5 ms·

I think it's a perception issue, and a bit of rivalry. Most companies that release proprietary, closed-source software don't even pretend it's "open" and "free

by mrkurt 17y ago

I think it's a perception issue, and a bit of rivalry. Most companies that release proprietary, closed-source software don't even pretend it's "open" and "free". For quite a while, the GPL was the perceived pinnacle of "open" and "free". The problem is, it's decidedly less open and free for authors who prefer a more permissive license. Re-implementing code with another license is a massive gray area, btw. This is why reverse engineering groups go to great lengths to make sure the people working on things have never seen the licensed code they're attempting to emulate.

tolmasky 17y ago
But here lies the whole point of (L)GPL. I would argue that one of the most important open source projects in use today is WebKit. It started as KHTML, moved to Apple as WebKit, then moved its way into Nokia (S60WebKit), moved its way into MobileSafari, and then moved into Chrome, and now a whole OS (Chrome OS), not to mention many other projects that use it. One of the big reasons it has spread so much and done so much good in the open source community is precisely because it is LGPL. Consider whether you think Apple, or Nokia, or any other company along that chain wouldn't have just closed sourced it at some point if it wasn't because it was specifically "copyleft".
- philh 17y ago
  We don't know what would have happened if it had been BSD-licensed. Maybe Apple, Nokia and Google would have contributed any changes they make anyway, because it makes merging easier and any competitive advantage they have does not come from their rendering engine. Maybe more companies would have used it, possibly instead of licensing Opera. Maybe some of these would have contributed their changes back as well. Possibly the tradeoffs involved in BSD versus (L)GPL can be measured, but pointing out examples of successful/failed projects using one or the other is not helpful.
  - tolmasky 17y ago
    Of course we can never know for sure, but we can certainly draw very educated guesses and conclusions. For starters, the argument that "perhaps some" of them would have behaved the same is no where near as nice (in open source terms) as "absolutely all" behaved this way and will continue having to behave this way. We can also analyze the behaviors of some of these companies. Just look at Safari for example: the open sourcing stops precisely where the licensing requirements stop: the engine is open source but the browser itself is closed source. Apple has unquestionably contributed the most to this web engine, and they are unwilling to contribute any more beyond their legal requirements. Additionally the effect this has created in the web world is pretty powerful. Companies are now in a position where their choices are investing a tremendous amount of work in creating a new web engine or using the best existing web engine to be competitive but having to contribute all their changes back. This is particularly true in the mobile web space where WebKit is essentially the only engine that has proven itself capable of providing a desktop caliber experience. In terms of open source goals, there could be no better situation. You basically have to use an open source engine to be competitive, and the most competitive of these engines requires you to contribute back to the community in a space that is dominated by commercial investment.
    - prodigal_erik 17y ago
      The amount of work we've already seen entombed in failed BSD and SysV forks is also good evidence.
      - apotheon 17y ago
        It's evidence of something. I wonder how many failed Linux distributions there are.
    - eggnet 17y ago
      For apple I think the theme is engine / skin not what the license requires. osx : darwin :: safari : webkit Notice how the relationships revolve around the engine vs skin, not what the GPL requires. In other words, apple protects what makes them apple, not the underpinnings, at least in these examples.
    - 17y ago
rbanffy 17y ago
"The problem is, it's decidedly less open and free for authors who prefer a more permissive license." GPL-licensed software is Free software that stays Free. BSD software can become closed any time, something GPL software cannot. If you contribute to a BSD'ed project you take the risk of your competitor taking your code and making it a competitive advantage against you. We may say GPL'ed software is "imprisonment resistant". As for taking in Lamson code into Django, all that's needed is a GPL'ed fork of Django that can follow trunk very closely. GPL'ing Django is, in fact, turning that "imprisonment" mechanism on its head. Any such code, of course, would have to be kept out of Ellington, for instance. edit: second part of second paragraph was wrong
- apotheon 17y ago
  > GPLed software is Free™ software that remains Free™. FTFY
- apotheon 17y ago
  Oh, yeah, I forgot something in my other response. > If you contribute to a BSD'ed project you take the risk of your competitor taking your code and making it a competitive advantage against you. The GPL actually has more value as a tool of anticompetitive advantage than the BSD License: http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=622 http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=622
- SterlingCamden 17y ago
  BSD code used in proprietary software is not "imprisoned" -- the original work remains free no matter how someone uses it.

