FSF On How To Choose a License

ciaran_o_riordan writes "FSF have put together their license recommendations, beyond just their own licenses, for software, documentation, and other works: 'People often ask us what license we recommend they use for their project. We've written about this publicly before, but the information has been scattered around between different essays, FAQ entries, and license commentaries. This article collects all that information into a single source, to make it easier for people to follow and refer back to. The recommendations below are focused on licensing a work that you create — whether that's a modification of an existing work, or a new original work.'"

Comments

On the topic of choosing a CC license:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL."

I find this advice very, very bad. This is where FSF's mentality goes so very wrong, and where they really don't seem to stand for freedom in any sense at all. Remember: freedom is a two-way concept, not a one-way concept as the FSF gladly would want it to be. "Of course we're all about open and free licenses, as long as you choose one of ours."

Re:On the topic of choosing a CC license:

[Qubit]

"Please don't use it for software ..., since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL."

A little birdie dumped a codebase on my head recently and one of the many bugfixes I had to do before I could even legally distribute the thing was to rip out some CC-BY-SA code and replace it with something GPL-compatible.

I have no doubt in my mind that whoever chose the CC license for that code wasn't thinking. Or at least not that much. They wanted to open the code? Great. They wanted to copyleft it? Marvelous as well. A copyleft license like the GPL probably would have been fine for them. That's why we need more simplistic documents like the one that the FSF created.

I do have some concerns about the GFDL and the CC licenses for documentation. On the one hand I feel that CC-BY-SA doesn't have some of the legacy non-free baggage mechanisms that you can find in the GFDL. On the other hand I have personally run into problems where documentation for projects includes non-trivial code examples, and the Benton Fraser in me has dutifully tried to get specific permission or dual-licensing on the code examples so that I can use them in a program.

I hope that, just as there has been work to make the GPLv3 and Apache 2.0 licenses compatible, we'll see future work to make some of the CC licenses more compatible with permissive and/or copyleft code licenses. Remember that the FSF endorsed that relicensing escape-clause for Wikipedia and some other sites a little while ago, so it seems plausible that there might be some hope for reconciliation and cooperation in the future. At least we can all hope.

Re:On the topic of choosing a CC license:

[ais523]

Even Creative Commons suggest that their licenses aren't used for code; they simply aren't designed to apply to it well, and Creative Commons don't suggest that you use licenses for situations they'd be inappropriate for. (On the other hand, you can meaningfully GPL an image, but only if the image has some sort of equivalent to source code, which would rather depend on how the image was created; this may be a bad idea for other reasons, though.)

This Is Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how they never mentioned once the BSD license, arguably the most free license there is in the world.

The whole premise of this exercise is ridiculous.

Re:This Is Ridiculous

[kyz]

Why would they?

If you want "true freedom", put your software in the public domain.

If you want BSD levels of freedom, the Apache license is better.

Re:This Is Ridiculous

[maxwell demon]

What is the advantage of the BSD license over the Apache license (which they did mention)?

But it is not ridiculous anyway. It details what they think about how software should be licensed in order to further their goals.
Now your goals may be different to their goals, so the advice doesn't fit your goals. So what? You may not share the goals, but the article isn't about the goals, but how to reach them. It would be ridiculous if the advice obviously did not further their(!) goals. But it is totally irrelevant if they further your goals (except if your goals coincide with theirs). If you don't share their goals, then this article is not for you.

Of course you can argue whether their goals are right. But that's a different topic, unrelated to the question how to reach them.

Re:This Is Ridiculous

[TheRaven64]

What is the advantage of the BSD license over the Apache license (which they did mention)?

Simplicity. OpenBSD rejects Apache 2.0 licensed code from the base system, because the license is so complex that you can't expect developers without legal training to understand it. I've read the Apache 2.0 license a few times, and I'm still not sure I could answer with 100% certainty what I can and can't do with the code.

Perhaps more importantly, the Apache 2.0 license is incompatible with GPLv2 code. This means that you can not mix code under these two licenses in the same codebase. To give a concrete example of when this has been a problem for me, I wanted to index PDFs using code derived from Poppler (derived from xpdf, GPLv2) and Apache Lucene (Apache 2) - this was not possible without jumping through hoops, such as separating the code into two independent programs that could be used together. If either piece of code had been BSDL, then this would have been much easier.

The interaction between the GPL and APSL code here made it harder for me to write Free Software. In the end, I just bumped that project down my to-do list and hacked on BSDL stuff instead.

