Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is GPL Licensing In Decline?

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the way-of-the-dodo dept.

GNU is Not Unix 266

GMGruman writes "Simon Phipps writes, "As Apache licenses proliferate, two warring camps have formed over whether the GPL is or isn't falling out of favor in favor of the Apache License." But as he explores the issues on both sides, he shows how the binary thinking on the issue is misplaced, and that the truth is more nuanced, with Apache License gaining in commercially focused efforts but GPL appearing to increase in software-freedom-oriented efforts. In other words, it depends on the style of open source."

cancel ×

266 comments

Deja Vu (4, Informative)

msclrhd (1211086) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838415)

Didn't we have this story last week?

Re:Deja Vu (5, Informative)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838437)

Yep. It was this one [slashdot.org] . And even that was a repeat posting, possibly by a troll or astroturfer.

Re:Deja Vu (2, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838525)

It is just Slashdot doing what it does best on a slow news week, they be trolling. They know those that treat anything RMS says as word of God will get all butthurt when they see this and will go apeshit and hilarious flames will ensue, but really if one thinks logically it is easy to explain.

1.- GPL V3 went too anti-business, with RMS going so far as to target one business specifically, 2.- Businesses and those that are working for them were the ones writing much of the GPL code, 3.-RMS refuses to change a line or compromise, 4.-Everyone votes with their feet by going to a different license.

See how simple that is? Now watch those followers of St iGNUicious have a living shitfit because i dared to point out not only reality, but that freedom works BOTH ways! Hell isn't the whole point of FOSS is "If things don't go the way the majority believe, then fork it" so that no one person can dictate what the majority have to have? Well that is what we are seeing here, RMS went too far and spooked a lot of people with his militant anti-business attitude so they are choosing a different license, that's all. If RMS weren't such a militant he would come to the table with developers and Torvalds and ask "What is wrong with the license? What do I need to change to get you on board?" but we know he'll never do that so instead people choose something else. Looks like FOSS is doing exactly as it always has, routing around damage.

Re:Deja Vu (0)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838599)

And then the people who can't help but throw around ad-hominems against things they hate show up.

They know those that treat anything RMS says as word of God will get all butthurt when they see this and will go apeshit and hilarious flames will ensue, but really if one thinks logically it is easy to explain

Except the original article was itself flawed.

1.- GPL V3 went too anti-business, with RMS going so far as to target one business specifically, 2.- Businesses and those that are working for them were the ones writing much of the GPL code, 3.-RMS refuses to change a line or compromise, 4.-Everyone votes with their feet by going to a different license.

Care to go into detail on this? It'd back your argumetn up.

Now watch those followers of St iGNUicious have a living shitfit because i dared to point out not only reality, but that freedom works BOTH ways!

Back up your statements, otherwise you're just throwing shit at the wall.

Re:Deja Vu (3, Funny)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838675)

All one has to do is look at the before and after numbers friend, the data doesn't lie. Right up until GPL V3 the numbers were consistent, it was going up quarter by quarter, after GPL V3 the numbers were flat for the first quarter (as businesses looked it over) and then it has been a straight down curve ever since. look up the numbers yourself, it makes a pretty little bell curve.

But you see posts like yours, where yes you did get all butthurt EXACTLY as I predicted, is why I separate FOSS advocates from FOSSies. A FOSS advocate uses FOSS because it is the best tool for a particular job they have, FOSSies look upon it as a religion, FOSS advocates argue their position with the pros and cons, FOSSies see everything as a personal attack on their Deity. This phenomena isn't exactly a secret, it is why we have comics like this [penny-arcade.com] and this [xkcd.com] and actual syndromes like this one [tmrepository.com] . If you would like to see an example of this syndrome BTW, please go to linux Insider and look up anything posted by pogson, its soo funny to watch a FOSSie as he keeps saying "That other OS" or M$ because he's sure that if he types the actual word then MSFT Ninjas will get him, hilarious!

So whether you like it or not frankly means nothing to me, I honestly don't care, i just love to LMAO at loons and lately FOSSies have been funny as hell. I mean can you even picture a Mac user typing "the OS from Redmond ooohhh" or a windows user typing "The kernel that must not be named' its just too damned funny the kind of batshit crazy that RMS attracts [youtube.com] , hell its comedy gold!

Re:Deja Vu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838723)

But you see posts like yours, where yes you did get all butthurt EXACTLY as I predicted

You know this from his short post? You're fairly good at reading minds.

Re:Deja Vu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839061)

But you see posts like yours, where yes you did get all butthurt EXACTLY as I predicted

So anyone who disagrees with you must be "butthurt", it's not as if you could possibly be wrong or anything? Sounds like you're the religious one.

Re:Deja Vu (4, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839139)

So there are more projects overall, but less of the new projects use GPL. That isn't bad in the slightest, quite frankly. It'd be more telling if projects were relicensing away from the GPL, but they aren't.

Right up until GPL V3 the numbers were consistent, it was going up quarter by quarter, after GPL V3 the numbers were flat for the first quarter (as businesses looked it over) and then it has been a straight down curve ever since. look up the numbers yourself, it makes a pretty little bell curve.

Why not just link to those numbers right now?

But you see posts like yours, where yes you did get all butthurt EXACTLY as I predicted

No I didn't, I told you to cite some sources rather than throw around ad-hominems and "anyone that disagrees with me is just butthurt" 4-chan style arguments.

A FOSS advocate uses FOSS because it is the best tool for a particular job they have, FOSSies look upon it as a religion, FOSS advocates argue their position with the pros and cons, FOSSies see everything as a personal attack on their Deity.

So anyone that disagrees with you is immediately slotted into the second category, right? Cause that's what you're doing now.

