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]

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:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[somersault]

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[argent]

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:Multi-license !

[Yvanhoe]

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

Re:Multi-license !

[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:Meh

[ShieldW0lf]

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 at my farm. You're not free to put a fence around my farm. The fact that you may have planted things at my farm still doesn't give you the right to put a fence around my farm.

If you consider the "no fences" stipulation too onerous for your liking, you can fuck off and don't come back. Keep your complaints to yourself, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Re:Could someone tell me...

[mcnazar]

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 release it).

Once you get herpes you can never get rid of it.

So GPL is mainly used for full blown applications whilst MPL is generally employed by libraries.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[Snover]

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:Multi-license !

[bigstrat2003]

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, so that the whole community benefits.

All of these conditions would be satisfied by public domain.

Re:Meh

[ShieldW0lf]

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:Multi-license !

[FishWithAHammer]

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 !

[maxume]

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:Multi-license !

[Belial6]

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.

Open source licenses come in 3 flavors.

[jaaron]

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.

Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups

[SlashBugs]

They are "paying" us to look at the ads, by giving us otherwise free services or content.

If what a website has to offer is worthless to you, don't visit it and you won't add to their revenue by seeing the ads.

Re:Multi-license !

[Hal_Porter]

Freedom 5: The ability to use parts of the program in your application with releasing the source code to your application.

People still use Subversion?

[ttfkam]

Once you go DVCS, you never go back.

Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[SanityInAnarchy]

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:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services

[enomar]

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.

Re:Multi-license !

[FishWithAHammer]

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. :)