Is GPL Licensing In Decline?

GMGruman writes "Simon Phipps writes, "As Apache licenses proliferate, two warring camps have formed over whether the GPL is or isn't falling out of favor in favor of the Apache License." But as he explores the issues on both sides, he shows how the binary thinking on the issue is misplaced, and that the truth is more nuanced, with Apache License gaining in commercially focused efforts but GPL appearing to increase in software-freedom-oriented efforts. In other words, it depends on the style of open source."

Comments

Deja Vu

[msclrhd]

Didn't we have this story last week?

Re:Deja Vu

[AliasMarlowe]

Yep. It was this one. And even that was a repeat posting, possibly by a troll or astroturfer.

Re:Deja Vu

[hairyfeet]

It is just Slashdot doing what it does best on a slow news week, they be trolling. They know those that treat anything RMS says as word of God will get all butthurt when they see this and will go apeshit and hilarious flames will ensue, but really if one thinks logically it is easy to explain.

1.- GPL V3 went too anti-business, with RMS going so far as to target one business specifically, 2.- Businesses and those that are working for them were the ones writing much of the GPL code, 3.-RMS refuses to change a line or compromise, 4.-Everyone votes with their feet by going to a different license.

See how simple that is? Now watch those followers of St iGNUicious have a living shitfit because i dared to point out not only reality, but that freedom works BOTH ways! Hell isn't the whole point of FOSS is "If things don't go the way the majority believe, then fork it" so that no one person can dictate what the majority have to have? Well that is what we are seeing here, RMS went too far and spooked a lot of people with his militant anti-business attitude so they are choosing a different license, that's all. If RMS weren't such a militant he would come to the table with developers and Torvalds and ask "What is wrong with the license? What do I need to change to get you on board?" but we know he'll never do that so instead people choose something else. Looks like FOSS is doing exactly as it always has, routing around damage.

Re:Deja Vu

[TheRaven64]

I have done a study on this, and I can now publish my findings, exclusively on Slashdot, for the first time:

Since this time last year, instances of the GPL in Slashdot dupes are now up by 300%, while instances of the Apache and BSD licenses remain at a constant level.

Flamewars about the merits of the GPL vs the BSDL are at an all-time high. In February, for the first time since 2010, they passed the number of Android vs iOS flamewars, and are currently recorded at over 11 on the vi vs emacs scale.

Comparisons between the FSF and the Nazis are up by 20%, but still significantly lower than any major tech company or political party. Apple, Microsoft and Google are all at record high levels on the Godwin scale, but Oracle has passed all three, with a stunning 400% increase after the takeover of Sun. IBM's record from the '80s is still unsurpassed.

Re:Deja Vu

[hairyfeet]

All one has to do is look at the before and after numbers friend, the data doesn't lie. Right up until GPL V3 the numbers were consistent, it was going up quarter by quarter, after GPL V3 the numbers were flat for the first quarter (as businesses looked it over) and then it has been a straight down curve ever since. look up the numbers yourself, it makes a pretty little bell curve.

But you see posts like yours, where yes you did get all butthurt EXACTLY as I predicted, is why I separate FOSS advocates from FOSSies. A FOSS advocate uses FOSS because it is the best tool for a particular job they have, FOSSies look upon it as a religion, FOSS advocates argue their position with the pros and cons, FOSSies see everything as a personal attack on their Deity. This phenomena isn't exactly a secret, it is why we have comics like this and this and actual syndromes like this one. If you would like to see an example of this syndrome BTW, please go to linux Insider and look up anything posted by pogson, its soo funny to watch a FOSSie as he keeps saying "That other OS" or M$ because he's sure that if he types the actual word then MSFT Ninjas will get him, hilarious!

So whether you like it or not frankly means nothing to me, I honestly don't care, i just love to LMAO at loons and lately FOSSies have been funny as hell. I mean can you even picture a Mac user typing "the OS from Redmond ooohhh" or a windows user typing "The kernel that must not be named' its just too damned funny the kind of batshit crazy that RMS attracts, hell its comedy gold!

Re:Deja Vu

[KiloByte]

This is the fifth story[1] based on a single article by one single shill. If this were mere trolling, I'd be grudgingly impressed. As this is a commercial scheme, I hate the guy with passion.

[1]. counting only those I noticed and remember, so there's probably more.