by mrkurt 17y ago

tolmasky 17y ago

But here lies the whole point of (L)GPL. I would argue that one of the most important open source projects in use today is WebKit. It started as KHTML, moved to Apple as WebKit, then moved its way into Nokia (S60WebKit), moved its way into MobileSafari, and then moved into Chrome, and now a whole OS (Chrome OS), not to mention many other projects that use it. One of the big reasons it has spread so much and done so much good in the open source community is precisely because it is LGPL. Consider whether you think Apple, or Nokia, or any other company along that chain wouldn't have just closed sourced it at some point if it wasn't because it was specifically "copyleft".

philh 17y ago
We don't know what would have happened if it had been BSD-licensed. Maybe Apple, Nokia and Google would have contributed any changes they make anyway, because it makes merging easier and any competitive advantage they have does not come from their rendering engine. Maybe more companies would have used it, possibly instead of licensing Opera. Maybe some of these would have contributed their changes back as well. Possibly the tradeoffs involved in BSD versus (L)GPL can be measured, but pointing out examples of successful/failed projects using one or the other is not helpful.
- tolmasky 17y ago
  Of course we can never know for sure, but we can certainly draw very educated guesses and conclusions. For starters, the argument that "perhaps some" of them would have behaved the same is no where near as nice (in open source terms) as "absolutely all" behaved this way and will continue having to behave this way. We can also analyze the behaviors of some of these companies. Just look at Safari for example: the open sourcing stops precisely where the licensing requirements stop: the engine is open source but the browser itself is closed source. Apple has unquestionably contributed the most to this web engine, and they are unwilling to contribute any more beyond their legal requirements. Additionally the effect this has created in the web world is pretty powerful. Companies are now in a position where their choices are investing a tremendous amount of work in creating a new web engine or using the best existing web engine to be competitive but having to contribute all their changes back. This is particularly true in the mobile web space where WebKit is essentially the only engine that has proven itself capable of providing a desktop caliber experience. In terms of open source goals, there could be no better situation. You basically have to use an open source engine to be competitive, and the most competitive of these engines requires you to contribute back to the community in a space that is dominated by commercial investment.
  - prodigal_erik 17y ago
    The amount of work we've already seen entombed in failed BSD and SysV forks is also good evidence.
    - apotheon 17y ago
      It's evidence of something. I wonder how many failed Linux distributions there are.
  - eggnet 17y ago
    For apple I think the theme is engine / skin not what the license requires. osx : darwin :: safari : webkit Notice how the relationships revolve around the engine vs skin, not what the GPL requires. In other words, apple protects what makes them apple, not the underpinnings, at least in these examples.
  - 17y ago

rbanffy 17y ago

"The problem is, it's decidedly less open and free for authors who prefer a more permissive license." GPL-licensed software is Free software that stays Free. BSD software can become closed any time, something GPL software cannot. If you contribute to a BSD'ed project you take the risk of your competitor taking your code and making it a competitive advantage against you. We may say GPL'ed software is "imprisonment resistant". As for taking in Lamson code into Django, all that's needed is a GPL'ed fork of Django that can follow trunk very closely. GPL'ing Django is, in fact, turning that "imprisonment" mechanism on its head. Any such code, of course, would have to be kept out of Ellington, for instance. edit: second part of second paragraph was wrong

apotheon 17y ago
> GPLed software is Free™ software that remains Free™. FTFY
apotheon 17y ago
Oh, yeah, I forgot something in my other response. > If you contribute to a BSD'ed project you take the risk of your competitor taking your code and making it a competitive advantage against you. The GPL actually has more value as a tool of anticompetitive advantage than the BSD License: http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=622 http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=622
SterlingCamden 17y ago
BSD code used in proprietary software is not "imprisoned" -- the original work remains free no matter how someone uses it.