OSI Hopes To Decrease Number of Licenses 541
Noksagt writes "Various outlets report that the OSI may cut down the increasing number of Open Source licenses. Right now there are about 50 approved licenses; incompatible licenses confuse and impede developers and end users alike. The OSDL has been pushing hard for this at LinuxWorld. Sam Greenblatt, a member of the OSDL board, said 'Eventually there should be three licenses: The GPL, a commercial version of the GPL, and, of course, there will be the BSD because you can't rid of it.'"
4 Licenses, not 3 (Score:3, Interesting)
-nB
Re:4 Licenses, not 3 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:4 Licenses, not 3 (Score:2)
Re:4 Licenses, not 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
How about... there will be BSD because its the only FAIR license that allows ANYONE to use the code? Bah.
Re:4 Licenses, not 3 (Score:3)
Re:4 Licenses, not 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, I don't see a huge problem with the number of software licenses -- GPL is by far the most popular, and people who aren't using GPL for new projects presumably are doing so fo
Ein Volk (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ein Volk (Score:2)
Re:Ein Volk (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ein Volk (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if you modify someone else's code. If you don't like it, you can write your own code instead of misappropriating someone else's.
Is this really so hard for you to understand? If you're going to use some other person's stuff, you have to do it under the terms and conditions they set. This is something most of us learned when we were small children: when you borrow your friend's toys, and he says not to leave them outside, then you do just as he
Re:Ein Volk (Score:5, Insightful)
If your license genuinely embodies another distribution/licensing system for free software (other than copyleft and effective public domaining), I'm sure they won't have a problem adding your license to the list that they encourage people to use (after it is properly checked), but most licenses are just rewordings of old ideas (with a new person/company's name at the top).
The current number of licenses causes confusion (for prospective licensors and licensees); encourages people to write even more licenses (without properly considering alternatives, and without making sure they are legally watertight or make sense); and, worst of all, means that licenses exist which are effectively the same as each other but are incompatible (which discourages the mix-and-match creative commons which is the primary reason for software freedom in the first place).
Re:Ein Volk (Score:4, Insightful)
No. It applies to everyone equally. You clearly haven't read my post.
I would support any license that is genuinely different from those that currently exist. As you seem interested in the GNU GPL, I will use that as an example.
The GNU GPL embodies a particularly system called copyleft. As it was the first copyleft license (and is legally watertight) it is unnecessary to create further licenses which effectively do the same thing. Indeed, it is a bad idea, because they would be incompatible (so that people have to needlessly do the same work again), cause confusion, and wouldn't have stood the test of time and many legal eyeballs (as the GNU GPL has).
Re:Ein Volk (Score:2)
The articl begged for that response...
"Approved licenses" vs freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF?
Re:"Approved licenses" vs freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Commercial GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Commercial GPL (Score:3, Informative)
Uh no. The GPL is not about giving away software for free. It's about the sharing of information in the form of source code, without restrictions.
If GPL doesn't have some sort of commercial counterpart, the company I work for will never use it -- after all, we're a company like any other, we exist to make money and earn a decent living.
Re:Commercial GPL (Score:3, Informative)
Not entirely accurate.
Public Domain has no restrictions whatsoever.
The BSD/MIT style licenses have no restrictions other than the fact that you must give credit where credit is due.
GPL has an important restriction -- you MUST give your changes back to the community if you want to distribute them.
Now, this may be a noble and community-minded goal, but it's still a significant restriction on the programm
Re:Commercial GPL (Score:5, Informative)
<disclaimer type="IANAL">
Nope. The GPL says nothing about giving changes back to some "community". It does say that when you distribute a binary to someone, you must make the source code for that binary avilable to them (either as part of the distribution of the binary, or on request within a limited period of time.)
Practially speaking, this does mean that changes can and do make it back to "the community" in a lot of instances. However, it isn't required by the GPL.
