Is GPL Licensing In Decline? 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."
Deja Vu (Score:5, Informative)
Didn't we have this story last week?
Re:Deja Vu (Score:5, Informative)
Yep. It was this one [slashdot.org]. And even that was a repeat posting, possibly by a troll or astroturfer.
Re:App stores (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Natural tendency towards freedom (Score:2, Informative)
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.
GPL is considered a liability (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re:Deja Vu (Score:5, Informative)
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: