Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Apache Or GPL Better For Open-Source Business?

Posted by Soulskill on from the less-filling-tastes-great dept.

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."

2 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Doesn't really matter by MarkRose · · Score: 5, Informative

    GPL or Apache doesn't really matters -- what matters is if you can make money. There essential matter is whether the software in question is a tool you use or the product you sell itself. If it's just a tool, the GPL makes sense, so you get contributions back. If it's your product itself, neither GPL nor Apache makes sense.

    --
    Be relentless!
  2. Re:GPL is a hindrance by GauteL · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Firefox - Used everywhere, Not GPL"

    Actually, it is. Firefox is triple licensed as GPL, LGPL and MPL. All of these licenses are so-called "copyleft" to some extent, requiring back contribution.

    "Perl - Used everwhere, Not GPL"

    Again. It is. PERL is dual licensed GPL and the Artistic License. The Artistic License has less restrictions than the GPL, but more restrictions than the BSD license.

    "Ruby - Used everywhere, Not GPL"

    Yet again. It is. Ruby is dual licensed GPL (all of it) and the Ruby license (some of it). The Ruby license does allow commercial and proprietary use, but certain parts of Ruby is not covered by the Ruby license.

    Besides this name dropping is pointless. I can counter with other examples (at least with your definition of 'everywhere').

    Linux - Used everywhere, GPL
    OpenOffice.org - Used everywhere, GPL
    MySQL - Used much more everywhere than PostgreSQL, GPL
    Samba - Used everywhere, GPL.

    The main point is that loads of projects see great adoption even if they use the GPL. So using the GPL to cover your bases, doesn't seem to be a great deterrent.