To use your own analogy - the GPL doesn't force you to put your changes on the village green. It allows you to put them on the village green, and it also allows anyone who receives them from you (directly or indirectly) to put them on the village green. That allowance greatly increases the chance that someone will put your changes on the village green, but it doesn't make it a requirement.
</disclaimer>
Re:Commercial GPL (Score:3, Informative)
No, it does not. You have to give the rights under the GPL to anyone to who you give the program. But, you can be as selective as you like about who gets your code; you don't ever have to give it back, and you can give it only to the people you want to give it to.
Of course, those people are free to do with it what they want...
Re:Try answering the question... (Score:2)
Currently what's stopping us from using the GPL is that we fear anyone could take our code, build their own version, and basically get a working copy of our application for free.
As it is, the GPL clashes with commercial software. Indeed, most commercial software businesses see the GPL as a threat when it could be seen as an ally.
Re:Try answering the question... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the GPL. You don't have to give away your sources and binaries for free, you just have to include the sources (and the right to modify, redistribute, etc.) to all parties who receive the binaries from you. Hell, RMS used to charge $100 just for emacs, and they still charge more than a grand for GNU.
Except in certain specific circumstances involving derivative works, the GPL never requires you to distribute binaries
Re:Try answering the question... (Score:3, Informative)
The fact that once someone purchases your software, he is given the right to distribute his derived work for free. Quote from the FSF [fsf.org]:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the t
Re:Commercial GPL (Score:2)
because you can't get rid of it, first of all, what does it mean exactly? getting 'rid' of BSD is just as possible as any other license. this isn't quite clear
secondly, 'a commercial version of the GPL' , is an oxymoron, there are many clauses in the GPL which prevent GPL software to be ideal for commercial software; i mean sure, the GPL allows it, but in
Re:Commercial GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Commercial GPL is something like the NPL/MPL licenese that let Netscape keep some code to themselves while still sharing and modifying the Mozilla codebase, I think.
Of course, I see a clear need for LGPL as well here, since that is different than just GPL or MPL or BSD, and very useful indeed.
LGPL is what lets me use things like libPNG or ZLib in my commercial application without giving away the unrelated source code to my entire program. LGPL is a good thing if you value PNG support in other programs that aren't going to be using GPL themselves.
Re:Commercial GPL (Score:2)
Re:Commercial GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
If what you say is true, I could just produce diffs for a work of literature and argue that I wasn't actually modifying the work (which would make a mockery of copyright law).
Your idea that copyright law (which long predates software) somehow makes an explicit differentiation between different types of linking is,
Re:Commercial GPL (Score:3, Informative)
LGPL is what lets me use things like libPNG or ZLib in my commercial application
Neither libpng nor zlib is LGPL-licensed. Both use a unique, BSD-like license. Seeing you claim to develop commercial application, I would have hoped you were more careful with licenses.
Strange List (Score:2)
Personally, I have rarely seen a situation that one of GPL, LGP
GPL - Preamble. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Commercial GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a very good question because commercial use (inc. copying, distribution and modification) has to be allowed in order for any license to meet the terms of the OSD (to be OSI-certified). The GNU GPL seems to be very commercially viable (indeed the most commercially-viable free-software license) and many software companies are making money from using it. How could a license be more commercial? Surely whether a license is commercial is an either/or thing.
Cant get rid of BSD (Score:2, Funny)
LGPL? CC? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:LGPL? CC? (Score:2)
I agree there also needs to be a license geared more towards documents, like CC, or the GNU Free Documentation License, or something.
commercial GPL? (Score:2)
Re:commercial GPL? (Score:2)
Re:commercial GPL? (Score:2)
Re:commercial GPL? (Score:2)
What's your point? Either you give a binary along with source, or you just give source. In both cases, you give source.
How can they do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. That's exactly why they'll do (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this mean that you can't make your own license? Of course not. What it means is that if you want their official seal of approval, you likely won't get it.
