Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Project Licenses Trending Toward Open Rather than Free
bonch writes "An analysis of software licenses shows usage of GPL and other copyleft licenses declining at an accelerating rate. In their place, developers are choosing permissive licenses such as BSD, MIT, and ASL. One theory for the decline is that GPL usage was primarily driven by vendor-led projects, and with the shift to community-led projects, permissive licenses are becoming more common."
"Open Rather than Free" implies that there is some charge. Both licenses are "free" in terms of you can use the software without paying. The difference is that any works derived or using GPL type licenses also have to be released on the same license. Whether this is more or less open depends on your point of view.
By numbers, we've gone from big projects (Linux, LibreOffice, KDE, Gnome) to little projects (JS library to do an image animation). GPL and LGPL make more economic sense for big projects. Permissive makes more sense for little projects.
Free as in beer, or open as in... beer?
Surprise, surprise, yet another anti-GPL study from Black Duck software.
If you look at the work that Apple supports (clang, etc.), they are using non-GPL licenses. Same goes for code on CodePlex (the Microsoft site for C#/.NET open source projects). If you look at any of the ruby, python, javascript projects on GitHub, they tend to use a non-GPL license.
C/C++ projects make up 11% of the projects on github and these tend to be the languages that use GPL.
I personally use GPL for my projects because I am happy with that license, and use other projects that are GPL. Others may not, so they are free to choose a different language.
And we have heard repeatedly from Brian Proffitt that the GPL is dying/dead, but is still being used for new projects. Oh and this is article dated December 16, 2011, so why is this news now?
Welcome to the FUD machine.
I can't speak for anyone else, but my personal reason for not releasing sotware with GPL anymore is because of SFC and other parties that use GPL as a way to feed lawyers at the expense of users.
I don't want my users to get sued. Ever. Even if they do something I disagree with. Lawsuits is not the way to go. Lawyers and "interest groups" leeching on other peoples work are, IMHO, a far bigger problem than users not giving back. At least users use the sofware, which was kind of why I wrote it.
And when wearing my manager hat, I don't want to risk getting sued over using or redistributing a piece of software, and I do not want to pay a corps(e) of lawyers to make sure that everyone tip-toe the line, and that letters of intent from busybox, Oracle or whoever else are answered properly. It's easier to avoid the problem altogether by always choosing a non-GPL version when available.
GPL is what I use when there is no other choice, and writing the software from the bottom up isn't viable.
Your mileage may vary, and I'm sure for many of you, it does. But please respect my viewpoint that those who seek to protect the GPL the hard way alienate both developers and users in the process. No matter what their motives are, I do not believe that the goal justifies the means any more than pirating justifies DRM.
MS-PL? Who on earth has ever heard of that license? Perhaps the fact that the only source of the data is a company that is connected to Microsoft has something to do with its mention? The fact that the same company has been emitting anti-GPL propaganda since 2008 is also interesting.
Slashdot, please don't propagate astroturfing.
Even by the FSF's definition, "copyleft" and "free" are distinct terms. Every license in the summary is considered free by the FSF: BSD MIT ASL
Even by the FSF's definition, "copyleft" and "free" are distinct terms. Every license in the summary is considered free by the FSF: BSD MIT ASL
All of these licences are opensource and all of the permit you to create derivative works. In what way is, for example, a MIT licence not free?
Only copyleft licenses ensure that the development stays open and advances are returned to the community, by giving recipients of derived works access to the source and with it the freedom to change their software as they see fit. The only "freedom" that BSD style licenses add over copyleft licenses is to take all the freedom away from further recipients. The only people who benefit from that are people who value their own freedom over yours.
This is bullshit. It's counting by project, not by importance or size. I'm sure if we counted by lines of code, the GPL would still be #1.
What's happening is that we are seeing new "projects" being created at an alarming rate, most of this projects being wordpress plugins that do nothing important, collections of shitty javascript functions, and themes for various CMS, forums, etc.
Sure, it's full of kids that "just learned" the latest "cool" language (you know the type, Ruby, Python, etc) and just create some project that is either trivial, or is going nowhere past "we uploaded a readme and a roadmap to sourceforge". Half of sourceforge is dead projects.
The truth is that projects aren't jumping ships. No GPL projects are trying to change their license.
I could report "The earth is getting smaller and less important", but the truth is that the inflation of the universe doesn't change the size of the earth, just what percentage of the universe it represents.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
The GPL is about the user's freedom not the developer's. It guarantees that the user can modify the source in any way they see fit without the developer locking them out now or later.
Does anyone remember the adage "your right to swing your arm stops at your neighbor's nose"?
BSD is that you can swing your arms however you like and if you wanna punch someone's nose, go for it
GPL says that you can swing your arms as long as you don't punch anyone in the nose
Punching someone in the nose, obviously, is taking open source work and making it proprietary.
So lay off the false dichotomies and admit that freedom is not an all or nothing proposition.
Another example, btw, is having the freedom to drink beer but not having the freedom to rob a liquor store.
Telling people that the GPL = Free is like when America told the slaves that they were free. Its a HUGE step forward but still FAR from free.
I think you worded your comment perfectly and may help me explain to others in a way that can be better understood what free software really means. Thank you!
This is because (I'm wearing my flame-retardant suit) the GPL isn't necessary to preserve software freedom anymore; and in its own way is restrictive of those freedoms.
1) It scares off a lot of people and companies who might otherwise use such software. Nobody wants to be caught staring down the barrel of a loaded lawyer because of their choice of software. Whether or not this fear is *realistic* is not relevant - it is a *real* fear.