This phenomena isn't exactly a secret, it is why we have comics like this and this and actual syndromes like this one.

So two webcomics and some arbitrary website that appears to be anti-Linux hate site. Seriously, that's what the third site you linked comes across as. It's almost insane in how curled back on itself that site is with hatred. That's as bad as calling Linux insecure and linking to three bugs, two of which were over FOUR YEARS OLD. Your hatred is almost as irrational and insane as the "worship" you ascribe others as having.

If you would like to see an example of this syndrome BTW, please go to linux Insider and look up anything posted by pogson, its soo funny to watch a FOSSie as he keeps saying "That other OS" or M$ because he's sure that if he types the actual word then MSFT Ninjas will get him, hilarious!

Because one guy is representative of everyone.

Eventually you'll realize that you're at least as crazy and irrational as the people you claim to rail against.

Re:Deja Vu (0)

Crosshair84 (2598247) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839147)

Hey Hairyfeet, have a question for ya since you're the one I search for when criticizing Linux on the technical level.

I was on a car trip with my brother yesterday and we got on the subject of Linux's sh*t driver model and he was insisting that wasn't Torvalds fault that Linux doesn't have a stable ABI and API, he insists that since Torvalds only works on the Kernel, the lack of an ABI and API is someone else's fault. I of course said that was crap since the ABI and API are KERNEL LEVEL, but he would have none of it. He insisted that if you used one of the server distros like CentOS or RedHat that all the supposed problems disappear. (I of course know that's not true, but I could see we weren't getting anywhere productive and dropped it.)

So that seems to be the latest excuse on the lack of a stable/standardized API/ABI, "it's not Torvalds fault." What do you say to that?

Re:Deja Vu (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839163)

Hairyfeet isn't who I'd go to for "criticizing Linux on the technical level." He's great for 4-chan style "butthurt" arguments though.

the latest excuse on the lack of a stable/standardized API/ABI, "it's not Torvalds fault." What do you say to that?

There's no stable ABI because the kernel developers, as a whole, decided they weren't interested in tying their hands for the sake of vendors that refuse to release open source drivers or vendors that refuse to push their drivers upstream.

There's no "excuse" because, frankly, there's nothing to excuse.

Re:Deja Vu (-1, Flamebait)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839017)

RMS is himself a "hater", so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. He is on record as advocating that people pirate proprietary/closed source programs rather than pay for them [gnu.org] - in other words, copyright law be damned when it doesn't support his flawed vision, because copyright that supports closed source is "morally wrong".

Suppose that both you and your neighbor would find it useful to run a certain program. In ethical concern for your neighbor, you should feel that proper handling of the situation will enable both of you to use it. A proposal to permit only one of you to use the program, while restraining the other, is divisive; neither you nor your neighbor should find it acceptable.

Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your neighbor: âoeI promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so that I can have a copy for myself.â People who make such choices feel internal psychological pressure to justify them, by downgrading the importance of helping one's neighborsâ"thus public spirit suffers. This is psychosocial harm associated with the material harm of discouraging use of the program.

Many users unconsciously recognize the wrong of refusing to share, so they decide to ignore the licenses and laws, and share programs anyway. But they often feel guilty about doing so. They know that they must break the laws in order to be good neighbors, but they still consider the laws authoritative, and they conclude that being a good neighbor (which they are) is naughty or shameful. That is also a kind of psychosocial harm, but one can escape it by deciding that these licenses and laws have no moral force.

The funny part - since he publicly states that neither copyright laws nor software licenses should have any force, anyone can pirate a GPL program and use his statements as promisory estoppel.

No wonder the guy eats his own foot cheese. He's nuts.

Re:Deja Vu (3, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839259)

No, he rejects the notion that sharing is wrong. He also suggests that if you do share, you shouldn't feel bad because, as he said, the EULAs have no moral force, only legal.

since he publicly states that neither copyright laws nor software licenses should have any force, anyone can pirate a GPL program and use his statements as promisory estoppel.

Hardly. His statements are for him alone and do not apply to any and all GPL programs.

And then you wrap up with an ad-hominem. Man, you FOSS/GPL haters are real clever with your arguments, y'know?

Re:Deja Vu (5, Insightful)

ClickOnThis (137803) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839439)

RMS is himself a "hater", so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. He is on record as advocating that people pirate proprietary/closed source programs rather than pay for them [gnu.org] - in other words, copyright law be damned when it doesn't support his flawed vision, because copyright that supports closed source is "morally wrong".

No, that's not what RMS is saying at all. Let's look at the paragraph that appears to upset you the most.

Many users unconsciously recognize the wrong of refusing to share, so they decide to ignore the licenses and laws, and share programs anyway. But they often feel guilty about doing so. They know that they must break the laws in order to be good neighbors, but they still consider the laws authoritative, and they conclude that being a good neighbor (which they are) is naughty or shameful. That is also a kind of psychosocial harm, but one can escape it by deciding that these licenses and laws have no moral force.

In this paragraph, RMS is not avocating that people pirate proprietary software. Rather, he is illustrating the cognitive dissonance faced by a "good neighbor" who wishes to share, but is stopped from doing so by licenses on proprietary software. His point is that one can assuage that cognitive dissonance by assuming the laws have "no moral force." See the difference?

If you actually look at the rest of his essay, it is abundantly clear that what he does advocate is having programmers release the source code of their programs, and allowing others the freedom to use and modify the program as they wish, provided they do not stop others from enjoying the same freedom. Pirating proprietary software (with no source-code available) obviously is an impediment to that, so why should he support it?

The funny part - since he publicly states that neither copyright laws nor software licenses should have any force, anyone can pirate a GPL program and use his statements as promisory estoppel.

