Slashdot Mirror
Getting Through the FOSS License Minefield
dotancohen writes "Here's an exercise: Write a GPLed server for solving Freecell that the graphical game would communicate with using TCP/IP or a different IPC mechanism. Easy, right? Except for that pesky licensing bit. Our own Shlomi Fish gives an overview of the various options in picking up a licence for one's FOSS project, and tries to give some guidelines choosing one."
You should really talk to a lawyer. Preferably one that has done GPL cases before.
Yes it will cost money, but it will save you and your user's a headache if legal issues ever arise from the use of your software down the road.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
You write a piece of software, and you license it. Making something GPL might be a pain for other users who aren't interested in that license, but them's the ropes, right? It's not like GPLing your software will lead to its demise (see: Linux, WordPress, etc.).
-Matthew Riley "TofuMatt" MacPherson
I have a website
Ok, now write the same software reusing proprietary code. Which is more of a minefield?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Isn't FOSS supposed to help with all that legal mumbo-jumbo?
Believe it or not, too many options are a bad thing.
If we're rewriting freecell, shouldn't that be a license minesweeper, not a license minefield?
GPL if you want to make people play nice.
BSD if you don't care if people play nice.
if GPL then GPL3 if you think corporate interests may be sniffing around later.
Something else if you are building upon something that is licensed some other way.
And gee, I didn't hear an explosion anywhere.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
If the project is a hobby level project like a freecell server, why even have a license? Why not just say here's the program. It's free -- enjoy. Someone educate me -- this license thing has always seemed questionable for "free" and "open" software...
I only skimmed the article, but I don't understand the problem proposed by using a GPL licensed freecell solver that communicates over IP. Is he complaining that it's not "viral" enough in this case? Because this case carries no restrictions. In fact, the user, end user or server administrator, doesn't even have to agree to the terms of the GPL in this case!
This is what he calls a minefield?!
-Peter
Can a lawyer ever give a definitive answer?
A appeals court yesterday overturned the assignment of UNIX to NOVELL giving SCO clearance to sue IBM for billions. I'd imagine the android handset makers and most linux-based router makers have reasons to be nervous as well. SCO also has a new deep pocket backing it's legal team. it's on again!.
I doubt even lawyer could really give you a definitive answer on licensing.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Why would this possibly be a minefield or even difficult? The licensing choice is right there in the requirements: "Write a GPLed ...". Use the GPL, done. OK, one choice: GPLv2 vs. GPLv3. Although in common usage GPL refers to GPLv2, anytime someone means GPLv3 it's been rather carefully specified that it is GPLv3 that is being used.
The final paragraph is a pretty good summary of the author's viewpoint:
Finally I'd rather have a proprietary derived work than no derived program at all, or that instead someone will duplicate my effort in creating a BSD-style or a proprietary replacement for my work.
The author doesn't trust regional variations in the treatment of the public domain. The author doesn't really care about Free Software, much less Open Source software. And as such, his opinion is to use a license that enforces the general understanding of the public domain.
all different.
A pirate appears and steals all your treasure.
Oh, wait that was supposed to be a game.
Agreed
You write an app. To protect your work from being stolen/copied into some proprietary app later, GPL3.
Done. What's so hard about that?
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
Here I was expecting something about how license problems impeded the development of the server mentioned in the summary, and instead I just get the latest round in the BSD v. GPL controversy. Yawn.
When I was just using open source, the GPL seemed like a great thing. It forced everything open. Great!
Now that I'm developing open source, the GPL is a terrible thing. I find libraries that I want to use, but because they are GPL-licensed and not LGPL, I can't mix them with the Apache-licensed code I'm working on. Well, the problem is the misuse of the license; Libraries really should not be GPL. Perhaps the library author thought they were being clever by using a license that would force the application to be GPL as well? Sorry, but no. All a GPL licensed library will do is make people use something else.
It's annoying that I can't use open source code under one license from open source code under another license. The GPLed library is effectively equivalent to closed source code to me.
The author mentions on one occasion that he read the GPL v2 once and didn't understand it. And then he goes on to write an entire article about choosing the right licence for your FOSS code.