2) By using a license to force-propagate specific freedoms, we restrict other freedoms - namely the unfettered freedom to do whatever you want with the source.
3) Free software is here. We've won. The strict rules of the GPL aren't necessary because people are willing to create, use, and propagate free software without them.
A lot of newer projects are more concerned with getting their source adopted and in use than with making sure users contribute back. And the best way to get better adoption is to use a license that doesn't scare people (and lawyers).
In this context, free does not refer to price. I'm amazed, given your UID, that you do not know that, and that the mods do not know that.
Read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software
Read
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
I'm really, honestly quite amazed that readers on slashdot are so completely ignorant about these facts. Once upon a time, the free-vs-open debate was the single most important one here.
This isn't the place I knew, this isn't the place I thought it was.
In order to have true freedom, then someone must have the freedom to take away any and all freedoms from someone else...
A truly free system will never last, because a few will always abuse that freedom to subjugate others. That's why we have society, where everyone is provided a certain level of freedom while sacrificing some too.
It's a compromise, because going too far either way doesn't work... The GPL works the same way as society does.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
That was an incredibly lame ad hominem.
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
Don't kill the messenger just because you don't like the message.
If someone can monetize your code better than you, that's your problem.
If you don't like it, relicense to a -- gasp!! -- proprietary license and let copyright protect you in the future.
Stop being all butt hurt cuz someone took your work, made it better, and released to people who were willing to pay for it. In the end, your creation is obviously making the world a better place if that's occured, so put it on your resume/cv and move on with life.
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
Just who in the fuck is Brian Proffitt? Up until now, I'd never heard of him. I can't think of any open source software project he's worked on, or even helped lead.
Maybe I'm just ignorant about his accomplishments. If so, please inform me of them. Otherwise, can somebody tell me why I should care what he has to say about this, or anything else?
He's a tech journalist, which by itself doesn't say if he's technically capable or not. And that, technical capacity is not a function of one's visible/publicized/recognized technical accomplishments in the field in question. There are tons and tons of people out there that have never contributed to, say the Linux kernel or the GCC toolchain, but who, by usage, observation and/or academic expertise (any combination thereof) can tell any random /.er how that shit works.
Your post smacks of arrogance (as it pairs the possible validity of the argument to YOU knowing the author - I mean who are you?). Secondly, your statement has a pedestrian, juvenile ad-hominem'ey nature. One would think /.ers who think themselves acutely intellectual would recognize it as such.
You don't attack a position by saying "who is this?". You do so by asking "what is this", by analyzing the merits of the arguments being written.
If the sole measure of an argument's worthiness of your time is whether the person who makes it is a publicly accomplished figure, then man, you should go tell Muhammad Ali that he was wrong for using Angelo Dundee (who learned the trade of boxing training and being a corner man by being a "bucket boy".) Or you should go tell countless of MMA fighters not to train with Eddie Bravo (who has no MMA record.)
Strategists and analysts (even in the ethereal fields of software journalism) are not necessarily made from being in the trenches or for having delivered an opus dei recognized by the fanboi masses. To pretend otherwise is just arrogance and an inability to argue a piece's worth without having to rely on ad hominem.
I mean for all we know, Proffitt's work is shit, or people feeds him stuff that he then publicizes on his name. But you don't get to that conclusion by saying "who the fuck he is", but by saying "let me try to be a little bit intelligent and analyze this thing if it makes sense or not."
If you don't have the time to do that, why do you bother asking "who the fuck is he". I mean, who the fuck are you to feel the necessity to say that? That's just being embarrassingly childish and sadly spiteful.
Another example, btw, is having the freedom to drink beer but not having the freedom to rob a liquor store.
Entirely missing the point. The Dev provides the 'Beer'. The User can tell people he/she helped make the beer his/herself or perhaps add lime to it and call it his/her own specialty 'Beer'. The User may also drink the beer in public if he/she chooses to do so (until law-enforcement intervenes).
The same applies to software. The Dev provides the Free & Open Software. The User can tell people he/she helped make the software or tweak it and sell it as his/her own proprietary software. The User may also use the Software for malicious purposes if he/she chooses to do so (until law-enforcement intervenes).
FTFY
GPL is more for protecting the originating developer's right, while the BSD protects the user's freedoms. For example under BSD, the users are free to do whatever they want with the code (as long as they give credit). On the other hand, GPL users are also free to do whatever they want with the exception that they must provide the source code of any modifications back to the original author.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
The GPL is about the user's freedom not the developer's
Is the user more free because he can't distribute a plugin that uses an LGPLv3 library with a program that uses GPLv2 while exercising the FSF's Freedom 2 (The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor)? Is the user more free because he can't combine libraries using either the Apple Public Source license, the Mozilla Public License, the Common Development and Distribution License or the Apache Software Foundation License (all FSF-approved Free Software licenses) with a GPL'd application?
It guarantees that the user can modify the source in any way they see fit without the developer locking them out now or later.
Any Free or Open Source license guarantees this. If I have some MIT licensed code, for example, I have an irrevocable license (unlike the GPL, by the way, which has some revocation terms built into the license, and more aggressive ones in GPLv3) that allow me to continue to use it, distribute it, and distribute derived works of it in perpetuity. The only thing that the GPL prevents is someone other than the copyright holder from creating a new version and distributing it without granting these same rights (the GPL does not prevent the copyright holder from taking something closed source). In either case, the last open version is likely to be forked if enough people care about it.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Sounds like you are the one who is butthurt.
If someone can write code better than you, that's your problem.
If you don't like it, -- gasp!! -- write your own code in the future.