Good luck with that. The GPL has held up in court against its violators on many occasions.

Re:Deja Vu (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838603)

So then... is slashdot on the decline?

Re:Deja Vu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838679)

So then... is slashdot on the decline?

Yes - and it always has been.

Re:Deja Vu (1)

johnwbyrd (251699) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838825)

Parent seemed looked like a troll, sounded like a troll and smelled like a troll, but there's actually some careful causal reasoning in there. Mod parent up please.

Re:Deja Vu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838601)

Slashdot (it's editors) are the trolls. They are driving traffic.

Re:Deja Vu (3, Interesting)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838857)

This is the fifth story[1] based on a single article by one single shill. If this were mere trolling, I'd be grudgingly impressed. As this is a commercial scheme, I hate the guy with passion.

[1]. counting only those I noticed and remember, so there's probably more.

Re:Deja Vu (4, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839029)

This is the fifth story[1] based on a single article by one single shill. If this were mere trolling, I'd be grudgingly impressed. As this is a commercial scheme, I hate the guy with passion.

[1]. counting only those I noticed and remember, so there's probably more.

100% true. The way this keeps coming up is a very clear message. That message is:

Microsoft and Apple hate the GPL because it represents a chance to break their duopoly on personal computing by creating a complete independent environment.

Whenever we have this discussion it gets pointed out repeatedly that Apple must love F/OSS because they use so much of it. What doesn't get pointed out is that the OpenDarwin project to build a system based on Apple's open source failed for lack of cooperaton from Apple and lack of involvement from their developers. This is symptomatic of Apple's attitude; they will take whatever you give them. They will even co-operate wherever they see clear profit. They will never support things which give their users freedom to work in ways that Apple doesn't approve of. Microsoft's hatred of the GPL is so well documented in their own words that nobody even tries to claim otherwise, except for a few "Microsoft has changed" voices that we have been hearing for years without seeing anything actually changing. Note, however, that Microsoft has quite happily used BSD software all over their system.

Microsoft and Apple don't mind F/OSS as long as it is a box and they can charge you for the use of the box and limit what goes in and out of it. They fear GPL based open source as something which might allow you to create your own box and choose what you want to allow in and out of there. They are doing that by making sure that whatever you do with a computer you have to go through one of their systems. They are aiming to head back to the bad days of the 1980s when you didn't just pay for your compiler software; you actually paid run time licenses for the libraries you used. This is what app stores and their percentage taxes are about. This is what the GPL threatens by giving every computer programmer the chance to contribute to and modify the code.

These stories keep coming up because the various PR shills here want to make people behave differently from their own interests. Remember that and choose the GPL whenever you have the option.

Re:Deja Vu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839145)

At one time, free software advocates made a big deal out of what they called "Freedom Zero" - the right to run software however one pleases. They hated restrictions and EULAs and developers who made moral judgements

As time went on, FSF decided they didn't like Freedom Zero anymore. Users like Apple were using the software the "wrong way" by not contributing to FSF community ecosystem, danceline, and parade floats. So they rewrote the license to restrict Freedom Zero rights... now you can't run software unless I can run it too.

That is fine, but Apple is perfectly within their rights to stick with GPL2, which protects their Freedom Zero rights as originally outlined by RMS.

Re:Deja Vu (5, Informative)

andrew3 (2250992) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839339)

As time went on, FSF decided they didn't like Freedom Zero anymore. Users like Apple were using the software the "wrong way" by not contributing to FSF community ecosystem, danceline, and parade floats. So they rewrote the license to restrict Freedom Zero rights... now you can't run software unless I can run it too.

That is incorrect. You do not have to accept the terms of the GPL to run the program alone. Let me cite the GPLv3 itself:

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.

Re:Deja Vu (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839349)

Everything you just claimed is false.

Re:Deja Vu (1)

andrew3 (2250992) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839359)

That is fine, but Apple is perfectly within their rights to stick with GPL2, which protects their Freedom Zero rights as originally outlined by RMS.

Sorry, am I missing something? I didn't know Apple used the GPLv2?

Re:Deja Vu (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839365)

Whenever we have this discussion it gets pointed out repeatedly that Apple must love F/OSS because they use so much of it

No, its pointed out that Apple must love F/OSS because they contribute to so much of it. Take a look at LLVM, WebKit, CUPS, and a number of other projects and see how many contributions are funded by Apple. They contribute to F/OSS for exactly the right reason: If two or more companies need the same thing, it's cheaper if they cooperate on implementing the same thing than if they each implement their own (incompatible) ones and keeping them private. Apple has ridiculous amounts of money, enough to easily fund developing their own compiler suite and HTML rendering engine, but if they contribute to LLVM and WebKit then the same amount of effort is added to the work by Google and others and the result is even better.

Re:Deja Vu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838533)

Didn't we have this story last week?

Yeah, but "last week's" article was actually from December of 2011.

Re:Deja Vu (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838585)

I have done a study on this, and I can now publish my findings, exclusively on Slashdot, for the first time:

Since this time last year, instances of the GPL in Slashdot dupes are now up by 300%, while instances of the Apache and BSD licenses remain at a constant level.

Flamewars about the merits of the GPL vs the BSDL are at an all-time high. In February, for the first time since 2010, they passed the number of Android vs iOS flamewars, and are currently recorded at over 11 on the vi vs emacs scale.

Comparisons between the FSF and the Nazis are up by 20%, but still significantly lower than any major tech company or political party. Apple, Microsoft and Google are all at record high levels on the Godwin scale, but Oracle has passed all three, with a stunning 400% increase after the takeover of Sun. IBM's record from the '80s is still unsurpassed.

Re:Deja Vu (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838587)

The real question is: "Are Slashdot Supes in Decline?"

