Google Goes After Open Source Licensing Cruft

pacopico writes "Google has secret plans to put out its own open source software license, according to this story in The Register. Apparently, Google's efforts will center around developing a simplified open source license that makes it easier for developers to stay "within the spirit" of the license in addition to the law. Chris DiBona at Google was asked about the plans but won't budge with details yet. Still, The Register claims that Google's efforts could improve the license proliferation issues facing the OSI."

Comments

Kind of like...

[Frosty Piss]

GPLv2?

Re:Kind of like...

[Deltaspectre]

Sure, after it gets to the second version

Re:Kind of like...

[Tackhead]

> GPLv2?

Of course.

The Google interprets revisions to the GPL as damage and licenses around them. ("That's GOO/Linux to you, Sir!")

Re:Kind of like...

[StarfishOne]

GPLv2 Beta?

Fixed that for you. ;p

Ironic

[JoshJ]

So Google's solution to "there are too many open source licenses!" is... to make another one?

Re:Ironic

[maxwell demon]

One license to rule them all
and in the darkness bind them.

Re:Ironic

[Justin205]

No, Google's solution is to make *Google's* license, and use that. And try to make everyone else use it, perhaps.

I wonder how it'll incorporate advertisements (Google's main source of revenue) into it.

Re:Ironic

[garcia]

So Google's solution to "there are too many open source licenses!" is... to make another one?

The statement that there were too many was simply Beta. Get with the program, duh!

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

So Google's solution to "there are too many open source licenses!" is... to make another one?

Hey, it worked for GPLv3, didn't it?

Re:Ironic

[Anne_Nonymous]

Sure, but this one is called Gnoogle.

Re:Ironic

[rucs_hack]

They want to make the ADA of the licensing world

maybe something modular?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thinking regards the Creative Commons license, which is almost like a license family. By having a comprehensive set of well-specified "modules", it allows content generators to pick the right fit for their output according to their needs and desires while at the same time being standardized enough that content consumers don't have to read over every word of the license with a fine toothed comb to figure out what is and isn't allowed.

Of course, the pragmatist in me thinks that if "the community" (gag) paid half the attention to fixing bugs and/or writing features (IN THAT ORDER) that "the community" pays to pointless IANAL-but-I'll-play-one-on-slashdot license wrangling then the Year of the Linux Desktop (pick your paradise here) would be last year instead of Real Soon Now.

Re:maybe something modular?

[AuMatar]

Which is why Creative Commons is absolutely fucking useless. "It has a Creative Commons license"- so what? That could mean anything, from public domain to absolutely no rights whatsoever (yes, there is a CC license where distribution is not allowed). Saying something is CC licensed means nothing unless you add in 15 acronyms afterwards, which you then have to figure out what they mean and how they legally interact. The current OSI mess is preferable to that- you know whats meant when someone says GPLv2, BSD, LGPL, etc.

Re:maybe something modular?

[ChrisMounce]

No more debates as to whether or not stuff like Tivoization should be allowed - you click a check box if you want to allow it, and leave it unchecked if you don't. You'll still have people claiming it's evil and others claiming it's okay, but at least they won't have to fight about it in the same license.

Re:maybe something modular?

[ChrisMounce]

Just because the licenses have confusing names doesn't make them "absolutely f***ing useless."

Re:maybe something modular?

[Rakishi]

And if you check it you have a new bloody license. People are fighting over it because they don't WANT to have 50 billion incompatible licenses to deal with.

Re:maybe something modular?

[AuMatar]

Yes, it does. You almost never hear about a "CC-by-blah-blah", you hear about something being "Creative Common licensed". WHich means, as I explained, jack shit. We didn't need 15 boiler plate licenses with no common theme or meaning, they've all existed for years. A website that shows examples would have been the most that was needed. Instead we have a nebulous term with no meaning that people think actually means something very specific. It sows confusion with no gain. That makes it even worse than useless, its counterproductive.

Re:maybe something modular?

[Carnildo]

No more debates as to whether or not stuff like Tivoization should be allowed - you click a check box if you want to allow it, and leave it unchecked if you don't. You'll still have people claiming it's evil and others claiming it's okay, but at least they won't have to fight about it in the same license.

And poof, you have inflicted the open-source software world with the same confusing license mess that Creative Commons gave to the free content world. Most people can't tell the difference between a Creative Commons Attribution license and a Creative Commons Noncommercial No-derivatives license -- they just see "Creative Commons", and think they're allowed to do what they want with it.

Re:maybe something modular?

