OSNews

I'd like to point one thing out before going on a complete tangent: Microsoft used BSD code in much the same way OpenBSD was using the BCM4xx code from linux: it was a template to fill in a part of the system that hadn't been completely written yet. NT needed a TCP/IP implementation and they interfaced to the BSD code through a wrapper in version 3.1 to get it (3.1 was not really used outside of Microsoft itself). By version 3.5 of NT, which was still rarely used, the network code had been replaced by the native TCP stack and all that remains is some of the control utilities... probably just for backwards compatibility with command line scripts that were written back in the day.

Now for the tangent:
I think it's just great for the world for there to be a body of code which corporations can use to fill in parts of their system and make better products. As people want to hack on and get free alternatives for potentially expensive software, the body of open source code will increase. There is a place in the world for both development models and absolutist open sourcers are doing the entire world a disfavor. No one believes in the opposite: absolute proprietariness of code. After all, no one would learn how to write software if there were nothing to build upon.

I agree that BSD code could get taken advantage of. I heard that the reason RMS created the GPL was because some companies in the AI Lisp community were taking the work of universities and other groups and not contributing anything back. This is clearly bad for everyone because no one wants to contribute to a company's bottom line without getting paid to do so.

What I don't like about the GPL, though, is that it is used by some to force companies to open up their code in order to get benefits for it. I wouldn't mind if it were a requirement that a software vendor release any modification to the code itself rather than to also the code that links to it. In essence, what I like is the LGPL... a license that allows linking and reuse around designed interfaces, but does not require linked code to be open source (source for the LGPL piece still needs to be obtainable). A nice additional clause would be that a company using the licensed code can not claim patent rights for any features of their software depending on that code. This way, competitors can use the GPL code in the same way to do the exact same thing. Hackers can also develop identical software if they so desire.

The result is that companies will have incentives to create cutting edge products based on open code and that the most important and mature ideas that ensue would get rolled back into the "open" base.

Edited 2007-04-16 01:40

Sorry, but I have to disagree with your basic premise. The whole idea behind the GPL license is to ensure that everyone has an equal footing - everyone can copy the software, everyone can view the src code, everyone can contribute to it and improve it, all public redistributions of code with improvements are fed back to the original source.

Business has a problem with this, and so does it seem, most people because it's against basic human nature to share equally, and it's against modern social programming to share. Take, take, take, don't give back, that's what todays youth are being taught. Not what I call a very mature species behavioural trait is it?

Again, for those that dislike the license, don't use the software. It's such a simple concept, but people find it so incredibly hard to digest. People seem to just want to insist on taking without giving back, well sorry, but the GPL doesn't work that way. Deal with it. If you don't like that, then go use some BSD code instead, since that style of license clearly allows you to be greedy and unsharing with the community to appease your own greedy corporate benefits.

Dave

I only have one thing against LGPL. The same thing as against GPL. It is too long. But apart from that I consider LGPL much better for low level code than GPL. The Linux kernel for an instance. I'd also prefer to see QT under LGPL rather than GPL. As it is today only people with money can develop proprietary solutions with QT. IMHO rather unfair.

When that is said I also consider LGPL better for X.org than MIT or BSD - except that the MIT license is so wonderfully short - me likes that

What I don't like about the GPL, though, is that it is used by some to force companies to open up their code in order to get benefits for it. I wouldn't mind if it were a requirement that a software vendor release any modification to the code itself rather than to also the code that links to it. In essence, what I like is the LGPL... a license that allows linking and reuse around designed interfaces, but does not require linked code to be open source (source for the LGPL piece still needs to be obtainable). A nice additional clause would be that a company using the licensed code can not claim patent rights for any features of their software depending on that code. This way, competitors can use the GPL code in the same way to do the exact same thing. Hackers can also develop identical software if they so desire.

I believe you are looking for this:

http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html

or its close cousin:

http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html

They are weak copyleft, based on source file (effectively function or class) granularity for license propagation and the associated corresponding source requirements for modifications. Sun's version actually isn't any more onerous than Mozilla's version. It allows distribution of binaries under a different license than that for the corresponding source code, which makes no difference to the community, and its language is more boiler-plate.

Incorrect. The GPL only has one restriction, and that is in regard to distribution. You can use it as you want to. Only when distributing does the GPL kick in.

BSD does not grant access to the source code. It does give you the right to modify it and redistribute it, but it grants virtually nothing unless the distributor decides to do so. The GPL grants you a lot that BSD doesn't but it also puts one restriction. It must stay free. This however does not in any way limit what you can do with the source code. You can create proprietary solutions with GPL. You just cannot distribute them under another license. But usage is completely free.