I think 3 licenses might pass as a sort of Platonic ideal, but I can't really see that covering all needs in the real world. However, establishing a base line of a few simple licenses could make life much easier for smaller developers that don't really have an interest in paying a lawyer to craft them something more complex.
Re:How can they do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why they want to do this is because the fewer number of licenses that are in use, the more likely it will be that your software's license is compatible with another piece of software's license... permitting both of you to benefit from each other's work and allowing all of your end-users, in turn, to benefit.
Keeping a small number of licenses also makes it easier for people to regularly review them and make sure that, legally, they are doing what they are intended to do. This can be a much more difficult endeavor than you think, especially when we want licenses to work across international and legal boundaries.
Sure, you can always roll your own, and no one can stop you from offering your copyrighted work under whatever license you choose, but if you pick from a limited set of known and tested licenses, you benefit from knowing that it's solid, you benefit from knowing that it's compatible with all the other software released under the same license, and we all benefit from having fewer 'license glitches' get in the way of what we care about... making better software (some us want to charge for it, some don't, that's not really relevant).
Re:How can they do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's great , but that's not going to get anywhere NEAR three licenses. At the very least you'll need:
1. Something like QMAIL's license.
2. The Aladdin license.
3. The two main forks of the BSD license.
4. The GPL.
5. The LGPL.
6. The non-transitive GPL-alikes.
7. No commercial use variations.
That's just off the top of my head.
Non-OSI Certified/Non-Free Licenses (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The license of Qmail is not a free software or an OSI Certified license because it mostly prohibits the distribution of modified versions.
2. Aladdin, too, does not fit license because it does not allow charging for distribution, and largely prohibits simply packaging software licensed under it with anything for which a charge is made.
3. Only the "new" BSD license is considered Fr
Re:Non-OSI Certified/Non-Free Licenses (Score:4, Insightful)
The original BSD license is considered free (but flawed) by the FSF http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list .html#OriginalBSD [fsf.org]
I believe it is considered free by Debian (and their guidelines formed the OSI guideliens)
The OSI hasn't certified the original BSD, but I believe that is primarily due to the fact that it was replaced by the new BSB before their certified list came out. They do accept other "advertising" licenses.
Re:What about Clasifing licenses into Types/Catago (Score:3, Interesting)
BSD isn't that great an example of a truly free license, as it requires credit. The BOOST license is a bit better for that.
I think you've got a very good list, though.
Re:What about Clasifing licenses into Types/Catago (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's kind of the point.
Re:How can they do this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How can they do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
They'll probably trademark the term "open source" (Score:2)
Just kidding, for now...
Re:How can they do this? (Score:5, Informative)
You're free to write whatever license you want; they are free to refuse to certify it.
The problem with the proliferation of licenses is that you can't mix and match software. Right now there are basically three types of open source (or free software) licenses:
These licenses differ from each other on technicalities, and on what happens with patents, or because someone wants to tweak a boundary case. Some of them give a privileged position to the original contributor, some don't.
The community would be better off if we could just get down to three basic license choices, and the use of "special exception" clauses where needed. For companies that want special privilege (like the ability to use code plus fixes using other licenses), they can ask for copyright assignment of contributions, and treat contributors well enough that they actually get it.
Re:How can they do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but they can prevent you from hosting your project on SourceForge. SourceForge does not accept projects that don't use OSI-conforming licenses.
Stunts like the one we're discussing right now make it abundantly clear why relying on SourceForge to host the majority of OSS projects was a BAD idea. People come to rely on the services SF.net provides, but the OSI license requirement gives them a stranglehold over you.
LGPL? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say I have a write a game that uses the popular library, LibSDL (a rendering library). Though open-source may be great, why should I be *forced* to GPL my game code, which has little to do with LibSDL development?
Re:LGPL? (Score:2, Interesting)
The usual response to that is that if you aren't willing to play the OSS game, you aren't allowed to use OSS code.
