Google Reverses "Absurd" Mozilla Code Ban

Barence writes "Google has reversed its decision to ban projects created under the Mozilla Public License from being hosted on its Google Code site. Google banned the license in August, claiming it wanted to 'make a statement against open-source license proliferation' which it blamed for hindering the cross-pollination of code from one project to another. Chris DiBona, of Google's open source team, described its decision to ban the MPL as 'absurd,' citing the community's huge popularity." Jamie mentions that the issue was raised from the floor at OSCON at the Google Open Source Update panel, with DiBona on stage.

Comments

Well, Google does have a point..

[jonnythan]

If there's a million "open source" licenses (which there are), it can become virtually impossible for code to move between projects with different licensing.

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[somersault]

To counter this problem, I have created a new type of open source license, that allows my code to be used in any other project, regardless of what license it uses*!

*Unless of course the resulting product is conceivably going to be used for commercial purposes, or by people with moustaches.

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Or for a big company to use all that juicy free code for its web based services without having to offer source rights to users.

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[Anonymous Coward]

Waah. They're distribution licenses, and you aren't distributing code, only output.

Blow a goat.

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[Anonymous Coward]

wait... I love open source and I have a moustache!!!

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[bwcbwc]

This is true. If you want to ensure license compatibility across your entire codebase, where do you draw the line at supporting (semi-)popular open source licenses?
GPLv2, GPLv3, LGPL, BSD, Apache, Creative Commons, MIT/X Consortium, Mozilla, Sun Community, and Eclipse are probably the top 10 (not necessarily in ranked order) in terms of number of licensed product copies in use, as opposed to the number of projects using the license. Even within this set, there are incompatibilities.

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[severoon]

Someone should start an organization that proposes an open source licensing standard that can go around and get all the other licensing schemes to sign up. It'll be great—they could have a committee, and that committee could make decisions by committee, and there would be conferences in Vegas or Hawaii...

It's time the open source community move to the end game that the entire movement has been aimed at all along—it's always just been a big ruse to bilk corporate expense accounts, and the time for action is nigh!

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[Paradise Pete]

wait... I love open source and I have a moustache!!!

If you truly loved open source you'd shave that thing off.

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[jimmyhat3939]

I've had this exact problem with Google. I made some porting for a set of code. My porting used Qt, which is distributed under a different license than the standard one Google uses. Anyway, it took like 6 months for the code to get posted online.

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[kdemetter]

me too , let's start a movement : Moustaches for free/open source. Maybe we can get RMS too , since he clearly likes facial hair.

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's a million "open source" licenses (which there are), it can become virtually impossible for code to move between projects with different licensing.

Chris Dibona is known for actively working against licenses such as the GPL and MPL that guarantee openness of source code. In promoting this agenda he has alienated himself and Google from a significant part of the open source community.

In a related policy, only Subversion, which uses the non-copyleft Apache license favored by Dibona, is allowed on the code.google.com project hosting site. Git, mercurial and every other modern open source version control system are permanently banned. Do not bother asking about it, it is a faq item that only Subversion will be supported, in spite of its deficiencies.

Google/Dibona says: "Why aren't you offering my favorite tool? We want our collaborative development environment to be simple, fast, reliable, and scalable, so we only offer tools that are aligned with those goals. But this is hardly credible. Both GIT and Mercurial are faster, more reliable, more scalable and more simple than Subversion, which is apparently favored only because of license prejudice, or perhaps because Dibona shares his office with Greg Stein, the Subversion developer.

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[RiotingPacifist]

get an afro dude!

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[Daniel Phillips]

If you want to ensure license compatibility across your entire codebase, where do you draw the line at supporting (semi-)popular open source licenses?

I suggest drawing the line at wherever the OSI draws it instead of playing favorites, which risks creating the impression of advancing an agenda.

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[5of0]

You might want to reconsider that. There is a proven significant link between facial hair and the success of programming languages. I would assume there is a similar correlation in any software project.

I predict the GPP's license is doomed to preside over failures, due to the intrinsic lack of facial hair.

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[Anonymous Coward]

Google/Dibona says: "Why aren't you offering my favorite tool? We want our collaborative development environment to be simple, fast, reliable, and scalable, so we only offer tools that are aligned with those goals.

But this is hardly credible. Both GIT and Mercurial are faster, more reliable, more scalable and more simple than Subversion, which is apparently favored only because of license prejudice, or perhaps because Dibona shares his office with Greg Stein, the Subversion developer.

Yes this is dumb, and even within the company it is a cause of debate. The people currently in charge of Google code have certain biases, based on what they have worked/work on. It's understandable that they don't want to integrate tools they don't know, and it is their project. However the only way we can add weight to our arguments internally is if people keep asking for it externally.

So, please, do not stop complaining, blogging, and posting about how you would use Google code if it supported a VCS with a more modern design, or that you are using it but very unhappy about the lack of VCS choice. The important thing is that what you say is in public; don't just email about it or try a feedback link. Some of us are pulling for you, but we need your help with a good number of voices, credible topic coverage, and well reasoned arguments. That's the only way we can change minds.

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[Anonymous Coward]

The important thing is that what you say is in public; don't just email about it or try a feedback link. Some of us are pulling for you, but we need your help with a good number of voices, credible topic coverage, and well reasoned arguments. That's the only way we can change minds.

How about firing Chris Dibona?

Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, given Google's record, I refuse to host any of my projects on Google Code, or to participate in the development of any projects hosted there. I use Sourceforge (has svn and ssh access) and Berlios.

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[qoncept]

I used SF until I got tired of all of the members of the dev team complaining about how awful it was to use. SVN was slow as hell. In the end, the only real benefit was that we found one of our top developers through their classified ads (or whatever they call them -- its been a while). The best choice I think I ever made was finally moving the svn repo to my own webhost.

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always found sf's svn to be *blazing* fast. Mind you, I do have a very good broadband connection. Berlios is also worth trying. They're relatively underused and blazing fast too.

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[SanityInAnarchy]

Frankly, given Google's record, I refuse to host any of my projects on Google Code, or to participate in the development of any projects hosted there.

...Why? What part of Google's record?

Most of the bad things I hear about Google are privacy-related... what part of your open source project needs to be private?

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Kent Recal]

For the love of god do not use tortureforge.

There are plenty of alternatives, use one that doesn't make your devs and users scream in agony every time they have to use it.
Sourceforge is so bad, it's not remotely funny. Not only are the "Forums" and "Bugtrackers" utterly unusable and useless. Even supposedly trivial (read: baseline!) stuff like downloading a release tarball is a sea of pain, requiring 2-3 clicks through useless spoiler-pages (more ad impressions, eh?). God forbid someone just wants to quickly wget a release to give it a shot, OSDN might not profit!

Generally avoid any provider that carries "forge" in its name. Most of them took the abysmal tortureforge interface and somehow managed to make it worse.
Also beware of tortureforge in disguise! Some, like berlios, copied everything except the name. Same poison, different bottle.

So, here are some sane choices (randomly picked, there are more):

• LaunchPad
• BitBucket
• GitHub

And if you are serious and have a bare minimum of linux-skills then you can always set up your own instance of RedMine (not trac, mind you) along with a SVN, Git, bzr or whatever server. It's not rocket science. I'm sure there are even hosters that sell it prebundled for a few bucks a month.

It puzzles me that some people still pick TortureForge for their projects in this day and age. But normally that's at least a surefire sign that the project is not worth the diskspace it occupies... (for *new* projects that is, not counting legacy projects here that started on sourceforge years ago and are just too lazy to move).