Re:Deja Vu (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838711)

There seems to be a glitch in the matrix.

Moonlighting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838445)

Is Simon Phipps moonlighting for Ric Romero now?

App stores (4, Interesting)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838509)

Like it or not, but the fact that GPL is prohibited in many app stores is probably what discourages authors of FLOSS from using it as their license. Some authors may also feel that they don't want to use it even if it works fine for them now since they don't know what will happen in the future, as contributions are accepted from other authors it becomes much harder to change license. It's not 1991 anymore.

Re:App stores (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838613)

All "open source" is prohibited in many app stores. Primarily because all the app stores and the platforms they service are extremely anti-open source and locked down.

iOS and WP are antithetical to the concept of Free Software, let alone open source.

Re:App stores (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838629)

Truth be told I'm not entirely familiar with the process of submitting software to either iOS or WP but in what way are they anti-open source? I have never heard anything that suggests that it's not possible to submit software released under more permissive licenses, only that GPL is not compatible with their licensing terms.

Re:App stores (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838637)

iOS uses a ton of open source. just not GPL.

Re:App stores (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838669)

well, suppose you have a license that requires the users to be given source they can recompile and run. now, usually that kind of license would require that you don't need a 3rd party - or hacking your device - to be able to do that - like paying apple or ms a hundred bucks to be able to upload the recompiled binary to your device(and in both cases getting a license for operating system to run the compiler in and a license for the compiler, which both do provide though, I think it's possible to weasel a free license for the os too out of both too).

also while developer unlocks for devices do give the ability to install random sw, they're not meant for doing that(with matching eulas).

(I'm not an apple dev, but apples thing might have specific limitations for gpl code to be submitted too, however that sounds sketchy - NOW if you're wondering why they would do that is that they, apple, or ms, are the software distributor, they take a _cut_ out of the buying profits so they'd be responsible for sharing the code too, no?).

Re:App stores (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838727)

To be GPL compliant, they would have to distribute the source code to your app, as you are not the distributer - they are. linking to the code is not enough. I don't know of one app store which actually does this.

Re:App stores (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838863)

Linux distribution repositories - the original central app store - do this. But alas, they are not so common on phones.

Re:App stores (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839345)

Actually, the GPL allows you to place, in the documentation, an offer to send the source code. Putting such an offer in a help screen would suffice. Source code isn't the problem. The problem is that iOS runs afoul of GPLv3's anti-Tivoization clause.

Re:App stores (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839295)

The problem for the Apple app store is that Apple is acting as distributor. Apple doesn't have a mechanism for providing source. Apple doesn't allow individuals without a developer's SDK to make changes to a program and then install. It creates a nebulous area. If Apple wanted to push it they could, but so far they haven't wanted to they have just asked the open source distributor to give them a less nebulous license.

Re:App stores (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838691)

All "open source" is prohibited in many app stores.

And what app stores would those be? It's certainly not the iOS App store.

Doom is GPL Licensed [wikia.com]
Doom is in the App Store [apple.com]
The Source for for iOS Doom [github.com]

Re:App stores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838709)

Hey, don't come here breaking his bubble.

Re:App stores (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838773)

Doom is dual-licensed. The app store version is not GPL.

Re:App stores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838847)

Doom is dual-licensed. The app store version is not GPL.

Dual licensing doesn't work that way.

The source code says differently.
https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-iOS/blob/master/gpl.txt

John Carmack used version of already open sourced Wolfenstein to do the iOS port. Most likely the Doom did the same.
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/45679/John-Carmack-Releases-Open-Source-Wolfenstein-iPhone-Port

Re:App stores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838979)

The source code says differently.
https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-iOS/blob/master/gpl.txt [github.com]

So the code is being distributed through GitHub under the GPL license, as well as through the App Store under Apple's proprietary license. ID Software still owns copyright to Doom and Wolfenstein; having made a GPL release does not prohibit them from also doing proprietary releases.

However, if you were to make your own game out of the GPL Doom code, you could release this derived work (under the GPL) for Linux, Windows, or even Mac OS, but not for iOS.

Re:App stores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838719)

All "open source" is prohibited in many app stores.

http://maniacdev.com/2010/06/35-open-source-iphone-app-store-apps-updated-with-10-new-apps/

Re:App stores (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839223)

And if those apps were put on the store they can choose to waive the GPL for the release. Effectively, the version you get via the store isn't GPL as Apple has replaced it with their own overbearing terms, with the author's implicit permission.

Re:App stores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838771)

All "open source" is prohibited in many app stores. Primarily because all the app stores and the platforms they service are extremely anti-open source and locked down.

iOS and WP are antithetical to the concept of Free Software, let alone open source.

If only there was a way, as the copyright owner of a project, to license an application favorable to app stores and at the same time release the source code under whatever license you wish...

Re:App stores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838787)

If only there was a way, as the copyright owner of a project, to license an application favorable to app stores and at the same time release the source code under whatever license you wish...

We should consult some people at Berkley see what they have to say about all this.

Re:App stores (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838873)

All "open source" is prohibited in many app stores. Primarily because all the app stores and the platforms they service are extremely anti-open source and locked down.

Bullshit. There's no rule in the iOS App Store to prevent any kind of open source. It's the terms of the GPL that prevent it. RMS is doing the prohibiting, not the app store. Because he's extremely anti-business.

Re:App stores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838957)

Perhaps you'd care to:
1) Point to the term(s) in the GPL that prevent software licenced under it from being distributed on Apple's app store
2) Explain why you think said terms are "extremely anti-business"

Re:App stores (2)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839171)

It's the terms of the GPL that prevent it.

Yes, because the iTunes store places additional restrictions on end users, while the GPL directly opposes that.