I think it's a juvenile attitude. "I willfully don't profit off my stuff so nobody else should either."
Of course, people are free to license things as they wish. I just think it's elitist to redefine the meaning of Open Source on a whim so that people who choose to
Re:LGPL? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the same logic as
which is the attitude of most companies, people and other copyright holders.
I'm willing to call most copyright holders juvenile. Are you?
Stop acting like a child William, RIAA, MPAA, ...
Re:LGPL? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:LGPL? (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if you ignore the fact that most software companies' business models are based on selling software, not support. It's easy to just say "Well, they need to change business models" but that's not even approaching realistic.
The one argument against BSD-style licenses that makes at least partial sense to me goes like this:
Microsoft takes a piece of BSD-licensed software. They "embrace and extend" this software, causing it to be incompatible w
Re:LGPL? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LGPL? (Score:2, Interesting)
If your game truly has little to do with LibSDL, it is not a derivative work, and therefore doesn't have to be GPL'ed. I doubt you could sucessfully argue that a game isn't a derivative work of the rendering library it depends upon, though.
The question of whether linking a library into an application makes the result a derivative work is an open one. The FSF has it's opionion [gnu.org],
Amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Amusing (Score:2)
The idea behind the GPL isn't free software, nor even freedom for software. It's to preserve your freedom to see, modify and share software. That takes a license.
BSD comes closest to that.
Well, that would be right for your original misunderstanding.
Unfortunately, the BSD license is better at preserving your freedom to take away my freedoms than it is at preserving my freedom to see, modify and share.
Re:Amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
You make it sound like the BSD license could be used to close a previous open piece of software. That's impossible. BSD license simply gives you more powerful rights over your own modifications to that software. Some people see that as a flaw, others (including myself) don't see what the big deal is about allowing other people to profit as long as it doesn't restrict our own rights to use the code we've written.
Re:Amusing (Score:3, Interesting)
The freedom to see, modify and share the code I use.
Why should you have a right to see code that somebody else wrote [and is a derivative of some third party's Libre code, and is being distributed to me] unless they want you to?
Why in the world should I not? The idea that you should be able to take and never have to give (as MS does with BSD code, for example) seems very odd. Notice my interjections to your quote. If the software is all yours, it's a diffe
Re:Amusing (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't look down the pipe that direction. To me, it's about being generous and not being hung-up about whether other people might benefit from something I've done. I honestly don't expect anything in return. For me, the mere fact that somebody else found my code useful enough to incorporate into a product is thanks enough.
Thus my prior comment about ideologies in Open Source. To me the most ideology-neutral thing to do is to just throw the code out there and not worry about who might use it in what way.
Then there's the practical problem the BSD license opens up by allowing embrace-and-extend, but let's not chase that rabbit.
I understand that argument, and it makes a bit of sense to me. It's just not important enough to change my choice of license.
Re:Amusing (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, free work for for-profit companies. By all means, be so altruistic, but don't count on a large following. If you're making a profit of my work, I'd like some kick-back.
Re:Amusing (Score:2)
Re:Amusing (Score:5, Interesting)
It's fairly well established that some people believe something is more free if it has a license that restricts users ability to make versions of the software non-free whilst some people believe that software is more free if you have the right to make non-free versions.
I think regardless of how you define "free" both the BSD and GPL style licenses have different purposes.
When you say that if something was 100% free it wouldn't need a license that might be true if the world had no laws or commercial interests. That extra waft in the GPL that makes it longer than the BSD license is to make it clear that the software can't be moved from the category of "free" software to the category of "non-free" software by commercial interests.
Imagine another world (as Stallman problably does) where the law by default rather than supporting commercial interests supported freedom of software. In this world the GPL would be short and the BSD license long because the BSD license would need to explain that future versions of the software could be taken by private companies and changes withheld unlike "normal software" where future versions of the free software must remain free by default.
Matt.
Re:Amusing (Score:3, Insightful)
The restrictions mentioned in the GPL are there to negate these legal restrictions.
