GPL, Copyleft On the Rise

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday March 3, 2012 @04:33AM from the GOP-hoping-it-can-beat-romney dept.

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."

33 of 277 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Cherrypicking sources by Barbara,+not+Barbie · 2012-03-03 04:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Cherrypicking sources by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-03 04:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  "The earlier study looked at a much broader base of projects, not just cherry-picking by limiting itself to packages in a distro."
  Good point. The update in the On the continuing decline of the GPL article also mentions this: "UPDATE – It is has been rightfully noted that this decline relates to the proportion of all open source software, while the number of projects using the GPL family has increased in real terms. Using Black Duck’s figures we can calculate that in fact the number of projects using the GPL family of licenses grew 15% between June 2009 and December 2011, from 105,822 to 121,928. However, in the same time period the total number of open source projects grew 31% in real terms, while the number of projects using permissive licenses grew 117%. – UPDATE"
2. Re:Cherrypicking sources by MatthiasF · 2012-03-03 04:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  And doesn't Debian actually actively work for make sure the packages it distributes are GPL?
  
  So, not only is he cherrypicking but he picked a project that strives to use Copyleft.
  
  http://www.debian.org/News/2012/20120219
  
  The actual study mentioned in the talk came out last month and was written up here.
  
  http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/52838-gpl-use-in-debian-on-the-rise-study
  
  John Sullivan even called picking only one distribution as "scientific". I'm not sure he knows what the word means.
3. Re:Cherrypicking sources by KiloByte · 2012-03-03 05:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Or rather, it's cherry-picking by quality. Any useful project that is not fundamentally restricted to Mac or Windows will most likely be ported by someone, and packaged for Debian. Fart apps, not so much.
  It's also interesting how fast non-GPL licenses decline. We're talking about falling by a factor of 4.2 in less than seven years.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
4. Re:Cherrypicking sources by Kjella · 2012-03-03 05:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Broader? Hogwash. If you dig into the KnowledgeBase figures they list only a little over 13765+984+409=15158 GPL family projects. While the Debian stats say:
  
  The last Debian release, Squeeze, which emerged in February 2011, had 28,126 packages of which 26,271, representing 93 per cent, were under the GPL family.
  So the one saying there is a decline is missing at least 10,000 GPL projects, plus quite possibly more that are not in Debian. Seems to be it's their figures that are incredibly narrow and wrong.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
5. Re:Cherrypicking sources by rtfa-troll · 2012-03-03 05:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  And doesn't Debian actually actively work for make sure the packages it distributes are GPL?
  Not at all. They just tend to make selections of the projects which actually work rather than the hundreds of projects that never go anywhere. The Debian Free Software Guidelines mean that main distribution software has to be free, but basically anyone who has motivation and acceptable software can get their package in.
  Simply put, if a package isn't in Debian then it mostly very specialised, quite new or isn't worth touching. If there are several Debian packages and you don't know which to go for, then go for the one which is in Red Hat since that will be the most professionally maintained package.
  The first survey may have been representative of packages which people start developing, but this is more representative of packages which are actually useful.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
6. Re:Cherrypicking sources by andydread · 2012-03-03 08:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No me. I use Firefox not Chrome.
7. Re:Cherrypicking sources by unixisc · 2012-03-03 08:53 · Score: 2
  
  If you're talking Debian, they put the Debian userland on top of kFreeBSD. I'd say it's best of both worlds - all the advantages of FreeBSD, combined w/ all the features of Debian userland. Oh, and the kFreeBSD that Debian releases is under the BSD license, not GPL.
  One thing I suspect - Debian, like Linux, is not likely to embrace GPL3, both due to RMS labelling them as non-Free for making 'non-Free' software available on their servers, even if it's clearly segregated from their 'Free' software, and also since many of their customers do not like GPL3. I'm guessing that they intend to make their userland available everywhere - Linux, kFreeBSD and Hurd, and don't want to take anything that would lock them one way or another.
8. Re:Cherrypicking sources by Ihmhi · 2012-03-03 19:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nor I - Firefox is essential for NoScript and Adblock alone.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Makes sense by DaleGlass · 2012-03-03 04:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Makes sense by oiron · 2012-03-03 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The way I'd do it is, GPL for applications, BSD/MIT/LGPL for libraries, depending on the level of participation, the commercial and legal aspects, etc. And all university research should always be permissive, so that it can be incorporated into either GPLed, proprietary or whatever else.
  Isn't it easy enough to see that all the licenses solve different problems? Some are good to bring a piece of research out into the open, and some are great for protecting freedoms... No point mixing the use cases...
2. Re:Makes sense by Trepidity · 2012-03-03 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  It depends what your goals are as well. In academic releases, I see two main drivers of the choice:
  1. BSD/MIT-style if your #1 goal is to get your code used as widely as possible. Maybe you have a strong personal belief that some method should be widely adopted; maybe you hope to benefit from the publicity of saying "as seen in Excel 2015!" about one of your methods; maybe you just consider it not worth putting any restrictions on; or various other reasons. Lots of examples of these.
  2. GPL-style if you don't want Excel or Matlab to be able to incorporate your code without negotiating a separate license. This is often chosen when the goal is to do a split commercial/open-source release, with the hopes that Microsoft et al will pay for commercial licenses, while free-software projects are allowed to use the code freely. This is sometimes promoted as an alternative to another license commonly used in academia for that purpose, "free for non-commercial use" (and variants like "free for research/educational use"), which is not a free-software license. An example is the Stanford Parser and related NLP tools.
  3. LGPL-style if you have a large enough piece of software to constitute a nontrivial library, and are okay with it being incorporated into major commercial software without a separately negotiated license, but are worried about proprietary extensions not being shared back with the original project. An example is the Waffles machine-learning library.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
3. Re:Makes sense by KiloByte · 2012-03-03 05:14 · Score: 2
  
