Clash of the Open Standards 215
Rollie Hawk writes "Open Source Initiative (OSI) and Computer Associates (CA) may agree that some housework is needed with open source licensing, but they may not be able to reconcile their views on the best solution.
CA has a couple of possible solutions in mind for its proposed Template License. This license will likely be based on either Sun's Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) its own Trusted Open Source License.
OSI, which does not favor corporate-centered licensing, opposes such moves on a number of grounds. Specifically, they point out that CDDL is not GPL-compatible. While acknowledging the problems with license proliferation, OSI prefers a solution involving stricter criteria (including that approved licenses must me non-duplicative, clear and understandable, and reusable) and is proposing a "three-tier system in which licenses are classified as preferred, approved or deprecated."
While there is no legal requirement for any open-source license to be approved by OSI, it is currently common practice for developers to get their license blessing from it."
GPL-compatible (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically, they point out that CDDL is not GPL-compatible.
Umm... so? Since when was the GPL the pinnacle of open source licensing anyway? Licenses pushing a corporate agenda aren't really any worse than the GPL which pushes a political agenda.
Actual impact (Score:4, Insightful)
licensing-nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not going into that debate again, I hope? the same thing with "which is more free: BSD or GPL".
There is NO difficulty here: BSD, by nature, is more free, yes. But to *keep* it free, GPL is better suited.
And such is the case with all 'open' licenses: some may be more free, others may suit some particular need better.
Look closely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Licensing Open Source: Is this really necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Licensing open-source software ensures that the developers work is not abused or ripped off by companies seeking a quick profit. Any code written under an open-source license is to remain free forever, at least theoretically.
And before Slashdotters start asking why it's ok for developers to license code and not for the RIAA to license music, remember that the former means profit for the violator, while the latter doesn't.
Why CA? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:GPL-compatible (Score:5, Insightful)
component-based (Score:2, Insightful)
But of course, IANAL, so there's probably a very good reason why this hasn't been done. Or maybe it has and I'm just ignorant
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actual impact (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess for most people. Personally, I'd like a license that lets me release code to the public and allow royalty-free distribution, but I don't want the GPL problem of people being able to take over my project (1), nor the BSD problem of companies being able to profit from my work (2).
(1) - I wouldn't want someone like X.org taking a previous version of my software and forking it, effectively destroying my userbase -- for any reason other than discontinuation of my software. Even if they added features I didn't have. Even if their software was better than mine. Call that greedy if you want, but I don't think it's unreasonable to want to control your work to avoid dillution of strict standards it follows [think incompatible themes/formats/whatever between various alternative versions of your software], and control over the direction your application progresses towards.
Given the open source code, I wouldn't mind people using it as a reference for an original from-scratch project, nor for personal modifications.
(2) - Not much needs to be said here. I wouldn't want Microsoft or whoever to benefit from my code without compensating me for my efforts. Nor would I personally want to be compensated for what is, ultimately, a hobby to me.
Re:We need one licence (Score:2, Insightful)
No we do not need *one* license.
BTW, if GPL ceased to exist somehow, the CDDL vs BSD flamewars will spread. Some people tend to like flamewars...
Corporate agenda not worse? Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
I, for one, think that political agendas that aim to benefit people at large (and have a track record of success at doing so) are less immoral than corporate agendas that seek to enrich their investors at the expense of unwitting customers.
In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:GPL-compatible (Score:5, Insightful)
One "I only want to make my work available to other open source authors" license (GPL).
One "It's ok if my work becomes part of a non-open-source product but I still want that people contribute any changes to my code back to the community" license (LGPL).
And finally one "I don't really care" license (BSD).
I think trying to force everyone to use the GPL simply *has* to end in things like the CDDL because the companies don't feel they have any other choice.
Corporate ownership of all that is revolutionary (Score:4, Insightful)
Open source is an extremely revolutionary idea and fairly unique in the history of the world and I would be concerned at how a major corporation would interpret and alter the concept.
Another example of corporate involvement in revolutionary ideas is Slashdot itself. Every time I view a forum discussion a message from friendly Microsoft pops up telling me not to switch my operating system from Windows to Linux. This message also prevents me from reading replies and thus altering my pleasurable Slashdot experience.
Re:GPL-compatible (Score:4, Insightful)
When Linux (speaking of the kernel) became the flagship opensource project the GPL became the pinnacle. Linux brought a huge number of people into Unix and gave them a political orientation that while somewhat hostile to the FSF as "leader" was very congruent with their philosophy.
Today:
1) The GPL is far and away the most common open source license
2) Projects that were not previously GPL have converted over, Mozilla (the project) being the most important example. That is there has been a shift towards even greater adoption.