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[cbrocious]

I moved to Assembla ( http://www.assembla.com/ ) after Google removed the MPL and I haven't looked back. It now hosts all of my projects, open and closed source and I really couldn't be happier with it. Well designed (better than Google code, which is rare) and faster than SF ever was, despite the huge strides they've made lately -- it's definitely better than 5 or 6 years ago where CVS would die twice a week :P

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[enomar]

Franky, given Anonymous Coward's record, I refuse to listen to anything he has to say.

Please, try backing up "given Google's record" with some actual arguments, because not everyone thinks that Google is the devil.

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[cduffy]

Hey... what's so bad about trac?

The design (code design, not web design) is beautiful, and the only meritous complaints I've heard regard multi-project support and integration with non-SVN revision control systems (which I use -- I'm a big fan of bzr for my personal projects, and the group I'm in at work uses git). Given that both of these concerns were getting serious attention (and the latter was pretty much solved if you were willing to use 3rd-party plugins) last time I set up a Trac instance (well over a year ago), I'm skeptical that folks' concerns over Trac as it exists today aren't simply vestiges of valid complaints of Trac as it existed a few years ago.

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[kdemetter]

Never had any problem with sourceforge , and i use it a lot.

Sure , you have to click a few times , since it uses different servers , and that could be done better , but it's not that bad.

Perhaps i'm just easily satisfied. No matter

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Anonymous Coward]

Most projects on sourceforge are long dead. Code that isn't being maintained becomes worthless after a time. To use it you'd first have to adopt it and make it compatible with current versions of libraries, etc. They should move abandoned projects to some sort of limbo, or if they're just abortions (never been in a usable state) delete them.

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Kent Recal]

My major gripe with trac is the ticket management and the inconsistent authentication/notification issues. It's not easy to pin these down unless you have worked with a better system (i.e. redmine or mantisbt) for reference, consequently many trac evangelists will argue over them to death.

Anyways, some random PITAs with trac:

• No ticket relations. Maybe there is a module/addon for that but I don't think I have ever seen a deployment using it. The lack of relations is one of the reasons why pretty
  much every trac installation eventually turns into an unstructured mess. In the real world almost every issue is related to another in one way another. Without a way to represent these relations any issue tracker falls short, to say the least.
• Someone obviously thought "color coding would be cool" one day - but never spent the time to learn how to apply it in a useful manner. Anyone who has worked with mantisbt for a while will attest that color-coding ticket-states makes a lot more sense than coding the priority.
• The dreaded "Submit an Issue" or "Watch an issue" link. Sometimes it exists, usually it doesn't or is buried deep in the wiki. Both (if reachable for a mortal at all) usually require registration and/or (most ridiculous) a comment on the ticket to fill in the CC field. This is a big hinderance for people that want to quickly keep a tab on a few OSS projects (or particular tickets) without spending 30 minutes each.

Yes, I'm aware that these issues can be fixed with tweaking and patching. The problem is that for each public trac instance that you can show me that has only one of them fixed I'll be able to show you 10-15 that haven't. "Broken by default" is the key-phrase here since we're talking about public drive-by-trac's. What you do and can do to with a carefully tuned inhouse-trac is an entirely different story.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying trac is crap. It's a big step up from Bugzilla and deserves some credit.
But nowadays it has effectively been superseded by redmine for the "all-in-one tool" and long ago by mantisbt for "most effective ticket tracking".

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Anonymous Coward]

Chris Dibona is notorious for working to undermine such paragons of our community as the GPL and the Debian project.

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[HuffMeister]

For the record, we've got a relatively new crop of devs at sourceforge, and we're starting to go through the process of revamping the site so it doesn't take gazillions of clicks to download a file. There's nearly 10 years of cruft in there that we've been sorting through, but things like trackers and forums are on the short term to-do list, and you should hopefully have already seen some improvements in the way things are working on the site. We'll eventually hopefully re-pass all of it and bring it up to date. -Paul Huff, sf.net dev

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation please.

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Raenex]

It puzzles me that some people still pick TortureForge

Using childish tactics like calling SourceForge "TortureForge" makes your argument look emotional and screechy.

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Kent Recal]

Ofcourse it's emotional and you're free to call it childish and screechy if that's your perception.
That doesn't change my point: SF is a pain to work with and I'll keep calling it TortureForge just like I call our favorite OS "Wintendo".
If that's a problem for you - feel free to ignore me.

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Kent Recal]

Good to know that you're acknowledging the problems but honestly, I don't see how that monster could be fixed without a complete rewrite at least of the frontend.
It's not like some stylesheet or HTML tweaks would do. The UI was an insult 5 years ago and nowadays it's borderline ridiculous when compared to the competition.

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Raenex]

Ofcourse it's emotional and you're free to call it childish and screechy if that's your perception.

Calling people names is a childish tactic. Do you seriously dispute this?

That doesn't change my point

It makes me less inclined to pay attention.

If that's a problem for you - feel free to ignore me.

Or I'll just do what I did -- critique you for it. I don't need your permission.

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Kent Recal]

Calling people names is a childish tactic. Do you seriously dispute this?

There's a teeny, weeny, little gap in your argument. Maybe you figure it out on your own?

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Raenex]

I'm sorry, what's the difference between calling a person a name and an organization a name? The intent and mechanism is the same. Maybe you can see the bigger picture instead of focusing on irrelevant details?

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Kent Recal]

Maybe you can pull your head outta your ass and get over it?

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[HuffMeister]

Yeah, that's the level that we're talking about. A complete re-write of the front-end, and large swaths of the backend, too. Check out the new front end, and give us feedback.

Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[argent]

* PC-Pro uses Vibrant "in-text" advertising, which creates highly intrusive in-frame popups on mouseover.
* Vibrant no-longer allows you to opt out of their intrusive pop-ups.

Please do not link to sites like PC-Pro that use this intrusive advertising scheme.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[somersault]

What does this mean, "advertising"? *pats ad-blocker and noscript* :)

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[argent]

I don't use adblocker because I don't object to ads. I object to stupid abusive techniques whether they're used for ads or knock-knock jokes.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[bigstrat2003]

I am, as of now, going to get someone to pay me a nickel for everyone who makes an annoying, smug "Ad? What ad? I use adblock/noscript" comment on slashdot.

I have $.05 right now from this program, and predict I'll be filthy rich by the time the year's out.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[Anonymous Coward]

I use adblock and noscript too. And I think that your scheme has one minor flaw, I'm not paying you any thing, and neither is anyone else.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[Snover]

Maybe you should try using AdBlock to only block those advertisers that engage in such practises then? It's not an all-or-nothing affair.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[MadnessASAP]

Same here, I jsut use flashblock. You can put banner ads all over the place but don't go needlessly hogging my resources.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[jamie]

* Slashdot sues you for your nickel *

Hey, we have to make that money back somehow...

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[Anonymous Coward]

I object to ads. If you want access to my eyes to sell your product, pay me.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[Tubal-Cain]

Maybe with text ads or static images? Google's ads make it through NoScript and Adblock. I've even disabled Adblock on Slashdot, so all you need to get through is NoScript.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[somersault]

Alternatively you could just use my handy "obnoxious elitist prick" plugin for a mere 40 USD a year subscription fee?

Instead of whining about ads, I tried adblock and it works a treat. I was just trying to point out that if you don't like the ads, get rid of them. If I had $0.05 for every time I saw someone complain about ads, I'd be able to buy a newspaper or something by now!

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[SlashBugs]

They are "paying" us to look at the ads, by giving us otherwise free services or content.