RMS is doing the prohibiting, not the app store.

RMS isn't doing shit. The developer that chose the GPL decided to place that restriction.

Because he's extremely anti-business.

He's also anti-lockdown and pro-freedom. Again, iOS/WP are very anti-freedom and pro-lockdown.

Re:App stores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838615)

it works fine in the ubuntu software center. :-)

Re:App stores (0)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838663)

That and combined with the GPL is becoming more and more anti-business. Even if you do not want to profit off your software, Most. People want it used widely. If your software is designed for business use if you GPL it you have already alienated your user base, as when it is GPL there is a responsibly, that you need to maintain that other license don't have. Especially if you choose to use parts of the software with the product you are making, you need to make sure that you are in compliance. And with the most vocal GPL supporters begin very anti-capitalistic, means that GPL code is becoming more and more off limits for business.
So it comes down to the fact a lot of software written today which can be open source are business use systems. Thus are not being released under the GPL as it isn't business friendly.
Back in the late 90's early 2000's the GPL wasn't enforced so strictly so companies felt more comfortable using and supporting GPL software. However the late 2000's the GPL community has been much more active to enforce the GPL, as well GPL 3 was created as a response to punish companies like TiVo who found loopholes in the GPL to their advantage.
So if the company has a product that they want to open source (they have a lot of good reasons to do so) they will choose other licenses that is less risky to them.

Re:App stores (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838899)

When you first listen to the "the GPL is declining because it's users sue too much" that sort of seems like a reasonable argument for people who are afraid of lawsuits and can't afford the lawyers to understand the licenses.

Then you think about it. The person who is choosing the license is the author of the software. By a strange coincidence, that's also the person who gets to decide whether to sue or not. There is nothing in the GPL which could ever force them to start a lawsuit. The most it can ever do is give them the choice to do so, and even then, only in the situation where someone is cheating on their open source quid pro quo.

Seems to me that this argument is being spread about by the proprietary software houses who want to sucker programmers into allowing them to build private versions without having to pay anything or contribute anything back to the community. Just remember; if there turns out to be a good reason to do so, you can always relicense your GPL code with no protectuion under something like the X11 license. Going the other way is much more risky and difficult.

Re:App stores (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839301)

First off companies are more friendly towards all open source than they were 15 years ago. But even more importantly, a company that wants to release its own software isn't bound by the GPL they have a copyright.

Re:App stores (5, Informative)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838721)

Like it or not, but the fact that GPL is prohibited in many app stores is probably what discourages authors of FLOSS from using it as their license. Some authors may also feel that they don't want to use it even if it works fine for them now since they don't know what will happen in the future, as contributions are accepted from other authors it becomes much harder to change license. It's not 1991 anymore.

What app stores other than Apple's have terms incompatible with the GPL? Google Play doesn't. Amazon Appstore doesn't. Nook Store doesn't.

(BTW, the problem with Apple's terms isn't that they ban the GPL, it's that they require that apps be licensed on a per user basis, with no sub-licensing or re-distribution permitted, even if the licensing cost is zero. The GPL requires that everyone have redistribution rights, which is incompatible with per-user licensing. Google doesn't constraint the app developer's licensing choices, and AFAICT the other Android stores have followed suit.)

Re:App stores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838741)

That's great, too bad Android itself is such a closed platform.

Re:App stores (2)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838795)

That's great, too bad Android itself is such a closed platform.

FUD. Android is 100% open source. Google has some apps which are closed, and there are many apps in the store which are closed, but Android is 100% open. Including Honeycomb.

Re:App stores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838893)

Then why is it developed in the dark?
Then why can't almost anyone update to it once it is open?
Then why are all problems solved with "if you root your device..."?

Re:App stores (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838951)

Because carriers are evil fucks.

Re:App stores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839001)

Then why is it developed in the dark?

Development methodology is irrelevant.

Then why can't almost anyone update to it once it is open?

I see some words, but I can't make out what they're trying to say....

Then why are all problems solved with "if you root your device..."?

The software being open source doesn't mean you can magically do whatever you want with the device. You still need to somehow aquire a level of privilege that allows whatever it is you're trying to do. Otherwise it would be rather foolish to run open source software on any machine that will be in any way accessible to other people.

Re:App stores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839169)

Gosh, people actually think they are on the good side when they use Android. Just because it uses a Linux kernel doesn't mean that it is a great thing. If you found a machine gun based on Linux you would shoot yourself in the foot because it was freedom right? I don't understand, how can people glorify this Google (don't be evil, yeah right) os?

Re:App stores (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839393)

Well, unless you count any of the drivers required to actually use Android on any shipping phone...

Re:App stores (1)

jkflying (2190798) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838861)

Heard of AOSP?

Re:App stores (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839247)

As far as I know it's only the iOS and WP app stores that are anti-GPL. You can submit GPL'ed software to the Mac App store so Apple as a company doesn't even fully ban it.

Re:App stores (1)

andrew3 (2250992) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839377)

App stores often have ridiculous terms. The fact that some devices won't even let its users install software is just dumb.

Some Personal Experiences (2, Interesting)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838511)

I've had recent occasion to talk to a few SAAS providers and other software producers who are employing OSS tech in some of their products and the consensus was the GPL was too constrictive, so their using other schemes. I'm also noticing others around the web sticking to GPL 2.0, and dismissing 3.0. I'm just a messenger, just what I've seen.

Re:Some Personal Experiences (3, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838581)

I have felt from the time it came out that GPL 3.0 was a step too far. With any attempt to write a legally binding document (whether a license like the GPL or a law) that applies to people you have never met you have to make a choice between one of two options. You can either write it so that no one can ever abuse it, or you can write it so that it is flexible and can be applied in innovative ways to solve problems that it never occurred to you might be connected to it somehow. If you do the first one, the document will, at best, be unusable in situations that are outside of what you considered possible when you wrote it, but more likely will actually restrain innovation in any area where your document applies. GPL 3.0 does this.