Re:Deja Vu

[rtfa-troll]

This is the fifth story[1] based on a single article by one single shill. If this were mere trolling, I'd be grudgingly impressed. As this is a commercial scheme, I hate the guy with passion.

[1]. counting only those I noticed and remember, so there's probably more.

100% true. The way this keeps coming up is a very clear message. That message is:

Microsoft and Apple hate the GPL because it represents a chance to break their duopoly on personal computing by creating a complete independent environment.

Whenever we have this discussion it gets pointed out repeatedly that Apple must love F/OSS because they use so much of it. What doesn't get pointed out is that the OpenDarwin project to build a system based on Apple's open source failed for lack of cooperaton from Apple and lack of involvement from their developers. This is symptomatic of Apple's attitude; they will take whatever you give them. They will even co-operate wherever they see clear profit. They will never support things which give their users freedom to work in ways that Apple doesn't approve of. Microsoft's hatred of the GPL is so well documented in their own words that nobody even tries to claim otherwise, except for a few "Microsoft has changed" voices that we have been hearing for years without seeing anything actually changing. Note, however, that Microsoft has quite happily used BSD software all over their system.

Microsoft and Apple don't mind F/OSS as long as it is a box and they can charge you for the use of the box and limit what goes in and out of it. They fear GPL based open source as something which might allow you to create your own box and choose what you want to allow in and out of there. They are doing that by making sure that whatever you do with a computer you have to go through one of their systems. They are aiming to head back to the bad days of the 1980s when you didn't just pay for your compiler software; you actually paid run time licenses for the libraries you used. This is what app stores and their percentage taxes are about. This is what the GPL threatens by giving every computer programmer the chance to contribute to and modify the code.

These stories keep coming up because the various PR shills here want to make people behave differently from their own interests. Remember that and choose the GPL whenever you have the option.

Re:Deja Vu

[Microlith]

So there are more projects overall, but less of the new projects use GPL. That isn't bad in the slightest, quite frankly. It'd be more telling if projects were relicensing away from the GPL, but they aren't.

Right up until GPL V3 the numbers were consistent, it was going up quarter by quarter, after GPL V3 the numbers were flat for the first quarter (as businesses looked it over) and then it has been a straight down curve ever since. look up the numbers yourself, it makes a pretty little bell curve.

Why not just link to those numbers right now?

But you see posts like yours, where yes you did get all butthurt EXACTLY as I predicted

No I didn't, I told you to cite some sources rather than throw around ad-hominems and "anyone that disagrees with me is just butthurt" 4-chan style arguments.

A FOSS advocate uses FOSS because it is the best tool for a particular job they have, FOSSies look upon it as a religion, FOSS advocates argue their position with the pros and cons, FOSSies see everything as a personal attack on their Deity.

So anyone that disagrees with you is immediately slotted into the second category, right? Cause that's what you're doing now.

This phenomena isn't exactly a secret, it is why we have comics like this and this and actual syndromes like this one.

So two webcomics and some arbitrary website that appears to be anti-Linux hate site. Seriously, that's what the third site you linked comes across as. It's almost insane in how curled back on itself that site is with hatred. That's as bad as calling Linux insecure and linking to three bugs, two of which were over FOUR YEARS OLD. Your hatred is almost as irrational and insane as the "worship" you ascribe others as having.

If you would like to see an example of this syndrome BTW, please go to linux Insider and look up anything posted by pogson, its soo funny to watch a FOSSie as he keeps saying "That other OS" or M$ because he's sure that if he types the actual word then MSFT Ninjas will get him, hilarious!

Because one guy is representative of everyone.

Eventually you'll realize that you're at least as crazy and irrational as the people you claim to rail against.

Re:Deja Vu

[Microlith]

No, he rejects the notion that sharing is wrong. He also suggests that if you do share, you shouldn't feel bad because, as he said, the EULAs have no moral force, only legal.

since he publicly states that neither copyright laws nor software licenses should have any force, anyone can pirate a GPL program and use his statements as promisory estoppel.

Hardly. His statements are for him alone and do not apply to any and all GPL programs.

And then you wrap up with an ad-hominem. Man, you FOSS/GPL haters are real clever with your arguments, y'know?

Re:Deja Vu

[andrew3]

As time went on, FSF decided they didn't like Freedom Zero anymore. Users like Apple were using the software the "wrong way" by not contributing to FSF community ecosystem, danceline, and parade floats. So they rewrote the license to restrict Freedom Zero rights... now you can't run software unless I can run it too.