If what a website has to offer is worthless to you, don't visit it and you won't add to their revenue by seeing the ads.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[argent]

Blocking ads doesn't do anything to convince the bastards to change their evil ways, you have to let sites know that they're hurting themselves by using Vibrant's advertising to have an effect.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[bc8o8]

They are paying you. Have you ever noticed that you don't need to pay anything access the websites (like the one you're on right now), public broadcast tv shows, public broadcast radio stations, etc that you enjoy every day?
These all exist because the companies who want access to your eyes are subsidizing most, if not all, of the costs to produce them.
If you disagree with the methods used to advertise you have two choices: send a message by not utilizing their services, or don't.
That being said, I do use some basic ad-blocking to prevent inappropriate popups and content on sites I am not as familiar with. However, in general, I choose to only do business with sites that don't use intrusive advertising.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish there was a Firefox addon that would block self-satisfied Adblock/NoScript users posting to Slashdot.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[somersault]

You could just set your comment viewing settings to downmod all 'insightful' and 'interesting' posts - I'm sure that would get most of them.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[courseofhumanevents]

They don't care.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[Ihmhi]

I'd use Flashblock, but there's so many Flash sites that I go to (games, flash loops, etc.). Flashblock didn't seem to have any sort of whitelist capability. Or am I missing something?

Anyway, doesn't NoScript effectively do the same thing as Flashblock anyway nowadays?

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[snaFu07]

I'd use Flashblock, but there's so many Flash sites that I go to (games, flash loops, etc.). Flashblock didn't seem to have any sort of whitelist capability. Or am I missing something?

If you are using Firefox, you missed "Options" button in plugin settings. Also, you can right click on blocked flash frame to bring up popup menu with various actions, including plugin settings and an option to always allow flash from current site.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[Krneki]

Too late. I didn't mind the good adds, but I got tired and removed them all. Not only that, but now I install Adblock on every PC I have to clean as a security measure.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you walk around with your eyes closed all the time?

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[argent]

Enough people acting, and they'll go the way of X10.

just solving the problem for yourself won't make it happen, though.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[kdemetter]

If everyone does it , it will :

Eventually , since no ads shown , none of them are clicked , and so the ads don't result in more sales and gain. Soon you won't get much for allowing ads to be placed on your website , and so it will decrease rapidly.

The problem is ads aren't bad on itself , intrusive ads are. So you need to punish only those ads.

It's possible to compile blocklists in adblock. Maybe someone should start making that , only for annoying ads , and update it frequently.That might work eventually.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[trytoguess]

I personally find it easier to use NoScript to block most animated/generally irritating ads (and disabled gif animation for the rest). Sure I miss out on some inoffensive flash ads, but meh how many of those actually exist?

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[somersault]

These all exist because the companies who want access to your eyes are subsidizing most, if not all, of the costs to produce them.

A lot, but not all. BBC TV and radio is paid by a licensing fee from UK TV owners (I'm not sure if they take any from other countries), and presumably from selling their shows to other networks, and selling DVDs etc. So the BBC themselves may advertise their products, but they are not paid by advertisers!

As for websites, most probably start off as someone's pet project, but then if they get popular they start to accrue ads, to at the very least help pay for the bandwidth. http://www.weebls-stuff.com/ started off as a very well designed website, and is now back to being fairly tasteful (though that could just be because I'm blocking ads, oops :p ), but at the height of his fame, it was chock full of seizure inducing craptacular flash banner ads. Sometimes people lose sight of why they even are running their site when the big advertising carrot gets dangled in front of their face. It's understandable, but still disappointing.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[argent]

"If everyone does it", but everyone isn't going to do it.

80% of "everyone" are using Internet Explorer, not Firefox.

Of the remaining 20%, the majority don't use ANY firefox extensions at all. I know people who picked Camino over Firefox on the Mac purely because they wanted flashblock built in.

It's like spam. If everyone filtered spam and nobody responded to it, we wouldn't have a spam problem, but that just doesn't happen, so the only way to fight spam is to actually go out and work to get spammers shut down... not just play filtering games on the 90%-and-increasing fraction of mail traffic that's spam.

It's not pop-up blockers that killed X10, it was people going out and getting folks selling ad space to X10 to quit doing it, by hitting THEM in THEIR pocketbooks. And that's what has to be done with Vibrant.

Multi-license !

[Yvanhoe]

The best way to fight against these proliferations is to release code that is multi-licensed. If you are the author of a code and fear OSS fragmentation, claim that you release your code under GPLv2, GPLv3, Mozilla License, Apache License, etc...

Maybe we should come up with a good acronym for a package of the most popular licenses...

Re:Multi-license !

[houghi]

I believe this already exists: public domain.

Re:Multi-license !

[Yvanhoe]

No, the public domain does not mandate the openness of derivative products. That is what open source is about.

Re:Multi-license !

[badboy_tw2002]

No, that's what Free Software is about. Public domain is most definately "open source" but depending on who you ask is not Free.

Re:Multi-license !

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when? Whether or not the source is encumbered by copyleft restrictions, it's still opensource.

I'm sick of GPL zealots, honestly. I choose to release my code completely free. That's permission to do ANYTHING (including making it GPL). But please don't try tell me it's not in the spirit of being open..

Re:Multi-license !

[jellomizer]

I am not sure about a good acronym but Public Domain comes to mind.

If there is going to be a unified Open Source License that is completely compatible it would have to be public domain where the developer looses all the right to there code and users of the code have no exclusive rights.

Issues such as credit, openness, goodness, who will use it, who cant, stopping Microsoft from ripping it off, freedom of speach, spreading the code, patents, making money from it, not making money from it..... All these political ideals need to be stripped out.

Part of the problem with each new version of the GPL more and more political ideals have been added to the license making it more incompatible as time increases. So if you want to make open source code that can be used wherever it needs to be public domain.

Re:Multi-license !

[AvitarX]

I'm pretty sure you don't get an explicit waiver of liability with public domain.

Re:Multi-license !

[jellomizer]

So what.
Open Source is not about mandating the openness of the product. Some Open Sources Licenses do but not all. Other licenses are so people do whatever they want with the code except to try to sue someone else who used the same code in their product, or prevent people from doing the same with the master code. The GPL tends to take this and spreads it across generations. But Open Source is a lot larger then GPL.

Re:Multi-license !

[bigstrat2003]

No, it's not. That's what the GPL (well, others too, but primarily that) are about. The FSF definition (I think we can agree that they're the definitive source here?) doesn't say that derivative works must remain free. It specifies:

• Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study and modify the program.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

All of these conditions would be satisfied by public domain.

Re:Multi-license !

[FishWithAHammer]

That's exactly why the GPL makes my eye twitch. Some of us don't care if our code is used commercially, and if you do, that's fine. Trying to say that you're "more free" and "more open" because you ban that is prima facie stupidity.

Re:Multi-license !

[maxume]

In the U.S., public domain doesn't quite exist for code written by anyone who isn't the Federal government. What people call releasing code under public domain is essentially disclaiming liability and repudiating copyright.

Re:Multi-license !

[Anonymous Coward]

Public domain code does not offer the freedoms you list. Anyone can take something from the public domain, rename it, ship as binary only, and tough shit on the freedoms we expect with GPL style licensing.

Re:Multi-license !

[Belial6]

From day one, the GPL was a political document, and at no time has it ever been expressed not to be. The v3 isn't about making it more about politics and making it more restrictive. It is about plugging the loopholes that various entities have found in the wording of the origin document. Like it or hate it, claiming that the GPLs very purpose for being isn't political is just fooling yourself.

Re:Multi-license !

[Timosch]

...which is not legally possible in a lot of countries. In Germany, for instance, you can not license your work under public domain.

Re:Multi-license !

[jellomizer]

Hence why I stated MORE political. Loopholes arn't always a bad thing. Those loopholes are partially what allowed it to spread and get some corporate support. It is better to get 1,000,000 people to be mostly good then having 1,000 who are truly good and the rest evil.

Re:Multi-license !

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That's exactly why the GPL makes my eye twitch. Some of us don't care if our code is used commercially, that'fine. Trying to say that you're "more free" and "more open" because you ban that is prima facie stupidity.