It would be ridiculous if the advice obviously did not further their(!) goals. But it is totally irrelevant if they further your goals (except if your goals coincide with theirs). If you don't share their goals, then this article is not for you.

TFA purports to be advice. Advice should be telling people how to reach their goals, not yours. If someone's goals don't agree with yours, then the polite thing to do is refuse to give them advice, not give them bad advice.

Re:This Is Ridiculous

[joib]

If someone's goals don't agree with yours, then the polite thing to do is refuse to give them advice, not give them bad advice.

So the FSF should not put up a web page explaining which licenses they recommend and why, because someone on the Internet might disagree? Seriously?

Re:This Is Ridiculous

[jfrelinger]

Free for developers looking to make closed derivative works. Not free for society, other developers, and certianly not users.

Just because someone makes a closed fork, doesn't mean the original disappears. The original is still there and still free for users, still free for other developers, and society. Your statement is pure copyleft FUD.

If you want it to be "free," just go public domain it. GPL is about actually keeping software free, not providing a toolkit to proprietary developers.

The whole reason the BSD license exists is to explicitly provide protections to the original author that public domain doesn't explicitly provide, like indemnity to lack of fitness, warranty etc.

Re:This Is Ridiculous

[djmurdoch]

the Apache 2.0 license is incompatible with GPLv2 code.

I think they see that as a feature, not a bug. The FSF really wants everyone to upgrade to GPLv3 (which is also incompatible with GPLv2).

Re:This Is Ridiculous

[Skapare]

This (GPL vs BSD) is where the fork in the road is. It depends on whether you want your code to be widespread one or or widespread the other way. In the GPL case, your code won't be used in certain products where they can't open the whole thing. In the BSD case, it can be used everywhere, but there's no obligated to release source for what it gets added to. You have to decide, for code you create, which way you want it to go. I recently switched to BSD for my library code, and staying with GPL for complete programs.

Re:This Is Ridiculous

[QuasiSteve]

Free for developers looking to make closed derivative works. Not free for society, other developers, and certianly not users.

I've seen this argument before. It is true. Anybody, including a business, including Microsoft (oh noes!), can use your code 'as is', modify it, or incorporate it into their own code, and make the compiled results thereof available to anyone they see fit, without the requirement to also provide your source code when so requested, when you choose the BSD license.

But that means nothing for the source code that you still have and are distributing yourself. Somebody else can take that and distribute it 'as is', modified, or incorporated into their own code. They are free to do exactly that. Better yet - they are free to distribute it under a GPL license instead of the BSD license, as long as they still conform to the requirements of the BSD license (attribution, for example*).

If you want it to be "free," just go public domain it.

* public domain tends to completely mean "do with it what you wish" - this includes your renouncement of copyright claims or even attribution. So if you want it to be quotefreequote, use a BSD license. If you want it to be public domain, release it to the public domain.

GPL is about actually keeping software free, not providing a toolkit to proprietary developers.

GPL is about making derivative works just as free as the incorporated GPL component.

If your software is already free-as-in-BSD, it'll stay free-as-in-BSD even when a megacorp incorporates a copy of it into their multi-million dollar government software because your software and their software are two different things at that point.

Those looking for a middle road might ponder LGPL instead.

Re:This Is Ridiculous

[Hijacked Public]

Are there people going to the FSF web site for advice on choosing a software license, who would expect to receive the opinion of than the FSF's?

Re:This Is Ridiculous

[dfghjk]

GPL is not about keeping software free, it's about forcing future software to be like itself. You said it already, other licenses allow for "closed derivative works". Those derivative works in no way effect the free nature of the original software. All the GPL does is limit the freedoms on so-called free code, truly free software wouldn't care how derivative works were used, and they don't.

well, finally

[IZN0GUD]

Well, finally there is a concise word someone whom we can trust more than we can trust others in the field, and they took their time to clarify information and to teach public. Their contribution is enormous and one can always learn from them, no matter how strong one's own expertise is. I listened to rms last year in Sarajevo, he is certainly authoritative in that field and also promotes very same goals that were my own reasons to get involved with IT in the first place. I, for one, would always back Mr. Stallman's views, opinions and teaching; rather than some Andrea Kempe or D. Brewer who spam my inbox on regular basis. It is very important to spread the word on the copyright and issues behind it; it is crucial for civilization's development and growth.

Re:Two views of copyright?

[bky1701]

I don't believe copyright should exist, but as it does, support GPL-like licenses as a sort of attempt at perversion of the system to ends actually beneficial to society. It would be stupid to give one side all the legal ammunition by just using public domain.

