Is Apache Or GPL Better For Open-Source Business?

mjasay writes "While the GPL powers as much as 77% of all SourceForge projects, Eric Raymond argues that the GPL is 'a confession of fear and weakness' that 'slows down open-source adoption' because of the fear and uncertainty the GPL provokes. Raymond's argument seems to be that if openness is the winning strategy, an argument Michael Tiemann advocates, wouldn't it make sense to use the most open license? Geir Magnusson of the Apache Software Foundation suggests that there are few 'pure' GPL-only open-source projects, as GPL-prone developers have to 'modify it in some way to get around the enforcement of Freedom(SM) in GPL so people can use the project.' But the real benefit of Apache-style licensing may not be for developers at all, and rather accrue to businesses hoping to drive adoption of their products: Apache licensing may encourage broader, deeper adoption than the GPL. The old GPL vs. BSD/Apache debate may not be about developer preferences so much as new business realities."

Comments

idiots and zealots

[swordgeek]

Here's an idea.

Let's take the anti-capitalist hippie and the gun-loving greaseball, lock 'em in a room with five sticks, and see who comes out in the end.

And just to be sure of things, we'll use really good locks on the door.

I'll be happy to consider any other way of getting these idiots out of the way, but the time for zealotry is over--it's time for the various subfactions of the cult of Linux/Gnu/OSS/FOSS to grow up and put their efforts towards mature products, instead of arguing over details that scare potential users away.

Re:It doesn't matter all that much

[HiThere]

There are situations where your decisions are correct. I don't know your situation, so I can't speak to it.

OTOH, as an objective measure, GPL projects get more support from companies than BSD project do, on the average. LOTS more. So, you see, most companies don't evaluate things the way yours does.

This doesn't mean that your decisions are incorrect. In some situations BSD is definitely a preferable license. That just not usually the case. (E.g., Sun was eventually willing to license Java under the GPL. It would never have agreed to license it under the BSD.)

Re:It doesn't matter all that much

[spitzak]

I think you are seeing exactly what I am saying. There are *not* any useful reusable library-like GPL packages. The authors know that making it GPL would reduce the number of users so they don't.

Turning this into some anti-GPL rant where you "refuse to use GPL software" and then admitting that you never even were tempted to do so indicates that you are just trying to flame about a problem that does not exist.

People put GPL on software that they think any possible derivation of is going to be a competing product. If I made a photo-editing software I would GPL it, since I don't want people to add redeye removal or something and then profit from my work. If I made a library that organized photos I certainly would not GPL it, because even if I wanted every photo organizer in the world to be GPL I know that some software would refuse to use my library and would use something incompatible, thus vastly reducing the chances anybody would use my library at all. This same train of thought goes through all developers minds and renders your arguments moot. There just is no software under the GPL that you would use for any purpose where you would actually contribute useful portions back, all such stuff is under linking exceptions.

Re:-1 troll

[Brandybuck]

Jane, you ignorant slut, look up the definition of "troll", take a douche, then get back to me.