Re:Some Personal Experiences (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838737)

The primary objective of the GPL and free software was not innovation; it was freedom. Freedom for the little guy. RMS has underlined again and again that some software might not be so shiny because of that freedom, or proprietary products might have more features. This however, has always been a non-issue; the primary objective has always been the four freedoms, regardless of how others might want to use or abuse the software or the essential right to freedom.

Re:Some Personal Experiences (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838617)

Of course SaaS providers would object to the GPLv3, it eliminated the ability for them to exploit GPL software, subsequently used by their customers, without distributing the sources. Much like the anti-tivoization clause, it's another patch to fix the loopholes that companies exploit.

Re:Some Personal Experiences (2)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838639)

Distributing source was not the objection I heard. It was more along the lines of the license itself... anyway, if you use it are you exploiting it? You kind of sound like ANY use of OSS is exploitation. If so, why release it? Just keep it in a vault if no one can use it.

Re:Some Personal Experiences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838749)

The GPL puts no restrictions on mere use of the software, even by a for-profit entity. What it restricts is attempts to redistribute the software locked down so that their users don't enjoy the same freedom they got themselves. People who want to take away freedom from their users don't like this.

Re:Some Personal Experiences (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838785)

Distributing source was not the objection I heard. It was more along the lines of the license itself.

That doesn't make any sense. The license distribution of source and giving permission to re-distributed. That's the essence of "license itself".

.. anyway, if you use it are you exploiting it? You kind of sound like ANY use of OSS is exploitation.

"Exploiting" isn't a word that has any meaning in this context. You can use GPLv2 and GPLv3 software in any way you like, consistent with the terms of the license. In the case of v2, that basically boils down to "if you distribute binaries, you also have to distribute source, and whoever gets the source from you is likewise free to redistributed it under the same terms." In the case of v3, there are some additional restrictions around patent licensing hardware embedding, and there's an optional clause (actually a different version of the license with an additional clause) that software authors can choose to add that restricts use of the software in SaaS contexts.

Re:Some Personal Experiences (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839351)

Here is a hairy situation that is quoted by those who do not like the GPL at work.

What if you use GPL v 3 software and make it as your own internally. The owner wants to sell the company. What then? Sorry the GPL v3 counts that as a redistribution. They would have to release their crown jewels to competitors. What if it is a private organization and wants to go public. Oops can't disolve and reform as a public company because that also counts as redistribution under Sarbines Oxley. A few people wont give a shit in a small private company, but sarbines Oxley is a must for any public company in the US. Auditors would have a field day.

Software very seldomly stays anymore. If you work in China you need to redistribute your code to Chinese authories. Sometimes supplies and vendors need access to it so they can become partners. Maybe the owners might want to sell their technology and have others use it like Amazon does with its cloud?

BSD is much nicer. Remember GNU is friendly to its users but not to its owners. It is really nice to have something that is yours and you no longer own it if its licensed under any freeware license.

Re:Some Personal Experiences (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839317)

It is not use, it is SaaS a version you modified without releasing changes that is objectionable.

Re:Some Personal Experiences (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839053)

Of course SaaS providers would object to the GPLv3, it eliminated the ability for them to exploit GPL software

No it doesn't. The AGPL does, the GPLv3 still allows, for example, Google to use GPLv3 software on their servers for everything and not release any of the source code.

Re:Some Personal Experiences (1)

caseih (160668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839267)

I have zero sympathy for SAAS providers whining about the inability to use GPLv3 in their for-profit service. If they want to use a GPLv3 app, negotiate a commercial license for the code. Whining about the GPL being so restrictive just tells me they want to continue to be able to leach off of free software developers. If the software is so useful, pay the GPL developers!

Re:Some Personal Experiences (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839395)

2 people leach in any business transaction. The price is the point of compromise for both or a contract in a niche case such as this. The GPL is great for the users, and worst for the owners. A proprietary license is the best for the owner and worse for the user. Windows is a prime example. BSD, MIT, Apache and others are in between.

A developer has a right to their own code they paid for or developed himself. You are right they should pay, but it is well within the companys right to use a BSD solution that is more friendly to a compromise or make their own and refuse to even use your product. Profit is very very nice if you are the one receiving it and providing something a user wants so much they are willing to pay for.

The issue I have and I agree with SAAS is much of the api's and frameworks out there are GPL instead of copyleft. Free not to use you say? What if I make my own expensive proprietary code and some intern downloads a GPL api that compromises just 5% of the code in my product?

Whoops the rest of the 95% just went GPL as well. GPL is better meant for products rather than libraries and this is what SAAS and others are bitching about. Copyleft is prefectly more appropriete as many would love to give credit to others but still retain ownership of the 95% of the code. Companies are going anti GPL for these reasons.

Re:Some Personal Experiences (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839391)

I'm just a messenger, just what I've seen.

First of all, you have no proof of that. SAAS, as restrictive as it is, is not affected by GPL at all.
Second, go fuck yourself anyway. We write software, we distribute it under licenses that parasites like your "few SAAS providers and other software producers" are afraid of. If they don't like it, they can always ask Oracle to buy their shitty companies.

Trust the FOSS community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838555)

to start a holy war on the subject. Both are open licences, so who cares?

Re:Trust the FOSS community (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838577)

Quite a lot actually. They are both open but only one of them is free.

Metasploit Framework (1)

smileygladhands (1909508) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838591)

The Metasploit Framework, for instance, only accepts code licensed with BSD (or BSD compatible).