Stop being all butt hurt cuz you can't take someone's work, make it better, and release to people who were willing to pay for it. In the end, your creation is obviously making the world a better place if you share it, so put it on your resume/cv and move on with life.
But... the future refused to change.
BSD is that you can swing your arms however you like and if you wanna punch someone's nose, go for it
GPL says that you can swing your arms as long as you don't punch anyone in the nose
Punching someone in the nose, obviously, is taking open source work and making it proprietary.
This is an absolutely horrible analogy and you're using loaded words.
Punching someone causes harm to that person (even if they may have deserved it); making something proprietary is not ipso facto harmful. Implying such a thing is just a dirty argumentative trick to paint it in a negative light.
If the BSD and X11 people thought that allowing other folks to make things proprietary was bad they would have chosen another license. As it stands, we have very useful products from NetApp, Juniper, Isilon, Panasas, Sand Vine, and Apple (OS X uses FreeBSD). We have a pretty damn good (and secure) remove connection system (OpenSSH) that is widely used in third-party products. All because of the more open attitude of some people.
Permissively licensed software has benefited the world a huge amount, both in terms technological infrastructure, and in economic terms by allowing companies to build on a strong foundation. As has copyleft licensed software.
If you don't want permissive software for your project don't use it. But please don't disparage permissive licenses: some people want to give their work to the world as a gift: freely given with no expectation of anything in return.
If you want put something into the world with strings attached (GPL), that's fine, but why hate on those who don't care for strings (BSD/X11)?
Punching someone in the nose, obviously, is taking open source work and making it proprietary.
So what do you call it when someone copies an open source work and makes a proprietary fork? Because you are making the classic mistake of theft vs. copyright infringement all over again. If I copy your source code I have not taken it, because I have not deprived you of it, which is what happens when you take something. It goes from one person's possession to another and the first party has had something taken.
As it turns out, the first party has been deprived of an unnaturally created "right" to control who may make copies. But is this equivalent to punching someone in the nose, or to cutting in line?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Is the user more free because he can't distribute a plugin that uses an LGPLv3 library with a program that uses GPLv2 while exercising the FSF's Freedom 2 (The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor)?
Is it actually the case that he cannot distribute the plugin, or only that he must distribute all the source code?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-copyleft-use-declining-fast
Also, this:
http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2011/12/15/on-the-continuing-decline-of-the-gpl/
"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"
"Maybe I'm just ignorant ... "
Maybe you should have stopped right there.
The GPL prevents the user from having to depend on you for fixes to the software since the GPL requires you to supply the source. The MIT license does not require you to supply the source. This is about freedom for the user. The developer already has the freedom to not use the GPL or software licensed under it in anything they create. As I said already the GPL is about the freedom of the customer not the supplier.
If you're telling the end user that they'll be raped by the DMCA if they try to tweak your proprietary product which was based on my open source project, don't you think I'd be kinda pissed?
This is exactly the sort of thing that the GPL prevents. It keeps you from using my code to be a dick.
My open soruce GPL code is mine just as arguably as your proprietary product is yours.
So how is your freedom to lock out your users and competitors any different from my freedom to not let you use my code to do it?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want the freedom to be proprietary, I should also have the freedom not to cooperate.
Choose a license the way you choose a screwdriver, not the way you choose a religion.
What are your goals? Are you inventing a new protocol that you want everyone, everywhere, to integrate and ship with their software, be it open or proprietary? Then you want a BSD-like or MIT-like license.
Do you want to have control over the commercial uses of your work, while keep non-commercial use low cost? Then GPL or similar is for you.
At one hardware company I worked at, we released drivers under BSD. From the company perspective, it was a great "fire and forget" license for situations where that was appropriate, and, as one company lawyer put it to me: "Don't worry, a freely available version will always be available, because somebody will take our code and fork it with a GPL license about seven seconds after we release it anyway."
Religious wars over licenses are really pointless. Choose a license that accomplishes your goals. Different situations call for different tools.
If someone can monetize your code better than you, that's your problem.
GPL is for people who don't mind if their code is monetized, in fact they may even encourage it, as long as the code (and derivative code) remains open. It isn't about monetizing, it's about staying open.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Copyleft licenses like GPL have always been ideal for projects where you're trying to build something you use in conjunction with others that use it. It's a community contract for building a shared tool with many contributors where one competitor forking it is a danger. This is great for things like LibreOffice or Webkit. Developers are large users and so long as it is a shared resource no one party gets an advantage.
Open, permissive licenses like BSD have always been better for component level technology or proposed new standard protocols or other software that requires both interoperability and adoption to have value. Things like drivers, services that run communication protocols, and generic system services all fit into this category. In these cases barriers to adoption (like dropping it into a bunch of closed source code) are detrimental to the project as a whole. It's better if MS takes it and incorporates it into Windows, even if they don't contribute anything back.
So an increase in the proportion of the latter category is hardly surprising as technology trends change. The move to mobile devices, cheaper targeted hardware manufacturing, and smaller, more efficient computing components lead to an increased number of projects in this latter category. Building a service to print wirelessly from your tablet? Why wouldn't you want you code as widely adopted and thus as widely supported by printer makers as possible? Does a competitor closing the source on the audio driver you built really give them any sort of advantage over a GPL where they have to give bug fixes back (but probably won't do much since you already made a feature complete product)?
It used to be the only place we saw this sort of development was in the Linux and BSD server markets because hardware costs made it out of the reach of those who built small devices. Now WindRiver and the like are taking a back seat as the market is flooded with cheap, small components. Most everyone in the industry has seen this trend ramping up for a long time. It isn't an ideological shift. We are all still applying the licenses that make sense to our projects. There are just more projects in the latter category now because the environment has changed.
