Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
What does this mean, "advertising"? *pats ad-blocker and noscript* :)
which is totally what she said
You know you've just blocked Jamie Hyneman from using your code?
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
If open source code, is bound by a proprietary license, then it should be called proprietary open source, or POS for short.
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.
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.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
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.
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.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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.
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.
[insert witty comment here]
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.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
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.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
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.
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.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
* Slashdot sues you for your nickel *
Hey, we have to make that money back somehow...
I object to ads. If you want access to my eyes to sell your product, pay me.
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.
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.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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:
Hope that helps.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
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.
Once you go DVCS, you never go back.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.