Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Software GNU is Not Unix

Google Goes After Open Source Licensing Cruft 127

Posted by CowboyNeal from the wheel-reinvention dept.
pacopico writes "Google has secret plans to put out its own open source software license, according to this story in The Register. Apparently, Google's efforts will center around developing a simplified open source license that makes it easier for developers to stay "within the spirit" of the license in addition to the law. Chris DiBona at Google was asked about the plans but won't budge with details yet. Still, The Register claims that Google's efforts could improve the license proliferation issues facing the OSI."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Goes After Open Source Licensing Cruft More

Google Goes After Open Source Licensing Cruft

Comments Filter:

  • Kind of like... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss ( 770223 )
    GPLv2?

  • Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JoshJ ( 1009085 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @05:59PM (#20775847) Journal
    So Google's solution to "there are too many open source licenses!" is... to make another one?

  • Wow! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @06:07PM (#20775935)

    Chris DiBona at Google was asked about the plans but won't budge with details yet.
    It's so open they have to keep it secret!!!
  • Google needs a mascot to start pushing stuff like this. Gieko has the gecko, Linux has the penguin. Google should have something like a platypus maybe. Or a lemming. Something soft and furry to soften people's hearts.

  • There are only two licenses I care about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DaleGlass ( 1068434 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @06:16PM (#20776011) Homepage
    GPL and BSD.

    IMO, those represent very well the two different approaches to the problem. The rest are a needless complication. Besides, their meaning and implications are understood very well, so I don't see what Google is going to achieve by creating their own.

    • Re:There are only two licenses I care about (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BrainInAJar ( 584756 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @06:20PM (#20776053)
      I'll add to that MPL. GPL vs. MPL vs. BSD is "make all code free" vs "keep my code free" vs "do as you wish"

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by gstein ( 2577 ) *
        That thinking was exactly why I included MPL in the list of licenses on Google Code. It was a mistake though... in practice, nobody uses it (about 2% of projects on Google Code). To further reduce proliferation, I've been thinking about removing it as a choice (and grandfathering existing projects who use it).

        • Re:There are only two licenses I care about (Score:4, Informative)

          by BrainInAJar ( 584756 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @08:02PM (#20776921)
          That's unfortunate that it's not in more widespread use.

          It's a good class of licenses, but The largest problems with the MPL are that everyone creates their own minor variant ( apple's licence, Sun's CDDL, myriads more) and that the GPL gets so much press time (people assume open source = GPL, so that's what they release their code under)
          • "people assume open source = GPL" ...as RMS spins in his grave
        • The "keep free" boundary is a bit different (file vs. library), but it is not that difficult to go from one to another. The Mozilla people actually called the MPL a "fixed" version of the LGPL.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Goaway ( 82658 )
          If you're responsible for that list, why isn't "public domain" on it? Or at least, it wasn't back when I set up some projects some time ago.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gstein ( 2577 ) *
            The concept of Public Domain is actually pretty difficult to do with software. It is kind of hard to "abandon" the fact that you wrote the software which means you will always be liable for it. And you can't attach a disclaimer of warranty because that obviates public domain :-P Throw in that France won't let you disown your copyrighted works, and the whole area about PD software grows real murky. Daniel Berlin could probably be more specific, I just know the rough bits here. This question has also come up

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Goaway ( 82658 )
              Well, some of us still want to try. It would be really be nice to have that option.

      • I'll add to that MPL. GPL vs. MPL vs. BSD is "make all code free" vs "keep my code free" vs "do as you wish"
        And the LGPL, which is reasonably similar to the MPL, and too popular to ignore.

    • More than that (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Burz ( 138833 ) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @06:50PM (#20776337) Homepage Journal
      ...those two licenses are models of simplicity compared to most proprietary licenses.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by malevo ( 952162 )

      GPL and BSD.
      Do you mean GPLv2 or GPLv3? Those 2 are different licenses and are incompatible. There is a lot of software that is GPLv2 only, and can't link to GPLv3 software.
      • I think that the GPLv2 and GPLv3 are the same underlying concept, except for GPLv3 closes some loopholes.

