
Open Sourcers Drop Software Religion for Common Sense - revorad
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/02/cloudera-and-apache/all/1
======
tptacek
Ironically, Sleepycat couldn't have executed without the GPL; it's a
fundamental part of their business model, which relies on dual licensing.

There's more to the GPL than "religion". When you release code under BSD, MIT,
or Apache, you give up all control of it. Anyone is free to commercialize it
without adding any value. The better marketing & sales team can and will beat
the origin of the software in the market.

If you're not sure whether you might someday want to make money from your
code, GPL is the more pragmatic choice. You can always relicense BSD later ---
but BSD, once picked, is forever.

~~~
nikcub
The way this has come about with relation to web and internet software is that
the actual applications being built are closed source but a lot of the
libraries and commodity pieces of software are being open sourced with
permissive licenses.

for eg. Twitter, Google, Facebook etc. produces and consumer a lot of open
source software but their core products are still close source. You can
segment out portions of your software stack and release them for free while
still retaining a competitive advantage with your core application. This isn't
an all-or-nothing decision and this hybrid approach is the most common.

I think Twitter is a good example. They both built and scaled up using open
source and also contributed their own open source software, which has been
improved upon by others and in-turn benefited Twitter. It didn't require a
license where contribution was essential and nor did it require giving up any
competitive advantage (i'd argue it solidified their position).

~~~
tptacek
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with MIT licensing code, but again: MIT
licensing concedes more from the author to the public, and is an irrevocable
grant, so from a purely pragmatic standpoint, "if you have to ask, GPL; at
least that way you can change your mind later".

Also, hopefully it goes without saying: what's good for a ridiculously fast-
growing startup surfing on a tsunami of VC money is not necessarily good for a
solo practitioner.

------
captainsinclair
This is an unfortunate pan of GPL and a clearly business-sided discussion of
licensing. Developers use GPL to keep their work in the open and encourages
everyone working on a project to share their work. On the other hand,
"permissive" licenses are well received by businesses because the work
produced under BSD-like licenses are perceived as "free labor".

So here's the rub. Businesses want free labor, but they want to be paid by
their customers. Is that capitalism or socialism?

~~~
crusso
It's Capitalism if the labor isn't forced. Capitalism allows for citizens to
willingly participate in any sort of arrangement. Sharing is just another form
or voluntary participation in the system.

Socialism uses the monopolistic threat of violence and incarceration to force
arrangements predetermined by the State.

See the difference?

------
rwmj
This was fairly comprehensively debunked in a talk at FOSDEM 2012:

[http://fosdem.org/2012/schedule/event/is_copyleft_being_fram...](http://fosdem.org/2012/schedule/event/is_copyleft_being_framed)

[http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/03/03/142229/gpl-
copyleft...](http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/03/03/142229/gpl-copyleft-on-
the-rise)

Black Duck Software don't publish their methodology, whereas John Sullivan
does publish his (based on studying the license of Debian packages).

------
vy8vWJlco
The "practicality" argument doesn't hold water with me: none of it matters
without freedom. If you care about code, the GPL gives you freedom by
requiring that people give back in the manner they take: with code. It is only
necessary because people weren't giving back.

I can understand that someone might want to shirk the quid-pro-quo
responsibilities of the GPL, but I won't be paying for that kind of anti-
social product.