That is incorrect. You do not have to accept the terms of the GPL to run the program alone. Let me cite the GPLv3 itself:

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.

Re:Deja Vu

[TheRaven64]

Whenever we have this discussion it gets pointed out repeatedly that Apple must love F/OSS because they use so much of it

No, its pointed out that Apple must love F/OSS because they contribute to so much of it. Take a look at LLVM, WebKit, CUPS, and a number of other projects and see how many contributions are funded by Apple. They contribute to F/OSS for exactly the right reason: If two or more companies need the same thing, it's cheaper if they cooperate on implementing the same thing than if they each implement their own (incompatible) ones and keeping them private. Apple has ridiculous amounts of money, enough to easily fund developing their own compiler suite and HTML rendering engine, but if they contribute to LLVM and WebKit then the same amount of effort is added to the work by Google and others and the result is even better.

Re:Deja Vu

[ClickOnThis]

RMS is himself a "hater", so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. He is on record as advocating that people pirate proprietary/closed source programs rather than pay for them - in other words, copyright law be damned when it doesn't support his flawed vision, because copyright that supports closed source is "morally wrong".

No, that's not what RMS is saying at all. Let's look at the paragraph that appears to upset you the most.

Many users unconsciously recognize the wrong of refusing to share, so they decide to ignore the licenses and laws, and share programs anyway. But they often feel guilty about doing so. They know that they must break the laws in order to be good neighbors, but they still consider the laws authoritative, and they conclude that being a good neighbor (which they are) is naughty or shameful. That is also a kind of psychosocial harm, but one can escape it by deciding that these licenses and laws have no moral force.

In this paragraph, RMS is not avocating that people pirate proprietary software. Rather, he is illustrating the cognitive dissonance faced by a "good neighbor" who wishes to share, but is stopped from doing so by licenses on proprietary software. His point is that one can assuage that cognitive dissonance by assuming the laws have "no moral force." See the difference?

If you actually look at the rest of his essay, it is abundantly clear that what he does advocate is having programmers release the source code of their programs, and allowing others the freedom to use and modify the program as they wish, provided they do not stop others from enjoying the same freedom. Pirating proprietary software (with no source-code available) obviously is an impediment to that, so why should he support it?

The funny part - since he publicly states that neither copyright laws nor software licenses should have any force, anyone can pirate a GPL program and use his statements as promisory estoppel.

Good luck with that. The GPL has held up in court against its violators on many occasions.

Re:Deja Vu

[rtfa-troll]

At one time, free software advocates made a big deal out of what they called "Freedom Zero" - the right to run software however one pleases. They hated restrictions and EULAs and developers who made moral judgements

. Users like Apple were using the software the "wrong way" by not contributing to FSF community ecosystem, danceline, and parade floats. So they rewrote the license to restrict Freedom Zero rights... now you can't run software unless I can run it too.

That is fine, but Apple is perfectly within their rights to stick with GPL2, which protects their Freedom Zero rights as originally outlined by RMS.

I think this response to my post really bears reading. It's quite cool and really backs up my point). There's a whole load of random strange vitriol being thrown about. More or less in the "throw enough mud and some of it is bound to stick" frame of mind. Let's just look at how wierd this post is.

The poster says:

As time went on, FSF decided they didn't like Freedom Zero anymore

then later

now you can't run software unless I can run it too.

the GPLv3 actually contains (in section 2. Basic Permissions.) this explicit clause:

This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program

This is after making it clear that since it's a copyright licence it has nothing to do with your usage; only your distribution of the software. You can't get a more explicit affirmation of freedom zero than that. Why pretend otherwise? Someone is afraid you will protect your software and your users with the GPLv3. Why are they afraid of that? The logical explanation seems to me that they want to screw you and are afraid the GPLv3 will stop them. Let's look at some more of the post:

That is fine, but Apple is perfectly within their rights to stick with GPL2, which protects their Freedom Zero rights as originally outlined by RMS.

This is a reply to a post which advocated the GPL without reference to version. Where nobody ever suggested apple shouldn't use the GPLv2 if they want to. It seems like a simple non-sequiteur, yet it isn't. This is dead simple. In setting out to destroy your freedom and their chance of competition, Microsoft and Apple want to reduce the GPL as much as possible since it is the likely source of that competition. The GPLv3 represents a more effective GPL. FUD must be spread to stop it.

