GPL, Copyleft On the Rise 277
paxcoder writes "Contrary to earlier analyses that predicted a decline of copyleft software share to as little as 50% this year, John Sullivan, the executive director of the Free Software Foundation, claims the opposite has happened: In his talk at FOSDEM 2012 titled 'Is Copyleft Being Framed?,' Sullivan presented evidence (PDF) of a consistent increase of usage of copyleft licenses in relation to the usage of permissive licenses in free software projects over the past few years. Using publicly available package information provided by the Debian project, his study showed that the number of packages using the GPL family in that distribution this year reached a share of 93% of all packages with (L)GPLv3 usage rising 400% between the last two Debian versions."
Cherrypicking sources (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cherrypicking sources (Score:5, Informative)
"The earlier study looked at a much broader base of projects, not just cherry-picking by limiting itself to packages in a distro."
Good point. The update in the On the continuing decline of the GPL [the451group.com] article also mentions this: "UPDATE – It is has been rightfully noted that this decline relates to the proportion of all open source software, while the number of projects using the GPL family has increased in real terms. Using Black Duck’s figures we can calculate that in fact the number of projects using the GPL family of licenses grew 15% between June 2009 and December 2011, from 105,822 to 121,928. However, in the same time period the total number of open source projects grew 31% in real terms, while the number of projects using permissive licenses grew 117%. – UPDATE"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cherrypicking sources (Score:4, Insightful)
Nor I - Firefox is essential for NoScript and Adblock alone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, not only is he cherrypicking but he picked a project that strives to use Copyleft.
http://www.debian.org/News/2012/20120219 [debian.org]
The actual study mentioned in the talk came out last month and was written up here.
http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/52838-gpl-use-in-debian-on-the-rise-study [itwire.com]
John Sullivan even called picking only one distribution as "scientific". I'm not sure he knows what the wor
Re:Cherrypicking sources (Score:5, Informative)
And doesn't Debian actually actively work for make sure the packages it distributes are GPL?
Not at all. They just tend to make selections of the projects which actually work rather than the hundreds of projects that never go anywhere. The Debian Free Software Guidelines [debian.org] mean that main distribution software has to be free, but basically anyone who has motivation and acceptable software can get their package in.
Simply put, if a package isn't in Debian then it mostly very specialised, quite new or isn't worth touching. If there are several Debian packages and you don't know which to go for, then go for the one which is in Red Hat since that will be the most professionally maintained package.
The first survey may have been representative of packages which people start developing, but this is more representative of packages which are actually useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, for a commercial entity, the GPL (or other copyleft license) is really the best choice--for releasing their own code! It means that your competitors can't make and sell a version with proprietary enhancements and gain a competitive edge on you based on your own code. Any improvements made by your competitors have to be shared with you, meaning that both of you gain an advantage over any third competitor who isn't participating in the sharing.
Re:Perhaps, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ooh look, a liar.
Good way to completely incorrectly representing how the GPL works.
Bullshit, plain and simple. There are LOTS of non-GPL packages, proprietary packages even, that run on Linux.
And for so blatantly lying and deliberately misrepresenting the GPL you deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
A great example of mixing proprietary software with GPL software is VMware ESXi. The hypervisor rides on Linux, even the Virtual Machine File System is proprietary, yet the virtual disk file is freely available and implemented by multiple vendors. There are ton of patents that VMware owns for the ESX hypervisor and ESX can peacefully coexist with Linux.
It is also worth noting that VMware makes contributions to the Linux kernel, voluntarily.
Did I hear someone say, "Industrial commons for the digital age"? I
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the fact that Linux is (and will forever be) GPL2, and not GPL3. That's not always the case with other FLOSS.
Re: (Score:2)
-- This is why the "year of the linux desktop" never comes.
The year of the linux desktop arrived over a decade ago. The second most popular Unix desktop is a free variant, Linux, which was the original goal to offer an alternative to Unix desktops. The most common server OS, a huge player in the embedded space and the dominant OS for supercomputing ain't nothing to sneeze at either.
I don't know of any UNIX which has been as successful on this many fronts. Desktop is hard because the first and 2nd place
Re: (Score:2)
the GPL was the very worst thing that ever happened to linux -- it isolated and emasculated the platform in one easy step.
