Slashdot Mirror
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."
And now let me rant about how Slashdot gets worse by the day. Not only do I have to log back in to Slashdot repeatedly when browsing (because I'm "behind a corporate firewall")(imagine!!) but now I find myself browsing this particular topic as user "1779"! Sorry, 1779, I'll try not to muck up your view settings.
It will be interesting to see what Slashdot user posts this, now won't it? Will it be me? 1779? SomeOtherRandomUserAccount? How F&CKING hard is it to keep track of my log in name between subjects? Rtards.
Thank you. I feel better. Go on about your business.
First, as *BSDs show, the GPL is not a sine-qua-non for having a pretty good open source operating system. This piece of evidence is frequently neglected by the wishful thinking/fallacious thought process of GPL fanboys or members of the Cult of Stallman. Going further, the adoption of FreeBSD userland code in Mac OS X has allowed for a truly great thing, a Unix for the masses (and, BTW, Apple has contributed code back as well as hired FreeBSD developers).
Second, most big open source projects are business-friendly through their licenses (look in there for the LGPL or exceptions or other licenses): KDE, Google software, Firefox, Perl, GNOME, etc.
Third, to stay away from the obvious, I'd like to consider the fact that there would be other, better, languages to program software in Linux, with faster and safer development cycles. Specifically, I'm talking about Eiffel and Ada that had powerful IDEs and compiler released under dual-licenses (GPL is your project if your project is GPL) but that didn't result in even a bleep on the radar screen of developers. Now, I know there's a cultural barrier (overindulgence in C/C++) but the fact is that releasing dual-licensed IDEs and compilers didn't help.
Third, the Church of FSF gets it all wrong by focusing on "freedom for code." Code is an abstract, inanimate thing. "Freedom" as a category applies to humans. Humans should be free to choose what to do with code. Open-source code can't be "stolen" because the fountain of resource keeps on giving. The Church of the FSF is a moralist cult.
Fourth, there is no way small software houses can compete with huge firms if they release GPL code. Everybody knows this. They'll take your code and give it to their staff. Greenspun wrote about this eons ago.
Finally, fifth, quit with the non-proprietary code hating. Currently, what's needed for the widepsread adoption for, e.g., Linux, is the hability to use a machine as a normal machine. Therefore, we need proprietary codecs, unless all the free software signal processing freaks (you there?) get together on a project like the BBC dirac, which is not happening for whatever reason... Otherwise, e.g., Linux will not be usable. So, the community's got to stop hating on distros that mingle Linux with those codecs, and stop hyping distros that require too much tweaking. Right now, throw some RAM and something like Matisse and Linux can impress people as much as, say, Vista.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Yes, the GPL can be said to be a hippie type ideal "commune" or communistic SINCE it forms a community that REQUIRES that members FOLLOW RULES that they PROVIDE their WORK for FREE if they want to join.
Most users never care about code. They simply want their system to work. It's programmers who care about code.
If I want something you GPLers created I simply use it without paying you anything. There are ways around the GPL rules. Simply stick the darn program into it's own space and only make essential minimal if any changes to it. Keep it a separate program wrapped in a protective condom to keep the GPL virus from infecting my code with it's silly and stupid license terms that would convert my code into the GPL commune. No thanks, my code stays mine.
I have contributed some of my code to the GPL but always I have a dual license with the BSD license providing the true freedom for other coders (the only ones who matter are coders not end users) and even users.
Many projects are BSD-style licensed without the need to enforce sharing. That's what the GPL does, it enforces sharing but it creates a nasty pernicious situation where if it's included into your program ALL your code in that program becomes infected with the GPL virus license. Why? That's totally insane terms. Just because I compile a source file into my program space ALL my other code in that space MUST become GPLed. Insanity.
So as a result wrap GPL code in separate program spaces to keep it from infecting other code.
Now, let's compare that with BSD, Apache, MIT, the truly free license styles. They are truly free since I, a programmer, can include as much or as little of their source code in any program space I choose without their license infecting the rest of the code in that space. So they are non-infective and since they don't require me to contribute my changes back to their projects I am free do so as I please: share or not.
I as a programmer dedicated to excellence in software for my clients do care about my end users, they after all provide my income. Producing the best software for them is paramount. However, giving them the source code won't make the software any better for they are not programmers!!! So they really don't care about the code. You just have to get that. The vast majority of end users are not programmers and never will be and really don't care about the source code - it's just gobbly gook to them. It's geek without a translation matrix. What end users care about is great software.
Furthermore, more often than not the quality of open source software is, well, to be polite, a bit clunky and full of errors. That's fine, you get what you pay for and since it's free one must accept it as it is and if one chooses one can fix it as needed or even improve upon it as one is inspired.
The GPL is mainly aimed at people like Richard Stallman: PROGRAMMERS!!! Well, the vast majority of human beings will never program a computer. Certainly they'll never want to go through the horrors of getting make files to actually work. It's too geek for them. They are actually humans not geeks.
The GPL may actually make a lot of sense to people who are like Richard Stallman: programmers who want a cause. You do know of course that Stallman is a hippie. Have you ever met him? I've meet him a number of times and he's basically a geekie hippie with a cause. Great for him and his commune cult followers. Join his cult if you want, release your code as GPL if you want. Just don't expect me to do the same. Just don't expect me to be happy that you put so many restrictions on it that I have to alter my build process so as to not include your source in the same program as my code. Eesh. Annoying.
Anyway the work around the GPL is to simply keep GPLed programs within the condom protection of their own program space and to enhance them as needed to provide access to the real programs that are doing the primary work load: my code. That interface might be CLI in which case missing CLI options are added.