Google Reverses "Absurd" Mozilla Code Ban 201
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.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.. (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
You know you've just blocked Jamie Hyneman from using your code?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Kids, don't try what you're about to see at home!
Re:You ignorant fool (Score:5, Funny)
Jamie Hyneman isn't a person with a moustache, he's a moustache with a person.
Already exists (Score:2)
> 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
Well gee, you just reinvented the MIT license [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh
Re: (Score:2)
i thought it was the famous 5 clause BSD license he reinvented
1) Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3)All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display acknowledgements
4)Neither the nam
Re: (Score:2)
me too , let's start a movement : Moustaches for free/open source. Maybe we can get RMS too , since he clearly likes facial hair.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true. If you want to ensure license compatibility across your entire codebase, where do you draw the line at supporting (semi-)popular open source licenses?
GPLv2, GPLv3, LGPL, BSD, Apache, Creative Commons, MIT/X Consortium, Mozilla, Sun Community, and Eclipse are probably the top 10 (not necessarily in ranked order) in terms of number of licensed product copies in use, as opposed to the number of projects using the license. Even within this set, there are incompatibilities.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had this exact problem with Google. I made some porting for a set of code. My porting used Qt, which is distributed under a different license than the standard one Google uses. Anyway, it took like 6 months for the code to get posted online.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should start an organization that proposes an open source licensing standard that can go around and get all the other licensing schemes to sign up. It'll be great—they could have a committee, and that committee could make decisions by committee, and there would be conferences in Vegas or Hawaii...
It's time the open source community move to the end game that the entire movement has been aimed at all along—it's always just been a big ruse to bilk corporate expense accounts, and the time f
Proliferation of O/S software hosting services (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Once you go DVCS, you never go back.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Real men think PVCS is junk.
Re: (Score:2)
I second that !
Re:Proliferation of O/S software hosting services (Score:4, Interesting)
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):
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Hey... what's so bad about trac?
The design (code design, not web design) is beautiful, and the only meritous complaints I've heard regard multi-project support and integration with non-SVN revision control systems (which I use -- I'm a big fan of bzr for my personal projects, and the group I'm in at work uses git). Given that both of these concerns were getting serious attention (and the latter was pretty much solved if you were willing to use 3rd-party plugins) last time I set up a Trac instance (well over
Re: (Score:2)
Never had any problem with sourceforge , and i use it a lot.
Sure , you have to click a few times , since it uses different servers , and that could be done better , but it's not that bad.
Perhaps i'm just easily satisfied. No matter
Multi-license ! (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe we should come up with a good acronym for a package of the most popular licenses...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Multi-license ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom 1 isn't guaranteed.
Don't talk to people like machines. Numbering starts at 1.
Re: (Score:2)
It most certainly is. As long as my code is in the public domain, you can take it, modify it, and adapt it to your heart's content. It doesn't say anywhere that the same must extend to derivative works.
And the numbering is the FSF's, not mine. Don't blame me.
Re:Multi-license ! (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Nuh uh, my license has a bigger dick than your license!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Freedom 5: The ability to use parts of the program in your application with releasing the source code to your application.
Re:Multi-license ! (Score:4, Insightful)
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 ! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
That's exactly why the GPL makes my eye twitch. Some of us don't care if our code is used commercially, that'fine. Trying to say that you're "more free" and "more open" because you ban that is prima facie stupidity.
That you think the GPL is about preventing commercial use of code is also prima facie stupidity. Just look at all of the commercial endeavors that are GNU licensed.
As for how in the world GNU software could be "more free" and "more open" - well both of those terms have multiple meanings, you pick the meaning that applies and it makes sense, you apply an anti-GPL mindset and pick a meaning that doesn't make sense and doh! it doesn't make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
That you think the GPL is about preventing commercial use of code is also prima facie stupidity. Just look at all of the commercial endeavors that are GNU licensed.
Very, very few actual commercial applications are GPL licensed--they're either based on support (which is a business model applicable only to a very narrow selection of software) with the applications being free, or they "abuse" the GPL through exposing functionality via web services. But I'm sure you know that. :)
As for how in the world GNU software could be "more free" and "more open" - well both of those terms have multiple meanings, you pick the meaning that applies and it makes sense, you apply an anti-GPL mindset and pick a meaning that doesn't make sense and doh! it doesn't make sense.
That's because pro-GPL mindsets don't make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah, I didn't even notice that. Gravy! :P
Re:Multi-license ! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
( 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 )
Is that legally enforceable? If so, could you link me to a licensed piece of code? I'd like to take a look and see how that license would fit me.
Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want the code I write to remain free, but the code other people write around it, they can do whatever they want with.
Perhaps you should license your code under the GPL with the "Classpath" exception: a specific exception that linking your code with other code does not require releasing the source code for the combined work. Thus, your code cannot be modified and distributed without sharing the modifications, but people are free to incorporate your code into proprietary systems without releasing the propr
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously; anyone who reads the GPL will say they specifically suggest commercial use. In the real world, however, "commercial" and "proprietary" are, 99 times out of 100, the same thing. It's a disingenuous suggestion by a politically-motivated lobby.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm pretty sure you don't get an explicit waiver of liability with public domain.