That you think the GPL is about preventing commercial use of code is also prima facie stupidity. Just look at all of the commercial endeavors that are GNU licensed.

As for how in the world GNU software could be "more free" and "more open" - well both of those terms have multiple meanings, you pick the meaning that applies and it makes sense, you apply an anti-GPL mindset and pick a meaning that doesn't make sense and doh! it doesn't make sense.

Re:Multi-license !

[Vexorian]

However the GPL does not forbid commercial usage of code, and thiking it does and posting about how it does so in web boards is just prima facie lameness .

Re:Multi-license !

[Atlantis-Rising]

Code placed in the public domain does fulfill all of those qualities. Derivatives may or may not, but that's a different issue he wasn't talking about.

And really, the ability to make non-free derivatives is a freedom too.

Re:Multi-license !

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.

Hmm interesting. Because it is Freedom 0, does it mean that freedom doesn't exist in the first place?

Re:Multi-license !

[Hal_Porter]

Freedom 5: The ability to use parts of the program in your application with releasing the source code to your application.

Re:Multi-license !

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL DOES NOT ban commercial use. See the FAQ: Commercial Use.

I think you are confusing the terms Commercial and Proprietery.

Re:Multi-license !

[lubricated]

Freedom 1 isn't guaranteed.

Don't talk to people like machines. Numbering starts at 1.

Re:Multi-license !

[bigstrat2003]

It most certainly is. As long as my code is in the public domain, you can take it, modify it, and adapt it to your heart's content. It doesn't say anywhere that the same must extend to derivative works.

And the numbering is the FSF's, not mine. Don't blame me.

Re:Multi-license !

[BrainInAJar]

I agree.

Personally, I want the code I write to remain free, but the code other people write around it, they can do whatever they want with. I tend to release code under a mozilla/cddl style license with a GPL exception ( though I make sure to leave a strongly worded comment that any code contained MAY NOT be relicensed under the GPL, since GPL people tend to forget that importing doesn't imply relicensing )

Re:Multi-license !

[Anonymous Coward]

the GPL does not forbid commercial usage of code

This is true, but you don't need to be so abusive towards the original poster.

GPL does not forbid commercial usage of the code. It just requires you to give a copy of the source code, and if you incorporate the code into other code and distribute the combined work, you have to give the source for the combined work. This limits the usefulness of GPL code with respect to commercial usage. If you adopt a Red Hat-like business model, you can use GPL code all you want. If you wish to offer a compiled software product without giving away the source code, you cannot incorporate GPL code, and I'd guess the original poster is thinking of this case.

But because you communicated so politely to the original poster, I am sure he has a batter understanding of these fine points now.

Re:Multi-license !

[joeslugg]

a package of the most popular licenses...

OMG, first software packages, now license packages!

Re:Multi-license !

[FishWithAHammer]

Obviously; anyone who reads the GPL will say they specifically suggest commercial use. In the real world, however, "commercial" and "proprietary" are, 99 times out of 100, the same thing. It's a disingenuous suggestion by a politically-motivated lobby.

Re:Multi-license !

[FishWithAHammer]

I knew what he's talking about, and my response was going to essentially be what you just said. "Proprietary" and "commercial" are, 99 times out of 100, the exact same thing, and trying to brush this aside by saying "but you CAAAAAAN do it...if you're willing to fuck yourself over, LOL!" is a joke.

Thanks for commenting, though. :)

Re:Multi-license !

[FishWithAHammer]

That you think the GPL is about preventing commercial use of code is also prima facie stupidity. Just look at all of the commercial endeavors that are GNU licensed.

Very, very few actual commercial applications are GPL licensed--they're either based on support (which is a business model applicable only to a very narrow selection of software) with the applications being free, or they "abuse" the GPL through exposing functionality via web services. But I'm sure you know that. :)

As for how in the world GNU software could be "more free" and "more open" - well both of those terms have multiple meanings, you pick the meaning that applies and it makes sense, you apply an anti-GPL mindset and pick a meaning that doesn't make sense and doh! it doesn't make sense.

That's because pro-GPL mindsets don't make sense.

Re:Multi-license !

[FishWithAHammer]

( though I make sure to leave a strongly worded comment that any code contained MAY NOT be relicensed under the GPL, since GPL people tend to forget that importing doesn't imply relicensing )

Is that legally enforceable? If so, could you link me to a licensed piece of code? I'd like to take a look and see how that license would fit me.

Thanks!

Re:Multi-license !

[Ihmhi]

Nuh uh, my license has a bigger dick than your license!

Re:Multi-license !

[Anonymous Coward]

why not the BSD license? That about covers it all.

Re:Multi-license !

[steveha]

I want the code I write to remain free, but the code other people write around it, they can do whatever they want with.

Perhaps you should license your code under the GPL with the "Classpath" exception: a specific exception that linking your code with other code does not require releasing the source code for the combined work. Thus, your code cannot be modified and distributed without sharing the modifications, but people are free to incorporate your code into proprietary systems without releasing the proprietary source code.

http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html

steveha

Re:Multi-license !

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the problem with each new version of the GPL more and more political ideals have been added to the license making it more incompatible as time increases.

In fact, one of the reasons for GPL-3 was to increase compatibility with other open source licences.

Re:Multi-license !

[Anonymous Coward]

And really, the ability to make non-free derivatives is a freedom too.

The ability to put something under the lock and key of copyright is no more a freedom (and no less) than my right to shove you down a flight of stairs.

Re:Multi-license !

[Anonymous Coward]

You got 5 moderator points for stating that GPL is stupid because it bans commercial use. Don't argue, be happy and LOL.

 

Re:Multi-license !

[FishWithAHammer]

Hah, I didn't even notice that. Gravy! :P

Re:Multi-license !

[quanticle]

Wait, what? You're saying that, in Germany, I can't set up a public server and hand out tarballs of my code? What're they going to do? Kick down my door and take away my computer because I give away the program I've written?

Re:Multi-license !

[BrainInAJar]

Well, it's legally enforceable in so far as you're not legally allowed to change the license anyways. I just put a comment block underneath the license as a reminder so that people don't try it ( like how the Linux people tried to GPL a bunch of openbsd code a while back )

Re:Multi-license !

[Atlantis-Rising]

That is also a freedom. Just because you don't like the repercussions doesn't mean it's otherwise.

One of the most basic elements of our society is balancing where one party's freedoms end and the other's begin.

Yes, being able to put something under lock and key is a freedom. So is being able to shoot people that you don't like in the face.

Re:Multi-license !

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Very, very few actual commercial applications are GPL licensed--they're either based on support (which is a business model applicable only to a very narrow selection of software) with the applications being free, or they "abuse" the GPL through exposing functionality via web services. But I'm sure you know that. :)

Dollars to donuts more money has been made with the sale of GPL licensed software than with any other Freely licensed code.

That's because pro-GPL mindsets don't make sense.

No surprise you replied with a trite response. Don't blame the inadequacies of your small mind on others. The "more free" and "more open" that apply to gnu means that every single copy of compiled code comes with a corresponding guarantee of FREE and OPEN source code to the end user. You can not say that about BSD, MIT or public domain.

Re:Multi-license !

[FishWithAHammer]

Dollars to donuts more money has been made with the sale of GPL licensed software than with any other Freely licensed code.

Bullshit. Windows included a BSD-licensed stack.

No surprise you replied with a trite response. Don't blame the inadequacies of your small mind on others. The "more free" and "more open" that apply to gnu means that every single copy of compiled code comes with a corresponding guarantee of FREE and OPEN source code to the end user. You can not say that about BSD, MIT or public domain.

Developer freedom matters, too. That's what BSD/MIT are for.

