Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Goes After Open Source Licensing Cruft

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the wheel-reinvention dept.

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."

15 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Ironic by JoshJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Care about privacy? Read this!
    1. Re:Ironic by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  2. Re:Kind of like... by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Funny
    > GPLv2?

    Of course.

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

  3. Wow! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!!!
    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  4. There are only two licenses I care about by DaleGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:There are only two licenses I care about by BrainInAJar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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"

    2. Re:There are only two licenses I care about by BrainInAJar · · Score: 3, Informative

      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)

  5. May or may not be happening... by fsmunoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. We are NOT creating a new license by gstein · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:We are NOT creating a new license by gstein · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:We are NOT creating a new license by chrisd · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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

      --
      Co-Editor, Open Sources
      Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
  7. More than that by Burz · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  8. Re:Google needs a mascot by Gwala · · Score: 5, Funny

    A spider.

    --
    #!/bin/csh cat $0
  9. Re:Quite ironic by chrisd · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You can bet I would be. Good thing that we're not planning on doing anything this stupid.

    Chris DiBona

    --
    Co-Editor, Open Sources
    Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
  10. Re:Kind of like... by StarfishOne · · Score: 4, Funny

    GPLv2 Beta?

    Fixed that for you. ;p