        I'd choose based on compatibility issues. If possible, GPLv3, if that would cause a compatibility issue, then GPLv2.
    • I'd add a third, the proprietary license. Those cover the "use copyright to keep code open" (GPL), "use copyright to keep code closed" (proprietary), and "put copyright mostly aside" (BSD-style) extremes. The rest are pretty much inbetween (and unnecessary).

  • May or may not be happening... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fsmunoz ( 267297 ) <[gro.fsf.rebmem] [ta] [zonumsf]> on Thursday September 27, 2007 @06:17PM (#20776031) Homepage
    We also discuss Google's super-secret project that may or may not be happening around creating a new open source software licensing model.

    Google to Change the World with New Open Source License

    * Subhead - We might be making this up

    Well, at least they're honest.

    Anyway, assuming this is true... I don't see the big difference or importance. In one way everyone is free to choose and create a licence that suits his needs. On the other the creation of yet another licence that means the same than already existing ones isn't really something to be in awe about. If it provides more "legal protection" people will complain it's legalese, if it doesn't then it's no different from dozens of other ones. A "simplified open source license that makes it easier for developers to stay "within the spirit" of the license in addition to the law" doesn't mean anything in concrete terms, and what is worse makes the assumption that current popular free licences somehow make it hard to do the same.

    If in the last months so many interpretations were made regarding a licence as simple as the ISC licence I'm not sure any licence in the world is invulnerable to different interpretations. On that note the SFLC has issued a position regarding the GPLv2/GPLv3/BSD licences mixing [softwarefreedom.org] that have been all the rage.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by einhverfr ( 238914 )
      Interestingly, the SFLC link you provide doesn't answer to my main concern about GPL v3/BSDL compatibility.

      They state "From the beginnings of their use, however, the permissive licenses have been understood by their licensors and licensees alike to permit the code they cover to be incorporated within larger works covered as a whole by more restrictive terms, including more restrictive FOSS licenses like the GPL as well as, indeed, by proprietary licenses. This understanding represents the uninterrupted, lon

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fsmunoz ( 267297 )
        Ehe, this looks like a fork from our ongoing debate in a now buried thread. Since more people are reading this one I'll answer it here, maybe someone has something interesting to add (ahahaha, just kidding).

        The BSD people you have talked with are correct IMO, and as I said in the other thread that is also my interpretation and the interpretation of the FSF when writing the section. Additional copyright notices and "reasonable legal notices" are regarded as an allowed restriction even if the text is "perm

        • Ehe, this looks like a fork from our ongoing debate in a now buried thread. Since more people are reading this one I'll answer it here, maybe someone has something interesting to add (ahahaha, just kidding).

          I can't find the thread either.

          The BSD people you have talked with are correct IMO, and as I said in the other thread that is also my interpretation and the interpretation of the FSF when writing the section. Additional copyright notices and "reasonable legal notices" are regarded as an allowed restriction even if the text is "permissive" (well, especially then, since that is part of the concept of "reasonable legal notices"). The BSDL is basically PD with further restrictions: the beginning says "Permission granted..." but then sets forth a number of restrictions which fall within the ones listed in section 7 of the GPL. Since it is a restriction (several, actually) it can't be removed. If it said "You can do whatever you want with the code" that would be an additional permission: by definition you can always remove it since it doesn't state any objections to you doing so (just like PD code allows for the removal of "This code is in the Publiv Domain"). The BSDL/ISC/MIT do state the need to maintain the copyright notice... that's not an additional permission.

          I am not sure that works. People tend to think of a work-as-a-whole license wrapping around all components used with permission. This is not the case (as pretty much any copyright attourney, including Mr Moglen, will tell you). In essence, just because you use a code excerpt with permission doesn't mean that you can tell people what they can do with that code excerpt when they remove it from your application. Only the copyright owner has that power.

          My view is that the BS

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by trifish ( 826353 )
      On that note the SFLC has issued a position regarding the GPLv2/GPLv3/BSD licences mixing that have been all the rage.