It's not free if somebody can't use it non-freely. The LGPL and the MPL are great, because they require changes to the upstream code to be returned but do not try to assert control over other code to which they have no right. The GPL is unethical and less free; the LGPL, MPL, and BSD/X11/MIT are free in the ways that matter.

Re:Multi-license !

[jjmaestro]

Well... in my opinion (and I believe everybody's opinion who favour GPL over BSD or similar licenses) the GPL is "much, much more free and open" because it ensures the "chain of freedom" down the road by forcing people to not close the modified source under certain conditions (what is known as the "viral" aspect of the license).

Thus, by removing *just one* degree of freedom, it ensures that the source will be free forever, enhancing the world's knowledge pool, etc. That is, removing just one degree of freedom (freedom to close the source) really *expands* the overall freedom.

Now, I won't go over what is better WRT business and the like. But when we talk about freedom, I think the GPL really nails it.

My 2 cents!

Re:Multi-license !

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Bullshit. Windows included a BSD-licensed stack.

No it didn't. Try to find proof. You won't because the windows nt 3.1 stack was written by Spider Systems - it was STREAMS based and a 100% fresh reimplementation. I know about the reimplementation part because I was involved with stuffing STREAMS into another unix and the company decided on licensing the Spider stack. There were no BSD copyrights in the source (hell, it was so different from BSD they probably couldn't have reused anything more than a few subroutines even if they wanted to).

Furthermore, that was ONLY NT 3.1 - not a very big seller at all, by the next release - NT 3.5 - MS had done their own reimplementation. I think the best you can do is that some of the utilities, like the ftp client used some BSD code. Nobody bought NT 3.1 for the ftp client.

Developer freedom matters, too. That's what BSD/MIT are for.

Gee, don't you remember my original point. The one where I said it all depends on what definition of "Free" you pick?
No, of course you didn't otherwise, you wouldn't have gone off on that nutso rant about ethics of choices which happen to be made purely by free will. Ironic with all your blather about "making sense."

Re:Multi-license !

[Timosch]

No, it simply is not public domain then. You still have copyright etc. They (jurisdiction) treat it as if putting it under public domain had never happened.
FLOSS licenses are of course possible. That is not public domain. You just cannot give away all copyrights.

Re:Multi-license !

[quanticle]

Oh. I see. You still own the copyright to your work, but you can just choose to not enforce that copyright, creating a de facto public domain work, when no such legal construct exists.

That said, though, what are the default terms of copyright? I mean, the original creator of a piece of software may not enforce his implicit copyright, but what if his heirs do?

You ignorant fool

[bruce_the_loon]

You know you've just blocked Jamie Hyneman from using your code?

Re:You ignorant fool

[Yetihehe]

Good! Won't somebody also think about Adam? He may screw your code too!

Re:You ignorant fool

[Anonymous Coward]

Jamie Hyneman isn't a person with a moustache, he's a moustache with a person.

Re:You ignorant fool

[DinDaddy]

No Adam would somehow manage to injure himself using the code.

Re:You ignorant fool

[Darinbob]

Kids, don't try what you're about to see at home!

Re:You ignorant fool

[magus_melchior]

That's okay, since Grant Imahara isn't hit by the moustache provision.

Re:You ignorant fool

[Miladinoski]

Well thank you sir for the best laugh I had on Slashdot for a while :D

Re:You ignorant fool

[ewertz]

Agreed. Time for an underwear change.

Re:You ignorant fool

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as Kari can use it. That's all I care about.

New Type of Software

[Nymz]

If open source code, is bound by a proprietary license, then it should be called proprietary open source, or POS for short.

Re:New Type of Software

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not seeing how that has any relevance to the story posted.

Re:New Type of Software

[FishWithAHammer]

It's a freetard, what did you expect?

proliferation?

[larry bagina]

Google Code allows GPL v2, GPL v3, or LGPL (as well as Artistic/GPL). If you want to make a statement and reduce license bloat, I suggest starting there.

Re:proliferation?

[Anonymous Coward]

None of those licenses are duplicates.

GPL v2 is still the most common of the free software licenses. Aside, perhaps, from BSD-style open source licenses, there's no more common open source license.

The LGPL is similar to the GPL v2, but has the all important linking exception. Can't really get rid of this one either. Besides, it's compatible with GPL v2 by design, so doesn't contribute to the license proliferation problem.

GPL v3 is, again, already extremely common. It's slightly different than GPL v2, and incorporates things like the LGPL linking exception as options. It has different goals than the GPL v2, and most GPL v2 projects are compatible with GPL v3 code (except the GPL2-only ones like Linux). Again, not a problem.

The specific licenses they were talking about, like the MPL or EPL, are extremely similar to other licenses, with the exact same goals, but are typically only used by a group of closely connected projects, and differ just enough to make them incompatible with other licenses. That's the problem Google were referring to.

Same goes for most other corporate-sponsored (YPL, CDDL), or project-specific licenses.

Aside from the GPL family, the only other options they had until now were all BSD-based licenses, which are all cross-compatible.

Meh

[daveime]

Is it only me who thinks that while the ethos of OSS is "open and free for everyone", these licences are just a way of developers saying "I want my slice of the pie also" ?

Truly free code comes with no restrictions whatsoever, be it over publishing licence text, making source available, having to pay the author for commercial use or whatever.

Free means free. Anything else is so much BS on the part of the developer.

Re:Meh

[Volante3192]

If you don't licence your work as free, people can take your code and use it commercially.

There was a recent case that revolved around model train controlling that points this out.

Re:Meh

[daveime]

That's my point ...

This mentality of "It's okay to use my code for whatever purpose you wish, but if you make money off it, I want my share".

Call it "shareware", call it "trialware", call it what the hell you like, but don't call it "free".

Re:Meh

[ShieldW0lf]

Is it only me who thinks that while the ethos of OSS is "open and free for everyone", these licences are just a way of developers saying "I want my slice of the pie also" ?

Truly free code comes with no restrictions whatsoever, be it over publishing licence text, making source available, having to pay the author for commercial use or whatever.

Free means free. Anything else is so much BS on the part of the developer.

It's like this: You're all free to eat at my farm. You're all free to plant things at my farm. You're not free to put a fence around my farm. The fact that you may have planted things at my farm still doesn't give you the right to put a fence around my farm.

If you consider the "no fences" stipulation too onerous for your liking, you can fuck off and don't come back. Keep your complaints to yourself, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Re:Meh

[daveime]

So, your farm is "free, subject to restrictions" right ?

You wouldn't call it "free, period" now would you, as there is obviously a restriction.

Now ask yourself whether GPL or BSD code is "free" ?

Re:Meh

[N!k0N]

You're thinking of JMRI, and it looks like they're starting to move forward in their case (on the winning side no less).

So there is use for copyright/licensing, though it only looks like the F/OSS groups have it right.

Re:Meh

[shagymoe]

Apparently you don't get it. The company doesn't have to give a "share" to the original developer, they just have to "share" their code with anyone to whom they distribute the code. (Assuming we're talking about the GPL here.)

Re:Meh

[Vexorian]

Yep, It's probably only you who thinks like that, most likely because you are utterly wrong. Did you bother reading the licenses at all? The conclussion you took makes no sense.

these licences are just a way of developers saying "I want my slice of the pie also"

having to pay the author for commercial use or whatever

No free software license has that clause, it breaks the def of free software.

Remember kids, try getting informed before posting stuff in the interweb.

Re:Meh

[Grey Ninja]

Do you even know what the GPL or BSD licenses require the user to do? Here's a hint for you. There's no money involved. In fact, you are explicitly allowed to sell the product. The main thing that the GPL prohibits you from doing is to distribute the product without also distributing the source code. And this isn't to get a "piece of the pie". This is to ensure that the code that you freed... remains free.

Regardless, it sounds like you might prefer the BSD license. I'll leave figuring out what that means to you.

