4 ms·

As an open source contributor and developer myself I never feel good about releasing stuff under GPL or Apache (yes, both) because they're long and some parts l

by cm3 10y ago

As an open source contributor and developer myself I never feel good about releasing stuff under GPL or Apache (yes, both) because they're long and some parts like the liability section kinda contradict what a liability disclaimer is about, and most importantly, it's impossible for a developer to understand it. That's why most projects initiated by developers (without a company) are MIT or ISC or a BSD variant. Also see the OpenBSD project's (which I don't use and am not affiliated with) views on the Apache 2 license. All I can understand is that both GPL and Apache licenses are that long and hard to understand for non-lawyers because they wanted to have a water-proof legal document. Which means as a developer you have to trust what others think the text means if you were to release code under it. I use the ISC license because I understand it and can explain if someone asks me about the conditions. I couldn't do the same with eith GPL or Apache. ISC/MIT with a patent clause might be useful addition for those of use who need that.

toyg 10y ago
> That's why most projects initiated by developers (without a company) are MIT or ISC or a BSD variant [Citation Needed] A lot of Linux software of all sorts is GPL. A lot.
- cm3 10y ago
  I said "initiated by developers", particularly with the post-Github ecosystem in mind. In Linux, obviously, there are many GPL projects, that's not a surprise. I'm talking about what license most developers choose who aren't working on the linux userland (or kernel). There are whole communities where liberal is the default license choice (Haskell, Erlang, Apache, BSDs, Golang).
  - toyg 10y ago
    Sure, there are a lot of communities out there, but before you can say "most developers", you'd have to give me some numbers. My "anecdata" is exactly the opposite. Until a few years ago, most software I'd use or release was GPL, or bastardized versions like MPL. BSD was seen as legacy and MIT was fairly rare; APL was just used by the ASF. Things have changed a bit, mostly because GPL is a bit messy when applied to stuff like JS libraries (Wordpress themes were probably a turning point for many). But the GPL is still massive.
    - cm3 10y ago
      I don't understand. In what way are you disagreeing with me? I didn't say there's less GPL out there. All I said is that with more open source projects popping up than in the past, and given how a random developer who understands English can also follow the BSD/MIT/ISC license text fully, how most new projects are liberally licensed, and most of the time MIT actually. GPL and Apache licenses are hard to use because you place your trust on their interpretation to lawyers, which is fine since many large projects trust it, but it's equally easy to understand how single developers or small dev teams choose, say, MIT for a new project. They don't choose the Apache license because it's a long legal document. I tried understanding it all and I failed to understand their contradictory sometimes-disclaimed-sometimes-not liability clause. Upon further inspection, I noticed that pretty much the same text is in GPL3's liability clause, so I concluded this must be something they must put in, even though as a developer to do not 100% disclaim liability as you do with MIT/BSD/ISC licenses.
      - toyg 10y ago
        I disagree because you make assumptions not backed by data and try to pass them for truth. Just because you're uneasy or not convinced by the benefits of GPL, it doesn't mean "most developers" feel the same. Show me numbers that prove your point and I might reconsider. Until then, you're free to believe what you want and I'm free to believe you're wrong.
        cm3 10y ago
        Again, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you're missing my point. I am very well aware of the benefits and can imagine when I would want a copyleft license but GPL's text is not it. Neither is Apache's license text for when I want a liberal license, but I accept it for its patent clause if that's needed. Repeating myself, unless you place your trust, which is a reasonable thing to do, with those who've vetted both licenses' texts to be fine, developers go with short licenses they fully understand. That's the argument here. If there was a well-known and short copyleft license, it could be similarly popular for new projects. I'm unaware of such a license and I'm afraid you misinterpret my argument as a copyleft vs liberal debate, but I've said that both Apache2 and GPL(2,3) suffer from an unapproachable wall of text with the cited clause existing in both and having the same semi-liability-disclaimer bug.
- specialist 10y ago
  https://github.com/blog/1964-open-source-license-usage-on-github-com https://github.com/blog/1964-open-source-license-usage-on-gi... TL;DR: Rank License % of projects 1 MIT 44.69% 2 Other 15.68% 3 GPLv2 12.96% 4 Apache 11.19% 5 GPLv3 8.88% 6 BSD 3-clause 4.53% 7 Unlicense 1.87% 8 BSD 2-clause 1.70% 9 LGPLv3 1.30% 10 AGPLv3 1.05%
jimjag 10y ago
To be clear, the ALv2 is characterized as a "BSD variant"... It is also extremely popular and well known and understood.
- cm3 10y ago
  Yes, as is GPL(2,3), but your normal software developer doesn't understand either fully as they do BSD, MIT, ISC. EDIT: the "as is" part is in the context of "understood".
  - jimjag 10y ago
    I would not call GPL2/3 as a BSD variant in any way... BSD is permissive; GPL2/3 are strong copyleft. Unless you have a VERY lax definition of "variant" grin EDIT: Thx for the clarification!
    - cm3 10y ago
      I didn't say that, but I can see how you'd interpret it this way, if you consider the parent comment. "as is" was referring to "understood". Sorry for the missing context.
int_19h 10y ago
>> That's why most projects initiated by developers (without a company) are MIT or ISC or a BSD variant Even with companies this is true sometimes. Microsoft went through a bunch of licenses for its own open source stuff, starting with its own Ms-*, then using Apache for a bunch of projects. And now if you look at all new projects (.NET Core etc), they're all MIT.
specialist 10y ago
I'm definitely stuck in the paradox of choice. Also, some advice on how to make money doing OSS is to dual license it (eg copyleft for most users & copyright for commercial licensees). So now there's two decisions.

