Slashdot Mirror
GPL, Copyleft On the Rise
paxcoder writes "Contrary to earlier analyses that predicted a decline of copyleft software share to as little as 50% this year, John Sullivan, the executive director of the Free Software Foundation, claims the opposite has happened: In his talk at FOSDEM 2012 titled 'Is Copyleft Being Framed?,' Sullivan presented evidence (PDF) of a consistent increase of usage of copyleft licenses in relation to the usage of permissive licenses in free software projects over the past few years. Using publicly available package information provided by the Debian project, his study showed that the number of packages using the GPL family in that distribution this year reached a share of 93% of all packages with (L)GPLv3 usage rising 400% between the last two Debian versions."
The earlier study looked at a much broader base of projects, not just cherry-picking by limiting itself to packages in a distro.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
The reports are all wrong and based off personal bias because there really isn't any good data. But we put it in PDF forum so that makes it a "paper" not blog jaw jacking. Keep reading suckas!!!
IMO, if you're writing or releasing software, the GPL is preferrable. You benefit from patches, even being able to take those people don't intentionally contribute. You keep your code unusuable to those competitors who follow a closed management model. You also get to use it as advertisement if you're willing to offer an alternate license for money.
If you're looking to use somebody else's software though, of course the BSD is best. But the thing is that once you spent a few months working on code, a BSD license can be a bit of a hard sell for anything important, because you have nothing of the above. I think for most people some degree of attachment and desire of control develops after spending a lot of time on something.
So one study, which looks at the wide ecosystem of open source software finds copyleft is on the decline. But a study which only focuses on a Linux distribution which has a strong focus on GPL finds copyleft is increasing? Isn't that a bit like going to a Green Peace rally and saying a majority of people surveyed support saving whales?
I've seen so many developers just slap the GPL on their code because it's perceived as the "default" choice. When asked why they chose to use the GPL, they can't even explain its basic provisions. When told how it works, many of those same developers will say "oh, that's not really my intent." Sadly, because of the original "default" perception, a ton of code gets licensed this way.
I aggressively support the right to license something any way creators see fit, and happen to license my most of my stuff under the BSD and Artistic licenses. That said, people really need to understand what different licenses provide before they run off using them. When in any doubt whatsoever regarding any of it, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to pay for an hour of a lawyer's time (if possible).
Write failed: Broken pipe
So one study, which looks at the wide ecosystem of open source software finds copyleft is on the decline. But a study which only focuses on a Linux distribution which has a strong focus on GPL finds copyleft is increasing? Isn't that a bit like going to a Green Peace rally and saying a majority of people surveyed support saving whales?
You left out the part where the pro-GPL study comes from the authors and advocates of the GPL.
I think the FSF might be a bit biased. Don't you.
While non-copyleft licenses like the Mozilla, Apache, and LGPLv3 are quite popular for core services and libraries, most applications I've used over the years were copyleft/GPL type licenses.
If you're building a core service, you want it used by as many people and projects as possible. But if you're developing a tool, utility, or application, often your concern is more to prevent any one company or individual from seizing that work and selling it as their own product.
Personally I use both LGPLv3 and GPLv3 licenses as a result, because the goals of the different software components are not the same.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
IMO, if you're writing or releasing software, the GPL is preferrable. You benefit from patches, even being able to take those people don't intentionally contribute. You keep your code unusuable to those competitors who follow a closed management model. You also get to use it as advertisement if you're willing to offer an alternate license for money. If you're looking to use somebody else's software though, of course the BSD is best. But the thing is that once you spent a few months working on code, a BSD license can be a bit of a hard sell for anything important, because you have nothing of the above. I think for most people some degree of attachment and desire of control develops after spending a lot of time on something.
That is terribly ill-informed. BSD projects benefit from patches and contributions, both from individuals and corporations. GPL is perfectly usable in a closed management model when the code is used internally, for example when you provide a service not a software product like google. Second, it is a political belief, not a fact, that denying access to the close management model is beneficial. Your license it for money under an alternative license argument is in conflict with your patches from 3rd parties argument, you can not license code that others own the copyright to - look at the Linux kernel being locked into GPL v2 because all the contributors of patches and new features/functionality can't/won't authorize a switch to GPL v3. BSD licensed projects have been easier sells for some, for example Sun Microsystems and Apple Computers.
You are correct that people who are emotional and controlling would probably prefer the GPL.
Who would have thought?
It depends what your goals are as well. In academic releases ... GPL-style if you don't want Excel or Matlab to be able to incorporate your code without negotiating a separate license ...
I think it should depend on the funding for the project. If the University or project is publicly funded, i.e. funded by taxpayers, then you should not go the GPL route or dual licensed GPL / paid license route. Commercial entities are taxpayers and should have access to the code they are funding. When the University or funding is public a dual license approach like GPL and BSD would be proper, both communities can incorporate the code without hassle.