And in one fell swoop, the troll is slain. [android.com] Emasculated indeed. ha
Re: (Score:3)
If you're talking Debian, they put the Debian userland on top of kFreeBSD. I'd say it's best of both worlds - all the advantages of FreeBSD, combined w/ all the features of Debian userland. Oh, and the kFreeBSD that Debian releases is under the BSD license, not GPL.
One thing I suspect - Debian, like Linux, is not likely to embrace GPL3, both due to RMS labelling them as non-Free for making 'non-Free' software available on their servers, even if it's clearly segregated from their 'Free' software, and als
Re: (Score:2)
+ sys/amd64/include/xen/hypercall.h
+ sys/gnu/fs/ext2fs/ext2_fs.h
+ sys/gnu/fs/ext2fs/ext2_fs_sb.h
+ sys/gnu/fs/ext2fs/ext2_linux_balloc.c
+ sys/gnu/fs/ext2fs/ext2_linux_ialloc.c
+ sys/gnu/fs/ext2fs/ext2_vfsops.c
+ sys/gnu/fs/ext2fs/i386-bitops.h
+ sys/net80211/ieee80211_crypto_ccmp.c
+ sys/net80211/ieee80211_crypto_
Re:Cherrypicking sources (Score:5, Insightful)
Or rather, it's cherry-picking by quality. Any useful project that is not fundamentally restricted to Mac or Windows will most likely be ported by someone, and packaged for Debian. Fart apps, not so much.
It's also interesting how fast non-GPL licenses decline. We're talking about falling by a factor of 4.2 in less than seven years.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Broader? Hogwash. If you dig into the KnowledgeBase figures they list only a little over 13765+984+409=15158 [blackducksoftware.com] GPL family projects. While the Debian stats say:
The last Debian release, Squeeze, which emerged in February 2011, had 28,126 packages of which 26,271, representing 93 per cent, were under the GPL family.
So the one saying there is a decline is missing at least 10,000 GPL projects, plus quite possibly more that are not in Debian. Seems to be it's their figures that are incredibly narrow and wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you have more numbers does not make your sampling more accurate. With good sampling you can have less samples and a smaller error rate. This guy's study has clear sampling bias. It's like saying 95% of Americans disapprove of Obama by only calling registered Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Debian packages are not really projects. There are projects which are divided into many smaller packages, like Xorg or Libreoffice, and there are packages which contain many small projects in aggregate, e.g. kdeapps.
That really depends on how you define "projects." It's certainly true that most everything in kdeapps was developed by a common collection of people, but is that really the important dividing line? It seems odd to say that, for example, Konqueror and Kate are not separate 'apps' whereas two pieces of software that provide the same functionality are because they happen to have been written by different people or are more often distributed separately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every license that exists has that freedom. Anything beyond that isn't supported by copyright law.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'll probably get hate for this, which will be ironic and sad since /. is supposed to be libertarian, but WTF I don't care.
The following is not hate. Just a sincere and considered response.
Slashdot is not "supposed" to be libertarian, except perhaps in the fantasies of Slashdotters who are libertarians. The philosophies of open-source software and libertarianism do have a non-empty intersection. But that doesn't mean that open-source advocates (or Slashdotters) are necessarily libertarians in the majority.
We ALL know why GPL is going down, its because TINSTAAFL and with GPL V3 RMS has gone so damned anti business he's scared away too many folks. [...] Now ironically if FOSS truly WAS a community and collective effort then right about now a large group of devs, users, and businesses would get together and hash out what the problems are and fix them, basically cooperate for the betterment of all, and if RMS didn't want to participate they'd just fork which is the standard way that FOSS routes around damage.
In fact, this has happened already, many times [opensource.org], and will continue to happen.
But sadly RMS doesn't want a democracy, he wants a dictatorship.