  For most people I personally talked with about licenses, the reason is "if there is a fork of my software, I want to be able to use it", with being able to incorporate improvements into their version as close second.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
4. Re:Makes sense by rtfa-troll · 2012-03-03 05:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  it restricts you from editing the source code, because you become liable to all sorts of legal responsibilities if you do so.''''
  No it doesn't. You can edit privately and use the software internally in your company and never even have to touch the terms of the GPL. On the other hand, if you never edit the software, but you distribute the software then you normally need to follow the terms of the GPL even if you have never edited it.
  Interestingly enough, some of the largest IT companies, like IBM, Oracle, RedHat, Ubuntu and even Microsoft disagree with you and happily work with and distribute GPL software.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
5. Re:Makes sense by hydrofix · 2012-03-03 06:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I write for my own benefit, not for the "IT community". I want attribution, and your improvements to my code, or your money in exchange for a different license. I have no reason to give you code with no strings attached, no matter how much that might displease you.
  And how is this free software? I think most people would intuitively think that something "free" comes without strings attached. And this is where the deception of GPL lies: it is not really a free software license (except in some idealistic form as defined by the GNU foundation), but a restrictive license that actually discourages free use of the author's creation.
6. Re:Makes sense by hydrofix · 2012-03-03 07:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The only successful and widely adopted open source OS says otherwise.
  Ermm.. Nope. UNIX is the most widely-adopted open source OS. One brand of it currently has 15% market share in the North American consumer market. And key to its success? It's not GPL!
  Linux is open source, but not free for commercial reuse. It has been exploited in some embedded devices (while more than not totally ignoring the copyleft/ShareAlike properties of GPL). A notable example is the unwillingness of Google to open their Linux source code, but there are thousands of smaller corporations out there who simply ignore the GPL when reusing Linux.
7. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-03 07:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The way I'd do it is, GPL for applications, BSD/MIT/LGPL for libraries, depending on the level of participation, the commercial and legal aspects, etc. And all university research should always be permissive, so that it can be incorporated into either GPLed, proprietary or whatever else.
  Generally agree, but I'd also give serious attention to the Apache License (2.0) for libraries. It's also fairly open, but also provides a patent license as well, and that's an important consideration what with all the trolls around. I think this is the only thing missing from the non-GPL licenses in your list.
8. Re:Makes sense by fatphil · 2012-03-03 17:44 · Score: 2
  
  > free from restriction # the gpl imposes restrictions on distribution if you modify the code, and also on how you can license mods, and restrictions on linking or licensing under another license.
  
  False. Under copyright law, you didn't have the freedom to distribute anyway. The GPL has given you the conditional right to distribute. That's more than no right to distribute.
  
  > free to share and copy # the gpl makes you share your modified source
  
  False. I can modify the source to GPL software and use the modified version to my heart's content.
  
  You're just a FUD-peddler, clearly.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Obvious problem with the research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-03 04:52 · Score: 3, Funny

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?
1. Re:Obvious problem with the research by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-03-03 07:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Your point was funny and well illustrated, but I'm not sure it's correct. Is Debian actually biased toward the GPL over other F/OSS licenses? Their Debian Free Software Guidelines and Software License FAQ explicitly suggests the BSD and MIT licenses for authors who want their code to be useable by everyone. They also call out the Artistic License by name in the "What Does Free Mean?" section of the "Introduction to Debian".
  I've never thought of Debian as particularly pro-GPL in particular so much as pro-Free Software in general.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The sad part. by philip.paradis · 2012-03-03 04:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

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
1. Re:The sad part. by Qubit · 2012-03-03 05:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  Do you think this is because many programmers see "open-sourcing" their software as a kind of "throw it over the wall" kind of exercise? Perhaps they don't have much invested in the benefits of a shared community around the code?
  My guess would be that for programmers who plan a livelyhood based on writing wholly (or near to it) FOSS code, something like the GPL protects their interests and future business possibilities in the market more than a permissive license like the 3-clause BSD. For programmers who write a lot of code under proprietary licenses, I can totally understand that they would (1) want (or rather NEED) to use permissively-licensed libraries, and (2) thus would be much inclined to release their code under those same permissive terms.
  