[cstdenis]

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with 50 billion incenses, but something really does need to be done about the compatibility problem. Optimally we need a license that is somehow compatible with both BSD and GPL, but I don't think thats even possible since GPL is restrictive and BSD is free.

Re:maybe something modular?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the BSD more free than GPL? All licenses are "restrictive", that's the entire point of a license. They're just restricting different behaviors; which set chafes more depends more on you than on the license...

Re:maybe something modular?

[JesseMcDonald]

Actually the point of CC wasn't to create a specific license, but rather to create a set of generic, standard, universal licenses representing the entire spectrum from all-permissive to all-restrictive, combined with a standard way of identifying each kind of license (the formulaic names, and the type-specific CC logos) and indicating them programmaticly (via XML) for filtering in e.g. file-sharing applications. I would say they've done fairly well on all these goals.

As for license proliferation, most of the existing licenses you refer to were designed specifically for code and have uncertainly applicability to artwork, prose, music, etc. E.g. the BSD license makes reference to documentation accompanying the work; what exactly would that mean for a sound recording? The CC licenses were designed to cover these other varieties of media.

Re:maybe something modular?

[AuMatar]

I know that CC was designed for non-code. So what? The very point of CC is still counterproductive. Instead of creating a license for other media to fill a goal, you have a large number of licenses with no common theme, that are frequently confused with each other, and which actively confuse the conversation over copyright because people think it means something similar to open source for non-code. It was pointless from the beginning, and is actively harmful for anyone trying to actually license or use content.

Re:maybe something modular?

[Goaway]

Yes, it does. You almost never hear about a "CC-by-blah-blah", you hear about something being "Creative Common licensed". Yeah, sure, if your only source of input is badly written Slashdot summaries.

Meanwhile, if you actually looked for some content that is using the licenses, you would see that they are pretty much always clearly labelled.

Wow!

[Black Parrot]

Chris DiBona at Google was asked about the plans but won't budge with details yet. It's so open they have to keep it secret!!!

Google needs a mascot

[bobcat7677]

Google needs a mascot to start pushing stuff like this. Gieko has the gecko, Linux has the penguin. Google should have something like a platypus maybe. Or a lemming. Something soft and furry to soften people's hearts.

Re:Google needs a mascot

[Brandybuck]

Slackware already has the Platypus, though it hasn't used it in a while. When that stupid flightless waterfowl came along, the platypus got pushed into the corner.

No one has the chinchilla though.

Re:Google needs a mascot

[Anonymous Coward]

Gieko has the gecko, Linux has the penguin. Google should have something like a platypus maybe. Or a lemming. Something soft and furry to soften people's hearts.

I vote for an arse made out of lard, to symbolise the average software developer and Google fan-boy.

Re:Google needs a mascot

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a plush tank to commemorate Tiananmen Square? It's cute, cuddly and reminds people who's boss!

Re:Google needs a mascot

[creativeHavoc]

Hey, chose the Vancouver Island Marmot! 2 birds with one stone. Google gets a furry mascot, and the marmot gets more awareness in the media. http://www.marmots.org/

Re:Google needs a mascot

[Anonymous Coward]

No, apparently Google has Chris DiBona as mascot

Re:Google needs a mascot

[Anonymous Coward]

Vancouver Island Marmot

Perhaps vim might be interested?

Re:Google needs a mascot

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, *PT-T-TB*! Google'd want a gopher or a mole. If you don't know why, you haven't been using the Internet very long.

Re:Google needs a mascot

[TheRealMindChild]

Why does it have to be a creature? Why can't it be a jelly bean? Or a Chinese meat cleaver?

Re:Google needs a mascot

[Gwala]

A spider.

Re:Google needs a mascot

[FrozenFOXX]

I vote for a fox. Maybe an arctic fox but since Google seems to love Firefox I don't see the big problem in combining a red panda next to a red fox.

Can't help it, I love my foxes.

Re:Google needs a mascot

[Xiph1980]

How 'bout a Guinea pig. they could call it the gPig and I mean, who could say no to a fellow like this.

:)

Re:Google needs a mascot

[vain gloria]

Google needs a mascot to start pushing stuff like this. Gieko has the gecko, Linux has the penguin. Google should have something like a platypus maybe. Or a lemming. Something soft and furry to soften people's hearts.

Dweezil, the "Don't be evil!" Weasel?

Re:Google needs a mascot

[srpatterson]

They could promote one of their hard working yet overlooked pigeons - http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

Re:Google needs a mascot

[srpatterson]

Just what we need, a furry-compatible open source licence :P

but yay snowfoxes ^^

Re:Google needs a mascot

[cburley]

When that stupid flightless waterfowl came along, the platypus got pushed into the corner.