Opinions of RMS's ego aside, in the end who c
Re: (Score:2)
BTW - it's easy enough to take any gpl project and make a proprietary version under current copyright law. Neither data in the headers, nor function names, are expressive enough to actually be covered by copyright. So, just strip out any custom artwork and any proprietary strings, all comments (comments *are* expressive), and rewrite the function bodies and you now have a program that you can license any way you wish, including binary-only d
Re: (Score:2)
If it's alternative licenses that you're hoping for, there's a whole bunch of them [gnu.org] that are available, including one from many of the companies/orgs that have any stake in FOSS, such as Nokia, IBM, Sun and so on. You are right about his Marxist leanings - if you look @ that page, you'll see that most of the licenses that are GPL compatible are the ones from non-profit orgs, as well as ones associated just w/ programs, rather than companies (e.g. Apache, Eiffel, NCSA, et al), while the bulk of the licenses
Re: (Score:2)
Debian is not "cherry picking". It is perhaps picking based on a criteria, like non-trivial number of users.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, they should have picked Windows.
Or even OSX.
Or the IOS ecosystem.
Or even the Android ecosystem.
Of course, all that would show that the vast majority of software is anything *but* gpl, and that if you really want to make any money selling software, the gpl is not the way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is what the vast majority of open source software is.
On OSX / Macports most of the stuff is ported from Linux. Darwin itself is heavily BSD.
Android is heavily GPL as is the software ecosystem.
IOS doesn't have much open source.
And yes GPL is lousy if you want to sell software with some minor exceptions, like dual licensing.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me google that for you [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Say what? Debian is the only major Linux vendor to offer you the option of using a BSD-licensed kernel! They've got absolutely no preference among free/libre licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of these (e.g. gcc) are metapackages, but the others are just parts of gcc. In contrast, for LLVM/Clang, we have:
And that's not even counting
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on whether they measured source packages or binaries, but the divisions into multiple binary packages based on a single source is in no way dependent on the license in any case. For a counterexample, look how many (binary) packages Xorg is split into.
Oh, and you're wrong about the GNUstep runtime--it's included as part of the gnustep libraries (probably libgnustep-base).
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, limit ourselves to apps in the windows mobile app store.
Never mind that their TOS forbids apps that have copyleft licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
And multiple packages, each with its' own copy of the license, within the same project as separate "projects."
And he has the nerve to call other studies "unscientific?" This is just FSF FUD.
Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
IMO, if you're writing or releasing software, the GPL is preferrable. You benefit from patches, even being able to take those people don't intentionally contribute. You keep your code unusuable to those competitors who follow a closed management model. You also get to use it as advertisement if you're willing to offer an alternate license for money.
If you're looking to use somebody else's software though, of course the BSD is best. But the thing is that once you spent a few months working on code, a BSD license can be a bit of a hard sell for anything important, because you have nothing of the above. I think for most people some degree of attachment and desire of control develops after spending a lot of time on something.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I'd do it is, GPL for applications, BSD/MIT/LGPL for libraries, depending on the level of participation, the commercial and legal aspects, etc. And all university research should always be permissive, so that it can be incorporated into either GPLed, proprietary or whatever else.
Isn't it easy enough to see that all the licenses solve different problems? Some are good to bring a piece of research out into the open, and some are great for protecting freedoms... No point mixing the use cases...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually agreed there. I was really speaking of personal or commercial projects. Things made by universities definitely should be permissive.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
So that no commercial interest can benefit from your source code, thereby intentionally pushing the freeware / non-commercial approach, yes?
Thereby enabling all approaches equally, and may the best approach succeed. Well, that seems much more even handed, fair, and so forth.
So... if you want to do that with source code that comes from a university, why
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The way I'd do it is, GPL for applications, BSD/MIT/LGPL for libraries, depending on the level of participation, the commercial and legal aspects, etc. And all university research should always be permissive, so that it can be incorporated into either GPLed, proprietary or whatever else.
Generally agree, but I'd also give serious attention to the Apache License (2.0) for libraries. It's also fairly open, but also provides a patent license as well, and that's an important consideration what with all the trolls around. I think this is the only thing missing from the non-GPL licenses in your list.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends what your goals are as well. In academic releases, I see two main drivers of the choice:
1. BSD/MIT-style if your #1 goal is to get your code used as widely as possible. Maybe you have a strong personal belief that some method should be widely adopted; maybe you hope to benefit from the publicity of saying "as seen in Excel 2015!" about one of your methods; maybe you just consider it not worth putting any restrictions on; or various other reasons. Lots of examples of these.