To draw a parallel the IBM open source license puts in a paragraph of legal waft to try to protect the free software from patent disputes. this makes the license longer and mor
still want to disclaim liability if you dedicate (Score:2, Informative)
So, for example, if someone uses your code library as part of the software in a dialysis machine, and a bug in your code winds up crashing the machine, and killing the patient, you theoretically cannot be sued for wrongful death. However, no one, to my knowledge, has actually tested the legal validity of the disclaimer in court at this po
Re:Amusing (Score:2)
No. It's called public domain (Score:2, Interesting)
LGPL? (Score:2, Interesting)
No MPL? (Score:2)
Uhhh.. How does this impact SourceForge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uhhh.. How does this impact SourceForge? (Score:2)
How about a license that was OSI-conformant when admitted to SourceForge? That interpretation (or perhaps rewording) would solve the problem.
Re:Uhhh.. How does this impact SourceForge? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, standards. (Score:5, Funny)
But that's what's so wonderful about standards. There are so many to choose from. Besides, if you really have a problem with a certain license, you should have the right to view, modifiy, and release your own license based on the work of those who've written licenses before you.
Sorry, RMS, I had to. The muse knows what it wants, even if it wants to give me a first-class ticket to hell with window seating.
Commercial? (Score:2)
We African Greys... (Score:5, Funny)
There will always be Freedom, always be BSD... (Score:3, Insightful)
I work on computer security. I don't like viruses, either in my code or in the liscencing.
Here's a different idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, it isn't the 'paying customers', it's the developing free software engineers. The proliferation of licenses comes directly from the fact that developers have found some aspect of the GPL or LGPL to be too onerous to release under. And there is no way you're going to get them to alter their license just because Stallman thinks they should.
So here's a different idea. Instead of trying to reduce the number of Open Source licenses, people should instead come up with a comparison chart. Much like the Unix rosetta stone except for legalese, identifying general contract features in common (or different) between them.
That way developers can see the difference in a single place, and pick the best license for their particular purpose.
Been there, done that. (Score:5, Informative)
BSD license is't dying (Score:4, Insightful)
Put away your crack pipe (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not too many licenses (Score:3, Insightful)
If they had required that new licenses bring some real benefit to the community of users and developers, rather than merely benefitting the company which proposes it, there wouldn't be 58 licenses.
I don't think that 58 licenses is necessarily too many, but 58 infitesimally different, bad licenses is definitely too many.
I think that OSI can't afford to dump on the people whose licenses they've certified, so this talk of reducing the number of licenses to 3 is silly. I think that they could afford to deprecate most of those 58 (e.g., ``That license is still certified, but only for software which was issued under that license before Nonuary 2006.''), and make sure that they are a little more selective about what they approve in the future.
Not a simple task - 1 license, many OPTIONS (Score:4, Informative)
How about taking the 3 or so licenses as mentioned, but allowing each (or some) to have a number of options that could be opted for on a case by case basis? Rather than a one-size-fits-all, perhaps an aproach like the various Creative Commons licenses [creativecommons.org] would be better for the entire community?
Find some common elements from a large number licenses from the "Approved" Open Source License Collection [opensource.org] and make some of the most common language available as "plug-ins" to some sort of meta-license that encompasses a large cross-section of what's currently being used.
Rather than chooing a particular license just because it has some sort of attribution or distribution clause the author is interested in, bring consistency to the community but still allow individuals to apply special clauses to the documents that protect (or ensure the freedom of) their work.
Just an idea...
Someone set us up the optimist. (Score:3, Funny)
Commercial != Proprietary (Score:5, Interesting)
Sam Greenblatt, a member of the OSDL board, was quoted as saying something very unclear: "Eventually there should be three licenses: The GPL, a commercial version of the GPL...". The GNU General Public License (GPL) allows one to distribute copies of covered works for a fee. Many people have turned GCC (the GNU Compiler Collection), one noteworthy GPL-covered program, into a commercial work by distributing copies of it for a fee, some have also based for-hire consulting services on GCC. These consultants develop GCC as a business activity.