Nobody puts Platy in a corner!

There are only two licenses I care about

[DaleGlass]

GPL and BSD.

IMO, those represent very well the two different approaches to the problem. The rest are a needless complication. Besides, their meaning and implications are understood very well, so I don't see what Google is going to achieve by creating their own.

Re:There are only two licenses I care about

[BrainInAJar]

I'll add to that MPL. GPL vs. MPL vs. BSD is "make all code free" vs "keep my code free" vs "do as you wish"

Re:There are only two licenses I care about

[gstein]

That thinking was exactly why I included MPL in the list of licenses on Google Code. It was a mistake though... in practice, nobody uses it (about 2% of projects on Google Code). To further reduce proliferation, I've been thinking about removing it as a choice (and grandfathering existing projects who use it).

Re:There are only two licenses I care about

[BrainInAJar]

That's unfortunate that it's not in more widespread use.

It's a good class of licenses, but The largest problems with the MPL are that everyone creates their own minor variant ( apple's licence, Sun's CDDL, myriads more) and that the GPL gets so much press time (people assume open source = GPL, so that's what they release their code under)

Re:There are only two licenses I care about

[malevo]

GPL and BSD. Do you mean GPLv2 or GPLv3? Those 2 are different licenses and are incompatible. There is a lot of software that is GPLv2 only, and can't link to GPLv3 software.

Re:There are only two licenses I care about

[noidentity]

I'd add a third, the proprietary license. Those cover the "use copyright to keep code open" (GPL), "use copyright to keep code closed" (proprietary), and "put copyright mostly aside" (BSD-style) extremes. The rest are pretty much inbetween (and unnecessary).

Re:There are only two licenses I care about

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll add to that MPL. GPL vs. MPL vs. BSD is "make all code free" vs "keep my code free" vs "do as you wish"

Actually, that's pretty incorrect. GPL is "make all code GPL". The freedom to choose a different license for portions of a GPL-ed work is taken away.

Re:There are only two licenses I care about

[DaleGlass]

I think that the GPLv2 and GPLv3 are the same underlying concept, except for GPLv3 closes some loopholes.

I'd choose based on compatibility issues. If possible, GPLv3, if that would cause a compatibility issue, then GPLv2.

Re:There are only two licenses I care about

[Goaway]

If you're responsible for that list, why isn't "public domain" on it? Or at least, it wasn't back when I set up some projects some time ago.

Re:There are only two licenses I care about

[thomas.galvin]

I'll add to that MPL. GPL vs. MPL vs. BSD is "make all code free" vs "keep my code free" vs "do as you wish" And the LGPL, which is reasonably similar to the MPL, and too popular to ignore.

Re:There are only two licenses I care about

[gstein]

The concept of Public Domain is actually pretty difficult to do with software. It is kind of hard to "abandon" the fact that you wrote the software which means you will always be liable for it. And you can't attach a disclaimer of warranty because that obviates public domain :-P Throw in that France won't let you disown your copyrighted works, and the whole area about PD software grows real murky. Daniel Berlin could probably be more specific, I just know the rough bits here. This question has also come up on our google-code-hosting@googlegroups.com mailing list; there should be more details there.

In any case, if you want to provide users with lots of rights, then I'd simply recommend going with the Apache License.

Re:There are only two licenses I care about

[Goaway]

Well, some of us still want to try. It would be really be nice to have that option.

May or may not be happening...

[fsmunoz]

We also discuss Google's super-secret project that may or may not be happening around creating a new open source software licensing model.

Google to Change the World with New Open Source License

* Subhead - We might be making this up

Well, at least they're honest.

Anyway, assuming this is true... I don't see the big difference or importance. In one way everyone is free to choose and create a licence that suits his needs. On the other the creation of yet another licence that means the same than already existing ones isn't really something to be in awe about. If it provides more "legal protection" people will complain it's legalese, if it doesn't then it's no different from dozens of other ones. A "simplified open source license that makes it easier for developers to stay "within the spirit" of the license in addition to the law" doesn't mean anything in concrete terms, and what is worse makes the assumption that current popular free licences somehow make it hard to do the same.

If in the last months so many interpretations were made regarding a licence as simple as the ISC licence I'm not sure any licence in the world is invulnerable to different interpretations. On that note the SFLC has issued a position regarding the GPLv2/GPLv3/BSD licences mixing that have been all the rage.

Re:May or may not be happening...

[einhverfr]

Interestingly, the SFLC link you provide doesn't answer to my main concern about GPL v3/BSDL compatibility.

