Most Projects On GitHub Aren't Open Source Licensed

PCM2 writes "Kids these days just don't care about open source. That's the conclusion of the Software Freedom Law Center's Aaron Williamson, who analyzed some 1.7 million projects on GitHub and found that only about 15% of them had a clearly identifiable license in their top-level directories. And of the projects that did have licenses, the vast majority preferred permissive licenses such as the MIT, BSD, or Apache licenses, rather than the GPL. Has the younger generation given up on ideas like copyleft and Free Software? And if so, what can be done about it?" Not having an identifiable license is one thing, but it seems quite a stretch to say that choosing a permissive open source license is "not caring"; horses for courses.

Comments

Open Source License

[bestgjs]

The vast majority preferred permissive licenses such as the MIT, BSD, or Apache licenses, rather than the GPL. Has the younger generation given up on ideas like copyleft and Free Software?

No, they haven't. They've just noticed that licenses like BSD is better open source license than GPL. There's a simple reason for it too - BSD license is truly in the spirit of freedom. Anyone, either open or closed source projects, can use BSD licensed code.

This means younger generation haven't forgotten about open source licenses (BSD is one), they've just chosen the better one of them.

Re:Open Source License

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words: this generation doesn't care for limiting other developers' choices in development in the way Stallman wanted. They prefer to just give away the code instead of forcing everyone who uses it to open their own work. Good for this generation, I'd say. They've seen the outcome of a "GPL-only" world, and they didn't like it.

Re:Open Source License

[Microlith]

They've just noticed that licenses like BSD is better open source license than GPL.

I love it when people take subjective opinion and present it as if it were fact. Going BSD does mean you give up on copyleft.

BSD license is truly in the spirit of freedom. Anyone, either open or closed source projects, can use BSD licensed code.

It depends on your goals. GPL is very clear in its intent to keep the sources of the software it covers open, and that necessarily excludes closed source projects.

Re:Open Source License

[Microlith]

this generation doesn't care for limiting other developers' choices in development in the way Stallman wanted.

Ooh, I can twist this one around:

this generation doesn't care to preserve the freedom of others in using their computers, the way Stallman wanted

That's a good one!

They've seen the outcome of a "GPL-only" world, and they didn't like it.

What exactly would be the outcome of a "GPL-only" world?

Re:Open Source License

[Trepidity]

That's in fact the key difference, and interestingly each side more or less agrees. The "free software" side's key interest is the freedom of users to modify their hardware and software, and distribute those modifications: the freedom-to-hack. The "open source" side's key interest is the freedom of developers to reuse software in a distributed, "bazaar" manner. Sometimes the goals overlap, and sometimes not.

Re:Open Source License

[verbatim]

I much prefer Godwin's law. After all, Hitler supported the GPL.

Re:Open Source License

[Bob9113]

BSD license is truly in the spirit of freedom.

The BSD license says, "I will not use copyright to impose regulatory monopoly restrictions on you, but you can incorporate my work in a derivative work which imposes regulatory monopoly restrictions on others."

The GPL says, "I will use the regulatory monopoly restriction of copyright in the narrowest way that prohibits the use of my work in any greater exercise of monopoly restrictions on others."

The BSD license uses your copyright to maximize the freedom of primary recipients of your work. The GPL uses your copyright to maximize the freedom of secondary recipients of your work. Claiming that one is objectively more free betrays a lack of comprehension.

It's a matter of trust

[SuperKendall]

I really like the GPL, I like what it is trying to do.

But over time I've gravitated to BSD like licenses, because I really do want as many people as possible using something.

It's a matter of trust - I trust that generally others will do the right thing, and good changes will come back. It's re-enforced by the fact that contributing code back makes it was easier to absorb updates to the main codebase, selfishly keeping your updates private makes lots of extra work for you over time.

The GPL tries to enforce something that will happen naturally, which I feel is overkill.

Re:It's a matter of trust

[Trepidity]

It depends on the kind of code for me. With machine-learning or statistics code, I generally prefer GPL, because I don't really think Mathematica, Matlab, or Excel should be able to use my work for free without giving something back. If they don't want to GPL their own software, they can purchase a proprietary license from me, just like I have to purchase one from them to use their products. But I ain't giving them a free one.

Re:It's a matter of trust

[ArsonSmith]

Forget who said it:

I learn politics and war now, so my children can learn math and engineering, and my grandchildren art and poetry.

RMS fought for the GPL, so the next generation could have the BSD/Apache likes, and the next generation could not have to worry about licenses at all.

Re:It's a matter of trust

[phantomfive]

It's a matter of trust - I trust that generally others will do the right thing, and good changes will come back.

