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."

Comments

What exactly is "tricky" about said scenario?

[TofuMatt]

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.).

Re:What exactly is "tricky" about said scenario?

[kinnell]

The trouble comes when you're mixing and matching software with different licenses. GPL might seem like the shangri-la of open source licensing, but it's actually very restrictive. This is not to say that it's bad - it's very good for encouraging people to share their code, and preventing abuse of said code by comercial interests, but then you try and embed some other non-gpl code in your project and find yourself in a legal minefield. That's why the LGPL was written - if only the GPL existed, GNU/* would be missing a lot of really good software.

Writing Freecell?

[stillnotelf]

If we're rewriting freecell, shouldn't that be a license minesweeper, not a license minefield?

"minefield" ? GPL or FreeBSD

[IBitOBear]

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.

But will it run on SCO?

[goombah99]

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.

Boiling it Down

[_Sprocket_]

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.

WTF ??

[tuxgeek]

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?

Re:What's the Problem

[The Moof]

The GPL problem spelled out in TFA is compatibility with other licenses (IE, none). An example he even uses is OpenBSD's past quarrels with the GPL community. Instead of simply using GPL code, the BSD folks have to rebuild the same things and license them under the BSD license. They could use, the GPL'd code if they were willing to re-license the entire project under BSD (which I'm not sure is allowed under the BSD license). Here's the jist of the article:

1. Don't use closed source
2. Don't attempt to write your own
3. Don't use one that isn't clear in international law
4. Make sure GPL projects can use your licensed code
5. Make sure non-GPL projects can use your licensed code

Re:What's the Problem

[TheRaven64]

Not a minefield, but it's a case that's commonly overlooked by GPL advocates. It's trivial to take a GPL'd program and make it communicate with a proprietary program using a well-defined IPC mechanism, which subverts the intent of the GPL. If you are a big proprietary-software company you can easily use GPL'd code with a (relatively) small investment in building the abstraction layer. If, on the other hand, you're a Free Software developer wanting to use GPL'd code with some other GPL-incompatible Free Software license (e.g. porting ZFS to Linux) then you have problems.

Re:Do you even need a license?

[minsk]

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.

And the point was?

[kisa2000]

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?

Re:What's the Problem

[IBBoard]

Exactly. I recently changed some of my code from LGPL to Affero GPL because they could be used as a back-end to a web service as well as being the back-end for an app. I'd started with LGPL because I didn't want to force a license on people, but then I changed my mind because the on-going freedom of the code was more important than what license people used. 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", but since that isn't possible then not letting non-GPLed apps link to my library is the only option. C'est la vie.

I think the article is summed up in one of his later headings: "Why I Prefer the MIT X11 Licence". Basically the whole thing is a "why you should use X11 and anything else is bad" article.

Re:Proprietary

[burnin1965]

The idea that it is a "minefield" is just inflammatory nonsense.

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.