3) Licenses which are not compatible with the GPL tend to receive very little community support.
If that isn't the pinnacle what is?
Re:Licensing Open Source: Is this really necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just open/free source propaganda. Any code that is placed in the public domain or under a BSD-style license will "remain free forever" without a GPL style license. In other words, no corporation can make it illegal for you to use it or extend it.
A license like the GPL makes it impossible to "lock up" derivative works that are distributed, but that has nothing to do with the "freedom" of the original code.
Re:BSD is note more free (Score:4, Insightful)
The original BSD developer for the TCP stack has no access to the MS implementation of that stack - since they slapped a proprietary license on it.
On the other hand, the original GLP developer of linux code has full access to the Linksys implementation of it - since Linksys is compelled to release updates.
You will note that while companies love BSD-licensed projects (since they can just steal code from them), they rarely distribute their own works under the BSD, and that limits your ability to profit even more than the GPL, and arms your competitors with your technology. Companies only release under BSD if they don't care about the code at all, or if it is a reference implementation of something that they actually want everybody to just use as widely as possible - probably because it interfaces with some expensive proprietary product.
BSD does let you do more with the code, but GPL does more to protect the open source community, and to protect the original developer - and that is the person whose blood, seat, and tears were invested in the first place...
Re:Actual impact (Score:3, Insightful)
This is very likely why Sun doesn't cave into demands that their Java implementation be completely converted to the GPL. If they were to do this, all of their major competitors can start doing "value added" modifications to lock in their customer bases. That would be a bad thing for Java.
"Trusted" Open Source License (Score:1, Insightful)
"Trusted" Computing? "Secure" online banking? Yeah, right
Society and Profit (Score:5, Insightful)
When a scientist makes a discovery and doesn't patent it (you know, the good ol' days), that discovery may be used by all of society in any manner what so ever. Is it immoral for a company to use that discovery? Not only is not immoral, by refusing to use the technology they would be depriving their customers of the benefits.
To declare that it's immoral to make use of the work of others to make a profit is to declare that all profits are immoral. That's not a political system I buy into it.
And your use of the word "quick" is silly and pejorative. While companies won't pass up quick profits, in real life they are far more focused on sustainable profits. Or they are if they want to be around for any length of time.
Re:Actual impact (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BSD is note more free (Score:4, Insightful)
"You will note that while companies love BSD-licensed projects"
In the interest of full disclosure: I work for a company. Please don't hate me.
"(since they can just steal code from them)"
It's not stealing. The copyright owners have specifically authorised us to use the code. Presumably they even want us to.
"they rarely distribute their own works under the BSD"
We don't release all our works under the BSD, and certainly not those central to our competitive advantage, but we don't use others BSD code for that either, or there wouldn't be any advantage. However, when we use BSD code, we most certainly do release enhancements and bug fixes to that code under the BSD. Contrary to your imaginings, we release code under the BSD when we want others to be able to use and add to and our work.
The GPL only does more to protect the original developer, if the original developers wishes are what the GPL stipulates. I'm not sure the open source community needs protection; The BSD allows more people to be part of the open source community.
Saying one license is better then another is silly; they have different goals. People judge licenses by all sorts of different criteria, and judge "freedom" in all sorts of ways. Some of which seem pretty convoluted to me. Personally, I judge licenses by one yes or no question: "Can I do whatever the hell I want with the code?"
I like whatever-the-hell-you-want compatible licenses. You're free to like whatever licence you like. But arguing that any license is "more free" than a whatever-the-hell-you-want licence is going to require some pretty twisted logic.
Re:GPL-compatible (Score:2, Insightful)
The GPL favors GPL projects and GPL developers.
If those projects are a mix of CDDL, MPL, et at, we can't do that.
Please show me how code under the BSD license, CDDL, and MPL are impossible to combine in a single project (e.g,, one linked into a single executable binary). My understanding is that they can be combined with no problems, given licenses don't mix within individual files.
"Suppose I want to take some Solaris code and put it in Darwin."
You create a module that contains the Solaris code and link it into the final program. What in the licenses prohibits this?
Re:Corporate ownership of all that is revolutionar (Score:2, Insightful)
You code an application and release it under GPL. A corporation finds the code useful, but wants a certain feature.
At that point they either pay you (the original developer) money to implement the feature, or implement it themselves and pay you with new code and an enhanced application.
Either way, you profit.
That's copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually you did mention "allow forking if I discontinue the software". You might be able to write up a small license that says somebody can violate the copyright if you stop supporting the software, though exactly how to word that is questionable.