Fundamental take home: when someone is lying this hard to try to get you to stop doing something, it's time to start thinking if you shouldn't be doing exactly what they tell you not to do.. I'm personally becoming convinced that the GPLv3 should really be a priority for everybody who cares about the freedom to program as they want.

Re:Deja Vu

[Microlith]

Notice how many simply insult?

I'm not sure if you're referring to something I didn't see, or are just talking past me. If you are, that's pretty rude. Oh and for the record, I haven't insulted you once.

That is how you can spot a butthurt FOSSie BTW, they have NO arguments so all they can do is insult.

This is called projecting. You fling ad-hominem attacks constantly and accuse others of doing it to you.

Imagine I am a hardware manufacturer, I can go Linux, which means i either have to throw the stability and reputation of my company's products to some kernel dev who may or may not give a shit

Oh please, this has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. If you're a hardware manufacturer, the quality of your driver and your reputation depend on their ability to code their way out of a paper bag. I invite you to highlight how a kernel dev could harm your reputation or your driver. It sounds to me like you're making shit up rather than relating actual experience.

I can "pull an Nvidia" and pay an entire team to do nothing but deal with Torlvald's breakage by constantly updating the drivers

Which is a tradeoff: you keep your sources closed, but in turn no one fixes the "breakage" for you. You also don't get any bugfixes.

or I can just write FOUR little drivers and be finished until 2022.

But why should an open source project be obligated to support your closed source driver until 2022? Oh right, because they should be like Microsoft and only release a new kernel once every several years rather than constantly iterating on it.

It is THIS reason why Linux is crippled without an ABI, because any manufacturer can cover Windows from 1999-2022 with a single CD and that's it, you are done.

That's a bunch of nonsensical hyperbole and you know it.

Your entire argument boils down to: Linux should stop being so flexible for the sake of those poor, poor hardware vendors that want to keep their drivers proprietary for whatever reason, and they should support them forever!

Which is utter nonsense.

But instead because there are so many FOSSies, which again treat the OS as religion and thus all edicts as religious dogma, instead you'll get excuses or insults.

You have received no insults or excuses.

Even the one kernel dev they constantly post in rebuttal is a FOSSie, who even writes in his rebuttal "And I hope all of those that use non free drivers have them break constantly!"

Who posts this in rebuttal? What kernel dev is this? Can you cite anything you post? With something having a shred more credibility than anti-Linux hate sites?

Note to all: Hairyfeet cannot post a real argument. He can only throw out ad-hominems, unsubstantiated arguments, ridiculous arguments, and "sources" of questionable veracity.

Re:Deja Vu

[Microlith]

I guess Slashdot is the target of a concerted anti-GPL effort.

Linux, and unix-like OS's as a whole don't have a stable ABI, and you go through dependency hell (or dll-hell in windows-land) trying to make most FOSS software work because they depend on system libraries that only exist on X version of Y Distro.

Really? So apt-get install <package> doesn't work for you? Of course, if you're building something then I'd assume you were familiar with what you're actually building.

For the most part Windows and MacOS solve this problem by having most applications just come with their own copy of the libraries they use and only falling back on the system library in absence of the packaged one.

This results in large .app packages on OS X and the duplication of libraries, and on Windows you either run into compatibility issues outright or you have the Microsoft workaround called "WinSxS."

GPL is decidedly anti-business, and politically hostile.

So pro-consumer = anti-business, and freedom is "politically hostile."

Dependency hell due to the not wanting to create licence violations is another.

This is an empty statement unless you can clarify what you mean.

Ultimately Linux is used in many places where it's extremely high maintenance where Windows or OS X are maintenance-free just because software licences are more straight forward.

This is an outright fabrication, honestly. OS X's licensing, if you can call it that, is infinitely more hostile than the GPL.

On Linux you might have to spend several hours updating the system before installing a new program. Windows and OSX will work out of the box.

Blatant lie, sorry.

The rest of your post is, frankly, keyword gibberish.

Re:Deja Vu

[Microlith]

His statements, as head of the FSF, can be used as a defense for any business decides to argue prommisory estoppel the next time they're sued for violating the GPL on all software copyrights assigned to the FSF.