The GPL poisons commercial code -- intentionally -- and that keeps GPL'd software from ever bringing mainstream software developers into the fold. This is why the "year of the linux desktop" never comes. Those big packages everyone wants, from Photoshop to Office etc., the companies that create them simply can't afford to mix in with that kind of licensing. Well, that and the hugely fragmented nature of the various linux distributions. And the lack of a standard, royalty-free and non-poisonous-license GUI (other than x, but x... ugh)
I'm very happy with linux as a server platform, with pretty much all that implies, and I often write freeware for it (non-GPL, of course) but I'd never attempt to put commercial software out under it. IMHO, the GPL was the very worst thing that ever happened to linux -- it isolated and emasculated the platform in one easy step.
Ok, I know, here comes the mod-bombing, lol. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Just the opposite for universities and for education in general. Their materials need to be open forever so that study and learning and developing new derivatives is never thwarted.
The permissive licenses provide the extra "feature" that code can be closed off. That is of no benefit to education at all, but a clear loss. Only the profiteers gain from it.
And beyond that, GPLv3 has the extra pro-education feature of its patent retaliation clause. It's not as powerful as it should be, but at least it's a start. Software patents are the ultimate attack on open source, learning and community development, because unlike copyright they cannot be bypassed by cleanroom development.
If the University or project is publicly funded, i.e. funded by taxpayers, then you should not go the GPL route or dual licensed GPL / paid license route
Why should Japanese users benefit from a work funded by British taxpayers? Could something be dual licensed where royalties for a paid licenes are due only for copies distributed outside the funding government's jurisdiction?
I would choose a license that is very easy to understand in a few sentences, like the BSD license.
Ever considered the Sleepycat license? It's a copyleft like the GPL, but it's short like the BSD license.
MidnightBSD currently has 2754 ports. Of those, 1194 are under some GNU license (gpl2, gpl3, lgpl variations). A good chunk of that is for GNOME, KDE or GNUStep. Only 127 are under GPLv3.
I believe them that GNU licenses are as popular as ever, but I doubt that GPLv3 will be the most popular for some time. Many projects have been downgrading their licensing to GPLv3 including core GNU projects, Samba, etc. There's still a lot of old code or code that hasn't been updated in awhile under GPLv2. Frankly, the linux kernel isn't even under GPLv3 which is huge.
Disclaimer on the stats.. the way our licensing framework works, anything that's dual licensed is unlikely to show up. Perl code is dual licensed under artistic and gplv1 and that's not in the stats. Also something like firefox is always under the superior MPL license. I avoid GPL when possible for accounting purposes. It's a defect in the system that it doesn't support multiple license types (and uses agg for that)
Outside of the GPL, I've seen a lot of new code coming in under the Apache 2 license. I think that's the most popular outside of GNU circles now and possible surpassing the BSDL.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
Research labs I have worked in are often hampered by the viral nature of the GPL. The GPL seems to assume that the value is in the software, not what it produces. We develop biomedical research software that we would like to open source to non-commercial users, while having a license fee for commercial users. Companies might make make significant amounts of money on the output of the software, without ever reselling it or even needing to modifying it. To us, it seems fair that they contribute back with license fees to help fund more development. The viral nature of the GPL, along with no one being sure what use is infectious, causes us to avoid build with GPLed software. Frustrating when there is some fine GPLed software that would be useful and to which we would gladly contribute changes.
I'll reply to you.
You nailed a key issue: If a company wants to write their own 100% proprietary blob, sure. Have at it.
But if they swipe "free code" (aka GPL) then whine about losing "competitive advantage" if they release their end result, that's the abuse we should stop.
"Hi. GPL is enforced by a version of Copyright Law. Remember how much fun you had with that? Now pay up. Or, MAYBE if we are nice, drop the code you swiped and White-Room it from scratch."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
His whole response was a typical response of someone who doesn't understand the issues. Linking may still be a derivative work despite what the intention of the licence is. The FSF has been unwilling to clarify that this does not make a derivative work, and that it will take no legal action in such cases, last I heard. So this means that, no, the LGPL is not enough, if you want to absolutely sure. There's also the issue of bits of compilers and parts of headers getting compiled into the program.
a} OSX becoming UNIX based, caused Linux to become a solution in need of a problem. Linux is still seeing some use in the embedded space, but that's about it. The only reasons for anyone using Linux on the desktop are a} being a Stallmanite fanatic, or b} somehow being ignorant of the infinitely more desirable alternatives.
I expect the usual enraged responses to this from Ubuntards in particular; but I'd encourage you to save your energy, guys. Your distro sucks, and no amount of foaming at the mouth on your part is going to change that.
b} With the release of version 3 of the GPL, the Free Software Foundation effectively committed suicide. At the time, Linux was already on its' way to becoming less mainstream than the fandom of Battlefield Earth, and all that really did was hammer the final nail into the coffin.
As a result, we get no new Windows games ported to Linux, Ogg Vorbis is considered the domain of autistic nerds, and producing open source hardware drivers is considered more pointless and unnecessary than ever.
Way to go, FSF. I get the feeling that if you'd actually been trying to destroy FOSS' chances, you wouldn't have been able to do a better job.