Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Reverses "Absurd" Mozilla Code Ban

Posted by kdawson on from the standing-athwart-history-yelling-"eof" dept.

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.

27 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Well, Google does have a point.. by jonnythan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Well, Google does have a point.. by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  2. Proliferation of O/S software hosting services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    2. Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services by Kent+Recal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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):

      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).

  3. Multi-license ! by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Multi-license ! by houghi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe this already exists: public domain.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Multi-license ! by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:Multi-license ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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..

    4. Re:Multi-license ! by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Multi-license ! by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    6. Re:Multi-license ! by maxume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:Multi-license ! by Timosch · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    8. Re:Multi-license ! by Vexorian · · Score: 4, Informative

      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 .

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    9. Re:Multi-license ! by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
  4. You ignorant fool by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    1. Re:You ignorant fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:You ignorant fool by DinDaddy · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  5. New Type of Software by Nymz · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  6. Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups by argent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:Meh by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  9. Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups by Snover · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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]
  10. Re:Meh by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:Meh by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  12. Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups by jamie · · Score: 3, Funny

    * Slashdot sues you for your nickel *

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

  13. Open source licenses come in 3 flavors. by jaaron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Who said Freedom was Fair?