Google Reverses "Absurd" Mozilla Code Ban

Barence writes "Google has reversed its decision to ban projects created under the Mozilla Public License from being hosted on its Google Code site. Google banned the license in August, claiming it wanted to 'make a statement against open-source license proliferation' which it blamed for hindering the cross-pollination of code from one project to another. Chris DiBona, of Google's open source team, described its decision to ban the MPL as 'absurd,' citing the community's huge popularity." Jamie mentions that the issue was raised from the floor at OSCON at the Google Open Source Update panel, with DiBona on stage.

Well, Google does have a point..

[jonnythan (79727)]

If there's a million "open source" licenses (which there are), it can become virtually impossible for code to move between projects with different licensing.

Re:Well, Google does have a point..

[somersault (912633)]

To counter this problem, I have created a new type of open source license, that allows my code to be used in any other project, regardless of what license it uses*!

*Unless of course the resulting product is conceivably going to be used for commercial purposes, or by people with moustaches.

You ignorant fool

[bruce_the_loon (856617)]

You know you've just blocked Jamie Hyneman from using your code?

Re:

[Yetihehe (971185)]

Good! Won't somebody also think about Adam? He may screw your code too!

Re:

[DinDaddy (1168147)]

No Adam would somehow manage to injure himself using the code.

Re:You ignorant fool

[by Anonymous Coward]

Jamie Hyneman isn't a person with a moustache, he's a moustache with a person.

Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[by Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, given Google's record, I refuse to host any of my projects on Google Code, or to participate in the development of any projects hosted there. I use Sourceforge [sourceforge.net] (has svn and ssh access) and Berlios [berlios.de].

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

Frankly, given Google's record, I refuse to host any of my projects on Google Code, or to participate in the development of any projects hosted there.

...Why? What part of Google's record?

Most of the bad things I hear about Google are privacy-related... what part of your open source project needs to be private?

Re:

[enomar (601942)]

Franky, given Anonymous Coward's record, I refuse to listen to anything he has to say.

Please, try backing up "given Google's record" with some actual arguments, because not everyone thinks that Google is the devil.

People still use Subversion?

[ttfkam (37064)]

Once you go DVCS, you never go back.

Re:

[S.O.B. (136083)]

Real men think PVCS is junk.

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[Kent Recal (714863)]

For the love of god do not use tortureforge.

There are plenty of alternatives, use one that doesn't make your devs and users scream in agony every time they have to use it.
Sourceforge is so bad, it's not remotely funny. Not only are the "Forums" and "Bugtrackers" utterly unusable and useless. Even supposedly trivial (read: baseline!) stuff like downloading a release tarball is a sea of pain, requiring 2-3 clicks through useless spoiler-pages (more ad impressions, eh?). God forbid someone just wants to quickly wget a release to give it a shot, OSDN might not profit!

Generally avoid any provider that carries "forge" in its name. Most of them took the abysmal tortureforge interface and somehow managed to make it worse.
Also beware of tortureforge in disguise! Some, like berlios, copied everything except the name. Same poison, different bottle.

So, here are some sane choices (randomly picked, there are more):

• LaunchPad [launchpad.net]
• BitBucket [bitbucket.org]
• GitHub [github.com]

And if you are serious and have a bare minimum of linux-skills then you can always set up your own instance of RedMine [redmine.org] (not trac, mind you) along with a SVN, Git, bzr or whatever server. It's not rocket science. I'm sure there are even hosters that sell it prebundled for a few bucks a month.

It puzzles me that some people still pick TortureForge for their projects in this day and age. But normally that's at least a surefire sign that the project is not worth the diskspace it occupies... (for *new* projects that is, not counting legacy projects here that started on sourceforge years ago and are just too lazy to move).

Multi-license !

[Yvanhoe (564877)]

The best way to fight against these proliferations is to release code that is multi-licensed. If you are the author of a code and fear OSS fragmentation, claim that you release your code under GPLv2, GPLv3, Mozilla License, Apache License, etc...

Maybe we should come up with a good acronym for a package of the most popular licenses...

Re:Multi-license !

[houghi (78078)]

I believe this already exists: public domain.

Re:Multi-license !

[Yvanhoe (564877)]

No, the public domain does not mandate the openness of derivative products. That is what open source is about.

Re:

[badboy_tw2002 (524611)]

No, that's what Free Software is about. Public domain is most definately "open source" but depending on who you ask is not Free.

Re:

[bigstrat2003 (1058574)]

No, it's not. That's what the GPL (well, others too, but primarily that) are about. The FSF definition (I think we can agree that they're the definitive source here?) doesn't say that derivative works must remain free. It specifies:

• Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study and modify the program.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public,

Re:Multi-license !

[Atlantis-Rising (857278)]

Code placed in the public domain does fulfill all of those qualities. Derivatives may or may not, but that's a different issue he wasn't talking about.

And really, the ability to make non-free derivatives is a freedom too.

Re:Multi-license !

[by Anonymous Coward]

Since when? Whether or not the source is encumbered by copyleft restrictions, it's still opensource.