You only have to return changes back to the community if you redistribute the resulting program. You're free to use the altered app privately, including within a company.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
This is incorrect - nothing in the GPL requires you to send anything back to the original author.
Sorry, BSD is not a punch in the nose. They can't take an open source work and make it proprietary. They can make a COPY of the open source work proprietary. The open source work itself is still open. Anyone can get a copy of the open work and use it to do whatever they like. They don't take anything away from you by making their own private copy.
There is very much a difference. A lot more licenses are considered 'open' than 'free', even while containing provisions that make it more palatable for the software creators. Look at the 2 lists that I linked to. The ones mentioned as 'open' are simply listed and categorized by their utility, w/o any judgement calls about their ethics, while GNU is more interested in listing them according to their purity i.e. similarity to the GPL itself. So it's small wonder that projects would pick an 'open' but not 'free' license - there are simply more of the latter than the former, and w/o onerous restrictions on software creators.
Contrary to myth, the Open Source movement, rather than the FSF, is the reason we have such major open source software such as Open Office, Firefox, Chromium, Apache, Android, and so on - if you notice, most of them are not GPL, and even Linus has decided not to make his kernel GPL3. If anything, companies like Sun went for things like the CDDL because it is not GPL. Oh, and before anyone says 'Android is Linux', Android is released under an Apache license and not GPL 2 nor 3.
I'd credit the likes of the OSI in helping popularize the Open Source model and bringing it to where it is. Unlike the FSF, it is not hostile to corporate interests and prefers to promote the advantages of this development model, rather than moralizing about the 'ethics' of 'Free Software'. Speaking of which, what is this 'community' that RMS, and you are talking of? People typically buy/download for free/copy software that they want to use, and use it. Most people don't, and won't, tinker w/ source code, nor pay someone else to tinker w/ them - if a software doesn't work the way they need, they either look for alternatives or workarounds.
ESR mentioned some of that in the 'Cathedral and the Bazaar', where he noted that worse than the confusion over the word 'free' was the perception that the FSF was down and out hostile to business. I'd say that that perception is accurate - name me one company (not non-profit organization like FSF) that Stallman endorses. As I've pointed out several times in the past, Freedom 2 of GNU is the poison pill in the GNU charter that makes it the most business hostile model. If a company, otoh, is fine w/ distributing its source code to its customers, but restricts re-distribution further downstream (for the obvious reason that they want to sell to those downstream potential customers themselves, and not have the value of their work diluted by other people who put no effort into it simply distributing it for free or their own profits), then they are more likely to find a sympathetic solution from OSI than FSF, who probably wouldn't give them the time of day.
There is only one case that I can think of where 'free' is a better idea than 'open'. It is the case of when a company is releasing support software for a competitor, like the recent story on /. about a TI employee writing FOSS drivers for QCOM in his free time the same way that he was writing FOSS drivers for TI in his work time. In such a case, it would be a good idea to use something like GPL3, just so that QCOM cannot make use of a non-employee's unpaid work and then include enhancements after making that proprietary. While it would have been perfectly ethical for them to do it w/ their own paid employees, it is somewhat unethical for them to do it w/ work done by employees of their competitors off the clock.
They're two different kinds of freedom, the GPL, like liberalism, uses rules that are technically anti-freedom to actively defend the (in-practice) freedom of the parties involved. The BSD license, like libertarianism, is like setting out a very barebones set of rules (theoretically very free) and hoping for the best.
How does it work in practice? Well which license gets its softeware incorporated into closed commercial products while the developers get a big fat nothing, and which one was updated with new rules when a loophole allowed similar behavior? So you have to choose whether you want freedom in theory or practice.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If you don't like it, relicense to a -- gasp!! -- proprietary license and let copyright protect you in the future.
Or use the GPL and let copyright protect you.
> GPL advocates often have a pretty significant misunderstanding of freedom.
No we don't.
We simply understand the difference between freedom and anarchy and understand why the latter is a bad thing.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Exactly, so as an author I don't see why other authors are willing to invest their time in projects licensed under BSD or similar licenses. It's one of the great mysteries of the human nature.
It's funny how the likes of EA and Oracle can manage under these egregious and unacceptable attacks on their "freedom". They can use and build products based off of Free Software quite readily. The fact that they have do so as equals with everyone else is ultimately not a problem.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Example: look at BSD. It was developed at Berkeley, then Steve Jobs took it and closed-sourced it for free. The developers of Berkeley are the one's who developed it, received no compensation from Steve, but the code got closed from THEM, not just the users.
Supplier also becomes a beneficiary of GPL when he merges back all the bug fixes that the customer applied. Let's say the GPL is the freedom of CODE, and eveyone can benefit from it, not just the customer.
Imagine a lady wearing a flower hat and wigging her finger: "You have a freedom of speech. You must use it responsibly. Don't say anything nasty, and don't say anything that offends anyone. We don't want to be offensive with our speech, now do we?"
This is the "freedom" of GPL. "You have the freedom to obey my rules on how to use your freedom."
You are wrong. Go read the GPL and point out which parts support your incorrect assertions.
The number of recent convert to free software who are somewhat afraid of themselves grow quite fast. ...
They are using "permissive" licenses because it gives them less to think about on the short term...
In the medium to long term very often it doesn't matter, but sometimes it does, and they'll regret it..
But probably it will not go horribly wrong either
So globally nothing really to see here...
This is a months old article which was long since debunked— who's payroll are you on now, Slashdot?
You used to fight for the user.
I thought the whole point of the GPL was a double barrelled barrelled move beyond copyright.
