Choice is good, to much choice is not good
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| peragrin Feb 17, 2005 9:19 AM EDT |
Yes the OSI should limit the overall number of licenses. Not to any one specific magical number but out of practicality. How many versions of the GPL, MPL, Apache, BSD licenses out there. The APSL is a combination of BSD and MPL(if memory serves) Most are just minor changes to a license that already exsists. To put it into programmers terms. there are 10 different versions of KDE each slightly similar yet incompatble with each other. Which side do you support. Notice how I didnt say Desktop enviroments, or Window Managers. Some of the different licenses could be considered that way, while others are just off shoots that are only used by one small group. |
| incinerator Feb 17, 2005 12:20 PM EDT |
Well, if things were that simple. I have seen quite a few articles of that colour these days. I am increasingly annoyed by them. It seems OSI gets the blame, but that is totally preposterous. It is not OSI who creates all these software licenses but the many creators of free and open source software. I can't really understand why so many projects don't go for the GPL, but is it their bloody right to do whatever they wish. If they feel they have to create another license then they shall do so. OSI follows a policy of giving certain licenses their offical approval. If an license gets approved by the OSI it means the license complies to the Open Source Definition (see the OSI webpage for that). Nothing more, nothing less. OSI approval is merely a guideline for us that we can appreciate or not. It is the matter of all these projects to sort things out. People creating licenses that are not compatible with each other may well be a problem for many of us. Clearly, I would like all software to be free. If all software was free software we would not need bloody licenses anymore. Until then, we have to go another way, the GPL being a license I would choose to prefer, for other peoples software as well as mine. However, other people or companies may have very good reasons to choose another license or create a new one. It is their software, after all. That this doesn't make things better, but to blame OSI for it and to urge them to some stupid action doesn't make it better, either. What would happen if OSI would stop approving licenses or even worse, they would put their list of approved licenses of the net? Well, that would mean that there would be Free or open source software existing out there in the world for which we had to check ourselves whether the Open Source Definition applies to it or not. That would not change the core of the problem at all, even if stupid journalists may be less aware of it. Well, I'd rather say OSI should continue approving licenses if they fit the criteria, it is a good source of information for me and others. |
| peragrin Feb 17, 2005 12:46 PM EDT |
Ah but if a thousand software packages each used their own version of the (GPL,BSD,MPL) etc, sorting out which is which and compatiblity would take forever. The OSI doesn't limit compatibility with the others. So you can create a License which no one else is using(though they can) effectively making your software closed source since it can't be used with anybody else's (CDDL anyone) The OSI took it upon them selves to promote different licenses, so they are to blame in part. The rest goes to people who want a license with their name on it. The only reason OSI has to clean up this mess that they didn't create by themselves is because they created the definitions by which licenses get known. |
| AnonymousCoward Feb 17, 2005 1:49 PM EDT |
OSI should begin by picking at most half a dozen licenses and dubbing them "preferred". Then present them earlier/more obviously than the others and have a related page which explains that it's better to be compatible, and another page explaining how the preferred licenses interact, and tag each of the 60 licenses with a prargraph summarising how this is different from the nearest preferred licence. |
| devnet Feb 17, 2005 3:41 PM EDT |
"People creating licenses that are not compatible with each other may well be a problem for many of us." Exactly right Incinerator! It's not the fault of the OSI. Everyone pointing fingers at the OSI, go here: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Read the definition again. As long as a license meets the criteria...it passes the OSI definition and is hence an open source license. It's black and white without prejudice. Microsoft could jump in there tomorrow and make a new license and as long as it meets the criteria it gets the fat stamp of approval. Bad? Nope, not at all! Why? Because open source _means_ open source...not free software. By limiting the license choices to say, three...the GPL, commercial GPL, and BSD...we'd ruin those companies that open source a specific branch of technology or other source code they want to share with their own development network...perhaps even their own users. The OSI owes nothing to any business...it serves as a model for open source software and it is doing its job. Would you rather have a company or project use their own license that is open source compliant OR not release that software at all? Not at all? You must work for Microsoft >:) |
| incinerator Feb 18, 2005 12:03 AM EDT |
You made a good point devnet, but I don't understand why you make a distinction between "GPL" and "commercial GPL". What is the "commercial GPL"? Why would there be a need for distinction anyway? The GPL does not forbid commercial use or distribution of GPL'ed software. On the contrary, the information pages at http://www.fsf.org explicity allow so and they even decree that freedom to use software commercially is essential for software to be free. |
| peragrin Feb 18, 2005 5:01 AM EDT |
I am not Saying that there should only be three, but 50, 100 where does the different licenses end? Maybe a dozen for different situations. The OSI is responsible only because they defined what is an Open Source License. If they didn't define it then they wouldn't have to fix it. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!