in some open source discussion forums, but it is largely being ignored by IT and business leaders. Because the licenses are generally human readable by IT leaders, and business leaders have lawyers to handle that.
The general attitude in the OSS world that I'm picking up is that license proliferation is not a major problem. Choice is supposed to be good, no? Find the license that best satisfies your needs, or write your own. The two camps that seem to have the most concern about too many licenses are the FUD-spinners trying to damage OSS or the Free-bies that are trying to steer everyone towards GPL 3 and FSF hegemony. (Yes, I'm a bit biased.)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
There are two completely separate cases:
Using Software
With Free Software, this is always allowed. No problem.
With Proprietary software, this can be pretty complicated. Each piece of software has its own license with its own requirements, be it per-user licensing, per-seat licensing, per-CPU licensing, per-year licensing. Better hire a dedicated lawyer to make sure you have all your licenses lined up right.
Modifying/Redistributing Software
With Free Software, this can be pretty complicated. There are a number of licenses - some of which are incompatible with each other. You'll probably want to put some effort into license tracking, or even hire a lawyer if your situation is especially complicated.
With Proprietary software, this is always prohibited. No problem. (unless you screw up somehow, then you're liable for millions in damages.)
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.