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.

16 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. 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 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..

    3. 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."
    4. 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.
    5. 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"
    6. 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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?
  8. 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!