2. GPL-style if you don'
Re: (Score:3)
For most people I personally talked with about licenses, the reason is "if there is a fork of my software, I want to be able to use it", with being able to incorporate improvements into their version as close second.
Re: (Score:2)
For most people I personally talked with about licenses, the reason is "if there is a fork of my software, I want to be able to use it", with being able to incorporate improvements into their version as close second.
There is no license that guarantees that code changes will come back to you. They only guarantee that code will reach those who buy/download the fork. Unless you go for RPL [wikipedia.org], which is GPL-incompatible. That code comes back to you in GPL is an emerging effect.
Copyright is a tradeoff between creators of content and users, that society has decided on as a useful concept. Such a statement can only come from someone who doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
Supporting GPL and opposing copyright doesn't go together.
Wrong. I, and no doubt others, support the GPL as long as copyright exists. Eliminating copyright would automatically give everyone freedoms 0 and 2 [gnu.org] over any software package, making the GPL less important.
Re: (Score:2)
There's absolutely no point in releasing it under both the GPL and the BSD, since if you use one of the new BSD licenses (like the one used by FreeBSD), it's completely GPL compatible.
Funded by what country's taxpayers? (Score:2)
If the University or project is publicly funded, i.e. funded by taxpayers, then you should not go the GPL route or dual licensed GPL / paid license route
Why should Japanese users benefit from a work funded by British taxpayers? Could something be dual licensed where royalties for a paid licenes are due only for copies distributed outside the funding government's jurisdiction?
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, if you're writing or releasing software, the GPL is preferrable. You benefit from patches, even being able to take those people don't intentionally contribute
Speaking as someone who has released well over a hundred thousand lines of BSDL code, I strongly disagree. The GPL rarely forces people to contribute. It doesn't, for example, force Google to contribute back any of the changes they made to the Linux kernel. 90% of all software is developed for in-house use and either GPL or BSDL code forces people to contribute changes back when used in this way. More importantly, the fact that code is GPL'd is often a show stopper for companies wanting to use it. The
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't apply to software that's intended to be sold to end users, which can take advantage of the GPL. For the rest, there's the AGPL. Google doesn't seem to like it.
Actually that's in
Re: (Score:2)
BSD projects benefit from patches and contributions, both from individuals and corporations.
Exactly, which is why all of MacOS X is BSD licensed. Wait.
You clearly must have missed the part of the GP that says "even being able to take those people don't intentionally contribute."
GPL is perfectly usable in a closed management model when the code is used internally, for example when you provide a service not a software product like google.
Except that if you're concerned about that then you use the AGPL.
Second, it is a political belief, not a fact, that denying access to the close management model is beneficial.
Your opinion regarding the empirical consequences of closed management is rejected on the grounds of it not being a fact.
Your license it for money under an alternative license argument is in conflict with your patches from 3rd parties argument, you can not license code that others own the copyright to - look at the Linux kernel being locked into GPL v2 because all the contributors of patches and new features/functionality can't/won't authorize a switch to GPL v3.
OK, they're in conflict. Which one does that disprove? It's neither of them, isn't it? It's that you get a choice between reincorporating c
Re: (Score:2)
If you spend 2 months with someone else's code without bothering to read the license it's on your own head ... be glad for the GPL to teach you a valuable lesson in life.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want any of those things.
I write for my own benefit, not for the "IT community". I want attribution, and your improvements to my code, or your money in exchange for a different lice
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
I write for my own benefit, not for the "IT community". I want attribution, and your improvements to my code, or your money in exchange for a different license. I have no reason to give you code with no strings attached, no matter how much that might displease you.
And how is this free software? I think most people would intuitively think that something "free" comes without strings attached. And this is where the deception of GPL lies: it is not really a free software license (except in some idealistic form as defined by the GNU foundation), but a restrictive license that actually discourages free use of the author's creation.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh! I don't care for terminology arguments. It's not important to me what it's called. It does precisely what I want it to do, and that's why I use it, and not because I'm committed to some philosophical concept of freedom.