Yet, FDL is still considered non-free!

[GPLHost-Thomas]

In Debian, if you release some documentation using the FDL, and if don't specify that it has no back-cover or invariant part, we'll consider it non-free (eg: it wont go in Debian main, wont be allowed to be put on the CDs, etc.). Yet, the FSF doesn't recognize how bad this license is, and continues to push for this broken one. This is really pure stupidity. People are going to release documentation under this license, thinking that it will render the documentation free, when in fact, it's going to do the exact opposite thing. Why can't the FSF learn and correct this huge mistake? I don't get it...

Re:Yet, FDL is still considered non-free!

[MikeyO]

Why can't the FSF learn and correct this huge mistake?

The people from the FSF who I have talked to about this issue took the (suprising to me) stance that they don't consider documentation to be software, and don't believe that documentation should necessarily be free.

Re:Article summary

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the first paragraphs:

"When you contribute to an existing project, you should usually release your modified versions under the same license as the original work. It's good to cooperate with the project's maintainers, and using a different license for your modifications often makes that cooperation very difficult. You should only do that when there is a strong reason to justify it."

That's a key part of what they advocate and very different from the attitude that you attribute to them.

When they're talking about using a license for a new software project though, of course they recommend their own. It's specifically made to be the way they want it to be.

Re:No BSD

[mikael_j]

Yes, I was just about to make my own post about how this is clearly biased in favor of FSF licenses.

BSD is one of the more popular open source licenses out there yet the FSF consistently either pretends it doesn't exist or tells people the GPL is better.

Re:No BSD

[Qubit]

if they're going to mention things like the Apache license, they should include the BSD license....Whether you agree with it or not, it's a valid license, and should be included in the decision tree for choosing a license.

I mean look at it this way: This is the FSF's cheat-sheet decision tree for people to choose a Free Software license. You could easily compare this document with that page that Creative Commons has to help people choose a Free Culture license.

Now I don't have (read: I'm too lazy to go look up the url right now) the CC page memorized, but last I remembered they only put a few of their CC licenses on there. There wasn't any CC0 listed, and I don't remember the CC-GPL or the Remix license (not sure if that latter license is even being promoted by them anymore).

If the FSF's target is people who don't geek out on the particular nuances of "distribute" vs "convey" in a FOSS license, then they aren't going to give someone a complete primer on all licenses. Remember that this document is designed as a tool for choosing a license, not working with existing licenses. Sure, if I had to educate a bunch of software developers about FOSS licenses I would probably start with the GPL, then move to BSD (3-clause, natch), MIT, Apache, and maybe sprinkle in some cautionary tales about weak or incompatible licenses. But that ain't the game here.

It's obvious why the FSF chose the Apache 2.0 license as their default permissive license

1. It's well written by Real Laywers
2. It offers some patent protection
3. It's GPLv3-compatible

Sure, the new BSD and MIT licenses are shorter, but they don't offer developers and end-users the same kinds of structured protections that are available in the GPLv3 and Apache 2.0. And that's what the FSF is designed to promote.

Re:No BSD

[maxwell demon]

Bullshit. Five FSF licenses and the Apache license does not count for an overview of all the free software licenses out there. They intentionally glossed over the BSD license because it provides more freedom to developers and doesn't require copyright assignment to the FSF, period.

Nonsense. You don't need a copyright assignment to the FSF to license anything under any of the GNU licenses. You only need a copyright assignment if you want your code to become part of an official GNU project, that is, a project maintained by the FSF. Note that this doesn't even include creating a fork of such a project (e.g. making your own modified version of GCC). Only if you want the FSF to distribute your code as part of GNU, you have to assign. Distribute it yourself (or have someone else distribute it who doesn't want the assignment), and there's no need for copyright assignment.

Why I don't like Creative Commons

[no known priors]

There are a few reasons why I don't like Creative Commons, one of which is that they encourage people not to read the actual license text (just to read the "human readable summary"). But have a look at some of the restrictions one day. A quotes from Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported:

Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation.

Bet you didn't know that was in there (no actual bet intended).
Moreover, most of the CC licenses hardly the easiest of licenses to read, too full of legalese. And which license? There are umpteen different ones, depending on which jurisdiction you want to cover. Not to mention the various versions (Flickr only let's you use version 2.0 licenses, rather than the latest 3.0 versions). Too much choice, leads to confusion.