Unlikely. As you've already been told, he's not saying that "you should pirate proprietary software." He's saying "you shouldn't feel guilty if you share, because the license carries no moral weight." It still carries legal weight however, thus you shouldn't pirate anyway. Then I'm sure he'd tell you, if you asked, that you should use Free Software rather than pirate, because piracy just furthers the use of non-free software.

Re:Deja Vu

[Grishnakh]

No, "religious" isn't the right term. "Arrogant" is.

Re:Deja Vu

[Grishnakh]

The thing to keep in mind is that its a lot of work

Exactly, which is why the kernel devs don't do it, and are completely against it. They'd rather shift the work to the vendors (rightfully so), and also promote the open-sourcing of drivers.

Stable and non-stable ABIs both have their advantages and disadvantages. Shills like hairyfeet like to pretend that there's no downsides to a stable ABI, but there are, and they're huge. A stable ABI works fine for MS because they can afford to employ armies of programmers to maintain that ABI and do all the backporting and regression testing you mention, and they want to make it easy for vendors to get their hardware working on their OS without having to disclose any source code. The Linux kernel devs have completely different motivations and lesser resources, so an unstable ABI works much better for them, but it hurts vendors who refuse to open their driver source code (gee darn). Most vendors don't have a problem with it; just look at Intel. They've got tons of open-source driver code in the kernel and elsewhere, including GPU drivers. You don't see them whining about it and trying to keep secrets; as long as they're selling lots of silicon, they're happy.

Re:Deja Vu

[kiwimate]

Someone's drunk the Kool-Aid...

Looking at that paragraph, I suppose you can at a stretch state that RMS is not actively telling people to pirate software. In fact, he starts with the arrogant premise that anyone who doesn't want to share software is wrong. Wow. In other words, "f*** you if you don't agree with my principles, I'm better than you." Nice.

He then proceeds to explain how people who feel guilty about sharing software, despite knowing they're breaking the law, can make themselves feel better about it.

You're really reaching to explain away this garbage. I'd be a lot more impressed if people who claim to be so high and mighty on principles would actually show some backbone and say "I don't agree with your licenses, so I'm going to boycott your software", instead of "I don't agree with your licenses, but, umm, it's stuff I want, so I'm gonna pirate it. And if you don't like it I'll hold my breath until I turn blue!!! Nyah nyah sucks!"

Re:Deja Vu

[mug funky]

btw, linux is not an OS. it's part of one. not making excuses, just pointing out your unfair comparison.

windows has done the driver thing really well. i actually feel a little sorry for MS's current state - they've had their reputation mangled because of the difficulty of pleasing everyone - backward compatibility meant lots more security holes, but kept everyone using their old (buggy) programs. their ABI meant that a bad driver could BSOD the system (and everyone would blame the system for being unstable). running windows would be rock solid as long as you never bought any hardware... the MacOS family had no excuse for their instability in this case. the OS, hardware and much of the software were made by the same company, and yet those buggers crash just as often as windows and linux boxes (i've taken to sending a crash report each and every time something fucks out, just because i like the thought of some bugger at Apple being bogged down with endless core dumps).

Linux hasn't done the driver thing terribly well, but it's getting better.

what you fail to understand (and mislabel as religion many things that can be seen as philosophies or political motives) is that a lot of people who went to Linux did so not because they were looking for something better than windows, but were looking for something that was an alternative. linux has given us freedom of choice primarily. freedom to own your own computer, and if you can stand the forum hunts for fixes, a knowledge of how it all works, what can be done. if you watch the changelogs, it's quite a nice experience - everything's always getting better, there's always good news :)

Re:Deja Vu

[unixisc]

In that case, how is it that BSD doesn't have a problem providing a stable ABI? Also, same question for Solaris/OpenIndiana? I see nothing in FOSS that precludes an FOSS OS from having a stable ABI. This particular issue has less to do w/ the GPL, but more to do w/ Linus' design philosophy.

Honestly, if every GPL OS - Linux, Hurd - had an ABI that supported the driver model independently of the version# of the underlying kernel, there wouldn't be a problem. All that backporting and regression testing would be there, but that has to be there on the kernel anyway. If Linux is so good at fixing bugs (albeit not all), there is no reason it can't have a dedicated team that does just that.

Re:Deja Vu

[unixisc]

Does this article work for you - 'Why software should not have owners'?

As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright.

Says it right here! Nothing here that suggests that he advocates obeying the law - he just goes on his usual sanctimonious diatribe against the law.

