As the GPL fades
Alexander Terekhov
------
As the GPL fades
Jay Lyman, January 28, 2010 @ 3:17 pm ET
We�re continuing to see signs that the dominant GPL open source license
may be fading from favor among commercial open source software players.
The latest move away from the GPL comes from content management software
vendor Alfresco, which is moving to the LGPL after originally releasing
its code under the GPL three years ago. The reasoning for the shift,
according to Alfresco CEO John Newton, is the company sees greater
opportunity beyond being a software application, particularly given the
emergence of the Content Management Interoperability Services standard.
Alfresco won mostly praise for its move, and it does make sense given
where open source is going these days.
I believe the emerging trend away from GPL and toward more permissive,
mixable licenses such as LGPL or Apache reflects the broadening out of
open source software not only throughout the enterprise IT software
stack, but also throughout uses beyond individual applications,
frameworks and systems. More and more open source software vendors are
pursuing opportunities in embedded use or OEM deals whereby open source
software often must sit alongside or even inside of proprietary code and
products. Similar to what we�ve seen in the mobile space � where open
source software and development are more prominent than ever, but end
products with accessible code are not � open source is broadening out,
but it is doing so in many cases by integrating with proprietary code.
We also see some debate about the community and commercial ups and downs
of GPL as organizations contemplate the balance of the two and the best
way to achieve commercial success with open source software. As Matt
highlights, we are seeing a choice of non-GPL licensing in order to more
effectively foster community and third-party involvement, but we also
continue to see GPL as a top choice to similarly build community.
While the debate about community versus commercial benefit may not
necessarily be prompting movement away from GPL, I believe another
recent action may indeed do so. The latest series of GPL lawsuits are
aimed at raising awareness, profile and legitimacy for open source
software. While those bringing the suits � primarily the Software
Freedom Law Center � have exhibited a reasonable approach and settled
with past lawsuit targets, these suits and publicity may still serve to
steer organizations making the choice to other licenses, including the
LGPL, BSD, Apache and the Eclipse Public License.
Another factor is the GPL thumping that took place during the SaveMySQL
campaign as the European Commission contemplated Oracle�s proposed (and
now closed) acquisition of Sun Microsystems and the open source MySQL. I
voiced my concern that the SaveMySQL campaign might jeopardize or
de-value open source software projects and pieces in M&A, but I believe
I�m actually in agreement with SaveMySQL leader Monty Widenius that the
deal and process may end up tarnishing the GPL and its reputation in the
enterprise.
As stated above, much of the movement we�re seeing away from the GPL has
to do with the desire and opportunity to place open source software
alongside, within, on top of or otherwise with proprietary software.
Non-GPL open source licenses are also more flexible in terms of
integrating and bundling with other open source software licensed under
other, non-GPL licenses.
We anticipated this fade of GPL as covered in our report, The Myth of
Open Source License Proliferation. Given its clout, durability and
continued popularity in commercial open source (and with help from
continued growth of GPL-licensed Linux) we believe the GPL will endure
as a top open source license. However, given their flexibility and the
ability to combine with other code, we see a number of other challengers
� Apache, BSD, EPL and LGPL � rising while GPL dominance wanes. We�re
also watching to see whether the AGPLv3 for networked software will
provide new life for GPL-style licensing and community building in
emerging virtualized, SaaS and cloud computing environments.
------
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Rick
Is the GPL being used less, or are more people writing proprietary
software based on non-GPL OSS licenses. Big difference.
--
Rick
David Kastrup
> http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/01/28/as-the-gpl-fades/
>
> ------
> As the GPL fades
>
> Jay Lyman, January 28, 2010 @ 3:17 pm ET
>
> We’re continuing to see signs that the dominant GPL open source license
> may be fading from favor among commercial open source software players.
Freshmeat:
Licenses
GPL (20985)
LGPL (3245)
BSD Revised (1477)
GPLv3 (1422)
BSD Original (1405)
GPLv2 (1363)
Freeware (1262)
MIT/X (1009)
Apache 2.0 (637)
Public Domain (605)
Artistic (565)
Other (496)
[...]
That's not exactly "fading" in my book.
--
David Kastrup
Alan Mackenzie
> http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/01/28/as-the-gpl-fades/
> ------
> As the GPL fades
> Jay Lyman, January 28, 2010 @ 3:17 pm ET
> We're continuing to see signs that the dominant GPL open source license
> may be fading from favor among commercial open source software
> players.......
Alexander, who pays you to post in this forum, and how much?
> regards,
> alexander.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
David Kastrup
> In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> wrote:
>> http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/01/28/as-the-gpl-fades/
>
>> ------
>> As the GPL fades
>
>> Jay Lyman, January 28, 2010 @ 3:17 pm ET
>
>> We're continuing to see signs that the dominant GPL open source license
>> may be fading from favor among commercial open source software
>> players.......
>
> Alexander, who pays you to post in this forum, and how much?
Oh please. Who would pay for that kind of nonsense? Can't you imagine
that it's a work of hate for him? Worthless all on its own?
--
David Kastrup
Rex Ballard
> > regards,
> > alexander.