Personally, what I want is a simple, short, easy to understand, weak copyleft (like Lesser GPL) for non-software. Does anyone know of a license like that?

Re:No BSD

[JasterBobaMereel]

Shock Horror: the FSF is biased on the FSF website in favour of FSF licences ...

In other News: the Pope is Catholic ...

Re:Two views of copyright?

[walshy007]

If copyright were a reasonable length (say.. 15 years) this would not be an issue.

So linux 2.0 goes into the public domain, all the better for society yeah? People are completely free to make derivative works, and 2.0 is rather useless by todays standards. Whereas more recent works like 2.6 are still protected.

Windows 95 is then also public domain, especially useful if someone has the source code locked away somewhere (which would also expire from copyright) so it could be released to further the reverse engineering efforts of wine.

Meanwhile, all the music from the 80's is now free to be remixed and new creative works made.

I don't see the downside, 15 years is more than enough to make back money on your investment.

Original works which are fan-fiction friendly?

[Sasayaki]

No documentation? Huh. Well, what about fiction?

I want to publish both a novel and an iPhone RPG under a fan-fiction friendly license. Essentially what I want is to sell stories and games on the App Store, but allow my readers/players to, legally and safely, create Creative Commons, Share Alike, Non-Commercial original stories using the characters and settings I've created.

Note, original. I would rather not see the whole book reproduced on the web, but I would love to see, say, the whole story retold and rewritten from another character's perspective. Or for a prequel, or a side story, or a 'dark and gritty re-imagining', etc.

The intention here is to allow other writers to create original stories using the characters I've created (AKA fan fiction), and to publish such as they wish, safe from legal threats. Yes, safe even from ME, so if I go mad with wealth/power/poverty and decide to sue everyone, those who have created fan fiction using my stories can tell me to suck it and die.

Ideally, if possible, I would also like a canonization clause. If someone writes fan fiction that I quite like, with their approval, I may integrate elements of their story into a sequel, side story, etc. This requires the author's express, written permission and they are more than entitled to say "no thanks".

Is there any licencing model that covers that?

Re:Wow, that's a broad overview

[no known priors]

"Just to be clear, using BSD licensed code in a GPL'ed work is fine - re-licensing the whole file under a more restrictive license is not."
Actually, you're wrong. The BSD license allows anyone to come along and relicense the entire file/program or whatever, under any other license, so long as the conditions of the BSD license are followed. Which mainly come down to attribution.
The same 'freedom" which allows a propitiatory software developer (such as Microsoft) to take BSD licensed stuff and then say that others are not allowed to redistribute without their permission, is the same "freedom" which allows GPL advocates to take the same code and relicense under the GPL. Of course, if the attribution is done correctly there is nothing to stop you from going to the original source of the program and doing what you like.

Oh wait, relicensing BSD stuff is only OK when you can't see the source code for the end result, not when you can see the source code, but can't use it because of that nasty GPL virus! Oh the horror!

Re:LGPL with affero clause

[no known priors]

Yeah, but the BSD licenses are not free 'cause they require you to attribute the original author/s and copy that long text all around the place. If you want real freedom you use the Do What the Fuck you Want License.

To quote:

DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
                                      Version 2, December 2004

Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
as the name is changed.

                      DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
    TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

  0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.

They do mention permissive licences: Apache

[ciaran_o_riordan]

If you want a permissive licence, use the Apache 2.0 licence.

FSF's doc says this.

I concur. Apache serves the purpose that permissive licences can serve, plus it contains patent protections:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License

Re:They do mention permissive licences: Apache

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yes, and the FSF recommends the Apache 2.0 because of a desire to push people to move to GPLv3 since Apache 2.0 is incompatible with the GPLv2. Most people don't find picking a license that is incompatible with vast amounts of code under the GPLv2 to be a good recommendation.

Re:LGPL with affero clause

[glwtta]

You can 'use' gpl software in any which way you want, but you cannot distribute the software which violates the license.

Ok, so you didn't read the original post or the portion of it I quoted?

There is just no reasonable definition of 'distribute' that includes 'offer a service that uses the software'.

BSD is safer than public domain

[Chemisor]

Here in the US it is not out of the question to be sued for your public domain program. The BSD license has appropriate disclaimers of liability that protect the developer from many kinds of lawsuits. Because a lawsuit is likely to bankrupt you whether you are guilty or not, this is an important consideration.

Re:Proprietary EULA

[SleazyRidr]

Now look here, I came here for a good argument, not just simple contradiction!