Re:Meh

[ShieldW0lf]

I would call it free, period. It's not free, subject to restrictions. It's free, and protected against future restrictive subversions, as opposed to free and abandoned to the machinations of selfish and evil men. It's the best kind of free, the kind you can rely on continuing to be free and relevant.

Re:Meh

[kalirion]

Where did you get the "fences" idea from? It should be more like "you're not free to take food from my farm and sell it at your farm". Except that this food is just a bunch of bits so you don't lose anything, right?

Re:Meh

[Aladrin]

Slightly off. Most developers are saying 'so long as you don't release my work as non-free' or 'so long as anything based on my work follows my rules.' It's not truly 'free' for everyone, no matter what they say.

There are a few developers asking for their piece, though... MySQL comes to mind. 'Free for non-commercial use only' is not really all that free.

Re:Meh

[Kaeles]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHH! I have no IDEA why people don't understand that just because code is GPL'd that you cannot sell it. People do it to distro's all the time, the only thing you have to do is provide a copy of the code to anyone who asks. Now, this is how tivo and all the other companies who use or used linux to run their devices made money, by tying the software to the hardware. Sure you can have the code, but how much help will it be to "hack" the devices. GPL allows you freedoms, but removes the "freedom" to use the code and distribute it without releasing the source as well. Whether this makes it more free or less free, I dunno, thats why I use different licenses for different projects.

Re:Meh

[r7]

This is to ensure that the code that you freed... remains free.

This is not technically correct, the original code remains free regardless. What the GPL does is force you to release the code that you wrote on top of the original code. It's patently not about "remaining free". It is about "making free" i.e., imposing restrictions on what you can do with your modified code. This is a point that GPL proponents try to obfuscate, until a lawsuit is filed.

Bottom line is that the GPL has been the most successful license. I particularly appreciate the fact that Microsoft cannot simply take it for use in it's Windows illegal, anti-trust, locked-in code-base. What I cannot appreciate are the GPL proponents who freely take from BSD sources and give nothing back. Remember, 50% of Linux came from BSD. 0% of BSD came from Linux. How does that really differ from Microsoft's tactics?

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah you're also free to NOT use the code. Your argument is very weak at best. Trialware? Where is the 30 trial on the my copy of Ubuntu? Shareware? I'm sorry but that term is taken by programs that half function until you buy the real thing. My copy of Inkscape lets me USE the software in anyway I see fit. If I use it to design something commercially I won't have men in black suits and badges demand money.

Oh wait you mean development? Please show me a shareware or trialware program that lets you have access to the source code and also lets you modify it in anyway you see fit. Also take up your qualms against the Free Software foundation, OSS never meant free software which is a term used by Stallman. Open Source is a development model, some licenses such as the BSD let you do anything and everything with it and I am sure giving credit to the original developer is not an economic burden.

Re:Meh

[Hal_Porter]

Hmm, let's see "either you can pay me $50 to buy something or you can download it for free off the internet". Doesn't sound like a very good business model to me.

Re:Meh

[Kookus]

A lot of the restrictions are meant to make it so you can't take "my" code and use that as a starting point, make improvements and not allow everyone to benefit.
The whole point is to make a community that works together, or a perfect form of communism. If you're able to take "my" code and do whatever you feel like, you're just going to proliferate the number of forks that exist. Basically making a compatibility nightmare.

Re:Meh

[The Moof]

I can sort of see the other side of the argument. If I take your source for Program A, make a very, very small modification, close the source, and sell the program for billions, I imagine you'd be a little salty about it. The point being you did 99% of the work that made me rich, and you're entitled to none of it.

Re:Meh

[Ash-Fox]

Is it only me who thinks that while the ethos of OSS is "open and free for everyone", these licences are just a way of developers saying "I want my slice of the pie also" ?

No, I think OSS means Open Source Software. Which only guaranties you get access to sourcecode you can modify, nothing else. It doesn't mean the software is free either. Or that you can freely redistribute the sourcecode on any terms you want.

Now, if someone told me the sourcecode was public domain, that would be truely 'free' from anything.

Re:Meh

[Creepy Crawler]

Microsoft can use ANY amount of GPL'ed code they want. In fact, they have a "Unix-compatibility layer" that has a cornucopia of GPL tools.

They also provide the source along with scripts to compile it under Windows. They follow the GPL as far as I can tell (unless a bonehead contractor uses a chunk of code).

Re:Meh

[Ash-Fox]

What I cannot appreciate are the GPL proponents who freely take from BSD sources and give nothing back.

I thought GPL licensing was incompatible with BSD?

Re:Meh

[FinestLittleSpace]

Well RedHat seem to be doing pretty well out of it!

Re:Meh

[TempeTerra]

You're all free to eat at my farm. You're all free to plant things at my farm. You're not free to put a fence around my farm. The fact that you may have planted things at my farm still doesn't give you the right to put a fence around my farm.

As much as I hate nitpicking over software licenses, that's not a valid analogy. Even with public domain software nobody can 'put a fence around your farm' - the original software will always be available regardless of any proprietary extensions other people make.

I don't believe that there are any good analogies for software licenses. The idea of restrictions on how to apply knowledge is completely messed up even before you try and compare it to the use of physical goods.
 
...

OK, I can't resist. If we're talking about the GPL, it's like telling people they can grow whatever they like on your farm as long as they don't sell the resulting crops, or even use the seeds to grow crops on their own farm for the purpose of sale.

Re:Meh

[ShieldW0lf]

As much as I hate nitpicking over software licenses, that's not a valid analogy. Even with public domain software nobody can 'put a fence around your farm' - the original software will always be available regardless of any proprietary extensions other people make.

Yes, they can, and everybody knows about it. It happens so much, we make cutesie little sayings to reference it, like embrace, extend, extinguish.

Re:Meh

[quanticle]

The GPL and BSD licenses should not appear in the same sentence there. While the GPL restricts you from incorporating that code into commercial software (e.g. "fencing off the farm"), the BSD license has no such restriction.

Re:Meh

[Gavagai80]

No, the LGPL is to make sure the code freed remains free. The GPL is to force new proprietary code connected to it to be made free.

Re:Meh

[TempeTerra]

Yes, ok, embrace and extend is bad and evil but it's not closing anyone's code. MS HTML rendering is what springs to mind, but that's a different (mis)implementation of a standard not an appropriated codebase - and it never stopped anyone writing a proper HTML rendering engine, which was my point.

Re:Meh

[Raenex]

Well RedHat seem to be doing pretty well out of it!

That's because they ignore the GPL when it comes to letting others freely copy. They do release the source back, but you have to "clean" it before you can redistribute.

Re:Meh

[FinestLittleSpace]

I wasn't talking about licensing.

They do well out of the business model of 'buy it, or download it for free on our website!'

Re:Meh

[Raenex]

It's like this: You're all free to eat at my farm.

As we are often reminded of in discussions about the RIAA, information isn't the same as physical property. You don't own the code unless you believe in copyright.

Copyright is an unnatural law designed to take away our freedoms, in the hope that society ultimately benefits from more works being created. If you want to argue what others are allowed to do with "your" code, then you do so not under the name of freedom, but restriction.

Re:Meh

[Raenex]

They do well out of the business model of 'buy it, or download it for free on our website!'

Can you find a "download for free" link for their "Enterprise" products?

Re:Meh

[True Grit]

Microsoft can use ANY amount of GPL'ed code they want. In fact, they have a "Unix-compatibility layer" that has a cornucopia of GPL tools.

Stand-alone tools and minor apps that are separate (not linked or part of the source code) from their operating system is no problem for them, but they'll never use GPL'd code as part of their core OS proper because they can't embrace and extend (and optionally extinguish) it.

And you can bet your ass that if they could somehow kill off all the *nixes, their "compatibility layer" support tools would vanish as well. They provide that only because they have to.

