Clash of the Open Standards

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."

Kudos for some simplicity

[syntap]

proposing a "three-tier system in which licenses are classified as preferred, approved or deprecated.

With all the nuanced licenses appearing, this is good to see. Then again for my needs all I want to know is GPL-compatible or not.

more than two?

[brontus3927]

Not to ask a stupid question (I know there are no stupid questions, just stupid questioners), but:
Exactly how many open source licenses are there? When I first started looking at open source, I only knew of GPL. Then I learned of BSD. Up till now, I was under the impression that those two were the only open source licenses.

Who cares what CA thinks?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Why is CA involved in this in the first place?

Their #1 revenue model is to buy a software product from someone else, cut development and rake in maintenance checks. Are they branching out?

Not "GPL Compatible"?

[Anonymous Coward]

CA won't let its developers use even LGPL libraries (except on Linux platforms). I always found their OSI involvement a little premature...

Different licenses are fine

[NerdHead]

Licenses are important but different developers see licenses differently. I think it is rational to offer a license of choice by the author of the software. I wouldn't want a standards committee telling me what my license should be and I wouldn't want a RIAA/MPAA-type organization either. While I'm at it, why make a license compatible with another? If I want my license to be compatible with GPL, why not just use the GPL? The BSD vs. GPL is a matter of what freedoms one wants in their license. As long as there is a license to protect the author, it should be fine.

Re:Licensing Open Source: Is this really necessary

[dago]

except that allofmp3.com does NOT violate any law and has properly took a license from the proper russian administraton.

Re:Actual impact

[CDarklock]

I think there's one major faction which isn't covered by GPL and BSD, where people don't want their software redistributed in modified form. OSI recognises this and provides for it by allowing licenses which require redistribution to be in P3 format (Pristine Plus Patches), but there's no real consensus on one license that covers this need.

There are a lot of companies who agree completely with the idea of releasing source code, but really dislike the "unrestricted redistribution" thing. A solid industry-standard P3 license would alleviate some of their fears, and could get more projects out there in the open source world.

Re:GPL-compatible

[Ithika]

All three of the licences you list are compatible with the GPL.

Re:Actual impact

[Ithika]

Given requirement (1), why bother use an open licence at all? If you can't fork, why bother opening in the first place? If I can't improve it without your say-so, it's not really open.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The AJS318 licence

[ajs318]

I present my ownution:

This program is copyright (c) 2005, AJS318 and will enter the Public Domain on 1 January 2005.

Above and beyond your statutory rights, permission is hereby granted {and you are encouraged} to copy and distribute this program in source or binary forms, with or without modification, subject to the following conditions:

1. Distributions in source code form must include this copyright and permission notice and disclaimer of warranty {or, at your discretion, notice of a warranty underwritten by you}.
2. Distributions in binary form must include this copyright and permission notice and disclaimer of warranty {or, at your discretion, notice of a warranty underwritten by you}; and an offer, valid in perpetuity, to supply on request the complete, machine-readable source code.
3. The names of the copyright holders may not be used to promote or endorse any product without written permission.
4. Translation of messages and documentation in the English-language version to other languages is permitted. However, this permission-to-translate clause must be replaced in the translated version by a clause forbidding any further translation.

THIS PROGRAM IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) IN GOOD FAITH BUT WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. THE USER ASSUMES SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY USE OF THIS PROGRAM. IF YOU ARE IN DOUBT, SEEK ADVICE FROM A COMPETENT PROGRAMMER.

Re:Who said GPL was most commonly used license

[lheal]

I meant "most commonly used FOSS license, in number of FOSS packages choosing it". After thinking about it, I think probably The Artistic License actually has more users, since Perl is almost ubiquitous. Sendmail's BSD-like license is another contender.

I think I'll ask Google ... hmm, interesting. Here is a cached page listing some numbers:

http://www.google.com/help/features.html#cached

GPL/LGPL ~77%,
BSD et al 12%.

Re:Corporate ownership of all that is revolutionar

[spitzak]

The GPL does not force you to do anything. By their explanation Ford motor company is "communist" because to use their cars you are "forced" to give them money.