Slashdot Mirror
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."
GPLv2?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
So Google's solution to "there are too many open source licenses!" is... to make another one?
Care about privacy? Read this!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
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.
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.
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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.
Just because the licenses have confusing names doesn't make them "absolutely f***ing useless."
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruft
Beware of geeks bearing formulas.
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=305011&cid=20701429
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
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.
...those two licenses are models of simplicity compared to most proprietary licenses.
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Itsatrap ...oh, wait. Wrong mega company trying to take over the world.
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.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
...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...
"You idiot! The point of the doomsday license is lost if you keep it a secret!"
So let me get this straight. Adding yet another open source license is the solution to license proliferation.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Google Pointless License, version 1 or later
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
is it Google or GNOogle?
signature is pants
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.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
"people assume open source = GPL" ...as RMS spins in his grave
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
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.
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Do no evil.
Mr. Period: Nine is the one that's right by ten!
Nine: One day I will kill him. Then, I will be Ten.
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.
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.
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?
Meanwhile, if you actually looked for some content that is using the licenses, you would see that they are pretty much always clearly labelled.
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.
I think we can put the rumors to rest now.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
GooPLe?