      Thanks for that link. I especially like the following part, which confirms what a true mess the GPL can make when you attempt to combine it with a more permissive license in a single project:

      "2.3 Keeping modified files permissive-licensed within larger GPL'd works

      [] Whenever possible, the stewards of the codebase should consult with a lawyer to be sure that the file is sufficiently independent of and distinct from the core of the GPL'd project to permit continued licensing of the file under the permissive terms despite the application of the GPL to the project as a whole."

      (emphasis mine)

      Other open source licenses don't require all portions of a covered work to be under the same license. That's why they don't create such a mess and are not as viral as the GPL.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fsmunoz ( 267297 )

        Other open source licenses don't require all portions of a covered work to be under the same license. That's why they don't create such a mess and are not as viral as the GPL.

        That's hilarious considering that the latest discussions are about what can and can't be done with the BSDL, and what are the requirements for mixing BSDL code in GPL applications, not the other way around. The latest months have made it quite clear that the BSD/ISC/MIT licences are subject to multiple opposing interpretations that can drasticaly changes what you can actually do with the code, which is rather funny given the "freer than thou" mantra I keep hearing. The general feeling is that you are free

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by trifish ( 826353 )
          The general feeling is that you are free to use it, just not for GPL projects

          Right, but because of the terms of the GPL. Other Open Source licenses (Apache, BSD, etc.) don't impose any restrictions on combinations of licenses in a single work. Only the GPL insists that the whole work must be under the GPL. That's why it creates such a mess.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by fsmunoz ( 267297 )

            Right, but because of the terms of the GPL. Other Open Source licenses (Apache, BSD, etc.) don't impose any restrictions on combinations of licenses in a single work. Only the GPL insists that the whole work must be under the GPL. That's why it creates such a mess.

            I wouldn't call it a mess but an unavoidable way to reach its objectives, but I agree with you there. Also, proprietary licences also cover the entire body of work and the BSDL doesn't get in the way (because there is no source). All in all a rather unfortunate situation made much bigger than it really is in recent months IMO.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by trifish ( 826353 )
              unavoidable way to reach its objectives

              If these objectives are to preserve the well-known Freedoms, then it would have been better if the GPL only required that licenses covering the work must grant the Freedoms (instead of insisting that the whole work must be under the GPL).

              The GPL prevents sharing in the open source world so much that they had to create the LGPL.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by fsmunoz ( 267297 )
                The objectives of the GPL are clear from the beginning, as is the FSF view on software. You might dislike both, and you are perfectly within your right to do so, but it isn't something new and the arguments from both sides are well known by now.
  • Is that like a PC, Christian American way of saying "crap"?
    Why not just say crap?
    (or "stuff" for that matter)

    sounds like a Bushism.

    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by qtp ( 461286 )
      Learn to look things up.

      This Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] is rather helpful.

    • Why not just say crap?
      Because we're nerds, damnit!

    • Is that like a PC, Christian American way of saying "crap"?
      Why not just say crap?
      (or "stuff" for that matter)

      The watered-down word you're thinking of would be "crud", not "cruft". Cruft has other connotations that are not synonymous with other words.

      By the way, in most uses "crap" is already a watered-down version of "shit". If you're going to complain about "PC, Christian" language, why not use the real fucking profanity yourself, not this damn pussy shit like "crap"? What the hell, man.

      ;)

  • I hope they're planning to put out some software under this license.

  • We are NOT creating a new license (Score:5, Informative)

    by gstein ( 2577 ) * on Thursday September 27, 2007 @06:48PM (#20776321) Homepage
    This is just stupid. We are not... repeat NOT... creating a new license.

    On Google Code, we are taking a stand AGAINST license proliferation -- you can only use one of eight licenses there. And I've been thinking of dropping it to seven (remove MPL). Creating our own license(s) would go completely against our philosophy.