A. Small project to Small project - You use/"borrow" my song, I get to copy your resulting music mashup video from Youtube.
B. Vs. Big Companies: "Oh, you can use my component if you're going to release the whole package as also GPL free to copy. But no taking my free component then mashing it into your closed proprietary result and burying it under IP laws!"
Am I close?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
If, under BSD, you don't get the code, then how are you going to do whatever you want with it? There are tons of projects that originally started with BSD and now the source code is unavailable. That doesn't seem sustainable to me. Every developer must reinvent the wheel and advancements are kept secret. That isn't good for either the developer or the user.
Sorry but GPL 3 went way too far, nobody wants to be affiliated with anything that restrictive.
"On the other hand, GPL users are also free to do whatever they want with the exception that they must provide the source code of any modifications back to the original author."
You are mistaken, you don't need to give the modifications back to the original author but to the software's user.
GPL is protracting the user from closed source software.
Yep pretty much, but private use of modified apps without code release is allowed. Otherwise you'd have to release code for every webcam driver and server daemon that you had to tweak slightly for your own private use. If you sell or distribute the app then you'd have to release the code along with it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Once I looked at the summary, the first thought in my head was "Looks like Brian Proffitt!". I clicked on the link, and, as I expected, his disgusting bearded face stared from the page.
Can we, please, stop spreading our enemies' propaganda?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
My point of view slightly differs.
GPL is a loan. Use my work but I'm going to take yours back to pay me for it.
BSD is a gift.
GPL is not a loan. You can use it with absolutely no obligation to give anything back in return. GPL is a gift, but it's a gift to not just you.
On the other hand, GPL users are also free to do whatever they want with the exception that they must provide the source code of any modifications back to the original author.
I suggest you check again. The GPL does not require you to give modifications back to the original author. The GPL requires you to offer the source code to when you distribute the program further.
My company is focused on MIT/BSD code at this time. With ten thousand lines of new code, leveraging 5 million BSD lines of code, we can make a difference in the market. If we can't, nothing is lost. If we do, our part-time people will get more hours... perhaps even full-time work. A few of our innovations will be fed back into the pile of MIT/BSD code.
The proportion of open source projects using the GPL, LGPL and AGPL is declining, not the absolute number of projects.
The absolute number of GPL projects is not a very meaningful number. The GPL license can not be retracted, canceled or otherwise ended. Once released that particular GPL project exists regardless of whether the copyright holder changes his/her mind. All the author can do is re-license and release future versions of the project under a different license. However that previous version persists, as the GPL license was designed to ensure, and is counted even if orphaned and not adopted by users or some community.
Your post doesn't make sense. GPL scales with copyright to let copyright protect you from the copyright of downstream derivatives. If copyright is weak or gone, you don't get much protection, and you don't need much there. If it is strong, you get a lot of protection, and you need a lot of protection in such an environment.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Punching someone in the nose, obviously, is taking open source work and making it proprietary.
There are two significant failures with this:
(1) What you're talking about is impossible to do -- you can't take open source work and make it proprietary. You can only take a copy of an open source work and make that copy proprietary.
(2) Your analogy is very poor, because it suggests that the two are roughly equal in severity. If a copy of your work is made proprietary, it does not alter the license of the original. In fact, it would be possible (and perhaps even likely) that you would be completely unaware that one of the copies of your software has been made non-open. Clearly, a punch in the nose is much more severe than an action that you might not ever become aware of.
Your post is a perfect example of the poor quality of the public debate of free/open license issues. And the sad fact is that all the hyperbole, exaggeration, and false analogies are so epidemic that everyone has now become accustomed to them -- which explains why your post was rated 5.
Exactly this. I have always interpreted it this way:
BSD == Freedom for the code.
.
GPL == Freedom for the users
When you publish software the question is which is more important? That your code be used to improve the world of software? Or that your code be used to improve the freedom of users?
Which is the right answer depends not only on the person, but also on the project. I suspect many people release code under both forms at different times.
Why is BSD "punching someone's nose"? If I give away software under the BSD, that means I don't care if someone makes a copy and sells it. I give them that right. If they elect to exercise that right, well, that's within their ... er ... rights. My nose isn't bloodied.
You're correct. I incorrectly stated that you had to give the modifications directly back to the author. However you still have to disclose your modifications as source code if you chose to redistribute the modified program and that is practically the same thing. The minor difference being that the author can still have access to the changes, yet he can request them rather than you automatically giving it to him. He could also get it with a copy of your version of the software.
Sure technically I was mistaken, but practically I was not. I place this argument in the "splitting hairs" category.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Looking at bonch's account history, he doesn't post pro-MS things at all. The only thing I could find even remotely "pro-MS" was a submission about Visual Studio achievements.
On the other hand, looking at your posting history shows a clear bias and fanboyism over the GPL (you were even posting comments to the submissions of this article before one got published), so perhaps you don't like this article solely for religious reasons, because other licenses are now close to surpassing the GPL in popularity. In fact, you bring up Good Old Games multiple times in your comments, which raises the question of what your association is with them.
Punching someone in the nose, obviously, is taking open source work and making it proprietary.
Unless that person knowingly and voluntarily consented (redundantly I suppose) to having his open source work incorporated into a proprietary project. In which case, it's not so much a punch in the nose as it is doing exactly what it is that they permitted you to do.
Failure to grok this important distinction seems to me to be a really critical mistake -- sort of like confusing surgery with stabbing or consensual sex with rape.
I wont ever use the GPL and prefer MIT and BSD style licensing. Simply because the GPL tries to FORCE me, the developer, to enforce Richard Stallman's restrictive ideals in the guise of "Freedom". While the GPL might be an ok way to ensure that a commercial application gives you due credit and continues to propagate your code - why should most developers care for such restrictions?
