Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Choosing the Right Open Source License
NicknamesAreStupid writes: I need to choose an open source license. I am developing an open source iOS application that use a significant number of other open source projects which, in turn, use a number of different open source licenses such as MPL/GPL, MIT, and BSD. I am also using sample code from Apple's developer site, which has their own terms of use. The code dependencies are such that my code would not be of much use without theirs. If this project is used, then it would be nice to pick a license that best fits in with this mashup. I am interested in maintaining the freedom of my code but do not want to create a catch-22 or make life hard for people who need to use this project for personal use or profit. My inclination is to use MIT's, as I have done so before. I asked an IP lawyer about this matter, and she replied (pro bono), "it probably doesn't matter." Of course, that advice was worth every penny. Moving away from legal issues and looking at this from a social perspective, which license would appeal most and offend least? I thought about no license but was warned (pro bono), "If you do not, then someone else may." Any suggestions?
The FSF post didn't say either what terms of the license they thought Apple was violating, nor why they think distributing via the app store is any different than distributing via the post office.
If I mail GPL software via the postal service, I have to comply with the GPL, which mainly means I have to include an offer to provide source code upon request. The postal service doesn't have to do ANYTHING regarding the license, they are a third party facilitating my distribution. It could be argued that Apple is no different- the person distributing via the app store needs to comply, Apple doesn't have to do anything to be in compliance.
By the wording of the license, it would be possible to argue either way, so a court would look at the INTENT of the license, it's PURPOSE. The gpl helpfully states it's purpose and intent right at the top - to maintain the four freedoms. As long as the freedoms are being maintained (by having source available, etc.), the court would probably rule that it's perfectly okay to distribute via the mail, ftp, email, http, or the app store.
You've been misinformed. I don't blame you, but you've apparently never read the GPL. It explicitly says:
Thus you are free to download and use it for any purpose, provided you do not redistribute it or derive software from it. Pretty clear.
Perhaps you meant to say there's a lot of GPL software you'd like to incorporate into your own software but you can't because of the license. You would be correct. And you won't get any sympathy either. As they say, write your own code!
Sure. Lets pander to the flavor of the month corporation just because they are the trendy thing today. Let's forget about the DECADES of work and progress that has gone into the collective body of Free Software. Let's also give a big "fuck you" to all of the nice contributors while we are at it.
It's Apple that's the newcomer playing the jerk imposing restrictions that are entirely unnecessary.
Freedom is not a Mad Max free-for-all where Apple can try to be the boss of the Thunderdome.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If you want your software to be used by as many people/corporations as possible, use BSD.
If you don't want corporations to take advantage of your software without giving back, then use GPL.
BSD expands usage at the cost of community; GPL increases community at the cost of usage. Both approaches are valid.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If you can't do that, then you're an anti-social jackass that should be shunned.
Nice try, Richard Stallman's alias.
I bet that the corporate, proprietary world has done more good for free software than free software has. After all, someone has to pay the salaries of programmers, right? I've personally been involved in huge numbers of projects where developer's exposure to open source projects, within the context of a proprietary-only workplace, has enabled the skills and exposure to those open source projects, with said developers going on to work on derivative, open source projects in their spare time.
Nice try, though, at seeing the world through black-and-white lenses.
Well, no. The issue is whether code - or any other copyrighted work - will ever enter public domain. Mickey Mouse Protection Act says it won't, and Project Gutenbert doesn't contradict that.
Not that it matters: copyright law has almost no legitimacy whatsoever, so it simply gets ignored despite draconian punishments. The whole concept of property law seems to simply be incompatible with the digital realm, consequently various message boards and other sites depending on user-generated content basically operate as communist utopias: everyone contributes whatever they can, the results are free for everyone to use at their leisure, and even personal glory isn't an issue, at least in anonymous messageboards. That's right: aside from its current immaturity, Anonymous is pretty much a model Marxist collective.
Funny, isn't it? Capitalism won the Cold War, but its natural development is now leading to Communism because that maximizes production in the Information Age. It wasn't a good model for industrial production, but as that keeps getting automated and focus shifts on coordination and cultural production, it turns out hierarchies simply get in the way. So nominally communist countries were arranged like giant corporations, while the new organizational model everyone's learning growing up now is "contribute according to your abilities, enjoy other people's contributions freely".
I wonder if this is why neoliberalism has been so fashionable lately: it's the struggle of a fading system to maintain it's dominance rather than be relegated to handling just a small subsection of total economy?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.