This is optimistic, like the tragedy of the commons. It's also worth mentioning that there are several times in history when companies used open source code, and wouldn't have given back if it weren't for the GPL requiring it. For example, that is why GCC includes Objective-C support. NeXT wouldn't have given that back at all if they weren't required.

Microsoft released it's Hyper-V code due to the GPL. They wouldn't have if the kernel had been BSD licensed. Many mobile companies only release the modifications to Android that are required under the GPL. If it weren't for the GPL, they likely wouldn't release the drivers either, and projects like CyanogenMod would be a lot harder. There's a long list of source code that we have because of the GPL.

Missing the point.

[Microlith]

I see the two comments up top completely missing the point, as does the original submitter.

only about 15% of them had a clearly identifiable license in their top-level directories.

This is why. And this is because they don't understand copyright law and don't realize that unless they explicitly put the code into the public domain or apply a license, no one can touch it without violating copyright law.

It's probably a mixture of that and outright laziness.

real software projects?

[ssam]

I am sure most of those 1.7 million projects have no aspiration to become a real software project. do they have a website, mailing list/forum, releases, users? or are they just random little scripts, snippits and exercises, just put on line for the education of others?

For a large piece of coding i might care about getting bug fixes back. for the script i use to sort my digital photos in to folders based on the date in their exif, and is 50% lines pasted from documentation or stack exchange, i don't care. if you want to know which licences are used for serious projects then grab the top hundred or thousand from ohloh and check them.

False Dichotomy

[slackergod]

I'm sorry, but the entire premise that there is one "best" open source license is completely wrong. Where did this obsession arise to see one license crowned victor over all others, in all situations?

BSD (and MIT and variants) -- I've found they work best for providing backend and reference libraries, which by their nature are trying to provide a standard implementation of something, or at least a standard API. Open and closed sourced projects alike can use and modify it to suit their needs. This means such a library gets the widest adoption over the alternatives (all other factors being equal). This is especially great for server-side programs which want to promote multiple third-party clients - just release a BSD reference client.

LGPL -- A step down, for when you want the adoption level of a BSD license, but your project is complex and high maintenance enough that it needs to keep all the developers focused on a single api and codebase in order to thrive. Graphics libraries like GTK, audio processing libraries like LAME, are a great example of this.

GPL -- Finally, for the same reasons as LGPL, your want everyone contributing back to a single codebase, whether it's because you don't want to give the codebase away to closed source products that then profit from it, prevent brand confusion, or just maximize developer contributions. Mind you, closed source projects *will* choose an LGPL/BSD alternative over this or closed source, so it doesn't make much sense for libraries, etc. Primarily, this is useful for applications, which are vying for user (not developer) eyeballs.

So given they all have different uses that fit better for different project types and target markets, who in their right minds thinks only one of these licenses is correct?

Free Software in its working clothes

[SirGarlon]

Actually, even RMS refers to the BSD and Apache licenses as "GPL-compatible free software". So the GPL and other two popular licenses, BSD and Apache, are all free software by the Free Software Definition. The difference is that GPL is a copyleft license and the Apache and BSD licenses aren't.

Why are the Apache and BSD licenses becoming more popular than the GPL? Because free software has grown up. Where I work, we would not dream of implementing the whole software stack from scratch. We use lots of open-source libraries. My company's legal department is allergic to the full GPL because they want to keep open the option to do exactly what the GPL is designed to forbid -- make a proprietary product using open-source code. Usually our code is custom developed for a specific client but we might want to re-use that and/or make a general purpose product some day.

So, for us, using Apache/BSD licenses is easy. It's almost frictionless. Legal is comfortable with them, and pretty much all we have to do is include the license file and do a quick audit to make sure we've complied with it. GPL is much harder for us to work with because we have to justify to legal why we're signing away the rights before the product is even developed.

The whole point of the Open Source Initiative, as I understand it, is to promote adoption and use of free software. It turns out that copyleft is {sometimes, often} a barrier to that in the business world. So I would say that "open source" (aka non-copyleft) has simply beaten "copyleft" in the marketplace.

Copyleft was a brilliant idea but non-copyleft free libraries are what I use in day-to-day development work. And I say that as a dyed-in-the-wool, sandals-wearing, free-as-in-freedom, latte-sipping, corporation-hating hippie wannabe.

Re:GPL is poison to many business models.

[AuMatar]

Welcome to the point. If you aren't willing to open source your code as well, then I don't want you to use mine. You can pay someone to write your own version. Pay in cash or pay in code, but no free ride to businesses.