They state "From the beginnings of their use, however, the permissive licenses have been understood by their licensors and licensees alike to permit the code they cover to be incorporated within larger works covered as a whole by more restrictive terms, including more restrictive FOSS licenses like the GPL as well as, indeed, by proprietary licenses. This understanding represents the uninterrupted, longstanding practice and expectation of the global information technology industry, including both its free and proprietary divisions, with vast commercial reliance on the result. As such, disruption of the established interpretation of the permissive licenses is neither likely nor desirable."

The concern I have with the GPL 3 is not the question of whether the larger work can have additional restrictions added (clearly this is allowed), but rather whether the BSD License allows restrictions to be removed from BSDL components absent copyrighted additions. This is in relation to section 7, paragraph 2, which allows anyone who merely conveys the software to remove additional permissions, not just from the "work as a whole" but additionally from "any part of" the covered work. The BSD-licensed projects I have talked with suggest that excersizing this right would violate the license since one cannot merely declare the BSD license grant to be void in the process of distributing the software.

Re:May or may not be happening...

[fsmunoz]

Ehe, this looks like a fork from our ongoing debate in a now buried thread. Since more people are reading this one I'll answer it here, maybe someone has something interesting to add (ahahaha, just kidding).

The BSD people you have talked with are correct IMO, and as I said in the other thread that is also my interpretation and the interpretation of the FSF when writing the section. Additional copyright notices and "reasonable legal notices" are regarded as an allowed restriction even if the text is "permissive" (well, especially then, since that is part of the concept of "reasonable legal notices"). The BSDL is basically PD with further restrictions: the beginning says "Permission granted..." but then sets forth a number of restrictions which fall within the ones listed in section 7 of the GPL. Since it is a restriction (several, actually) it can't be removed. If it said "You can do whatever you want with the code" that would be an additional permission: by definition you can always remove it since it doesn't state any objections to you doing so (just like PD code allows for the removal of "This code is in the Publiv Domain"). The BSDL/ISC/MIT do state the need to maintain the copyright notice... that's not an additional permission.

This for GPLv3, of cource. They do mention that since the notices set forth in the BSDL are, in a different but perfectly correspondent language,present in the GPL the case could be made that by using the GPL you are complying with the terms of the BSDL (since you guarantee all the points in the BSDL licence). That is however a different debate, and IANAL.

Re:May or may not be happening...

[einhverfr]

Ehe, this looks like a fork from our ongoing debate in a now buried thread. Since more people are reading this one I'll answer it here, maybe someone has something interesting to add (ahahaha, just kidding).

I can't find the thread either.

The BSD people you have talked with are correct IMO, and as I said in the other thread that is also my interpretation and the interpretation of the FSF when writing the section. Additional copyright notices and "reasonable legal notices" are regarded as an allowed restriction even if the text is "permissive" (well, especially then, since that is part of the concept of "reasonable legal notices"). The BSDL is basically PD with further restrictions: the beginning says "Permission granted..." but then sets forth a number of restrictions which fall within the ones listed in section 7 of the GPL. Since it is a restriction (several, actually) it can't be removed. If it said "You can do whatever you want with the code" that would be an additional permission: by definition you can always remove it since it doesn't state any objections to you doing so (just like PD code allows for the removal of "This code is in the Publiv Domain"). The BSDL/ISC/MIT do state the need to maintain the copyright notice... that's not an additional permission.

I am not sure that works. People tend to think of a work-as-a-whole license wrapping around all components used with permission. This is not the case (as pretty much any copyright attourney, including Mr Moglen, will tell you). In essence, just because you use a code excerpt with permission doesn't mean that you can tell people what they can do with that code excerpt when they remove it from your application. Only the copyright owner has that power.

My view is that the BSD License is a permission grant to all people who come into posession of that code. It is a permission grant because the copyright holder is giving permission for the recipient, however they came by the code, to exercise all rights granted by that license. Again, we agree that this can't be arbitrarily abridged for BSDL elements in the code (including but not limited to copyright-worthy code fragments) without asserting copyright in the process.

However, the problem is that the GPL v3 requires the ability to remove these "additional permissions" from "any part of" the covered work, not when you modify that part (where you would arguably have copyrights to your changes) but where you merely "convey" the source code. Thus by my reading, the BSDL would only be compatible with the GPL v3 if I, as a distributor, could unilaterally change the rights granted to downstream users to the GPL v3 without asserting any of my own copyrights in the process.

This for GPLv3, of cource. They do mention that since the notices set forth in the BSDL are, in a different but perfectly correspondent language,present in the GPL the case could be made that by using the GPL you are complying with the terms of the BSDL (since you guarantee all the points in the BSDL licence). That is however a different debate, and IANAL.