I'm sick of GPL zealots, honestly. I choose to release my code completely free. That's permission to do ANYTHING (including making it GPL). But please don't try tell me it's not in the spirit of being open..

Re:Multi-license !

[FishWithAHammer (957772)]

That's exactly why the GPL makes my eye twitch. Some of us don't care if our code is used commercially, and if you do, that's fine. Trying to say that you're "more free" and "more open" because you ban that is prima facie stupidity.

Re:Multi-license !

[Vexorian (959249)]

However the GPL does not forbid commercial usage of code, and thiking it does and posting about how it does so in web boards is just prima facie lameness .

Re:

[FishWithAHammer (957772)]

I knew what he's talking about, and my response was going to essentially be what you just said. "Proprietary" and "commercial" are, 99 times out of 100, the exact same thing, and trying to brush this aside by saying "but you CAAAAAAN do it...if you're willing to fuck yourself over, LOL!" is a joke.

Thanks for commenting, though. :)

Re:

[BrainInAJar (584756)]

I agree.

Personally, I want the code I write to remain free, but the code other people write around it, they can do whatever they want with. I tend to release code under a mozilla/cddl style license with a GPL exception ( though I make sure to leave a strongly worded comment that any code contained MAY NOT be relicensed under the GPL, since GPL people tend to forget that importing doesn't imply relicensing )

Re:

[jellomizer (103300)]

So what.
Open Source is not about mandating the openness of the product. Some Open Sources Licenses do but not all. Other licenses are so people do whatever they want with the code except to try to sue someone else who used the same code in their product, or prevent people from doing the same with the master code. The GPL tends to take this and spreads it across generations. But Open Source is a lot larger then GPL.

Re:

[AvitarX (172628)]

I'm pretty sure you don't get an explicit waiver of liability with public domain.

Re:Multi-license !

[maxume (22995)]

In the U.S., public domain doesn't quite exist for code written by anyone who isn't the Federal government. What people call releasing code under public domain is essentially disclaiming liability and repudiating copyright.

Re:

[Timosch (1212482)]

...which is not legally possible in a lot of countries. In Germany, for instance, you can not license your work under public domain.

Re:Multi-license !

[jellomizer (103300)]

I am not sure about a good acronym but Public Domain comes to mind.

If there is going to be a unified Open Source License that is completely compatible it would have to be public domain where the developer looses all the right to there code and users of the code have no exclusive rights.

Issues such as credit, openness, goodness, who will use it, who cant, stopping Microsoft from ripping it off, freedom of speach, spreading the code, patents, making money from it, not making money from it..... All these political ideals need to be stripped out.

Part of the problem with each new version of the GPL more and more political ideals have been added to the license making it more incompatible as time increases. So if you want to make open source code that can be used wherever it needs to be public domain.

Re:

[Belial6 (794905)]

From day one, the GPL was a political document, and at no time has it ever been expressed not to be. The v3 isn't about making it more about politics and making it more restrictive. It is about plugging the loopholes that various entities have found in the wording of the origin document. Like it or hate it, claiming that the GPLs very purpose for being isn't political is just fooling yourself.

New Type of Software

[Nymz (905908)]

If open source code, is bound by a proprietary license, then it should be called proprietary open source, or POS for short.

Could someone tell me...

[hairyfeet (841228)]

What exactly the difference between the MPL and the GPL is? Or the EPL(which is mentioned in TFA)? Because to my non legalese mind they look pretty much the same. They seem to require source upon request, list the places the license needs to be placed in the binaries,etc. I'm afraid I have to go with Google on this one. There are a whole bunch of open source licenses out there and the last thing anybody wants is for open source to become a giant legal minefield,as that just gives more ammo to the FUD that M

Re:

[mcnazar (1231382)]

The MPL is a soft copyleft whilst the GPL is a hard copyleft. infact s hard as them come

In simplest terms:

MPL: suitable for OSS libraries or components that can be compiled into and used in applications, without inheriting the MPL license.

GPL is like herpes. An example: if you use a GPL library with one line of code (LOC) in it and compile it into your one billion LOC application then your bigger application gets the GPL herpes virus and will then have to be released as GPL (if and when you choose to releas

Re:

[Gewalt (1200451)]

EPL is a region of the Eastern Kingdoms, and is well known for the small town of Light's Hope Chapel.

Open source licenses come in 3 flavors.

[jaaron (551839)]

The MPL and the GPL are very different. The MPL is closer to the LGPL and the EPL than it is to the GPL

One of the easiest ways to think of it was give by Dave Johnson [rollerweblogger.org] back in 2006. You can place most open source licenses into one of three categories:

• Gimme Credit: this includes the Apache, BSD and MIT licenses. Basically, you can do anything you want with the code, but you must give the original authors credit in some way.
• Gimme Fixes: is used by the EPL, MPL, and LGPL. Basically, the original code will always be open source and any direct changes of the original code (patches, bug fixes, enhancements) must also be released as open source. However, you can combine this software with closed code to create a proprietary work. This license tends to be used by frameworks and libraries. Sometimes the original author gets special rights (like the NPL).
• Gimme everything!: the GPL stands alone in it's requirement that the code itself and all derivative works be free software.