Real war is Copyleft vs. Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838623)

GPL is still the most popular Copyleft license.

People that keep pushing that the GPL is loosing market share tend to be the ones that want to push open source in favor of the ideals of Copyleft and Free Software. The GPL is not designed to win the popularity war for people that refuse the ideals of Free Software in favor of open source. The majority of licenses accepted by the OSI should really be called Closing Source as several of those licenses allows anyone to modify or redistribute the code without the source code. Only a Copyleft license is designed to keep the software under Free terms.

BSD (5, Insightful)

Zamphatta (1760346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838625)

Personally, I prefer the BSD licenses. There's more freedom in it. Although, I can see why people like the GPL & Apache licenses, I think they're a little too restrictive.

Re:BSD (0)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838969)

There may be more freedom in it for the distributor of the software to not disclose source code but it does not guarantee code freedom. It does not guarantee that the code remains free. BSD is not a free software license. It's open source not free software.

Different tools for different tasks (2)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838651)

Who'd a thunk it?

Internet is Growing Up, Becoming Square (3, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838655)

Personally, I think the whole open source gig is fading away. The next generation of programmers have been raised to live and program in flashy iDink walled gardens and have neither the interest or the inclination in releasing or collaborating on code.

In their world, code is something that is packaged into an app, approved by Apple, and then sold for profit. It is not something which can even be freely compiled and run on their devices, let alone shared and co-written.

Ultimately computers and the Internet are growing up, moving out into suburbia, and accepting pre-packaged convenience over creative potential. People want shiny and slick, and really couldn't care less freedom, code, control, or innovation. There's probably an App for feelings like that anyway.

The Internet is becoming squaresville, one settled Mac user at a time.

Re:Internet is Growing Up, Becoming Square (5, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838901)

Personally, I think the whole open source gig is fading away. The next generation of programmers have been raised to live and program in flashy iDink walled gardens and have neither the interest or the inclination in releasing or collaborating on code.

This happened 30 years ago, except then it was the DOS and then Windows world. The F/LOSS movement largely came from a later generation of programmers who realized that walling everything up sucks and impedes progress. And, although it was before my time, I understand there was a similar dynamic a couple of decades before that. Seems like just another turn of the wheel -- assuming you're even right, which I doubt.

Re:Internet is Growing Up, Becoming Square (1)

gutnor (872759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839047)

People want shiny and slick, and really couldn't care less freedom, code, control, or innovation.

People never cared, only programmer and hacker ever did. OpenSource never delivered anything to the masses before they were packaged "for the masses" (Android, OSX).

The next generation of programmers have been raised to live and program in flashy iDink walled gardens and have neither the interest or the inclination in releasing or collaborating on code.

OpenSource is not a choice you make nowadays. You must use OpenSource or you don't deliver as fast as your competitor. If you create a framework, you must open source or you will never reach critical masses. You must participate in open source project, because that is too costly to maintain your own private fork and nobody care about your references if they are not commit id on github. And all of that is not counting the problem you have recruiting developers to develop your proprietary applications.

OpenSource has won in the development world. Unlike the previous generation, the current generation are not paid to develop closed source software, so forget them not too feel like rebels.

Re:Internet is Growing Up, Becoming Square (2)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839443)

There is enough embedded systems and in-house development to make the opinions of all all dinky app-store-bound developers completely irrelevant. The last time around with DOS software, a negligible minority of individual developers were able support themselves by writing anything sold to consumers -- that market, with exception of games, was quickly monopolized by Microsoft and Adobe. This time, things are shaping up in exactly the same way. Meanwhile, embedded systems and large IT/Internet-basdd services were developed with constantly growing percentage of Open Source and specifically GPL licensed software, and successfull thwarted at least two waves of Microsoft attacks on them.

Offtopic I know but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838665)

Don't forget there is a protest today in support of Trayboon Martin. Please show your support for Trayboon. No justice, no peace. Thanks.

I've noticed one big difference (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838697)

Apache licenses are favoured by projects which have corporate sponsorship and funding.

GPL licenses are favoured by "grass roots" efforts which have no funding.

The question is the funding a cause or an effect of the choice of license?

Re:I've noticed one big difference (1)

Nadir (805) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838867)

<quote><p>
Apache licenses are favoured by projects which have corporate sponsorship and funding.
</p><p>
GPL licenses are favoured by "grass roots" efforts which have no funding.
</p><p>
The question is the funding a cause or an effect of the choice of license?</p></quote>
Yes, like the first $1 billion open source company in the world... not! All of Red Hat's stuff is LGPL.

Re:I've noticed one big difference (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839023)

RedHat neither owns nor pays sponsorship to most of the projects they contribute to.

I'm thinking in terms of groups like Mozilla which receive actual cash funding from companies like Google for their work, not companies which have found a way to leverage the work of others to turn a profit. Or the actual Apache projects, which receive funding from some of the biggest IT firms in the world to develop and maintain "core infrastructure" components for the web world. Another one that comes to mind is Eclipse, with their IBM sponsorship.

Projects like the core GNU tools, on the other hand, were developed without the goal of sponsorship or turning a profit on the tools themselves.

I'm not saying either model or license is "better". Just wondering about the chicken-and-egg question: Did they receive funding because of the license, or did they choose the license because of the funding and influence of the companies involved?

Indeed, why GPL ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838705)

(I know TFT is a dupe post, but I'll post my comments anyway)

I do a lot of open-source. Most of my projects are either extremely small, small, or mid-range. Those projects are broad, ranging from small functions to small libraries, to full working applications and to full working systems. Some of those projects are indeed appreciated, but so far I can tell you that less than 1% of the code (either software, or HDL) came from third parties. So, people are likely to use, but less likely to contribute (most of them do not have the knowledge to contribute, so only a small part can effectively do it).

