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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Deja Vu (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why not just link to those numbers right now?
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.
So anyone that disagrees with you is immediately slotted into the second category, right? Cause that's what you're doing now.
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.
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: (Score:2)
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.
OK, let's see: in december GPL+LGPL+AGPL were at 57% according to the Black Duck report on the decline of the GPL [itworld.com]. Now, according to the daily updated data by Black Duck, GPL2/3+LGPL2.1/3 are at 56.33% [blackducksoftware.com], put in AGPL and older GPL lincences and you get to 57%.
OMG!!111!! That's the flattest bell curve I've ever seen!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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" beca
Re:Deja Vu (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure if you're referring to something I didn't see, or are just talking past me. If you are, that's pretty rude. Oh and for the record, I haven't insulted you once.
This is called projecting. You fling ad-hominem attacks constantly and accuse others of doing it to you.
Oh please, this has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. If you're a hardware manufacturer, the quality of your driver and your reputation depend on their ability to code their way out of a paper bag. I invite you to highlight how a kernel dev could harm your reputation or your driver. It sounds to me like you're making shit up rather than relating actual experience.
Which is a tradeoff: you keep your sources closed, but in turn no one fixes the "breakage" for you. You also don't get any bugfixes.
But why should an open source project be obligated to support your closed source driver until 2022? Oh right, because they should be like Microsoft and only release a new kernel once every several years rather than constantly iterating on it.
That's a bunch of nonsensical hyperbole and you know it.
Your entire argument boils down to: Linux should stop being so flexible for the sake of those poor, poor hardware vendors that want to keep their drivers proprietary for whatever reason, and they should support them forever!
Which is utter nonsense.
You have received no insults or excuses.
Who posts this in rebuttal? What kernel dev is this? Can you cite anything you post? With something having a shred more credibility than anti-Linux hate sites?
Note to all: Hairyfeet cannot post a real argument. He can only throw out ad-hominems, unsubstantiated arguments, ridiculous arguments, and "sources" of questionable veracity.
Re: (Score:2)
Before Hairyfeet decides to troll again over a typo, a correction:
That should read:
Re: (Score:3)
btw, linux is not an OS. it's part of one. not making excuses, just pointing out your unfair comparison.
windows has done the driver thing really well. i actually feel a little sorry for MS's current state - they've had their reputation mangled because of the difficulty of pleasing everyone - backward compatibility meant lots more security holes, but kept everyone using their old (buggy) programs. their ABI meant that a bad driver could BSOD the system (and everyone would blame the system for being unsta
Re: (Score:3)
I guess Slashdot is the target of a concerted anti-GPL effort.
Really? So apt-get install <package> doesn't work for you? Of course, if you're building something then I'd assume you were familiar with what you're actually building.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing to keep in mind is that its a lot of work
Exactly, which is why the kernel devs don't do it, and are completely against it. They'd rather shift the work to the vendors (rightfully so), and also promote the open-sourcing of drivers.
Stable and non-stable ABIs both have their advantages and disadvantages. Shills like hairyfeet like to pretend that there's no downsides to a stable ABI, but there are, and they're huge. A stable ABI works fine for MS because they can afford to employ armies of program
Re: (Score:3)
In that case, how is it that BSD doesn't have a problem providing a stable ABI? Also, same question for Solaris/OpenIndiana? I see nothing in FOSS that precludes an FOSS OS from having a stable ABI. This particular issue has less to do w/ the GPL, but more to do w/ Linus' design philosophy.
Honestly, if every GPL OS - Linux, Hurd - had an ABI that supported the driver model independently of the version# of the underlying kernel, there wouldn't be a problem. All that backporting and regression testing w
Re: (Score:3)
No, "religious" isn't the right term. "Arrogant" is.
Re:Deja Vu (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unlikely. As you've already been told, he's not saying that "you should pirate proprietary software." He's saying "you shouldn't feel guilty if you share, because the license carries no moral weight." It still carries legal weight however, thus you shouldn't pirate anyway. Then I'm sure he'd tell you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But not deliberate misinterpretations or wishful extrapolations.
That's because he was the CEO making public statements explicitly to the effect that he was fine with it, and en
Re: (Score:3)
As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright.
Says it right here! Nothing here that suggests that he advocates obeying the law - he just goes on his usual sanctimonious diatribe against the law.