LGPL is better for writing code that can be called by GPL and can make
calls to binary proprietary code. Also, proprietary code can call
LGPL functions without putting the caller's code under GPL.
We're beginning to see much more software which uses a GPL framework,
LGPL interface libraries, and then proprietary plug-ins or extensions
for "value add" features.
There is also the option of using a GPL client to access a proprietary
service. Since the service is detached, it only needs to interface
with the GPL code.
This pragmatic approach has worked out well for Apache, Eclipse,
Mozilla, and several other "frame-works" that have become ubiquitous
in the IT center today.
Even many Windows applications are now tightly integrated with "Linux
Code", various GPL and Open Source frameworks integrated through LGPL
libraries and other "Integration" oriented licenses.
Even the Linux kernel itself supports modules, which can be binary
proprietary code that is called by the Linux kernel as a shared
library.
> --
> Rick
Lusotec
> http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/01/28/as-the-gpl-fades/
> ------
> As the GPL fades
GPL is only the most used license for new and existing OSS projects, by a
large margin. How exactly is GPL fading?
Regards.
Alan Mackenzie
>> In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> wrote:
>>> http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/01/28/as-the-gpl-fades/
>>> ------
>>> As the GPL fades
>>> Jay Lyman, January 28, 2010 @ 3:17 pm ET
>>> We're continuing to see signs that the dominant GPL open source license
>>> may be fading from favor among commercial open source software
>>> players.......
>> Alexander, who pays you to post in this forum, and how much?
> Oh please. Who would pay for that kind of nonsense?
Any company that wishes to discourage GPL software. Since calm logical
discussion is ineffective against the GPL (for obvious reasons), they
must resort to misdirection, sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors.
> Can't you imagine that it's a work of hate for him? Worthless all on
> its own?
No, not really. He's a bright lad, and an Internet search reveals he has
at least one bogus patent to his name (something to do with a storage
algorithm). He could surely find something positive, enriching and
fulfilling to do with his time. Boeblingen is not such a bad place.
So, Alex, who's paying you for this, and how much?
David Kastrup
> In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> writes:
>
>>> Alexander, who pays you to post in this forum, and how much?
>
>> Oh please. Who would pay for that kind of nonsense?
>
> Any company that wishes to discourage GPL software. Since calm
> logical discussion is ineffective against the GPL (for obvious
> reasons), they must resort to misdirection, sleight of hand, smoke and
> mirrors.
But it is all so obvious. If anybody would be paying him, then for
distracting important developers into wasting time with him. But I
don't think that this happens much.
If this supposed to be business one time, he is still stuck in the
prototyping stage.
> No, not really. He's a bright lad, and an Internet search reveals he
> has at least one bogus patent to his name (something to do with a
> storage algorithm). He could surely find something positive,
> enriching and fulfilling to do with his time.
Why should he? Nobody else does.
I mean, get real. Do you know how many TV sets and cigarettes are sold
around here?
This society is not focused about doing something positive, enriching
and fulfilling with your time. It is focused about getting rid of it.
And when you spend it by annoying other people, at least you have a
receipt to show. Beats lung cancer.
I don't think anybody pays him.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
> No, not really. He's a bright lad, and an Internet search reveals he has
> at least one bogus patent to his name (something to do with a storage
Uh, why bogus, Alan?
BTW, I've got two patents (as coinventor):
http://www.patentstorm.us/inventors-patents/Alexander_Terekhov/1454418/1.html
> algorithm). He could surely find something positive, enriching and
> fulfilling to do with his time. Boeblingen is not such a bad place.
>
> So, Alex, who's paying you for this, and how much?
3.52 million free dollars from GNG MegaCorp.
Stop trolling Mackenzie.
Alan Mackenzie
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [...]
>> No, not really. He's a bright lad, and an Internet search reveals he has
>> at least one bogus patent to his name (something to do with a storage
> Uh, why bogus, Alan?
It's a software algorithm, isn't it? They're bogus.
> BTW, I've got two patents (as coinventor):
OK, two half-patents, then. ;-)
>> So, Alex, who's paying you for this, and how much?
> 3.52 million free dollars from GNG MegaCorp.
Nice evasion. A bit predictable, though.
> regards,
> alexander.
Hyman Rosen
> Alexander, who pays you to post in this forum, and how much?
You're being silly. You may as well ask who is paying me
to answer him. We all just do it because it's fun. Besides,
how much would you expect someone to pay to reach the
approximately ten people who still read this newsgroup?
:-)
Alan Mackenzie
> On 2/5/2010 9:18 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Alexander, who pays you to post in this forum, and how much?
> You're being silly. You may as well ask who is paying me to answer him.
No. You're doing something positive. I can understand somebody doing
something for love year after year. Many of us maintain free software.
I can't imagine any half-way normal person doing something out of hate
for more than a few weeks or months. Terekhov's been at it for the best
part of a decade, possibly longer.
> We all just do it because it's fun.
You do this for fun?
> Besides, how much would you expect someone to pay to reach the
> approximately ten people who still read this newsgroup?