Re:Deja Vu

[Microlith]

Since you're back (and still wrong) let's go over this.

copyright law says you do NOT create a derivative work until the "work" is fixed in some permanent media

The binary patch that you read to apply in memory is itself a derivative work. It is, in effect, linked against the binary and applied dynamically at runtime. Not the in memory copy, the patch itself. The Game Genie ruling doesn't even apply here.

Unless you're suggesting that, somehow, the patch in question is never itself fixed to a medium, but then how the hell do you get it to users.

Your hatred is incredible, and your attitude towards people who counter your arguments prove you are no better than those you claim to hate.

App stores

[kthreadd]

Like it or not, but the fact that GPL is prohibited in many app stores is probably what discourages authors of FLOSS from using it as their license. Some authors may also feel that they don't want to use it even if it works fine for them now since they don't know what will happen in the future, as contributions are accepted from other authors it becomes much harder to change license. It's not 1991 anymore.

Re:App stores

[gl4ss]

well, suppose you have a license that requires the users to be given source they can recompile and run. now, usually that kind of license would require that you don't need a 3rd party - or hacking your device - to be able to do that - like paying apple or ms a hundred bucks to be able to upload the recompiled binary to your device(and in both cases getting a license for operating system to run the compiler in and a license for the compiler, which both do provide though, I think it's possible to weasel a free license for the os too out of both too).

also while developer unlocks for devices do give the ability to install random sw, they're not meant for doing that(with matching eulas).

(I'm not an apple dev, but apples thing might have specific limitations for gpl code to be submitted too, however that sounds sketchy - NOW if you're wondering why they would do that is that they, apple, or ms, are the software distributor, they take a _cut_ out of the buying profits so they'd be responsible for sharing the code too, no?).

Re:App stores

[Anonymous Coward]

All "open source" is prohibited in many app stores.

And what app stores would those be? It's certainly not the iOS App store.

Doom is GPL Licensed
Doom is in the App Store
The Source for for iOS Doom

Re:App stores

[swillden]

Like it or not, but the fact that GPL is prohibited in many app stores is probably what discourages authors of FLOSS from using it as their license. Some authors may also feel that they don't want to use it even if it works fine for them now since they don't know what will happen in the future, as contributions are accepted from other authors it becomes much harder to change license. It's not 1991 anymore.

What app stores other than Apple's have terms incompatible with the GPL? Google Play doesn't. Amazon Appstore doesn't. Nook Store doesn't.

(BTW, the problem with Apple's terms isn't that they ban the GPL, it's that they require that apps be licensed on a per user basis, with no sub-licensing or re-distribution permitted, even if the licensing cost is zero. The GPL requires that everyone have redistribution rights, which is incompatible with per-user licensing. Google doesn't constraint the app developer's licensing choices, and AFAICT the other Android stores have followed suit.)

Re:App stores

[swillden]

That's great, too bad Android itself is such a closed platform.

FUD. Android is 100% open source. Google has some apps which are closed, and there are many apps in the store which are closed, but Android is 100% open. Including Honeycomb.

Re:App stores

[Microlith]

It's the terms of the GPL that prevent it.

Yes, because the iTunes store places additional restrictions on end users, while the GPL directly opposes that.

RMS is doing the prohibiting, not the app store.

RMS isn't doing shit. The developer that chose the GPL decided to place that restriction.

Because he's extremely anti-business.

He's also anti-lockdown and pro-freedom. Again, iOS/WP are very anti-freedom and pro-lockdown.

Re:App stores

[TheRaven64]

Well, unless you count any of the drivers required to actually use Android on any shipping phone...

Some Personal Experiences

[interval1066]

I've had recent occasion to talk to a few SAAS providers and other software producers who are employing OSS tech in some of their products and the consensus was the GPL was too constrictive, so their using other schemes. I'm also noticing others around the web sticking to GPL 2.0, and dismissing 3.0. I'm just a messenger, just what I've seen.

Re:Some Personal Experiences

[Attila Dimedici]

I have felt from the time it came out that GPL 3.0 was a step too far. With any attempt to write a legally binding document (whether a license like the GPL or a law) that applies to people you have never met you have to make a choice between one of two options. You can either write it so that no one can ever abuse it, or you can write it so that it is flexible and can be applied in innovative ways to solve problems that it never occurred to you might be connected to it somehow. If you do the first one, the document will, at best, be unusable in situations that are outside of what you considered possible when you wrote it, but more likely will actually restrain innovation in any area where your document applies. GPL 3.0 does this.