Ok, in the GPL v2, you can use works under other licenses provided that it is possible to meet the requirements of both licenses simultaneously. This generally means that licenses which don't provide additional copyright, patent, or use restrictions are generally compatible with the GPL v2 provided that one license does not require that you violate the other. Hence most (but not all) permissive licenses are compatible (Apache 2.0, MS-PL, and Old BSD are not for various reasons.

For example, take a look at the ICU license, copied almost verbatim from the X.org license but ammended to make more like the BSDL:
"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/o

Re:May or may not be happening...

[trifish]

On that note the SFLC has issued a position regarding the GPLv2/GPLv3/BSD licences mixing that have been all the rage.

Thanks for that link. I especially like the following part, which confirms what a true mess the GPL can make when you attempt to combine it with a more permissive license in a single project:

"2.3 Keeping modified files permissive-licensed within larger GPL'd works

[] Whenever possible, the stewards of the codebase should consult with a lawyer to be sure that the file is sufficiently independent of and distinct from the core of the GPL'd project to permit continued licensing of the file under the permissive terms despite the application of the GPL to the project as a whole." (emphasis mine)

Other open source licenses don't require all portions of a covered work to be under the same license. That's why they don't create such a mess and are not as viral as the GPL.

Re:May or may not be happening...

[Anonymous Coward]

On that note the SFLC has issued a position regarding the GPLv2/GPLv3/BSD licences mixing that have been all the rage.

Burried deep in the document I found that someone from the GPL crowd now tries to say that "the permissive licenses" (whatever that over-generalizing plural term means) do allow relicensing because people "always believed" they do. Now would you trust a lawyer writing something like that?

From the beginnings of their use, however, the permissive licenses have been understood by their licensors and licensees alike to permit the code they cover to be incorporated within larger works covered as a whole by more restrictive terms, including more restrictive FOSS licenses like the GPL as well as, indeed, by proprietary licenses. This understanding represents the uninterrupted, longstanding practice and expectation of the global information technology industry, including both its free and proprietary divisions, with vast commercial reliance on the result. As such, disruption of the established interpretation of the permissive licenses is neither likely nor desirable. Jesus.

Re:May or may not be happening...

[trifish]

Yes, that's as stupid as saying it's legal to share mp3's via P2P because people have always believed it was legal. I wouldn't trust a lawyer claiming something like that.

Re:May or may not be happening...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this example clarifies:

GPLv3 says that you can distribute the code under certain terms. One of these terms is a requirement to include a copy of the GPLv3. Similarly, BSDL says that you can distribute the code under certain terms, and one of the terms require that a copy of BSDL is included.

Now if you include a BSD licensed file in a larger GPLv3 project, you must obey the terms of both GPLv3 and BSDL if you distribute the work. From the point of view of GPLv3, the requirement of including a copy of the BSDL is an additional restriction: if you hadn't had any BSDL code in the project, there would be no need to include a copy of BSDL text.

Re:May or may not be happening...

[fsmunoz]

Other open source licenses don't require all portions of a covered work to be under the same license. That's why they don't create such a mess and are not as viral as the GPL. That's hilarious considering that the latest discussions are about what can and can't be done with the BSDL, and what are the requirements for mixing BSDL code in GPL applications, not the other way around. The latest months have made it quite clear that the BSD/ISC/MIT licences are subject to multiple opposing interpretations that can drasticaly changes what you can actually do with the code, which is rather funny given the "freer than thou" mantra I keep hearing. The general feeling is that you are free to use it, just not for GPL projects. To each its own I guess.

As for needing a lawyer, it's of course to be expected in a document produced by lawyers that they say that, and it is logical that they do so: doubts about legal matters are better resolved by lawyers. Like, say, wanting to know if the BSDL requirements need verbatim reproduction of the warranty disclaimer or just a general warranty disclaimer. Or if Theo is right about his view on dual licencing and the requirements of the BSDL that make it void. Or any other of the dozens of different views on why you can or can't use BSDL code in projects without doing a random ammount of things.

Re:May or may not be happening...

[einhverfr]

I understand that argument. I agree that your position is correct on that limited issue. My issue with compatibility is a different limited issue, and has to do with whether the rights granted under the GPL v3, section 7, paragraph 2 can be meaningfully exercised on BSD-licensed code. I contend that they cannot be, and so the BSD license actually abridges rights granted in the GPL v3.