Personally, if I put code out on Github for people to use, I dont give a RATS ASS how another party distributes it. I am already protected by copyright and do not wish to be co-opted into Richard Stallman's Graybeard Army. If I put the code out there, it's out there for use for free, in any way others see fit and hope that it is simply found useful in one way or another.
Frankly, the GPL is ANTI-SOCIAL as it restricts freedom and creates a burden of enforcement upon those who put the license to use.
Maybe I'd be more of a fan of the GPL if I was a socially awkward coder who viewed my code as a precious commodity to be jealously guarded. But, I'm not and with the advent of Networked APIs, Mobile Marketplaces, Social Coding and the rise of non-compiled languages such as PHP, Ruby and JavaScript, the GPL is being rightfully relegated to the narrow niche it truly serves and we are seeing a shift towards more open and actually FREE licensees that are more suitable for these Developed For-Profit Mobile Apps, Social Networking Applications and Script-based libraries and utilities that are being created.
saying "well technically" at the beginning of a statement is just plain silly, it doesn't make it either more technical or more correct.
Technically skilled people all need at least a basic knowledge of computing. (take off the "technically" and try and sell it to a French Polisher)
This stat isn't _usage_, it's _share_. For usage to decline, project would have to be converting away from copyleft licenses faster than new projects adopt it.
> Is the user more free because he can't distribute...
the user USES, not distributes. IIRC an user can mix and match whatever he wants in his own system if he keeps the stuff for himself.
So you don't have a point about USER freedom but on REDISTRIBUTOR freedom.
Nothing is more valuable than knowing that the source for an application I choose to use can't be closed down, TO ME. YMMV.
So when I give someone an OpenOffice document, and they say 'I can't open it', and I say 'Oh, here, have a copy of the application' I'm not a user?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I've wrestled with whether to release under a GPL or BSD style license for two projects. I can see the pros and cons of both, but in the end chose BSD.
The code is of niche appeal, and I'd be happy for anyone to get some use out of it, whether in a proprietary product or anywhere else it's useful. It probably won't have a vast lifetime or attract a large community around it. So the need to preserve the openness of the code over long periods of time just isn't there.
In the shorter term, I'd rather have as many people as free as possible to do anything they like with it. If the code was more generally appealing, I might choose a different license.
We simply understand the difference between freedom and anarchy and understand why the latter is a bad thing.
Please explain for the rest of us: what is the difference between freedom and anarchy? As far as I can tell, it is a matter of degree. Anarchy is absolute freedom.
GP likely believes that only true rights are negative rights (i.e. those that do not require any action on behalf of anyone else to be maintained, and can only be violated by an explicit action). These are contrasted with positive rights, which require someone else to do something to satisfy the right; for example, a right to education, or a right to healthcare, which both require someone to provide said education, healthcare etc. Those are not considered "rights" and such. It's a pretty popular concept in libertarian circles.
From that perspective, user's freedom to see and modify the source code is a positive right - it requires the developers to make specific effort to provide the code in order to be satisfied.
the only freedom that BSD-like licenses grant you that the GPL doesn't is the freedom to restrict other people's freedom.
some FOSS developers think that that is a worthwhile and useful freedom for their project. Most don't.
It's certainly not a useful or desirable freedom from the POV of an end-user running software without the right to view, modify, or redistribute the source code.
Coincidentally that is actually the difference between the BSD, GPL, and the *ARTISTIC* license (Notable for being the license the majority of MU* software switched to after the original 4 clause BSD.).
Artistic license basically states that any and all changes made to the software must be given to the original author if requested (It might actually say 'should be sent', but in practice it never really happened).
Funny how nobody remembers Artistic anymore, even though it's the license Perl is/was under for many years.
First of all, sorry form my english, second...
Can you go to a public park and steal a bench?
Bench with GPL license: NO, because the bench is a public property.
Bench with BSD/Permissive license: YES because the bench has no owner.
Sic et simpliciter.
BSD is still open source. You can download any of several flavours here. If you want to download Apple's version, it's here (and elsewhere).
OSS license choice and recessions. Seems to me that BSD-style licensing (which I much prefer) requires one hell of a lot less verbiage and employs fewer lawyers. It may not be compatible with the politics of certain developers, but then companies don't exist to make developers happy.
Actually, I would say it's the exact opposite.
GPL, the freedom is not for the users. Users have their freedom curtailed. You cannot use the code in many non-free ways. The most obvious one is that you cannot distribute derivative works under a different license.
BSD, the user is free to use the code, and improve upon it and distribute it as he/she wishes, without contributing back. You can create derivative works and use a different, non-free license.
This article is from December last year.
But the counterpoint is that if I read (or even just use, since by implication using it gives me the right to the source code which i may look at and cannot prove i did not) your GPL code, then decide I want to make a new program for sale that is similar to the GPL version, but rebuilt entirely from scratch in a different language. You can be a dick, claim that what i built is a derived work ( your legal rights are clear in this ) and sue me... forcing me into a costly effort to prove it is not. And I may lose because copyright law is pretty broad these days about what classifies as a derivative work.
Don't argue that if i don't use the code its not derived. That's not how it works with lawyers. Re-implementing a program in a new language is typically considered derivative, its a short step to claim that building a new one from scratch was just an attempt to obfuscate my "blatant attempt to circumvent the law" or some such nonsense.
As a person that would like to get paid, but still wishes to support other developers. BSD licences all the way. I'd like a little guarantee with my freedom... the guarantee I'm not going to get sued later, somehow for using this. The GPL is too strong, like a living in a prison to guarantee my "safety".