Thats a little like me telling people that they shouldn't program in Pascal and that C is the best... even though I tried to program in Pascal once but just didn't get it.
Is it just me?
I personally don't consider the AGPL as free (because I may wish to run it on my publicly accessible web-server and modify it)
Excuse me, but you don't run a license on a web server, you run code. The entire article is riddled with errors like this, making me distrust the author's ability to reason about things.
Plus, the web page is badly formatted. On my 1280x1024 monitor, over half the width of the screen is filled by a fat blue bar on each side. I feel like I'm reading a narrow newspaper column or something. A main article should occupy well over half the width of the display. I had to spend so much time scrolling, I couldn't concentrate on the article.
Overall, I made it about halfway through before I had to give up. Maybe this guy has an important point to make, but I sure couldn't see it.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
Simply ask that man with the beard.
LAME was used in many cases for playing MP3 music.
This flamebait^Wstory is a non-story.
If you don't think your license allows you to use FreeCell on the other end of a pipe, how about WRITING YOUR OWN Solitaire???
If you have to weasel around a grant of license, don't use it. Use something else.
Try with MS Solitaire to do what you're asking...
On my 1280x1024 monitor, over half the width of the screen is filled by a fat blue bar on each side. I feel like I'm reading a narrow newspaper column or something. A main article should occupy well over half the width of the display.
Newspapers are printed with five or six columns of text across the page for a reason: if a column is no wider than 35em (about 70 characters), it's easier for the eye to find the start of the next line of text. Otherwise, readers run the risk of rereading or skipping a line. If it bothers you, unmaximize your web browser's window.
Go on.
Tell us.
If the FSF go all world-domination then release a GPL that says you shall sacrifice your first born to Molech, you just get the code under the version BEFORE the Molech-clause. You then FORK any further development to a new GPL compatible license that *doesn't have* the Molech clause in.
Job done. People will leave the molech-clause-GPL alone and it will die.
Now people who trusted BSD will find their code is unusable because the code is patented and the BSD doesn't cover it. So leaving out the patent poison pill is trusting the entire patent office not to screw you over. In EVERY country.
LAME was used in many cases for playing MP3 music.
Like oggenc, LAME (license: LGPL, which is GPL with an exception) is an encoder, not a decoder. It does not run on the console; MP3 player software does. This makes LAME a development tool, which console makers allow to be GPL.
If you don't think your license allows you to use FreeCell on the other end of a pipe, how about WRITING YOUR OWN Solitaire???
What you say applies to FreeCell, but it does not apply to games that use external data. For example, if I wanted to make a game that solves levels in a platformer, I can't make my own version of the platformer that uses the same levels.
What would be ideal would have been to have had a "LGPL/GPL but allowed to link with anything else as long as it is open source"
Then use the GPL, with the Sleepycat license as a GPL linking exception.
"Stephen Norris Capital Partners pumped up to $100 million into SCO believing the rulings against the company could be reversed on appeal to a higher court. The firmâ(TM)s commitment requires SCO to âoeaggressively continueâ its ongoing litigation against Novell and IBM, as well as another case against AutoZone Inc. " ref
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
This is the same Shlomi Fish who wrote some FUD about how he didn't understand the goals of perl 6? And who 'read the GPLv2 originally once and couldn't understand it'?
I'd rather read articles written by people who have an excellent comprehension of the subject they are writing on, thanks.
Another curious licence is the Affero GPL - - which aims to close the "Application Service Provider Loophole". What it means is that if I install an AGPLed program on a public web-server and modify it then I must make my modifications public. However, the Free Software Definition , says that one must have "The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to his needs.". As a result, I personally don't consider the AGPL as free (because I may wish to run it on my publicly accessible web-server and modify it), but the FSF thinks otherwise. We have enough problems with the suitability of the GPL for embedded systems, that we don't need to kill the prospering web-apps market too.
Apparently the author thinks that if he has to share modifications, then his "freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to his needs" has been compromised, and the license is "curious". Why not just argue that the GPL itself is not a Free Software license?