This is not a notice requirement issue. It is the fact that the fact that the notice effectively prevents excersizing rights granted under the GPL v3, section 7, paragraph 2.

Re:May or may not be happening...

[fsmunoz]

Well, actually I do think that the practice and the intentions of the people that use a licence is not something to disregard in terms of understanding the effects of the licence, especially if it is an "uninterrupted, longstanding practice and expectation" (not saying that it is for sure in this situation, although I tend to agree that it is). The example that you cite is actually completely correct: BSD licenced code have always been incorporated into larger bodies of work that as a whole were covered by another licence. Heck, this has been the main focus of pride and distinction that BSDL advocates use to show that the BSDL is freer than the GPL, and I find it surprising that all of the sudden some people have reverted in this main point.

One point in which things do get more complex is in incorporating BSDL code in a GPL application and assume that the intent of the BSDL points are already covered in the GPL (copyright display and warranty limitation) - albeit with a different, but correspondent, wording - and so there is no need to preserve the BSDL in its original form. Now *this* is a topic that is more sensible and controversial, not the above.

Re:May or may not be happening...

[trifish]

The general feeling is that you are free to use it, just not for GPL projects

Right, but because of the terms of the GPL. Other Open Source licenses (Apache, BSD, etc.) don't impose any restrictions on combinations of licenses in a single work. Only the GPL insists that the whole work must be under the GPL. That's why it creates such a mess.

Re:May or may not be happening...

[fsmunoz]

Right, but because of the terms of the GPL. Other Open Source licenses (Apache, BSD, etc.) don't impose any restrictions on combinations of licenses in a single work. Only the GPL insists that the whole work must be under the GPL. That's why it creates such a mess. I wouldn't call it a mess but an unavoidable way to reach its objectives, but I agree with you there. Also, proprietary licences also cover the entire body of work and the BSDL doesn't get in the way (because there is no source). All in all a rather unfortunate situation made much bigger than it really is in recent months IMO.

Re:May or may not be happening...

[trifish]

unavoidable way to reach its objectives

If these objectives are to preserve the well-known Freedoms, then it would have been better if the GPL only required that licenses covering the work must grant the Freedoms (instead of insisting that the whole work must be under the GPL).

The GPL prevents sharing in the open source world so much that they had to create the LGPL.

Re:May or may not be happening...

[fsmunoz]

The objectives of the GPL are clear from the beginning, as is the FSF view on software. You might dislike both, and you are perfectly within your right to do so, but it isn't something new and the arguments from both sides are well known by now.

Google is a CLOSED SOURCE company

[Anonymous Coward]

All this "summer of code" and other initiatives are just Windows dressing (oops, window dressing).

If they think FOSS is so great, why don't they release their search code under a free or OSI license (their choice)?

Now, I'm not saying Google is necessarily evil. I use their product many times a day, and I do appreciate it. But, their continued PR stuff around FOSS is annoying.

What the heck is "Cruft"?

[Jeremy_Bee]

Is that like a PC, Christian American way of saying "crap"?
Why not just say crap?
(or "stuff" for that matter)

sounds like a Bushism.

Re:What the heck is "Cruft"?

[bobsledbob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruft

Re:What the heck is "Cruft"?

[qtp]

Learn to look things up.

This Wikipedia entry is rather helpful.

Re:What the heck is "Cruft"?

[LunarCrisis]

Why not just say crap? Because we're nerds, damnit!

Re:What the heck is "Cruft"?

[syntaxglitch]

Is that like a PC, Christian American way of saying "crap"?
Why not just say crap?
(or "stuff" for that matter)

The watered-down word you're thinking of would be "crud", not "cruft". Cruft has other connotations that are not synonymous with other words.

By the way, in most uses "crap" is already a watered-down version of "shit". If you're going to complain about "PC, Christian" language, why not use the real fucking profanity yourself, not this damn pussy shit like "crap"? What the hell, man.

;)

Wow, I hope I had a positive effect or hand in it.

[davidsyes]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=305011&cid=20701429

Just a license?

[Hatta]

I hope they're planning to put out some software under this license.

We are NOT creating a new license

[gstein]

This is just stupid. We are not... repeat NOT... creating a new license.

On Google Code, we are taking a stand AGAINST license proliferation -- you can only use one of eight licenses there. And I've been thinking of dropping it to seven (remove MPL). Creating our own license(s) would go completely against our philosophy.

No. The simple answer is that we like to encourage people to use GPLv3 or Apache for their software, depending upon their philosophy. Dropping back to just those two licenses would be ideal. The FLOSS world would be SO much better if there were just a couple licenses because it would radically simplify the use/combination of software.