But, most practical freedom does come with strings attached. Even back when everybody was proudly saying that America is the Land of the Free, it wasn't by any means anarchic.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. You got it. GPL is not free to do what you want with it. It is free for you to help build a community of GPL software.
In other words it is designed to prevent people like you from creating software which is not free for your end users.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
it restricts you from editing the source code, because you become liable to all sorts of legal responsibilities if you do so.''''
No it doesn't. You can edit privately and use the software internally in your company and never even have to touch the terms of the GPL. On the other hand, if you never edit the software, but you distribute the software then you normally need to follow the terms of the GPL even if you have never edited it.
Interestingly enough, some of the largest IT companies, like IBM, Oracle, RedHat, Ubuntu and even Microsoft disagree with you and happily work with and distribute GPL software.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fine as long as you don't need to use that software commercially. But in the commercial world you need to be able to edit the source code of the
GPL does the exact opposite of what it pretends to promise: it restricts you from editing the source code, because you become liable to all sorts of legal responsibilities if you do so.
Wrong, completely wrong.
First, nothing restricts you from editing the source code.
Second, what restricts you from distributing the code as you want is copyright. The GPL unrestricts it, as long as you comply with a few requirements.
Sleepycat (Score:2)
I would choose a license that is very easy to understand in a few sentences, like the BSD license.
Ever considered the Sleepycat license [opensource.org]? It's a copyleft like the GPL, but it's short like the BSD license.
Re: (Score:2)
Well technically yes. But that's only unless I want to make use of those modification by e.g. publishing the application that contains some GPL code â" even if the GPL part of my application is just a tiny part of the larger application.
Again, it's copyright law that determines what is a derivative work and what isn't. Licenses like the GPL don't have the power to decide that. So go complain at your legislators and tell them to change the definition of derivative work.
Few? Have you ever actually tried reading the GPL? It is not on par with an MS EULA's, but doesn't come very far. If I wanted to distribute my creations to the greater public, I would choose a license that is very easy to understand in a few sentences, like the BSD license.
I'd say the length of the GPL license is a result of its purpose.
You should remember that copyleft is essentially an hack* on copyright which they wanted to make sure it was legally sound and would hold up in court, while the BSD license was just something they had to put in
Re: (Score:3)
False. Under copyright law, you didn't have the freedom to distribute anyway. The GPL has given you the conditional right to distribute. That's more than no right to distribute.
> free to share and copy # the gpl makes you share your modified source
False. I can modify the source to GPL software and use the mod
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is fine with GPL code providing you have copyright. What Apple has refused to do is allow GPL code to be distributed by license holders with just a generic GPL license. Which isn't too much different than their stand on most commercial apps they distribute. Further the Apple Store is not banning from the platform.
I don't know about Microsoft, but my guess is you got that one wrong as well.
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
The only successful and widely adopted open source OS says otherwise.
Ermm.. Nope. UNIX is the most widely-adopted open source OS. One brand of it currently has 15% market share [osxdaily.com] in the North American consumer market. And key to its success? It's not GPL!
Linux is open source, but not free for commercial reuse. It has been exploited in some embedded devices (while more than not totally ignoring the copyleft/ShareAlike properties of GPL). A notable example is the unwillingness of Google to open their Linux source code, but there are thousands of smaller corporations out there who simply ignore the GPL when reusing Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, as a Linux user, I can tell you: we don't care about the market. At all.
Well. call me when you start caring. There's no point in dealing with people who live in a zealotry-fueled Socialist dreamworld, where money grows on trees and the government pays you a monthly citizen's salary, and nobody has to do anything to earn a living.
So you have the source code of OS X?
That's the beauty of free software: the author does not have to release the source code back to the public if they choose so. No need to force them to do something they don't want through legal traps.
Re: (Score:2)
Quartz Compositor
Quicktime
etc... are part of the Aqua.
Obvious problem with the research (Score:3, Funny)
So one study, which looks at the wide ecosystem of open source software finds copyleft is on the decline. But a study which only focuses on a Linux distribution which has a strong focus on GPL finds copyleft is increasing? Isn't that a bit like going to a Green Peace rally and saying a majority of people surveyed support saving whales?