Most of the time when people say "commercial [gnu.org]" in this context, they don't mean that. That word was just a poor choice which may stem from not fully understanding what software freedom entails. What they really meant to say was "proprietary [gnu.org]", which is something different. In this case, I don't know what that other meaning would be; a proprietary GPL would not be the GPL, it would be a perverse opposite of what the GPL stands for and accomplished long before the open source movement existed. Thus I'm left thinking Greenblatt's statement is at best unclear, non-sensical at worst.
A thorn in the side of OSS? (Score:2)
This kind of rhetoric could very well reduce the licence to a nuisance in the future. BSD advocates, please take note. Before you know it, software under the BSD licence could be viewed as 'encumbered' and will be avoided like the plague.
IANAL, but I fail to see how this attitude could be considered constructive. Before you know it, there will be talk about just two licences. Perhaps even several licences, each being a slight
OSS is about choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Since editors are overused as an example, lets try CD burners. There are two that most people will know: k3b and nautilus. Yet a quick search on freshmeat will return literally dozens of CD burners. Why did those authors write a CD burner when excellent ones already existed? Maybe for experience, maybe due to a missing feature... it doesn't matter. The point is they can, so they will.
Choosing an open-source licence is the same: There are a couple basic smart choices, but there is no way you're going to get everybody to agree to only use them. As a random example, one of the programs I use is only free if the kernel of the computer you run it on is open source, weird huh? It is the OSI's job to try and simplify things as much as possible so people can understand what's going on. Sure, they can discourage wacky choices, but they shouldn't be outlawing them from the OSS definition.
PS: A google for licen{s,c}e returns the GPL as the number one hit.
BSD and the "can't get rid of it" thing (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know about Sam Greenblatt, but the fact that you can't get rid of BSD makes most professional developers very happy.
--
Requiem for the FUD [slashdot.org]
Re:BSD and the "can't get rid of it" thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Why Researchers Should use a BSD-style License Instead of the GPL [63.249.85.132]
Re:BSD and the "can't get rid of it" thing (Score:3, Informative)
This is totally false. The clause you quoted is about endorsement and promotion, it has *nothing* to do with giving credits.
If you use any BSD code in your software, you MUST give credit to the author by distributing the BSD license along with your software, because that license is *still* covering the code you imported.
This is a widespread misconception in the GPL world - that you can "relicense" the BSD code. No, you can't.
This misunderstanding
More proof... (Score:3, Funny)
Not a good idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
All this will do is alienate businesses that might have opened their source with their own licenses and cause them to either not open their source at all, or just ignore the OSI completely (thereby removing any power the organization might have had).
Wait this sounds like... (Score:5, Funny)
Seven for the Corporate-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Hacker Men doomed to die,
One for Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond on their dark throne.
In the Land of CVS where the Versions lie.
One License to rule them all, One License to find them,
One License to bring them all and in the darkness bind() them.
In the Land of CVS where the Versions lie.
Sorry, had to be done.
Re:but (Score:2)
My point is, there are probably libs used by commercial software vendors, i just know gtk is lgpl'd
Re:Anti BSD Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
To quote you: "dont bash it or those that choose to use it."
Re:commercial GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
So, apparently this license "permits incorporating into proprietary products" and "ensures derivative works will also be open source". Raiightttt....
Here's the license (which needless to say isn't free and probably isn't even a valid license) for those who can't
Re:Is this allowed under the GPL? (Score:3, Informative)
No. You can sell the binaries, but everyone who gets binaries must have access to the source upon request.
Technically, it is possible to charge for the source, but only to cover media and shipping expenses. It would be more sensible to provide online access to source for registered users. Or include the source on the same media with the binary.
This is the main requirement of GPL, and you could sell upgrades