Sheesh.

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[1155]

I'd have to pull my project if you removed the 3 clause bsd.

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[gstein]

About 9% of the projects on Google Code use the "new" BSD, so we're keeping that. No worries :-)

GPLv2, GPLv3, and Apache -licensed projects make up two-thirds of all projects.

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[jonwil]

One big problem is the number of OSS licenses created by companies who open source previously commercial software. (or to write new software themselves and open it up) Examples:
Netscape Public License
OpenWatcom Public License
Sun CDDL
IBM CPL
QT QPL
Apple Public Source License

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[Frosty Piss]

No. The simple answer is that we like to encourage people to use GPLv3...

Yes, and just HOW MUCH of Google's Super Secret Code is GPL/anything? I don't mean to be a troll, but while Google might very well encourage others to use license THEIR work under Open Source, Google tends to be quite tight with their own code.

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite right, Google gives nothing back.

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[chrisd]

Thanks for posting this Greg! I thought it was some kind of joke when Ashlee emailed me, I mean, how many times do we have to say we're not creating our own licenses, you know?

Chris

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, one of the many Google Fan Bois. Go back to your masturbating.

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[CandyMan]

Two-thirds of all projects, and I would guess that about 90% of all lines of code. I am curious to know, has anybody done the study?

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[Alterion]

Its certainly refreshing to see a google open source presence on slashdot (with 4 digit UID's aswell :P). In marked contrast to Apple and Microsoft stories on Open source where those parents have remained deafeningly silent by comparison.

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[simong]

Commercial confidentiality still exists. I am no Google fanboy, but I believe in the right for companies to have proprietary code if it's fundamental to the operation of their business and if it hasn't been taken from work released as FOSS.

Look at it like this: if Google released the PageRank algorithms under the GPL their core business would be destroyed overnight and a great deal of work that is being sponsored as FOSS would lose Google's support. There has to be an ecology, and if business wants to support FOSS from its profits then it should do so, or we would all end up sleeping under our desks.

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[Thwomp]

You must be new here... hey, wait a minute!

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[rudlavibizon]

So, what about gPhone?

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[1155]

Cool. Honestly, I use it because it doesn't take 3 days to read+interpret the license.

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I knew you Googlites were a bunch of arrogant pricks, but you have some nerve to presume that the two licenses you dictate serve the needs of EVERYONE.

Let me know when you start releasing your own code before spouting such garbage again.
God, am I tired of you "We're not evil" hypocrites.

Re:We are NOT creating a new license

[I'm Don Giovanni]

What's so "refreshing" about it? Wasn't Dibona a slashdot editor before he went to Google? It's not like this is hostile territory for Google posters. Slashdot is one of Google's propaganda arms. Slashdot is to Google as Fox News is to Bush.

Now, it *is* refreshing when Microsoft guys post here (and they do), because they enter hostile territory and give a different perspective than the slashdot group-think. And it *would* be refreshing for Apple guys to post here because they never post anywhere. But Google guys posting here adds absolutely nothing.

More than that

[Burz]

...those two licenses are models of simplicity compared to most proprietary licenses.

Quite ironic

[einhverfr]

I think that if and when Chris Dibona proposes this on the OSI license-discuss list, he is going to be put in the hotseat perhaps in the same way as Microsoft. The basic issue is that he has been really arguing loudly for the idea that OSI should only approve new licenses when depricating an old one. It seems that license proliferation argumenst are likely to come back against such a proposal.

Re:Quite ironic

[chrisd]

You can bet I would be. Good thing that we're not planning on doing anything this stupid.

Chris DiBona

Re:Quite ironic

[b.rudge]

Is this THE Chris DiBona? Or just some Troll pretending...?

Re:Quite ironic

[TuringTest]

Is this THE Chris DiBona? Or just some Troll pretending...? Just compare his /. number versus yours...

Re:Quite ironic

[I'm Don Giovanni]

So you aren't going to try to get OSI to certify this? Even after Michael Tiemann's "If it's not OSI, then it's not 'open source'" rant?
http://www.opensource.org/node/163
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/21/1146259

I find that hard to believe.

Re:Quite ironic

[Pollardito]

i took him to mean "we don't have secret plans to put out a license"

Itsatrap

[newgalactic]

Itsatrap ...oh, wait. Wrong mega company trying to take over the world.

The imminent release of 'Google Apps' for Linux

[Burz]

...may have prompted DiBona to field the idea of a Google-inspired license. They may be afraid of the 'viral' nature of the platform they are writing for.

If that's the case, then it points to some far-reaching stuff possibly coming out of their labs. Things that may require kernel modules...