Re:Deja Vu (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Someone's drunk the Kool-Aid...
Looking at that paragraph, I suppose you can at a stretch state that RMS is not actively telling people to pirate software. In fact, he starts with the arrogant premise that anyone who doesn't want to share software is wrong. Wow. In other words, "f*** you if you don't agree with my principles, I'm better than you." Nice.
He then proceeds to explain how people who feel guilty about sharing software, despite knowing they're breaking the law, can make themselves feel better about
Re: (Score:3)
Since you're back (and still wrong) let's go over this.
The binary patch that you read to apply in memory is itself a derivative work. It is, in effect, linked against the binary and applied dynamically at runtime. Not the in memory copy, the patch itself. The Game Genie ruling doesn't even apply here.
Unless you're suggesting that, somehow, the patch in question is never itself fixed to a medium, but then
Re:Deja Vu (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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:
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, apple are terrible open source citizens. They didn't give you the entire source to clang, CSA, libdispatch, ALAC, CalDAV, Darwin Streaming Server, Mac Ports, Mac Ruby, launchd, ... for free... >.<
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:
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you just claimed is false.
Re: (Score:2)
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
. 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.
I think this response to my post really bears reading. It's quite cool and really backs up my point). There's a whole load of random strange vitriol being thrown about. More or less in the "throw enough mud and some of it is bound to stick" frame of mind. Let's just look at how wierd this post is.
The poster says:
then later
the GPLv3 actually contains (in section 2. Basic Permissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deja Vu (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Citation please.
and dupe it 4 times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we did, and I'll just re-post what I post every time this bullshit comes up:
This is bullshit. It's counting by project, not by importance or size. I'm sure if we counted by lines of code, the GPL would still be #1.
What's happening is that we are seeing new "projects" being created at an alarming rate, most of this projects being wordpress plugins that do nothing important, collections of shitty javascript functions, and themes for various CMS, forums, etc.
Sure, it's full of kids that "just learned" the
App stores (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 fr
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Linux distribution repositories - the original central app store - do this. But alas, they are not so common on phones.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (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: (Score:2)
Why do you think open source is prohibited on many app stores?
I recently released an LDAP administrator for the iPad which is built around the OpenLDAP libraries. In the about section of the app, I clearly state that the app uses OpenLDAP, OpenSSL, and Cyrus-SASL libraries. I also provide links to a framework on github which I developed to provide the visual elements and convenience classes used within the app. When submitting the app to Apple, I disclosed that the app uses OpenSSL.
The app was approved i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My comment was in response to a comment which stated that
All "open source" is prohibited in many app stores.
Speaking from my experience, you are spot on. A few years ago I started migrating the few libraries I have written from the LGPL to a modified BSD license just for this reason. It is also why I am more inclined to hunt down bugs and submit patches for non-GPL/LGPL software packages.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because the iTunes store places additional restrictions on end users, while the GPL directly opposes that.
RMS isn't doing shit. The developer that chose the GPL decided to place that restriction.
He's also anti-lockdown and pro-freedom. Again, iOS/WP are very anti-freedom and pro-lockdown.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Ok ok, assuming the license is GPL. Same effect if it's BSD though, the version you receive is effectively proprietary as you can't modify and replace the version on your iPhone without getting Apple's permission or violating their EULA.
Re: (Score:2)
Well great, enjoy not really being able to use it because your platform treats you like a hostile entity.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to pay Apple $99 and hope that they will allow you to use it. You can't simply install it on your handset.
(Yes I know you can install software on your handset as a developer, but it still costs $99 and only lasts for 120 days. Exerting control over users for self-serving purposes is actually unethical, IMO.)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many app stores are there outside of Android?
More of the same, more FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
True, however with the GPL being stricter, and knowledge of alternative licenses, the GPL is less viable.
Re: (Score:2)
Some Personal Experiences (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Some Personal Experiences (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 sa
Re: (Score:2)
It is not use, it is SaaS a version you modified without releasing changes that is objectionable.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
2 people leach in any business transaction.
WTF?
The GPL is great for the users, and worst for the owners.
Then why would any owners ever use the GPL?
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?
Same as if the intern used the same license key to use install two copies of Windows.
Whoops the rest of the 95% just went GPL as well.