Re:Obvious problem with the research (Score:4, Interesting)
Your point was funny and well illustrated, but I'm not sure it's correct. Is Debian actually biased toward the GPL over other F/OSS licenses? Their Debian Free Software Guidelines and Software License FAQ [debian.org] explicitly suggests the BSD and MIT licenses for authors who want their code to be useable by everyone. They also call out the Artistic License by name in the "What Does Free Mean? [debian.org]" section of the "Introduction to Debian".
I've never thought of Debian as particularly pro-GPL in particular so much as pro-Free Software in general.
Re:Pro-GPL study from authors of GPL ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You left out the part where the pro-GPL study comes from the authors and advocates of the GPL.
Thanks for the hint (its astounding the way that accusations from shills so often point you in the direction of what they themselves are doing). You left out the fact that the original data came from a Microsoft partner [blackducksoftware.com] involved in Codeplex. Immediately I saw your post I thought to search for that.
The sad part. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen so many developers just slap the GPL on their code because it's perceived as the "default" choice. When asked why they chose to use the GPL, they can't even explain its basic provisions. When told how it works, many of those same developers will say "oh, that's not really my intent." Sadly, because of the original "default" perception, a ton of code gets licensed this way.
I aggressively support the right to license something any way creators see fit, and happen to license my most of my stuff under the BSD and Artistic licenses. That said, people really need to understand what different licenses provide before they run off using them. When in any doubt whatsoever regarding any of it, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to pay for an hour of a lawyer's time (if possible).
Re:The sad part. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've seen so many developers just slap the GPL on their code because it's perceived as the "default" choice. When asked why they chose to use the GPL, they can't even explain its basic provisions. When told how it works, many of those same developers will say "oh, that's not really my intent." Sadly, because of the original "default" perception, a ton of code gets licensed this way.
Do you think this is because many programmers see "open-sourcing" their software as a kind of "throw it over the wall" kind of exercise? Perhaps they don't have much invested in the benefits of a shared community around the code?
My guess would be that for programmers who plan a livelyhood based on writing wholly (or near to it) FOSS code, something like the GPL protects their interests and future business possibilities in the market more than a permissive license like the 3-clause BSD. For programmers who write a lot of code under proprietary licenses, I can totally understand that they would (1) want (or rather NEED) to use permissively-licensed libraries, and (2) thus would be much inclined to release their code under those same permissive terms.
I aggressively support the right to license something any way creators see fit, and happen to license my most of my stuff under the BSD and Artistic licenses. That said, people really need to understand what different licenses provide before they run off using them.
Licenses are very tricky things. Given the entry barriers to writing some PHP code vs. understanding the provisions in the Artistic License, the GPL, what advertising clauses mean, etc..etc..., computer code is often easier than its legal counterpart.
When in any doubt whatsoever regarding any of it, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to pay for an hour of a lawyer's time (if possible).
Oh, it's certainly a good idea, but how many lawyers (or laypeople -- Hi, Bruce!) do you know who are expert enough to consult about ip, copyright, FOSS licensing, etc..? I know a handful, and I believe that they make over $300/hr -- some probably make a lot more than that!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
computer code is often easier than its legal counterpart
Ok, the next time I'm having a deadlock situation with more than 10 threads involved, I'm calling my lawyer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
computer code is often easier than its legal counterpart
Ok, the next time I'm having a deadlock situation with more than 10 threads involved, I'm calling my lawyer.
I don't think you'll want to wait until a federal court has decided on the ownership of those mutexes. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
computer code is often easier than its legal counterpart
Ok, the next time I'm having a deadlock situation with more than 10 threads involved, I'm calling my lawyer.
About as much fun as dealing with a deadlocked jury?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think any run of the mill lawyer would be able to explain the GPL better than what you'd find on the first page of googling "GPL".
Unless said lawyer regularly deals with software licensing issues, it'd probably take that lawyer more than an hour to read and understand the GPL himself/herself (possibly poorly), before he/she'd be able to explain it back to you.
What you'll get is a warm and fuzzy feeling that you've spoken to a lawyer and got expert legal advice, but in reality it's like asking slashd
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think any run of the mill lawyer would be able to explain the GPL better than what you'd find on the first page of googling "GPL".