~~~
nikcub
"freedom by requiring" < see the contradiction? true freedom has no
requirements or demands.

~~~
mikegerwitz
The free software movement aims to protect the freedom of the _users_ , not
developers (although the user could be a developer). Developers are in a
position to control their users unfairly, so providing them the freedom under
a permissive license does nothing but to further endanger the freedom of the
user.

This is an important distinction. Those who focus on the freedom of other
developers miss the point of the free software movement. Consider an
individual looking to rob a bank with a pistol (as opposed to robbing a user's
freedom with their own software). Before the robbery, they notice a permissive
amory across the street. Your permissively licensed software is that armory.
You are empowering that individual to blow a hole through the bank rather than
hold someone at gunpoint.

Your software, as great as it is, can also be used to lure in users for
exploitation. Nothing like a heavily armed robber with candy!

------
nikcub
even more pronounced when you look at web software. look at the most watched
projects on Github and play spot the GPL license:

<https://github.com/popular/watched>

I couldn't count a single project. I have never used the GPL in any software I
write because I want anybody to be able to use my software and contributions.

Google, Microsoft, Apple (who are actively purging what remains of GPL code)
et al will not adapt your project for bundling or distribution or use if it is
GPL. I think most developers are more interested in having users of their
software than attempting to shoehorn them into some ideology, which is
reflected in the license usage stats you see.

to add to that, the FSF completely screwed up v3 which likely scared away
anybody who was on the fence about which way to go (it was also more to do
with the anti-commercial rhetoric around the changes as it had to do with the
changes themselves)

~~~
tptacek
I know there isn't an easy alternative to it, but that Github list is pretty
wonky; things like impress.js and Devise are at the top of it, but are clearly
not among the most important pieces of open source software. Similarly, I
review other people's Rails apps for a living and have never seen a project
use that particular top-of-the-list form builder.

I can only conclude that the number of Github users "watching" a particular
repository is not a particularly useful metric for how good/important/popular
that software is.

Finally, for obvious reasons, Github has a pronounced Ruby/Rails bias, and
that community already has settled norms on licensing.

~~~
nikcub
I noticed that - the fork list isn't a good representation either. It would be
interesting to get a sample across github, bitbucket, google code and whatever
that site is called that .NET developer use.

I don't think a survey of all of those site s combined would fall far from the
90-95% BSD/MIT license rate you see in the GitHub sample (again, talking about
web related open source software).

Anecdotally, I have also noticed that many Android/iOS/mobile libraries are
also MIT/Apache/BSD.

~~~
tptacek
Like another commenter noted, the FSF (wow what a bad logo) recently did a
survey of Debian packages that rebuts the 90-95% claim.

But there's no way to apples-apples this anyways. Communities like Rails
produce starbursts of itsy bitsy little packages like form-building gems, and
have MIT licensing norms. You'd need to normalize somehow for value or code
base size.

What I'd say is that "GPL use is plummeting" is an extraordinary claim, that
extraordinary evidence has not been marshaled to support it, and that a more
likely phenomenon is that the GPL is roughly as strong as it's ever been in
its original domain (the licensing of large, complex, expensive- to- produce
software packages) and probably not as prevalent in some of the newer more...
uh... casual... software development domains.

------
klez
I think the article is using wrong examples if they talk about web companies
such as Facebook, Google or Twitter.

The GPL doesn't force you to free code you don't distribute, for example the
code behind your server. This means that, if Facebook did use a GPLed library
to, say, show you advertisemnts based on your 'likes', they wouldn't have to
GPL their modifications (if any) or the part of proprietary software that used
that specific library, let alone their whole infrastructure.

So this argument simply doesn't apply to this kind of software.

A license that forces you to release your modifications even if you don't
distribute your software (again, a web application for example) is the Afero
GPL, that is just another beast.

TL;DR If you don't distribute or sell software, the GPL is not a concern.

------
zeruch
It's strange to see that now, inasmuch as years ago, when I worked at VA Linux
Systems, the general attitude was of philosophical affinity with Open Source
pragmatism. It wasn't dogmatic religion. I still think that's sensible and it
always seemed to me like many also felt this way...and the GPL was not
necessarily a hindrance to that. It was simply one tool among several in the
licensing toolbox.

------
scj
The article mentions the drop since June 2008... AKA, a year after the GPLv3
came out.

But sadly, not a mention of the controversy of the new version was made
(directly). Some interesting points about the change in focus were made, but I
think that v3 played a large part.