  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.
  Licenses are very tricky things. Given the entry barriers to writing some PHP code vs. understanding the provisions in the Artistic License, the GPL, what advertising clauses mean, etc..etc..., computer code is often easier than its legal counterpart.
  
  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).
  Oh, it's certainly a good idea, but how many lawyers (or laypeople -- Hi, Bruce!) do you know who are expert enough to consult about ip, copyright, FOSS licensing, etc..? I know a handful, and I believe that they make over $300/hr -- some probably make a lot more than that!
  
  --
  
  coding is life /* the rest is */
2. Re:The sad part. by Kjella · 2012-03-03 05:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  On that note, the GPL is probably the "safer" choice. Releasing GPL code as BSD is simple, oh now you can use the code in proprietary code too. Going from BSD to GPL is trying to put the cat back in the bag, often leading to a fork and drama from those who no longer can/want to use it. If the developer is clueless it's less harmful that people can't use the code the way he intended than that people can use the code in ways he didn't intend. "Oh you want the code under the BSD, here you go" is a lot easier to fix than "OMG WTF you mean Apple and Microsoft can just take my code for nothing now? That's not what I wanted!"
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
3. Re:The sad part. by maxwell+demon · 2012-03-03 06:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  computer code is often easier than its legal counterpart
  Ok, the next time I'm having a deadlock situation with more than 10 threads involved, I'm calling my lawyer.
  I don't think you'll want to wait until a federal court has decided on the ownership of those mutexes. :-)
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
4. Re:The sad part. by maxwell+demon · 2012-03-03 06:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The only freedom the GPL restricts is your freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
5. Re:The sad part. by icebraining · 2012-03-03 07:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  GPL is used as a tool to limit the rights of others
  No. That's copyright. The GPL doesn't add any restrictions, it eliminates them, under certain conditions.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
I think the FSF might be a bit biased by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-03 05:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think the FSF might be a bit biased. Don't you.
1. Re:I think the FSF might be a bit biased by ClickOnThis · 2012-03-03 07:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think the FSF might be a bit biased. Don't you.
  Undobtedly the FSF is biased. That can hardly be disputed. But are they wrong?
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
2. Re:I think the FSF might be a bit biased by 51mon · 2012-03-04 00:06 · Score: 2
  
  We can't tell from Blackduck's data either since it isn't known what criteria are used by them.
  We could pick other projects and see what the trend is in them, but ultimately all we would know is what the trend is in them. Google Code looks like a fairly easy place to gather some figures from and they host a lot of code these days.
  Any such study is limited by the set of data it looks at. I presume the FSF chose Debian because it is (a) large (b) licenses are reasonably easily checkable (c) well documented historical versions, so they could quickly check if the there is a trend away from the GNU GPL in the kind of systems the FSF was created to create.
  The changes in Blackduck's data are simply too large to reflect changes to say GNU/Linux distros, since software tends not to change license that often, so it seems likely they are just including more sources of free software from other places which simply have less GNU GPL software in them, in which case what you are seeing is their data becomes more representative of the totality of free software code rather than a trend away from the GNU GPL.
  Thus it is possible both studies are correct and that GNU GPL usage is increasing in Debian (and probably other general purpose GNU/Linux desktops - not least a lot of them are based on Debian, and perhaps in general), and GNU GPL now forms a smaller part of the code base that Blackduck are keeping in their knowledge base.
  Whilst I'm sure the FSF like people to use the GNU GPL, they are pro-free software, so if that the amount of free software Blackduck find is growing faster than the growth in GNU GPL software, it is unlikely to be keeping my friends in Boston up at night.
  But what really matters is what software people use, not the proportion of software in repositories. I'm using Debian to write this, and I don't much care what free software license most of the software I use is, as long as Debian can inspect, package, fix and distribute it.
  I care more when I write code, but mostly that the codebase I'm contributing to aims to remain free, a copyleft license is a guarantee of that, but it isn't the only such guarantee that makes me feel good. I'd happily contribute freely to the Apache project knowing me and my friends can expect to benefit from any such contribution in future even without a copyleft license.
Applications vs. Core Libraries and Services by msobkow · 2012-03-03 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Pro-GPL study from authors of GPL ... by rtfa-troll · 2012-03-03 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

You left out the part where the pro-GPL study comes from the authors and advocates of the GPL.
Thanks for the hint (its astounding the way that accusations from shills so often point you in the direction of what they themselves are doing). You left out the fact that the original data came from a Microsoft partner involved in Codeplex. Immediately I saw your post I thought to search for that.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
So says the FSF. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-03 05:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

John Sullivan, the executive director of the Free Software Foundation, claims... 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.
Who would have thought?
Re:Perhaps, but... by Microlith · 2012-03-03 08:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ooh look, a liar.

The GPL poisons commercial code -- intentionally -- and that keeps GPL'd software from ever bringing mainstream software developers into the fold.
Good way to completely incorrectly representing how the GPL works.

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.
Bullshit, plain and simple. There are LOTS of non-GPL packages, proprietary packages even, that run on Linux.

Ok, I know, here comes the mod-bombing, lol. :)
And for so blatantly lying and deliberately misrepresenting the GPL you deserve it.