Unless said lawyer regularly deals with software licensing issues, it'd probably take that lawyer more than an hour to read and understand the GPL himself/herself (possibly poorly), before he/she'd be able to explain it back to you.
What you'll get is a warm and fuzzy feeling that you've spoken to a lawyer and got expert legal advice, but in reality it's like asking slashdotters to explain P?=NP (because they're related to computers, right?)... sure there are some people who know what they're saying, but the others simply have no clue.
That's why you choose a lawyer who is already familiar with the GPL. Pretty much any lawyer with some technical background has delved into it, even if software licensing isn't their main practice area. And you don't want a lawyer handling software licensing who doesn't have some technical background. Paying for a liberal arts major to learn what libraries and classes are so he can comprehend your work before giving legal advice is probably not a good investment. There are plenty of technically competent
Re:The sad part. (Score:5, Interesting)
On that note, the GPL is probably the "safer" choice. Releasing GPL code as BSD is simple, oh now you can use the code in proprietary code too. Going from BSD to GPL is trying to put the cat back in the bag, often leading to a fork and drama from those who no longer can/want to use it. If the developer is clueless it's less harmful that people can't use the code the way he intended than that people can use the code in ways he didn't intend. "Oh you want the code under the BSD, here you go" is a lot easier to fix than "OMG WTF you mean Apple and Microsoft can just take my code for nothing now? That's not what I wanted!"
Re: (Score:2)
I've personally witnessed the opposite happening: a project releasing under the BSD, then getting upset about it being forked and after I talked to one of its developers, it changed to GPLd afterwards.
Yes, people really don't think enough about licensing, but that goes for both those who choose permissive and strict copyleft licenses. People should think for a bit on subjects like "What if my code ends up in every computer on the planet, but I still get nothing from it? Will I be proud to say 'I contributed
Re: (Score:2)
And lets point out that the GPL came out of exactly this situation. The way commercial vendors took X and made proprietary Xs so that the MIT version was essentially worthless as anything but a spec.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen so many developers just slap the GPL on their code because it's perceived as the "default" choice.
Ive seen so many developers just slap a pricetag on their work because its percieved as the "default" choice. When asked why they chose money over freedom, they can't even explain the concept of social capital. When told how it works, many of those same people will say "oh, that's my long term intent." Sadly, because of the original "default" perception, a ton of work gets marketed this way.
I aggressively support the right to license something any way creators see fit, and happen to license my most of my st
Re: (Score:2)
It may surprise you, but I absolutely respect the sentiment expressed in your post. If we were to sit down over coffee and discuss various components of our views, we might well disagree on different points, but I suspect it would be a good conversation. I think what I really want is more real conversations, and less blind rhetoric. There seems to be entirely too much of the latter being tossed around on any given side.
Re: (Score:2)
Might I point out that this is not a destructive tendency at all? Contrary to if people were to choose much more permissive licenses as the default without understanding them.
Given the fact that the free software movement is supposedly all about freedom, I do view that as destructive. I would consider more permissive to equate to better, not worse.
I take issue with those who claim the GPL is all about freedom, when it is clearly a fairly restrictive license when contrasted with some other licenses. To me, freedom means freedom, not "freedom with strings A, B, and C attached."
Re: (Score:2)
And to me.
Freedom means freedom all up and down the chain. Not for the people one step removed from the original source.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true at all. In both cases, you have permission to modify the code you already have. The differences lie in how/whether you're allowed to distribute the modified work.
Re: (Score:2)
You make this sounds like it's a bad thing. The copyleft ideal really is a "greater good at all costs" idea that frees a body of a work from the tyranny of it's own creator.
This is false. In terms of what it actually says and how it's actually applied, the GPL is used as a tool to limit the rights of others using the licensed work, and specifically as an attempt to guarantee ongoing benefits for the creator. Let's look at two example scenarios.
Scenario 1: I create SuperDuperWidget and distribute it under the BSD license. You can use it for your own purposes and freely distribute modifications in source or binary form according to the terms of the license. I can't prevent you
Re:The sad part. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only freedom the GPL restricts is your freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
Re: (Score:2)
False. It enforces restriction of the freedom of others. Please reread the post you replied to.