Re:Meh

[True Grit]

I thought GPL licensing was incompatible with BSD?

It is in a sense, but only one-way. GPL code can't be incorporated into a BSD project because the GPL is
less "permissive" than the BSD, but not vice-versa, BSD code can be incorporated into a GPL project because the BSD license is more "permissive".

The GPL has more restrictions than the BSD, but those extra restrictions are only meant to ensure the future "freedom" of the code (downstream from you, i.e., derivatives), yet the presense of those extra restrictions clashes with the common meaning of the word "free" (current "freedom", ignoring the future), hence the never-ending arguments between the GPL proponents and the BSD proponents here on /. and elsewhere.

Unfortunately no one, from the beginning up till now, has found a better word or short phrase to use to describe the difference.

Re:Meh

[True Grit]

It's patently not about "remaining free". It is about "making free"

That's patently bullshit, because I am not forcing you to use my code. Its my code that I want to remain free, so if you don't want to release your own code that uses mine, then simply do not use my code.

What I cannot appreciate are the GPL proponents who freely take from BSD sources and give nothing back.

If you don't want your code to be used in a GPL'd project, then don't release it with a license that is more permissive than the GPL. You can't have it both ways.

Re:Meh

[Ash-Fox]

BSD code can be incorporated into a GPL project because the BSD license is more "permissive".

To my understanding. It can't.

The BSD license has a advertising clause which is fully incompatible with the GPL. There is also a "simplified BSD" license approved by the OSI that is used by projects like FreeBSD which works similar to MIT licensing. Additionally because both licenses require that their BSD-centric copyright notice be reproduced with every copy, this adds additional restrictions, preventing the code from mixing with GPL because of added restrictions to redistribution and code usage.

I have seen those issues raised in the past by developers, leading to little 'wars' between GPL and BSD developers over code usage.

Re:Meh

[True Grit]

The BSD license has a advertising clause which is fully incompatible with the GPL. There is also a "simplified BSD" license approved by the OSI that is used by projects like FreeBSD which works similar to MIT licensing.

Right, I was thinking of the latter, the 3-clause version without the advert clause. BSD with that clause is incompatible with the GPL.

Additionally because both licenses require that their BSD-centric copyright notice be reproduced with every copy, this adds additional restrictions

No, the BSD has no "extra" restrictions, thats what makes it "more permissive" than the GPL. See GNU's license list, where the 3 clause BSD is listed as the "modified BSD".

preventing the code from mixing with GPL

As long as you abide by the BSD license (which isn't hard since it *is* so permissive), you can always include it (including a copy of the BSD license itself + plus the author's copyright notice) into a GPL'd project and use a statement like "portions of this code are copyright ...".

The reason it doesn't work the other way is because the GPL's additional restrictions are incompatible with BSD license since the latter says nothing about derivatives/modifications of the software. This is why GNU lists this license as "compatible" in their list above, it can be used with GPL'd code without either license being violated.

Re:Meh

[True Grit]

The reason it doesn't work the other way is because the GPL's additional restrictions are incompatible with BSD license since the latter says nothing about derivatives/modifications of the software.

Sigh, I didn't say that right.

GPL'd code can't be used in a 3 clause BSDL project because the BSDL doesn't include all of the restrictions that the GPL has, thus trying to do so would violate the *GPL*.

However BSDL'd code can be incorporated into a GPL'd project without violating either license as long as you abide by the 3 clauses of the BSD: attribution, don't use author for endorsement, and the liability disclaimer. None of those requirements are incompatible with the GPL.

Re:Meh

[ShieldW0lf]

Your point is an aside. Contrast FreeBSD with MacOSX, consider the locks and keys that have been added to the later, consider the number of people who have already been locked in. The FreeBSD folks helped put those people in those chains by giving Apple the liberty to use their work as the basis for OSX. The GPL exists to protect the developer against that shame.

Could someone tell me...

[hairyfeet]

What exactly the difference between the MPL and the GPL is? Or the EPL(which is mentioned in TFA)? Because to my non legalese mind they look pretty much the same. They seem to require source upon request, list the places the license needs to be placed in the binaries,etc. I'm afraid I have to go with Google on this one. There are a whole bunch of open source licenses out there and the last thing anybody wants is for open source to become a giant legal minefield,as that just gives more ammo to the FUD that MSFT likes to spew about "the perils of open source". Personally I think the GPL and BSD licenses should be enough,one says you have to share while the other says do whatever you want,so what more would you need for an open source license? But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Could someone tell me...

[mcnazar]

The MPL is a soft copyleft whilst the GPL is a hard copyleft. infact s hard as them come

In simplest terms:

MPL: suitable for OSS libraries or components that can be compiled into and used in applications, without inheriting the MPL license.

GPL is like herpes. An example: if you use a GPL library with one line of code (LOC) in it and compile it into your one billion LOC application then your bigger application gets the GPL herpes virus and will then have to be released as GPL (if and when you choose to release it).

Once you get herpes you can never get rid of it.

So GPL is mainly used for full blown applications whilst MPL is generally employed by libraries.

Re:Could someone tell me...

[larry bagina]

MPL (and Sun's CDDL) is like GPL on a file-by-file basis. Changes to MPL code must stay MPL (And therefore Open Source), but code in other files is not virally infected and can be under any other license.

Re:Could someone tell me...

[Gewalt]

EPL is a region of the Eastern Kingdoms, and is well known for the small town of Light's Hope Chapel.

Re:Could someone tell me...

[ejtttje]

so then how does MPL differ from LGPL?

Re:Could someone tell me...

[ejtttje]

So then they're like the LGPL... which came first? I agree with Google's point about limiting license replication...

Re:Could someone tell me...

[cheesybagel]

IIRC Mozilla uses a dual license. For the original author, it allows use of all user supplied modifications in a closed source program (i.e. Netscape). For everyone, it can also be used as copyleft.

MySQL also uses similar dual-licensing. Something like the MPL makes sense for certain business models.

Re:Could someone tell me...

[larry bagina]

it's like LGPL with a file-based granularity rather than library-based granularity. Also, MPL code can be linked into your binary. LGPL effectively requires dynamic linking/shared library. [Specifically, the user must be able to replace the LGPL part with their own version]

So it's sort of in the middle between BSD and LGPL.

Re:Could someone tell me...

[FishWithAHammer]

IIRC, MPL allows static linking and doesn't require the dynamic library exception (under the LGPL, you have to be able to recompile the library and replace the dynamic library file).

The MPL is similar to the GPL in that changes must stay open source, but code in other linked files is not required to be licensed under GPL. I personally like it a lot.

Re:Could someone tell me...

[Bullet-Dodger]

GPL is like herpes. An example: if you use a GPL library with one line of code (LOC) in it and compile it into your one billion LOC application then your bigger application gets the GPL herpes virus and will then have to be released as GPL (if and when you choose to release it).

Once you get herpes you can never get rid of it.

Never, unless you were to replace that line of code. So... not never.

Re:Could someone tell me...

[Eighty7]

GPL is like herpes. An example: if you use a GPL library with one line of code (LOC) in it and compile it into your one billion LOC application then your bigger application gets the GPL herpes virus and will then have to be released as GPL (if and when you choose to release it).

Likewise, Vista's license (do not redistribute or we raep u up the bum) is also like herpes. If you somehow get the Vista source & and compile one line of code into your one billion LOC application then you can't redistribute the two without getting raped up the bum.

All licenses have conditions. You abide by them, or you gtfo.

License proliferation IS bad

[Anonymous Coward]

You should use the GNU GPL.

Google was right about this. And Google is right about this. They've certainly done a lot of bad things (e.g. China) but they got this case 105% right.