It's more than that. There've been around 10 people who've contributed
to the threads in the last few days.
Hyman Rosen
> No. You're doing something positive.
One man's negative is another's positive. For example,
people who are campaigning against Debian's inclusion of
C# and Mono <http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono/>
think they're doing something positive. So do people who
are supporting that inclusion.
> You do this for fun?
Of course. Didn't you get that cartoon about "Someone is
_wrong_ on the internet."? <http://xkcd.com/386/>
Mark Kent
Usual Terekhov material. But read the article more carefully, it's
about "commercial open source software players", well, what on earth
does that mean?
I suspect it's confined to those projects and companies which have used
the GPL and then moved to something less open in order to pursue some
specific commercial goal around exploiting those people who've chosen to
use the projects in question.
These activities will probably fail.
--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
Snit
5:05 AM:
>> We anticipated this fade of GPL as covered in our report, The Myth of
>> Open Source License Proliferation. Given its clout, durability and
>> continued popularity in commercial open source (and with help from
>> continued growth of GPL-licensed Linux) we believe the GPL will endure
>> as a top open source license. However, given their flexibility and the
>> ability to combine with other code, we see a number of other challengers
>> ? Apache, BSD, EPL and LGPL ? rising while GPL dominance wanes. We?re
>> also watching to see whether the AGPLv3 for networked software will
>> provide new life for GPL-style licensing and community building in
>> emerging virtualized, SaaS and cloud computing environments. ------
>>
>> regards,
>> alexander.
>
>
> Is the GPL being used less, or are more people writing proprietary
> software based on non-GPL OSS licenses. Big difference.
A difference similar to the difference of market share and user base. OK.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Erik Funkenbusch
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>
>> http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/01/28/as-the-gpl-fades/
>>
>> ------
>> As the GPL fades
>>
>> Jay Lyman, January 28, 2010 @ 3:17 pm ET
>>
>> WeοΏ½re continuing to see signs that the dominant GPL open source license
>> may be fading from favor among commercial open source software players.
>
> Freshmeat:
>
> Licenses
>
> GPL (20985)
> LGPL (3245)
> BSD Revised (1477)
> GPLv3 (1422)
> BSD Original (1405)
> GPLv2 (1363)
> Freeware (1262)
> MIT/X (1009)
> Apache 2.0 (637)
> Public Domain (605)
> Artistic (565)
> Other (496)
> [...]
>
> That's not exactly "fading" in my book.
Who's to say that Freshmeat's license count is kept up to date, but let's
assume it is. By my count, that's more than 10,000 non-GPL licenses. And
since you don't list the counts from, say a year ago, we have no way of
knowing if the overall ratio of GPL to non-GPL has gone down or up.
So your post doesn't really say anything.
jellybean stonerfish
> Freshmeat:
>
> Licenses
>
> GPL (20985)
> LGPL (3245)
<SNIP>
> Artistic (565)
> Other (496)
> [...]
>
Will you please tell me how you got that information?
David Kastrup
Search in the projects for a wildcard (empty string or so, don't
remember right now what I did) and look at the license breakdown.
--
David Kastrup
David Kastrup
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:50:26 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>>
>>> http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/01/28/as-the-gpl-fades/
>>>
>>> ------
>>> As the GPL fades
>>>
>>> Jay Lyman, January 28, 2010 @ 3:17 pm ET
>>>
>>> We’re continuing to see signs that the dominant GPL open source license
>>> may be fading from favor among commercial open source software players.
>>
>> Freshmeat:
>>
>> Licenses
>>
>> GPL (20985)
>>
[...]
>> [...]
>>
>> That's not exactly "fading" in my book.
>
> Who's to say that Freshmeat's license count is kept up to date, but
> let's assume it is. By my count, that's more than 10,000 non-GPL
> licenses. And since you don't list the counts from, say a year ago,
> we have no way of knowing if the overall ratio of GPL to non-GPL has
> gone down or up.
>
> So your post doesn't really say anything.
It doesn't say anything about the _trend_. But "fade" is not just about
a trend. It is about becoming irrelevant.
And at about 70% of the current license breakdown, this is a nonsensical
characterization.
Nobody say that "Internet Explorer" is "fading from favor among computer
users" even though Firefox has made a considerable dent in its usage
ratio.
But "fade"? That would be stupid.
That would not even be accurate for Microsoft's internet server (what's
it's name? IIS or so?) which has about half the deployment as Apache.
But being in second place is not the same as "faded".
--
David Kastrup
Chris Ahlstrom
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
>
>>> That's not exactly "fading" in my book.
>
> <snips>
>
> But "fade"? That would be stupid.
>
> That would not even be accurate for Microsoft's internet server (what's
> it's name? IIS or so?) which has about half the deployment as Apache.
> But being in second place is not the same as "faded".
It is for Microsoft!
--
Stay away from flying saucers today.
jellybean stonerfish
>> Will you please tell me how you got that information?
>
> Search in the projects for a wildcard (empty string or so, don't
> remember right now what I did) and look at the license breakdown.
Oh. A strange method, but it works.
Joel
Downright trippy. :)
--
Joel Crump