Re:Some Personal Experiences

[interval1066]

Distributing source was not the objection I heard. It was more along the lines of the license itself... anyway, if you use it are you exploiting it? You kind of sound like ANY use of OSS is exploitation. If so, why release it? Just keep it in a vault if no one can use it.

Re:Some Personal Experiences

[Anonymous Coward]

The primary objective of the GPL and free software was not innovation; it was freedom. Freedom for the little guy. RMS has underlined again and again that some software might not be so shiny because of that freedom, or proprietary products might have more features. This however, has always been a non-issue; the primary objective has always been the four freedoms, regardless of how others might want to use or abuse the software or the essential right to freedom.

BSD

[Zamphatta]

Personally, I prefer the BSD licenses. There's more freedom in it. Although, I can see why people like the GPL & Apache licenses, I think they're a little too restrictive.

Re:BSD

[Edam]

Personally, I prefer the BSD licenses. There's more freedom in it.

This is a matter of perspective, though. Those extra restrictions in the GPL are there to prevent you from restricting others; you don't have the freedom to deny other people's freedoms. In the same way as in a free society you are not free to go around killing people. So, from that perspective, you could argue that, while more restrictive to the individual in receipt of the licensed material, the GPL has more freedom in it from the point of view of society.

Different tools for different tasks

[swillden]

Who'd a thunk it?

Internet is Growing Up, Becoming Square

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Personally, I think the whole open source gig is fading away. The next generation of programmers have been raised to live and program in flashy iDink walled gardens and have neither the interest or the inclination in releasing or collaborating on code.

In their world, code is something that is packaged into an app, approved by Apple, and then sold for profit. It is not something which can even be freely compiled and run on their devices, let alone shared and co-written.

Ultimately computers and the Internet are growing up, moving out into suburbia, and accepting pre-packaged convenience over creative potential. People want shiny and slick, and really couldn't care less freedom, code, control, or innovation. There's probably an App for feelings like that anyway.

The Internet is becoming squaresville, one settled Mac user at a time.

Re:Internet is Growing Up, Becoming Square

[swillden]

Personally, I think the whole open source gig is fading away. The next generation of programmers have been raised to live and program in flashy iDink walled gardens and have neither the interest or the inclination in releasing or collaborating on code.

This happened 30 years ago, except then it was the DOS and then Windows world. The F/LOSS movement largely came from a later generation of programmers who realized that walling everything up sucks and impedes progress. And, although it was before my time, I understand there was a similar dynamic a couple of decades before that. Seems like just another turn of the wheel -- assuming you're even right, which I doubt.

Re:Internet is Growing Up, Becoming Square

[Alex Belits]

There is enough embedded systems and in-house development to make the opinions of all all dinky app-store-bound developers completely irrelevant. The last time around with DOS software, a negligible minority of individual developers were able support themselves by writing anything sold to consumers -- that market, with exception of games, was quickly monopolized by Microsoft and Adobe. This time, things are shaping up in exactly the same way. Meanwhile, embedded systems and large IT/Internet-basdd services were developed with constantly growing percentage of Open Source and specifically GPL licensed software, and successfull thwarted at least two waves of Microsoft attacks on them.

Some ideas on GPL / Freedom etc

[jtotheh]

To restate the obvious:
There are two paradoxical possible twists to an open source license.
1. The user is allowed to use the source as part of a closed source product (which is a kind of freedom)
2. The user is obliged to make derivatives available as source (which ensures the greater freedom of other users/developers) (this is a restriction on the actions of user 1)

Neither one is complete freedom. They are both giving up something - the possible work of the downstream user or the business motivation of the first user.

The GPL's origin is in RMS' desire to be able to modify software that was produced by companies. It takes this to the extreme, basically by prohibiting closed source products based on GPL.

The benefit of this is mostly to developers, and within that, to developers who are independent. Software companies share code / secrets a lot as part of business, but under NDAs. The FSF has as a slogan "you deserve software that is free" but how many users want to exercise the freedom to modify and recompile their software?