Re:Multi-license ! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? You're saying that, in Germany, I can't set up a public server and hand out tarballs of my code? What're they going to do? Kick down my door and take away my computer because I give away the program I've written?
Re:Multi-license ! (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hence why I stated MORE political. Loopholes arn't always a bad thing. Those loopholes are partially what allowed it to spread and get some corporate support. It is better to get 1,000,000 people to be mostly good then having 1,000 who are truly good and the rest evil.
The solution is already there ! (Score:2)
The Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License [zoy.org] (WTFPL) is a free software license.
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, December 2004
Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar
14 rue de Plaisance, 75014 Paris, France
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
as the name is changed.
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYIN
New Type of Software (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
IIRC, MPL allows static linking and doesn't require the dynamic library exception (under the LGPL, you have to be able to recompile the library and replace the dynamic library file).
The MPL is similar to the GPL in that changes must stay open source, but code in other linked files is not required to be licensed under GPL. I personally like it a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MySQL also uses similar dual-licensing. Something like the MPL makes sense for certain business models.
Open source licenses come in 3 flavors. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
Hope that helps.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
it's like LGPL with a file-based granularity rather than library-based granularity. Also, MPL code can be linked into your binary. LGPL effectively requires dynamic linking/shared library. [Specifically, the user must be able to replace the LGPL part with their own version]
So it's sort of in the middle between BSD and LGPL.
Mission Accomplished (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What does this mean, "advertising"? *pats ad-blocker and noscript* :)
Re:Boycott Vibrant in-frame popups (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Blocking ads doesn't do anything to convince the bastards to change their evil ways, you have to let sites know that they're hurting themselves by using Vibrant's advertising to have an effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Enough people acting, and they'll go the way of X10.
just solving the problem for yourself won't make it happen, though.
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone does it , it will :
Eventually , since no ads shown , none of them are clicked , and so the ads don't result in more sales and gain. Soon you won't get much for allowing ads to be placed on your website , and so it will decrease rapidly.
The problem is ads aren't bad on itself , intrusive ads are. So you need to punish only those ads.
It's possible to compile blocklists in adblock. Maybe someone should start making that , only for annoying ads , and update it frequently.That might work eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here, I jsut use flashblock. You can put banner ads all over the place but don't go needlessly hogging my resources.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd use Flashblock, but there's so many Flash sites that I go to (games, flash loops, etc.). Flashblock didn't seem to have any sort of whitelist capability. Or am I missing something?
Anyway, doesn't NoScript effectively do the same thing as Flashblock anyway nowadays?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I object to ads. If you want access to my eyes to sell your product, pay me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
* Slashdot sues you for your nickel *
Hey, we have to make that money back somehow...
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively you could just use my handy "obnoxious elitist prick" plugin for a mere 40 USD a year subscription fee?
Instead of whining about ads, I tried adblock and it works a treat. I was just trying to point out that if you don't like the ads, get rid of them. If I had $0.05 for every time I saw someone complain about ads, I'd be able to buy a newspaper or something by now!
Re: (Score:2)
You could just set your comment viewing settings to downmod all 'insightful' and 'interesting' posts - I'm sure that would get most of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL and BSD licenses should not appear in the same sentence there. While the GPL restricts you from incorporating that code into commercial software (e.g. "fencing off the farm"), the BSD license has no such restriction.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get the "fences" idea from? It should be more like "you're not free to take food from my farm and sell it at your farm". Except that this food is just a bunch of bits so you don't lose anything, right?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well RedHat seem to be doing pretty well out of it!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
As much as I hate nitpicking over software licenses, that's not a valid analogy. Even with public domain software nobody can 'put a fence around your farm' - the original software will always be available regardless of any proprietary extensions other people make.
I don'
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they can, and everybody knows about it. It happens so much, we make cutesie little sayings to reference it, like embrace, extend, extinguish.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Regardless, it sounds like you might prefer the BSD license. I'll leave figuring out what that means to you.
Re: (Score:2)
This is to ensure that the code that you freed... remains free.
This is not technically correct, the original code remains free regardless. What the GPL does is force you to release the code that you wrote on top of the original code. It's patently not about "remaining free". It is about "making free" i.e., imposing restrictions on what you can do with your modified code. This is a point that GPL proponents try to obfuscate, until a lawsuit is filed.
Bottom line is that the GPL has been the most successful license. I particularly appreciate the fact that Microsoft can
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft can use ANY amount of GPL'ed code they want. In fact, they have a "Unix-compatibility layer" that has a cornucopia of GPL tools.
They also provide the source along with scripts to compile it under Windows. They follow the GPL as far as I can tell (unless a bonehead contractor uses a chunk of code).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slightly off. Most developers are saying 'so long as you don't release my work as non-free' or 'so long as anything based on my work follows my rules.' It's not truly 'free' for everyone, no matter what they say.
There are a few developers asking for their piece, though... MySQL comes to mind. 'Free for non-commercial use only' is not really all that free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:2)