    No. The simple answer is that we like to encourage people to use GPLv3 or Apache for their software, depending upon their philosophy. Dropping back to just those two licenses would be ideal. The FLOSS world would be SO much better if there were just a couple licenses because it would radically simplify the use/combination of software.

    Sheesh.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by 1155 ( 538047 )
      I'd have to pull my project if you removed the 3 clause bsd.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )
      One big problem is the number of OSS licenses created by companies who open source previously commercial software. (or to write new software themselves and open it up) Examples:
      Netscape Public License
      OpenWatcom Public License
      Sun CDDL
      IBM CPL
      QT QPL
      Apple Public Source License

    • No. The simple answer is that we like to encourage people to use GPLv3...

      Yes, and just HOW MUCH of Google's Super Secret Code is GPL/anything? I don't mean to be a troll, but while Google might very well encourage others to use license THEIR work under Open Source, Google tends to be quite tight with their own code.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by simong ( 32944 )
        Commercial confidentiality still exists. I am no Google fanboy, but I believe in the right for companies to have proprietary code if it's fundamental to the operation of their business and if it hasn't been taken from work released as FOSS.

        Look at it like this: if Google released the PageRank algorithms under the GPL their core business would be destroyed overnight and a great deal of work that is being sponsored as FOSS would lose Google's support. There has to be an ecology, and if business wants to suppo

    • Re:We are NOT creating a new license (Score:5, Interesting)

      by chrisd ( 1457 ) * <chrisd@dibona.com> on Thursday September 27, 2007 @08:52PM (#20777335) Homepage
      Thanks for posting this Greg! I thought it was some kind of joke when Ashlee emailed me, I mean, how many times do we have to say we're not creating our own licenses, you know?

      Chris

      • Its certainly refreshing to see a google open source presence on slashdot (with 4 digit UID's aswell :P). In marked contrast to Apple and Microsoft stories on Open source where those parents have remained deafeningly silent by comparison.

        • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

          by I'm Don Giovanni ( 598558 )
          What's so "refreshing" about it? Wasn't Dibona a slashdot editor before he went to Google? It's not like this is hostile territory for Google posters. Slashdot is one of Google's propaganda arms. Slashdot is to Google as Fox News is to Bush.

          Now, it *is* refreshing when Microsoft guys post here (and they do), because they enter hostile territory and give a different perspective than the slashdot group-think. And it *would* be refreshing for Apple guys to post here because they never post anywhere. But

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Thwomp ( 773873 ) *
        You must be new here... hey, wait a minute!
      • So, what about gPhone?
  • Itsatrap ...oh, wait. Wrong mega company trying to take over the world.

  • "Still, The Register claims that Google's efforts could improve the license proliferation issues facing the OSI."


    So let me get this straight. Adding yet another open source license is the solution to license proliferation.
  • guess at how many software licenses there are? I guess everybody has their favorite and if they don't like what they see, they make up their own.
  • Google Pointless License, version 1 or later

    • for ( i=0 ; i < MAX_BASE ; i++ ) if ( belongsTo[base[i]] == YOU ) belongsTo[base[i]] = US ;

      Your last base are belong to us!

      You evidently meant i < BASE_COUNT or i <= MAX_BASE.

  • is it Google or GNOogle?
  • As simple licenses go, you can't get much simpler than the beerware [wikipedia.org] license. I'd love to see Google adopt it!

    sadangel wrote this comment. As long as you retain this notice you can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and you think this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return.
  • Important Legal Notice

    Do no evil.

    :-) 2007 Google, Inc.

  • about Google not returning code to the Open Source movement. Practically every article that she writes that mentions Google includes this allegation or the similar claim that Google 'writes around' the principles of FOSS. Yet when she is questioned on it, she can't show any proof and somehow manages to ignore the million lines of code that Google has returned and the initiatives that it runs and manages under FOSS licencing. Apparently Google has to be completely open and not have any commercially confiden

  • BSD? (Score:2)

    by NekoXP ( 67564 )
    Can you get any simpler and in-spirit than 3-clause BSD? Are we just going to get the "Googlized MIT License" out of this?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close