More and more, FOSS is produced in a dual stream approach - Redhat/Fedora, Jboss community/pro, other things work this way like Jasper reports etc

The reality of this is that the code that is run in production is not "free" in an active way. When you pay for a supported version of RHEL or whatever you do not generally modify anything very deep inside it and then demand support for your modified version. The fact that you are paying for a supported version is a disincentive to using a modifed version, your own or anyone else's.

Also consider that the Linux kernel is largely developed by people working for IBM, Suse, Redhat, etc.

So while the lone developer wanting to add his improvements to the commercially produced and defective printer driver is a convincing story to argue for the GPL, the reality as it is today is different - it's more like the millions of Linux users who wish their hardware was supported but do not produce a driver for it. And I know they may not have access to the necessary information from the hardware maker, etc. Still, the number of people able and motivated to write OS-level code is small. I know I don't know enough to do it.

Nonetheless, the existence of (mostly) GPL OSes is an amazing thing. The access to knowledge for developers that that provides is awesome. But a lot of the requirements to stay GPL-pure do not sound like freedoms to me- requiring you not to buy certain(most) products, visit certain sites - it's ironic when, in the name of freedom, your freedom to act as you wish must be limited.

Re:Some ideas on GPL / Freedom etc

[Dr_Barnowl]

But a lot of the requirements to stay GPL-pure do not sound like freedoms to me- requiring you not to buy certain(most) products, visit certain sites

Could you cite examples of websites and products you must avoid? I'm aware that you must avoid certain source code if you wish to develop software with a corresponding function on the other side of the OSS divide, but I'm not aware of products I must avoid to be able to continue to use GPL?

Re:Some ideas on GPL / Freedom etc

[Alex Belits]

By this logic, any Monarchist in US has an obligation to kill himself.

Re:Some ideas on GPL / Freedom etc

[Dr_Barnowl]

the word freedom is used to demand restrictions on behavior

Everything you describe would be a personal choice though - the exercise of the freedom that you claim is being eroded. What's more, as an informed choice, it's a better choice. I admire Stallman for his moral fortitude, but even he bows to practicality and will fly on airplanes, etc, even though these things involve compromise. He will go much further out of his way to make a choice that he is morally comfortable with, electing to travel by train whenever practical (to avoid tracking of his movements), buying hardware with an open BIOS, etc, even when these involve compromise (I think the laptop in question is quite an underpowered netbook).

The GPL itself is a compromise. Yes, it keeps one key right from you - the right to take a piece of source code, build a program from it, and then hide the source for that program from people to whom you distribute it. This is in contrast to the BSD-style licenses which permit you just this right. GPL demands only that you sow as ye reaped. Both license grant rights that you would otherwise not have for copyrighted works - GPL just grants one less.

GPL doesn't demand that you give up your choice, it just demands that you grant the same choice to those that come after you. If you don't want to, you don't get to use GPL code in your program - and that choice is laid out for you beforehand.

Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

You ask me: "Is GPL Licensing In Decline?"
I ask you: "Who Cares?"

if the GPL fits your goals (personal, business, etc.), then use it.
If the GPL doesn't fit your goals, then don't use it.

If the whole world goes GPL or I am the last person on Earth releasing code under the GPL license .. does it really matter, if we're all meeting our goals?

GPL is considered a liability

[Billly Gates]

Many banks and other companies that received threatening letters from SCO and MS salesmen have anti gnu or freeware policies in their organization. A famous Canadian bank even licenses for an obsolete version of SSH because BSD *might* be gnu. Funny, that the corporation just downloads the BSD one and repackages to the customer as its own for $$$.

Lawyers are afraid of it in big companies after several court cases with companies like Netgear being accused of copyright infringement for including Linux without the source in some of their embedded products.

I could turn this into a BSD vs GPL flameware but wont. There are many such as myself who feel comfortable using free software at work but would feel better modifying and shipping BSD versions which are more business friendly to customers and suppliers. Remember you are asking the company to ship its crown jewels away if they license it with GPL. It is true it may protect you agaisn't getting ripped off, but you have no way to know for sure.

Businesses do not like risk or to give away free things. They own them if they paid for the labor so why the risk?

Re:Natural tendency towards freedom

[midicase]

I don't think so. I have found that BSD based software tends to lags in "bleeding edge" features (not that is is better or worse) since the people that use, customize and enhance BSD licensed software are not legally required to disclose these changes as it is required by GPL.

How interesting.

[BootysnapChristAlive]

Yeah, it's true.