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 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
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
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.
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.
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
Not a lawyer. IMO.
Problem being that without a license, nobody else is permitted to distribute your software. Depending on your and their local laws, they might not be allowed to copy or run it. And if the software causes any damages, you're quite likely liable for them. So, to protect both yourself and the recipient, always specify an explicit license.
The other part is that licenses need not be complicated. The Simplified BSD and MIT licenses are about as trivial as it gets: keep this label, and don't sue me bro. The GNU GPL is much longer, because it's approaching a harder problem: making sure that people who extend your software don't limit their users.
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.
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?
GNU SASL, Lib Gtop. Of course, the classic one is ReadLine.
Now that's wasn't too hard was it?
Je ne parle pas francais.
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.
I suppose that depends on how you look at it.
If your considering using open source code to add value to your product rather than invest in the development of your own software and have no desire to contribute back to the open source project that made the code available in the first place because you realize this will only make it easier for a competitor to create a competing product in the market place, then the the open source licensing options are a minefield. That pesky GPL keeps getting in the way.
Of course that is not how this article was worded, it seems to be making an argument that for an open source developer who does not choose a license that makes it possible to create derivatives of their project as closed source is somehow stepping on a mine. So yes, it appears you are right, just a GPL troll article.
I wonder sometimes what the motives are behind these articles that profess the importance of avoiding the GPL for your own personal open source projects. I find this one ludicrous as it boils down to "if you license your source code using the GPL then you can't use my source code".
Well, that works both ways, and with the vast source of GPLed code out there it seems to me that this argument supports the use of the GPL in your open source projects to ensure you have access to that pool.
And for those who don't want to use the GPL for whatever reason they don't have to, but they really should stop drooling over other peoples GPLed code and it does them no good to continue the endless whining about the GPL. They should spend their time writing their own software and releasing it under whatever license they want instead of writing inane articles about the GPL.
The idea that a "minefield" is effective because of secrecy is just inflammatory nonsense.
The intent and effect of these loud explosion-causing devices to deter opponents from using a mined area isn't exactly subtle.
The article, the concept of a legal minefield, and the actual area denial strategy of laying mines, is that careful planning is required to how to navigate the known unknowns if the potential reward of doing so is sufficient. The article points out some issues with various non-proprietary licenses, and advocates using a particular one of those because risk/reward ratio is adequately balanced.
In response to Hatta, which license has fewer risks or untested unknowns? A) GPL; B) MIT; C) "You may not redistribute this in any way."; D) public domain.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
Simply ask that man with the beard.
If it is a minefield, it may indeed be a good idea to ask Osama bin Laden. After all, he should have experience in explosives.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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.