XML - A clever joke would be here if
If Freedom is absolute, then no one on this planet is free.
Goodness me, your post is almost totally devoid of facts.
BSD is still open source, the original developers still have full access to it.
Apple's modifications are also open and available, also to those developers.
The original developers received no compensation because they chose to release the code under a very permissive licence. They did this on purpose and required no compensation. You're trying to make it look like Apple "stole" something, which is a totally nonsensical position.
The BSD licence was specifically created for this purpose; it's deliberately very permissive. However, taking that code and forking it does *nothing* to "close off the code from the original developers".
Copyright refers to the "right" to copy or rather to copy and distribute said copies. It has nothing to do with either the left/right political spectrum or the direction.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Yeah, exactly how are you harmed by somebody doing a close-sourced fork of your code? You aren't benefited by getting to see their further changes. But you aren't exactly harmed .. you still have your original code. Also, if you actually want your software to be used as widely as possible you will license it w/o copyleft. The networking stack your OS is running was probably derived from BSD. If it had a copyleft license, no proprietary software vendor would have touched it, and they'd have had to do their own. That is better for the world, how?
There does a come a point where you have to evaluate whether a source is trustworthy. A journalists/analyst's main credential is credibility. If said person lacks it, then the information being conveyed requires extra scrutiny. Asking 'who is he?', to me, is a less strict version of 'is this person credible?' In the particular case of Brian Proffitt, a previous post by him on Hadoop showed that he completely misunderstood the technology and didn't understand the current state of the project. So my particular answer would be 'No'.
And this above would prove the point that to measure someone's POV you do so by having knowledge a-priori about him. You ask who is him by knowing a-priori that he didn't know what he was talking about. That is, you knew who he was by having done a prior analysis of his writing.
In that case, the question is not "who is he", but "why should I spend time dissecting what he wrote if he has a track record of being off the tracks?" This can still be at risk of becoming an unwarranted ad-hominem, but at least there is a measure of objectivity. This is completely different from the arrogance displayed in the AC's post I originally replied to.
Yes, because a hallmark of using the GPL is how easy it is to directly monetize the GPLed work itself by selling it.
Oh wait.
The key consideration is, would it be possible for you to have written your work without the existence of the prior work? If you required the prior work in order to make yours, it's most likely derivative.
+1
I don't know why anyone modded you down, other than being an FSF fanatic/Stallman worshipper. The headline you submitted seemed very accurate. Fewer people starting new FOSS projects would do it under the GPL, and users of existing GNU software that's 'upgraded' from GPL 2 to 3 are deserting it in droves - the most famous example being GCC users, which is arguably the most valuable GCC software out there. Usage here would mean 2 things
In case of the first point, depending on how many more people are moving to Linux, which is locked on GPL2, but which is using GNU userland that's 'upgraded' to GPL3, the headline may or may not be true. In the second case however, it most likely is. Note that existing GPL software is pretty much locked in GPL, unless the organizations that created them manage to get a concensus to move all subsequent versions of the software to a different license. Hence, such a headline is more likely than not to refer to the trend amongst new software.
Also, as I mentioned, the author probably used the term 'open' to describe software that the OSI doesn't have problems w/, and which may be good about providing source code, while restricting other freedoms. As an example, the QPL qualifies as an Open Source license, but not as a Free Software license. Both GPL 2 & 3 are free software licenses, but GPL2 was mentioned in TFA as being the license favored by Open Source supporters, while GPL3 was favored by FSF supporters. Point is also that while a lot of licenses may qualify as free software licenses, only GPL3 is thought of in that vein, due to its advocates promoting it over even things like GPL2, which works fine for everyone outside the FSF who uses it.
I'd consider GPL developers taking BSD licensed code, modifying and re-licensing as GPL so upstream can not make use of the code (rather than simple dual license it) as a punch in the nose. Were they legally entitled to do so? Sure. However ethically its a big fuck you to those upstream, for no gain at all (if it was going into a closed source project fair enough there is incentive there - monetary gain; but to do so when you're incorporating into GPL is just nasty).
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
You have the existing BSD licensed code. A closed-source branch does not take the open sourced code away. Fact of life: not all code is exciting to work on, and some will never be developed for free. BSD license allows those who want to pay money for the un-sexy work to be done to get it done, and monetize the result.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Can you please provide an example of this happening? Even a theoretical one? If you're modifying the open source code you are in the clear. If you are disassembling and modifying a proprietary app (BSD licensed code + proprietary code) then this is NOT the same thing. You're still freely entitled to the code that was BSD licensed.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
The submitter should be modded down for his redundancy because he posted a link to a story that's from *LAST YEAR* (this is *NEWS* for nerds, not *OLDS*), and on top of that was debunked last time it appeared on /. as being the output of an anti-MS shill.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Hmm, I started with MS-shill (which is true, but irrelevant), and wanted to change it to anti-GPL-shill. Alas, I only half-performed the change.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
You are not correct. When a user publishes someone else's GPL software, they must provide the source code to the recipient of the software. Nothing in the GPL compels users to provide code to anybody else.
Case in point: Tivoization.
I write a media library and release it under GPLv3.
And you come along, with a hot new device that can do video things, like record and playback among other things.
Now, since you're probably going to have to get in bed with Big Media to get favorable treatment, you'll probably be required to get a patent license which requires, among other things, for you to implement some horrendous DRM scheme that cockblocks a bunch of things they don't like, but which are quite reasonable for the end user to want to do.
Normally, you could just slap a firmware hash on the chips to prevent the end user from running homebrew versions.