TANSTAAFL

[Anonymous Coward]

Until we figure out how to work around the second law of thermodynamics, nothing can truly be free as you describe it. Open source software is just bought and paid for by people who are more concerned with being able to modify and fix it than with getting it for zero dollars. Just look at the shareware and freeware industry; very few of the stuff available in the 90's is around now. Those projects didn't ship source, and so they died untimely deaths. Any software that doesn't preserve its own source is essentially committing suicide.

Mission Accomplished

[CustomDesigned]

By banning MPL and then reversing the ban once the discussion heated up, Google has "made a statement".

What would help is for some OSS lawyer to come up with a simplified menu of licenses something like Creative Commons. You do need at least BSD and GPL, but I agree there are way too many licenses. We non-legal geeks just want simple choices like "share alike" (GPL), "attribution" (BSD), "non commercial" (like M$ "open" licenses - not in the open source spirit but ok when used sparingly).

Proposed solution

[suck_burners_rice]

Here's a possible solution to the license proliferation / cross pollination problem of F/OSS software projects: Each open source compliant license could include within its terms specific permission to use portions of its project's code in software licensed under another open source compliant license. It could be called an Open Source Cross-Pollination Clause or something like that, and the wording would be identical across licenses. It would be a sort of "UCC of software licenses." As an example of what might happen if this clause were included in, say, the Apache license, the Mozilla license, and the Eclipse license: Suppose there are a group of functions in Apache that produce some result that might be useful in a web browser. The Mozilla project could copy that code verbatim, insert it into Mozilla, and perhaps make modifications to it later on. The copy of that portion of code would essentially become licensed under the Mozilla license. The Eclipse project could then find that code useful and copy it into Eclipse, perhaps modifying it further. Now there are three copies of that code, each licensed under the same license as the broader code that contains it. If, say, all OSI approved licenses decided to insert this Cross-Pollination Clause, it would completely solve the problems of license compatibility.

Re:Proposed solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Except this fails to take into account the licenses that are created explicitly because developers don't want to see their code under a different license. Some view the BSD license as too lax, while at the same time viewing the GPL and LGPL as too restrictive. Therefore, they feel the need to create their own license, so that the code can be dealt with on their terms.

An immediate example that comes to mind is Sun Microsystems's CDDL. According to Wikipedia, the CDDL was based on the MPL explicitly because Solaris developers did not want their code to appear in GPL-licensed projects.

And before the GPL-advocates come in here and rally against this kind of behavior, remember that the GPL itself was created because the FSF developers did not feel secure in releasing their code into the public domain or under a permissive license, for fear that it would be incorporated into proprietary products. Likewise, the LGPL was created because certain libraries needed to be able to link to non-GPL code for strategic reasons.

Let The Mad Scientists Loose!

[curmudgeon99]

As the proud owner of my own Google Code project, I can attest to the need for freedom and avoidance of any restrictions of any kind in Google Code. Are they looking to be an incubator of great new ideas? They let the mad scientists play! With the sad killing off of the GooglePages phenomenon, we're all sad to see the great benefactor turn Corporate on us. Please Google, stop crapping on your brand. Come back from the Dark Side.

creators re-release planet/population rescue kode

[Anonymous Coward]

newclear powered, & way user friendly, as always. fear is unprecedented evile's primary weapon. that, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' greed/fear/ego based hired goons' agenda. Most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'war', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid scheme. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & the notion of prosperity, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we

I don't get it... Mozilla is physically at Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, Mozilla Foundation is located *AT* one of Google's complex buildings on Landings Drive in Mountain View; I can't imagine what issue they could possibly have with the MSL. This was either a clueless person at Google with too much power or something more political.

License compatibility

[IAmAI]

I suppose it would possible to dissect license agreements into numerous 'attributes' (e.g. freedom to copy, freedom to modify, freedom to use for any purpose, etc.) which can be compared and where two licenses do not have any conflicting attributes, they could be considered compatible.

The FSF already discuss computability with GPL and licenses that are compatible and incompatible with the GNU GPL so they must have done this already.

Open source licenses come in 3 flavors.

[jaaron]

The MPL and the GPL are very different. The MPL is closer to the LGPL and the EPL than it is to the GPL

One of the easiest ways to think of it was give by Dave Johnson back in 2006. You can place most open source licenses into one of three categories:

• Gimme Credit: this includes the Apache, BSD and MIT licenses. Basically, you can do anything you want with the code, but you must give the original authors credit in some way.
• Gimme Fixes: is used by the EPL, MPL, and LGPL. Basically, the original code will always be open source and any direct changes of the original code (patches, bug fixes, enhancements) must also be released as open source. However, you can combine this software with closed code to create a proprietary work. This license tends to be used by frameworks and libraries. Sometimes the original author gets special rights (like the NPL).
• Gimme everything!: the GPL stands alone in it's requirement that the code itself and all derivative works be free software.

Hope that helps.

People still use Subversion?

[ttfkam]

Once you go DVCS, you never go back.

Re:People still use Subversion?

[Varun Soundararajan]

once u use git you will nevr come back to any of these.

once u use vcs you will never come back to source control ;-).

Re:People still use Subversion?

[jason.sweet]

Real men use PVCS!

Re:People still use Subversion?

[S.O.B.]

Real men think PVCS is junk.

Re:People still use Subversion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Real men use whatever they damn well please, and screw what anyone else thinks!

Re:People still use Subversion?

[kdemetter]

I second that !

Re:People still use Subversion?

[S.O.B.]

Real men don't post as AC.

Already exists

[Chemisor]

> I have created a new type of open source license, that allows my code to be
> used in any other project, regardless of what license it uses

Well gee, you just reinvented the MIT license.

Re:Already exists

[snoyberg]

Whoosh

Re:Already exists

[RiotingPacifist]

i thought it was the famous 5 clause BSD license he reinvented

1) Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3)All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display acknowledgements
4)Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
5)No moustaches

The solution is already there !

[erlehmann]

The Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (WTFPL) is a free software license.

DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, December 2004

Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar
14 rue de Plaisance, 75014 Paris, France
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
as the name is changed.

DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.

Re:I don't get it... Mozilla is physically at Goog

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, Mozilla Foundation is located *AT* one of Google's complex buildings on Landings Drive in Mountain View; I can't imagine what issue they could possibly have with the MSL.

Yes, because liking or not liking a licence is determined solely by physical proximity. Idiot.

In Other Google-News...

[mencomenco]

Chris DiBona resigns to "spend more time with his family"...

MEN3

banned when?

[lordholm]

I have a MPL licensed project on Google Code. I am just wondering when they banned it, and how this ban was communicated with the users?

There is nothing in the google code blog (which I regularly check for updates through RSS) as I can see it, and I have not received any information at all as manager of an MPL project.

What consequences would the ban have on already existing projects?

You miss one.

[Anonymous Coward]

* Gimme a Beer You can do what ever you want with the code and if you liked it and think the code worth it, give a beer to the author.

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

Re:I don't get it... Mozilla is physically at Goog

[justinlee37]

He didn't say it was determined solely by physical proximity, idiot. He said that Google lets Mozilla Foundation use one of it's buildings, and hence inferred that the companies had good relations. Nothing idiotic or unreasonable in that line of thinking.

Re:I don't get it... Mozilla is physically at Goog

[Anonymous Coward]

This was either a clueless person at Google with too much power or something more political.

Your first guess was correct.

Firefox somewhat popular

[bill_mcgonigle]

If there's a million "open source" licenses (which there are), it can become virtually impossible for code to move between projects with different licensing.

Yes, but here we have the GPL, LGPL, MPL, Apache, Artistic, MIT, and BSD as perhaps the most successful licenses to date. If you want to ban the other 999993, let's talk. Any of the preceding, you're off your map-reducing rocker.

(yes, I realize I forgot your favorite really popular license)