But why do so ?

Let me just make an overview here, we'll get to GPL later.

A few things can happen to an open-source project:
a) People love it, they are hackers, they want to improve it, you're a nice guy, they contribute. All thing gets merged in.
b) People love it, they don't know how to program, they want to improve it but don't have the means. They provide important feedback.
c) People love it, they hate you, they fork your project and follow like a).
d) People don't like it, or just ignore it, you're off. Nothing to see here.

So, how are you to license a project of your own ? If you go closed source (freeware, shareware) you get b) and d). Indeed these are the most common.
If you go open-source, chances are you get d) and b). Only in very specific situations you get a).

So, why would you release your project as GPL ? Why not Apache licenses, why not CC, why not BSD ?

That will depend on your expectations, and whether you allow commercial use (mean, give it *really* away for free without any reserve)

I don't recommend GPL unless for a), which indeed is the most uncommon. If indeed your project becomes popular, c) is going to happen. GPL is nice for community-based projects, it's not that nice for personal projects, because you either lose control of it (others fork it if they dislike you) or you don't have contributions at all.

I still use GPL for some of my projects (software), but not for hardware ones (I use BSD).

If you're starting a new project, think twice - although remember it's your own work - if no one contributes to your "mainline", you can change it's license at your own will (but previously released versions will keep the license in which they were released).

Also, GPL became so complex that people avoid using it. BSD and variants are easier to read and understand.

Alvie

Some ideas on GPL / Freedom etc (3, Interesting)

jtotheh (229796) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838717)

To restate the obvious:
There are two paradoxical possible twists to an open source license.
1. The user is allowed to use the source as part of a closed source product (which is a kind of freedom)
2. The user is obliged to make derivatives available as source (which ensures the greater freedom of other users/developers) (this is a restriction on the actions of user 1)

Neither one is complete freedom. They are both giving up something - the possible work of the downstream user or the business motivation of the first user.

The GPL's origin is in RMS' desire to be able to modify software that was produced by companies. It takes this to the extreme, basically by prohibiting closed source products based on GPL.

The benefit of this is mostly to developers, and within that, to developers who are independent. Software companies share code / secrets a lot as part of business, but under NDAs. The FSF has as a slogan "you deserve software that is free" but how many users want to exercise the freedom to modify and recompile their software?

More and more, FOSS is produced in a dual stream approach - Redhat/Fedora, Jboss community/pro, other things work this way like Jasper reports etc

The reality of this is that the code that is run in production is not "free" in an active way. When you pay for a supported version of RHEL or whatever you do not generally modify anything very deep inside it and then demand support for your modified version. The fact that you are paying for a supported version is a disincentive to using a modifed version, your own or anyone else's.

Also consider that the Linux kernel is largely developed by people working for IBM, Suse, Redhat, etc.

So while the lone developer wanting to add his improvements to the commercially produced and defective printer driver is a convincing story to argue for the GPL, the reality as it is today is different - it's more like the millions of Linux users who wish their hardware was supported but do not produce a driver for it. And I know they may not have access to the necessary information from the hardware maker, etc. Still, the number of people able and motivated to write OS-level code is small. I know I don't know enough to do it.

Nonetheless, the existence of (mostly) GPL OSes is an amazing thing. The access to knowledge for developers that that provides is awesome. But a lot of the requirements to stay GPL-pure do not sound like freedoms to me- requiring you not to buy certain(most) products, visit certain sites - it's ironic when, in the name of freedom, your freedom to act as you wish must be limited.

Re:Some ideas on GPL / Freedom etc (2)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838941)

But a lot of the requirements to stay GPL-pure do not sound like freedoms to me- requiring you not to buy certain(most) products, visit certain sites

Could you cite examples of websites and products you must avoid? I'm aware that you must avoid certain source code if you wish to develop software with a corresponding function on the other side of the OSS divide, but I'm not aware of products I must avoid to be able to continue to use GPL?

Who Cares? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39838783)

You ask me: "Is GPL Licensing In Decline?"
I ask you: "Who Cares?"

if the GPL fits your goals (personal, business, etc.), then use it.
If the GPL doesn't fit your goals, then don't use it.

If the whole world goes GPL or I am the last person on Earth releasing code under the GPL license .. does it really matter, if we're all meeting our goals?

Natural tendency towards freedom (1, Informative)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#39838999)

Of course, any library published with a restrictive license (GPL) will eventually be supplanted by a library with a more liberal license (BSD, etc)
The value proposition is simply better.

Re:Natural tendency towards freedom (1)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839273)

Value proposition for whom ? I can see plenty of GPL software not about to be replace anytime soon. I can see some libraries and packages being reimplemented for the BSD O/Ses, but not all.

Can you give some examples ?

GPL is considered a liability (4, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839307)

Many banks and other companies that received threatening letters from SCO and MS salesmen have anti gnu or freeware policies in their organization. A famous Canadian bank even licenses for an obsolete version of SSH because BSD *might* be gnu. Funny, that the corporation just downloads the BSD one and repackages to the customer as its own for $$$.

Lawyers are afraid of it in big companies after several court cases with companies like Netgear being accused of copyright infringement for including Linux without the source in some of their embedded products.

I could turn this into a BSD vs GPL flameware but wont. There are many such as myself who feel comfortable using free software at work but would feel better modifying and shipping BSD versions which are more business friendly to customers and suppliers. Remember you are asking the company to ship its crown jewels away if they license it with GPL. It is true it may protect you agaisn't getting ripped off, but you have no way to know for sure.

Businesses do not like risk or to give away free things. They own them if they paid for the labor so why the risk?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...