No, that's not how it works. That's one way of complying. The other way of complying is to re
Re: (Score:2)
No it is FUD. Because it is untrue.
Any lawyer who says the GPL could infect your code is incompetent. More likely you are simply misunderstanding him. There's nothing magical about the GPL. It's no different than a license that Microsoft would give you access to Windows 7 source code under as far as how copyright law sees it. Either you follow the terms or you don't, and then you find yourself paying damages. If a company is unable to determine the difference between public domain and free software,
Stop the lie that GPL can infect your code (Score:2)
Whoops you just showed how ignorant you are of copyright law. If some intern puts in GPL code into your app, and you don't wish to GPL your app, then you are in a copyright violation situation. At this point you are liable for damages. But this would be the same situation as when your intern puts in code from any other unauthorized and unlicensed source. You have 3 options, after settling the damages part: 1. Remove the offending code. 2. GPL the rest of the code so as to comply with the license, or
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem. The hazards of relying on a spell-checker. That should be "spreading" not "streaming," though in today's media world maybe the latter verb works.
Also, I should say that while there is such thing as a public domain, and there is code out there given to the public domain, most code, open source or not, free or not, is not in the public domain, and should be treated with proper care and caution, consulting your lawyers when there are questions. As a matter of policy, companies should treat open source
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, go fuck yourself anyway.
Nice. You kiss your dog with that mouth?
BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
Different tools for different tasks (Score:3)
Internet is Growing Up, Becoming Square (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 refere
Re: (Score:2)
That's an absurd thought. Plenty of code is written and not open-sourced or otherwise distributed to the public. This will remain true until we reach the Star Trek level of technology and culture.
Re: (Score:3)
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
I've noticed one big difference (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 Eclip
Some ideas on GPL / Freedom etc (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about things that you are legally or practically blocked from using with GNU. I'm talking about what you do if you are really committed to the GNU philosophy. If you look at the all-in point of view of FSF/GNU, you should not run any software that is not free. So the Flash plugin for browsers is off limits. I guess you can visit youtube without flash, I don't think it'll work. (maybe I'm out of date here, but when youtube videos were in flash, that was the deal) Sites that use what is consi
Re: (Score:3)
By this logic, any Monarchist in US has an obligation to kill himself.
Re: (Score:3)
the word freedom is used to demand restrictions on behavior
Everything you describe would be a personal choice though - the exercise of the freedom that you claim is being eroded. What's more, as an informed choice, it's a better choice. I admire Stallman for his moral fortitude, but even he bows to practicality and will fly on airplanes, etc, even though these things involve compromise. He will go much further out of his way to make a choice that he is morally comfortable with, electing to travel by train whenever practical (to avoid tracking of his movements), buy
Who Cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think so. I have found that BSD based software tends to lags in "bleeding edge" features (not that is is better or worse) since the people that use, customize and enhance BSD licensed software are not legally required to disclose these changes as it is required by GPL.
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: (Score:2)
Remember you are asking the company to ship its crown jewels away if they license it with GPL.
No. Just no.
I work for a company that uses embedded Linux, running all kinds of proprietary software. Linux and utilities are GPL, proprietary software is not, the latter runs on the former without any problems.
Now, if "crown jewels" were someone's extra-special version of GPL software, I wouldn't want to use it for reasons other than licensing -- the motivation would be suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you do not sell your embedded linux with the changes to customers without giving out the source code? That would count for redistribution unless you only use it internally.
We distribute all changes to Linux in sources. There is nothing (nor there should be) proprietary in there, Linux is a wonderful, flexible OS, it provides a foundation for all kinds of software without a need to be contaminated by application logic.
Your lawyers and HR will not appreciate giving out million or hundreds of thousands of labor they made to competitors and various exploit writers.
Our lawyers have no problems with that, as we comply with all licenses and contracts involved -- of all things, GPL is among the most straightforward ones. Our HR department has nothing to do with licensing.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you're making things up. Your credibility is such that it could go either way, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno, I certainly don't work for one. Any company that has a "No GNU" policy either has lazy lawyers or PHBs that bought into FUD like is being spammed all over this thread.
Obviously. Do you have a less FUD-filled point to make?
Re: (Score:2)
Admit nothing, it's obvious by virtue of the license.
Please be specific. Do you mean for private use or for use in a work you distribute?
I don't recall ever having read someone say thi