However, the GPLv3 prevents you from using my media library in your product if you plan to prevent your consumers from changing things, even if they have my source code.
In theory, having BSD licensed code on the device would allow the user to change things, however the firmware hash will prevent the user from applying his own changes to the firmware, and the DMCA makes it a crime to bypass the firmware hash.
If the code is GPL, however, legally you can't use a firmware hash to prevent changes to begin with.
This "firmware hash" loophole is actually what caused the GPL to be updated to v3 in the first place.
Why is Tivoization a problem, other than something to keep FSF activists busy? So what if my TiVo box is locked down and I can't alter it, even though they give me the Linux source code that comes w/ it? The company does provide a warranty about the box working, which is not what one normally finds in any FOSS license, and so they are fully justified in preventing customers from screwing it up by installing OTP firmware. My prediction - FSF will soon enough find something wrong w/ Android, and release a GPL4 to get around the problem of 'Androidization'.
but the article didn't make a claim about the absolute number of projects using the GPL. It made a claim about the usage of the GPL
So you didn't make a claim about using - you made one about usage? There is no difference between those words in this context.
tl;dr You're a fucking idiot, so I am most pleased to see that your comments start at 0 (or is it -1 now?)
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
GPL is more for protecting the originating developer's right, while the BSD protects the user's freedoms.
Wrong, GPL is about protecting the rights of the end user. With the GPL the user of the compiled software always has access to the source code (since company internal modifications don't have to be re-distributed, one should consider a company as a whole as one user). With BSD the end user has no such guarantee.
..., GPL users are also free to do whatever they want with the exception that they must provide the source code of any modifications back to the original author.
Also wrong. The changes to GPLed code only have to be given to those to whom you distribute compiled programs that are based on the changed source code. You have no obligation to contact the original authors and provide them with the changed code.
No need to defend Apple, I never meant to attack it. All I did was try to explain the difference between "open source" licenses. Thank you for reinforcing my point that the original developers got shafted because of the kind of license they used. As for Mac OS X being "open and available" -- it is common knowledge that it is not. Unless you have some insider knowledge about modules taken from BSD being open, and Apple's modifications to them "closed", and even then a statement like that is a "reality distortion field".
How did they get shafted? Did they not receive something that was owed them?
The original developers received no compensation
Apple's annual revenue is $108 billion in 2011, not in small part driven by operating systems with BSD foundation. True, they are not entitled for any part of it because of the permissive license, but had they used GPL (if it were available back then) they would still be treated as authors of free stuff are supposed to be: free to take back changes, modify and resell.
I am not saying that GPL is perfect -- Android shows that there are always ways to lock it up and go around the license restrictions.
Exactly. They are treated as BSD authors are supposed to be: they get a credit on the product.
You can't say you got shafted if you gave something away for free, expecting nothing in return, and then actually got nothing!
Your point... I do not think it means what you think it means.
How can the developers get "shafted" by deciding specifically to release code under the BSD licence by choice, only for that code to later be used exactly as the licence intended?
If they wanted to make money off the code they would ave released it under a different licence. If they wanted to do something more like the GPL then they would have released it under a different licence.
My point is that they were in no way "shafted" because Apple decided to use Darwin as the core of their OS.
I also did not say that OS X was open, I said that their modifications to the original BSD code (in the form of the Darwin OS) are open and available. The whole of OS X is not under the BSD licence but the core Unix parts are - ie, the core pieces that were originally released as BSD back in the day. What? You think the original devs were "shafted" because they don't have access to the entire source of OS X?
The GPL does not specify that the source code shall be available in perpetuity. It only specifies that the source code shall be distributed (or made available) to the end user at time of distribution. The end user is not required to make the source code available.
BSD and GPL have the same access to the source code.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Not for derivative works.
<agentsmith>Which, of course, is what this is all about.</agentsmith>
You still have the open BSD code. The GPLv3 means i need to re-invent a media library with potential compatibility issues, buffer overflows, etc (less well tested code). How do end users benefit from that? How does the world benefit from me re-inventing the wheel, rather than spending my time on NEW features, or solving other software problems? BSD specifically allows this to happen so that we end up with more well tested, mature code for everybody. If someone chooses to license their changes in their commercial product as closed, then fair enough. It's THEIR code, the open source is still out there.
If I build software license costs into the profit margin of my product, then it becomes non-viable to allow home-brew software. This is the way the world works. If you want to buy your next console for $2000, then sure, loss-leading on devices like that will go away. Unfortunately in the real world, no one will buy a $2000 console. SNK tried back in the 80s (adjusted for inflation).
Without software costs subsidizing hardware, we would not have consoles for the price we have them today. Again, how does the customer win from this situation? If you want a device for home-brew software, build it yourself?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Is the user more free because [...]
This whole paragraph is a bit confused. For a start you are clearly talking about a developer, and not a user. Secondly, I would like to see examples of the incompatibility issues you claim are the case (I am not aware of any problems distributing a GPL program that uses a ASF licensed library, for example). Thirdly, you are citing license incompatibilities as a reason that the GPL is not about user freedom, which makes no sense (unless you are suggesting they were deliberate?).
the GPL does not prevent the copyright holder from taking something closed source
That's because this is not possible! The thing that the GPL prevents, which the MIT (et al) do not, is someone releasing a proprietary, closed-source version of the software. It's quite simple. You are muddying the situation by saying that the copyright holder can still make a closed-source version of the software, because this will *always* be the case - they are the copyright holder! And I disagree with you when you say that this doesn't matter because some prior version was open-source -- it will matter a lot to some people.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." -Pravin Lal