Re: (Score:2)
I must say, that sounds like some serious Newspeak. How does that equate to actual freedom? Really, this is starting to sound like a prime example of something the Ministry of Truth would disseminate.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the double reply, but I'd also like to point out the fact that code getting incorporated into a closed source project in no way restricts your ability to use the same code that got incorporated. This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL doesn't restrict what you do with the code.
This is another false statement. The GPL absolutely restricts what you can do with the code. You cannot modify GPL licensed code, compile it to binary form, and distribute that binary without the additional requirement that you must make the modified source code available as well. Conversely, you can go modify some BSD licensed code, compile it to binary form, and distribute that binary without being required to make the source available. Note that anybody else is still free to obtain the original BSD licen
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom for down-stream of AC, I'd guess.
Freedom for the receiver of the code or binary (not necessarily the first circle of adopters) to do what they want with it.
Re:The sad part. (Score:4, Insightful)
GPL is used as a tool to limit the rights of others
No. That's copyright. The GPL doesn't add any restrictions, it eliminates them, under certain conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The GPL enforces more of the existing restrictions present under copyright law than BSD licensing does. Put another way, BSD licensing expressly removes more of the default restrictions present under copyright law. To put it quite plainly, you are free to do more with BSD licensed code than you are allowed to do with GPL licensed code. It's that simple, and no amount of rhetoric from the FSF or those who fundamentally misunderstand copyright law and licensing mechanisms will change the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Your "No" baffles me. What you wrote in no way contradicts what I wrote. I wasn't dissing on the BSD, what I was saying is that the only reason such restrictions exist is because of copyright. Eliminate copyright, and such restrictions disappear.
Re: (Score:2)
For the rest of us it's a good thing whenever someone doesn't choose BSD.
How is it a good thing? BSD licensed code going into a proprietary project doesn't limit your access to or right to use the same code.
I think the FSF might be a bit biased (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the FSF might be a bit biased. Don't you.
Re:I think the FSF might be a bit biased (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the FSF might be a bit biased. Don't you.
Undobtedly the FSF is biased. That can hardly be disputed. But are they wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
We can't tell based on their data, since it isn't about the general pool of free software, just what is in Debian.
Re: (Score:3)
We can't tell from Blackduck's data either since it isn't known what criteria are used by them.
We could pick other projects and see what the trend is in them, but ultimately all we would know is what the trend is in them. Google Code looks like a fairly easy place to gather some figures from and they host a lot of code these days.
Any such study is limited by the set of data it looks at. I presume the FSF chose Debian because it is (a) large (b) licenses are reasonably easily checkable (c) well documented hi
Applications vs. Core Libraries and Services (Score:5, Insightful)
While non-copyleft licenses like the Mozilla, Apache, and LGPLv3 are quite popular for core services and libraries, most applications I've used over the years were copyleft/GPL type licenses.
If you're building a core service, you want it used by as many people and projects as possible. But if you're developing a tool, utility, or application, often your concern is more to prevent any one company or individual from seizing that work and selling it as their own product.
Personally I use both LGPLv3 and GPLv3 licenses as a result, because the goals of the different software components are not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but they aren't virally copy-left like the GPL, which prevents you from creating a derivative work/customized implementation without contributing the source back.
As far as I know, you can use Mozilla and Apache licensed code the same as LGPL code.
Mind you, there are some who feel anything but the BSD license is "non free", too. But that's another argument for another day.
So says the FSF. (Score:2, Interesting)
Who would have thought?
Numbers from my project (Score:2)
MidnightBSD currently has 2754 ports. Of those, 1194 are under some GNU license (gpl2, gpl3, lgpl variations). A good chunk of that is for GNOME, KDE or GNUStep. Only 127 are under GPLv3.
I believe them that GNU licenses are as popular as ever, but I doubt that GPLv3 will be the most popular for some time. Many projects have been downgrading their licensing to GPLv3 including core GNU projects, Samba, etc. There's still a lot of old code or code that hasn't been updated in awhile under GPLv2. Frankly,