Hope that helps.

Mission Accomplished

[CustomDesigned (250089)]

By banning MPL and then reversing the ban once the discussion heated up, Google has "made a statement".

What would help is for some OSS lawyer to come up with a simplified menu of licenses something like Creative Commons. You do need at least BSD and GPL, but I agree there are way too many licenses. We non-legal geeks just want simple choices like "share alike" (GPL), "attribution" (BSD), "non commercial" (like M$ "open" licenses - not in the open source spirit but ok when used sparingly).

Proposed solution

[suck_burners_rice (1258684)]

Here's a possible solution to the license proliferation / cross pollination problem of F/OSS software projects: Each open source compliant license could include within its terms specific permission to use portions of its project's code in software licensed under another open source compliant license. It could be called an Open Source Cross-Pollination Clause or something like that, and the wording would be identical across licenses. It would be a sort of "UCC of software licenses." As an example of what might happen if this clause were included in, say, the Apache license, the Mozilla license, and the Eclipse license: Suppose there are a group of functions in Apache that produce some result that might be useful in a web browser. The Mozilla project could copy that code verbatim, insert it into Mozilla, and perhaps make modifications to it later on. The copy of that portion of code would essentially become licensed under the Mozilla license. The Eclipse project could then find that code useful and copy it into Eclipse, perhaps modifying it further. Now there are three copies of that code, each licensed under the same license as the broader code that contains it. If, say, all OSI approved licenses decided to insert this Cross-Pollination Clause, it would completely solve the problems of license compatibility.

Let The Mad Scientists Loose!

[curmudgeon99 (1040054)]

As the proud owner of my own Google Code project, I can attest to the need for freedom and avoidance of any restrictions of any kind in Google Code. Are they looking to be an incubator of great new ideas? They let the mad scientists play! With the sad killing off of the GooglePages phenomenon, we're all sad to see the great benefactor turn Corporate on us. Please Google, stop crapping on your brand. Come back from the Dark Side.

Re:

[somersault (912633)]

What does this mean, "advertising"? *pats ad-blocker and noscript* :)

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[argent (18001)]

I don't use adblocker because I don't object to ads. I object to stupid abusive techniques whether they're used for ads or knock-knock jokes.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[Snover (469130)]

Maybe you should try using AdBlock to only block those advertisers that engage in such practises then? It's not an all-or-nothing affair.

Re:

[MadnessASAP (1052274)]

Same here, I jsut use flashblock. You can put banner ads all over the place but don't go needlessly hogging my resources.

Re:

[bigstrat2003 (1058574)]

I am, as of now, going to get someone to pay me a nickel for everyone who makes an annoying, smug "Ad? What ad? I use adblock/noscript" comment on slashdot.

I have $.05 right now from this program, and predict I'll be filthy rich by the time the year's out.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

I use adblock and noscript too. And I think that your scheme has one minor flaw, I'm not paying you any thing, and neither is anyone else.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[jamie (78724)]

* Slashdot sues you for your nickel *

Hey, we have to make that money back somehow...

Re:

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

Is it only me who thinks that while the ethos of OSS is "open and free for everyone", these licences are just a way of developers saying "I want my slice of the pie also" ?

Truly free code comes with no restrictions whatsoever, be it over publishing licence text, making source available, having to pay the author for commercial use or whatever.

Free means free. Anything else is so much BS on the part of the developer.

It's like this: You're all free to eat at my farm. You're all free to plant things

Re:

[daveime (1253762)]

So, your farm is "free, subject to restrictions" right ?

You wouldn't call it "free, period" now would you, as there is obviously a restriction.

Now ask yourself whether GPL or BSD code is "free" ?

Re:Meh

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

I would call it free, period. It's not free, subject to restrictions. It's free, and protected against future restrictive subversions, as opposed to free and abandoned to the machinations of selfish and evil men. It's the best kind of free, the kind you can rely on continuing to be free and relevant.

Re:

[Vexorian (959249)]

Yep, It's probably only you who thinks like that, most likely because you are utterly wrong. Did you bother reading the licenses at all? The conclussion you took makes no sense.

these licences are just a way of developers saying "I want my slice of the pie also"

having to pay the author for commercial use or whatever

No free software license has that clause, it breaks the def of free software.

Remember kids, try getting informed before posting stuff in the interweb.

Re:Meh

[Grey Ninja (739021)]

Do you even know what the GPL or BSD licenses require the user to do? Here's a hint for you. There's no money involved. In fact, you are explicitly allowed to sell the product. The main thing that the GPL prohibits you from doing is to distribute the product without also distributing the source code. And this isn't to get a "piece of the pie". This is to ensure that the code that you freed... remains free.

Regardless, it sounds like you might prefer the BSD license. I'll leave figuring out what that means to you.

Re:

[daveime (1253762)]

That's my point ...

This mentality of "It's okay to use my code for whatever purpose you wish, but if you make money off it, I want my share".

Call it "shareware", call it "trialware", call it what the hell you like, but don't call it "free".