by cm3 10y ago

toyg 10y ago

> That's why most projects initiated by developers (without a company) are MIT or ISC or a BSD variant [Citation Needed] A lot of Linux software of all sorts is GPL. A lot.

cm3 10y ago
I said "initiated by developers", particularly with the post-Github ecosystem in mind. In Linux, obviously, there are many GPL projects, that's not a surprise. I'm talking about what license most developers choose who aren't working on the linux userland (or kernel). There are whole communities where liberal is the default license choice (Haskell, Erlang, Apache, BSDs, Golang).
- toyg 10y ago
  Sure, there are a lot of communities out there, but before you can say "most developers", you'd have to give me some numbers. My "anecdata" is exactly the opposite. Until a few years ago, most software I'd use or release was GPL, or bastardized versions like MPL. BSD was seen as legacy and MIT was fairly rare; APL was just used by the ASF. Things have changed a bit, mostly because GPL is a bit messy when applied to stuff like JS libraries (Wordpress themes were probably a turning point for many). But the GPL is still massive.
  - cm3 10y ago
    I don't understand. In what way are you disagreeing with me? I didn't say there's less GPL out there. All I said is that with more open source projects popping up than in the past, and given how a random developer who understands English can also follow the BSD/MIT/ISC license text fully, how most new projects are liberally licensed, and most of the time MIT actually. GPL and Apache licenses are hard to use because you place your trust on their interpretation to lawyers, which is fine since many large projects trust it, but it's equally easy to understand how single developers or small dev teams choose, say, MIT for a new project. They don't choose the Apache license because it's a long legal document. I tried understanding it all and I failed to understand their contradictory sometimes-disclaimed-sometimes-not liability clause. Upon further inspection, I noticed that pretty much the same text is in GPL3's liability clause, so I concluded this must be something they must put in, even though as a developer to do not 100% disclaim liability as you do with MIT/BSD/ISC licenses.
    - toyg 10y ago
      I disagree because you make assumptions not backed by data and try to pass them for truth. Just because you're uneasy or not convinced by the benefits of GPL, it doesn't mean "most developers" feel the same. Show me numbers that prove your point and I might reconsider. Until then, you're free to believe what you want and I'm free to believe you're wrong.
      - cm3 10y ago
        Again, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you're missing my point. I am very well aware of the benefits and can imagine when I would want a copyleft license but GPL's text is not it. Neither is Apache's license text for when I want a liberal license, but I accept it for its patent clause if that's needed. Repeating myself, unless you place your trust, which is a reasonable thing to do, with those who've vetted both licenses' texts to be fine, developers go with short licenses they fully understand. That's the argument here. If there was a well-known and short copyleft license, it could be similarly popular for new projects. I'm unaware of such a license and I'm afraid you misinterpret my argument as a copyleft vs liberal debate, but I've said that both Apache2 and GPL(2,3) suffer from an unapproachable wall of text with the cited clause existing in both and having the same semi-liability-disclaimer bug.
specialist 10y ago
https://github.com/blog/1964-open-source-license-usage-on-github-com https://github.com/blog/1964-open-source-license-usage-on-gi... TL;DR: Rank License % of projects 1 MIT 44.69% 2 Other 15.68% 3 GPLv2 12.96% 4 Apache 11.19% 5 GPLv3 8.88% 6 BSD 3-clause 4.53% 7 Unlicense 1.87% 8 BSD 2-clause 1.70% 9 LGPLv3 1.30% 10 AGPLv3 1.05%

jimjag 10y ago

To be clear, the ALv2 is characterized as a "BSD variant"... It is also extremely popular and well known and understood.

cm3 10y ago
Yes, as is GPL(2,3), but your normal software developer doesn't understand either fully as they do BSD, MIT, ISC. EDIT: the "as is" part is in the context of "understood".
- jimjag 10y ago
  I would not call GPL2/3 as a BSD variant in any way... BSD is permissive; GPL2/3 are strong copyleft. Unless you have a VERY lax definition of "variant" grin EDIT: Thx for the clarification!
  - cm3 10y ago
    I didn't say that, but I can see how you'd interpret it this way, if you consider the parent comment. "as is" was referring to "understood". Sorry for the missing context.

int_19h 10y ago

>> That's why most projects initiated by developers (without a company) are MIT or ISC or a BSD variant Even with companies this is true sometimes. Microsoft went through a bunch of licenses for its own open source stuff, starting with its own Ms-*, then using Apache for a bunch of projects. And now if you look at all new projects (.NET Core etc), they're all MIT.

specialist 10y ago

I'm definitely stuck in the paradox of choice. Also, some advice on how to make money doing OSS is to dual license it (eg copyleft for most users & copyright for commercial licensees). So now there's two decisions.