BSD-like licenses are good for sponsored projects. Sponsor can take the code, add proprietary part and sell the product. Because of that one project may have multiple sponsors that even compete among themselves. In case of GPL sponsor can only hope to charge for support and education.

I don't think that BSD and GPL communities shuold be percieved as being under same umbrella (OS, FOSS, FLOSS). There are many differences, and as GPL evolves, the differences are getting deeper. There are no more similiarities between BSD and GPL than between proprietary and GPL. BSD can cooperate with proprietary vendors, while GPL is anti-proprietary. 'Proprietary' is not an evil word in BSD dictionary.

So, no more 'open' and 'proprietary', but BSD (and alike), GPL and proprietary.

Considering sponsored projects, I'd like to add that sponsor can usualy request a feature. Party who is not a sponsor can benefit from a code without contributing anything, but can't request a feature.

This is my opinion, of course.

The BSD license is really good for low-level stuff like protocol stacks, architecture stuff, libraries, and such. It allows everyone (including companies) to use the same (hopefully RFC/standards-compliant) base. Anytime two systems need to communicate, it'd be wonderful if they used the same {protocol|library|whatever} implementation instead of everyone rolling their own. These are the kinds of things where it doesn't really matter if someone takes it proprietary. The goal is really to get as many people as possible using the same code.

The GPL license is really good for applications, and other high-level stuff. Office suites, games, drawing programs, etc. Things that can be packaged up and delivered to end-users. Things where you really don't want others to take your code without giving back. But it's not really good for low-level library-type stuff as it forces others who don't want to use the GPL to re-implement/re-invent/re-code their own version.

Unfortunately, too many projects out there don't see things this way, and we're stuck with a tonne of GPL'd libraries and dozens of re-implementations of the same things.

Hear hear! This is the code I was really thinking about when I was pushing for a different non-gpl license.

But I also think specific components of applications should be LGPLed or BSDed. If a company wants to take the stuff and close it off to sell it, you can see what features they implement that are successful and bring the back into the free source base. If it's really complicated, clean-room reverse engineer it. As long as they can't assert IP rights on the code, you're totally fine.

I think innovation occurs best when there's enough incentive to develop a feature. Most people use the software that's out there. Few people think, "Oh, I need software that does X, Y, Z, etc and I'll pay you $20,000 per feature." Far more likely is: "Oh, your stuff can do that? I could use that... let me buy it." This is how MSFT does it, and Apple for a long time too. As Alex St. John put it, "We went out and asked them what kind of crack they wanted to get addicted to, and then we produced it."

If you don't have proprietary distribution methods, the free-rider problem makes it not worthwhile to make anything new. If you make your money by selling support, what's the incentive to make easy to use software? If someone's going to slap a cheesy GUI on your app to make it easy, then what's the point of making the software in the first place?

The proprietary model is great for making solid, ultimately sellable products which largely support themselves through ease of use. Otherwise the vendors would be out of business. Open source is great for making standardized, secure, infrastructure-level software. Or making software that everyone uses free... especially in the area of development tools. You just simply can't efficiently distribute the costs of writing niche software in an Open Source model, whereas the costs and benefits are quite clearly laid out in the proprietary one.

I seem like a pretty big booster of Microsoft in this forum (maybe I am). I mostly do this because I'm a contrarian by nature and I've spent a lot of time learning about some details of how Windows and other Microsoft products work: it bothers me to see people saying things that are simply untrue, illogical, or morally bankrupt to please people in their various anti-Microsoft web-cliques.

That being said, I think Linux is the only thing that can stand up to Microsoft in the OS space. OS X might have a shiny graphical layer, but it has a pretty "asthmatic" kernel. BSDs were not going head-to-head with MSFT until Linux came around. Microsoft is not so good when there's no one to beat. Linux, on the other hand, is a competitor that they can never fully vanquish (i.e. Linux has no investors who will throw in the towel when they get defeated).

I personally do NOT think the GPL is important to Linux's current position, and I think that fanaticism doesn't help anyone either. On the other hand, reimplementing all the core experiences necessary for someone to use a computer on the web is a good goal.. especially when people can see and build on the code behind it. Worrying about patents and legalistic nonsense is pointless. Corporations sue each other... no one is going to sue linux because there is no money or benefits to doing so. Linux using Microsoft IP?? So what? Microsoft hasn't sued anyone for violating software patents and copyright doesn't come into it with proprietary code. Even if they sue, it just means Linux has hit the big time and by that point there won't be any political or social will to stop it. No one will be able to bottle up the source code, even through legal means. Because of this, no one should be playing chicken little games right now with respect to IP rights. IP rights are effective against companies, not for social movements, which is what Free Software is.