Ob. Strangelove

[Wesley Felter]

"You idiot! The point of the doomsday license is lost if you keep it a secret!"

Eh?

[MightyMartian]

"Still, The Register claims that Google's efforts could improve the license proliferation issues facing the OSI."

So let me get this straight. Adding yet another open source license is the solution to license proliferation.

Does anyone know or have a good

[LM741N]

guess at how many software licenses there are? I guess everybody has their favorite and if they don't like what they see, they make up their own.

Re:Does anyone know or have a good

[Anonymous Coward]

What a good question! I'll send you the answer, as soon as I finish setting up my automated system that creates new open source licenses algorithmically at random intervals.

Re:Does anyone know or have a good

[LM741N]

Excellent. I will have a lifetime supply of toilet paper.

GPL indeed

[Godji]

Google Pointless License, version 1 or later

It's time to bring out the WTFPL

[tangent3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

Re:It's time to bring out the WTFPL

[LunarCrisis]

for ( i=0 ; i < MAX_BASE ; i++ ) if ( belongsTo[base[i]] == YOU ) belongsTo[base[i]] = US ;

Your last base are belong to us!

You evidently meant i < BASE_COUNT or i <= MAX_BASE.

What's the name of the company again?

[master5o1]

is it Google or GNOogle?

people assume open source = GPL

[themusicgod1]

"people assume open source = GPL" ...as RMS spins in his grave

Re:people assume open source = GPL

[BrainInAJar]

RMS is a hippie that thinks nobody should be allowed to make non-GPL software at all. It wasn't until people started not paying attention to him that FOSS outside of BSD took off at all in any real sense

Re:people assume open source = GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you wait to post this until after my mod points were gone?

Re:people assume open source = GPL

[vagabond_gr]

RMS is a hippie Indeed, good for him.

that thinks nobody should be allowed to make non-GPL software at all. There are perfectly good reasons to believe that software (and anything the can be copied in general) should be freely used, and distributed and studied and modified, without the need of any license to enforce that. If the resource is infinite then the full use of it is ethical and it's in the society's best interest. This is what (always IMHO) RMS believes and I fully agree with him. GPL is a good way to achieve this, given then current legal system.

It wasn't until people started not paying attention to him that FOSS outside of BSD took off at all in any real sense Well, it's hard to overemphasize RMS's contribution to free software. But, in any case, RMS is just another person whose opinion you should consider when forming your own. If you don't like hippies, just ignore him.

Google follows Microsoft once again

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to see they are at least consistent.

Beerware

[sadangel]

As simple licenses go, you can't get much simpler than the beerware license. I'd love to see Google adopt it!

sadangel wrote this comment. As long as you retain this notice you can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and you think this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return.

lyra.org

[Anonymous Coward]

...is suddenly slashdotted.

Summary

[SEWilco]

Important Legal Notice

Do no evil.

:-) 2007 Google, Inc.

why?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The simple answer is that we like to encourage people to use GPLv3 or Apache for their software

Why exactly you want to encourage anything?

Oh God

[Anonymous Coward]

I can already hear RMS and ESR howling like a couple of dogs in heat.

Go ahead and mod me down.

It is similar to the LGPL anyway

[Per Abrahamsen]

The "keep free" boundary is a bit different (file vs. library), but it is not that difficult to go from one to another. The Mozilla people actually called the MPL a "fixed" version of the LGPL.

The author has a bee in her bonnet

[simong]

about Google not returning code to the Open Source movement. Practically every article that she writes that mentions Google includes this allegation or the similar claim that Google 'writes around' the principles of FOSS. Yet when she is questioned on it, she can't show any proof and somehow manages to ignore the million lines of code that Google has returned and the initiatives that it runs and manages under FOSS licencing. Apparently Google has to be completely open and not have any commercially confidential code at all because it uses free and open source software, which shows a stunning lack of understanding of business and of FOSS.

BSD?

[NekoXP]

Can you get any simpler and in-spirit than 3-clause BSD? Are we just going to get the "Googlized MIT License" out of this?

Stallman swears, throws chair

[Anonymous Coward]

Reports are that emerging that Richard Stallman has recently thrown a chair against a wall and stating he would "f'ing kill Google". Mr. Stallman is known as the "brains" behind the commercially hostile, business unfriendly, and extremely unsuccessful GPLv3.

Story developing, film at 11.

Thanks for your reply :-)

[einhverfr]

I think we can put the rumors to rest now.

Will it be called...

[codemoose]

GooPLe?

Re:Will it be called...

[fuliginous]

GGL

Google General License