The Free and Open Software Learning Centre held a debate on 3 common licenses.
One thing that the FLOSS community loves to do is debate the aspects of the various licenses – of which there are legion. The most common framing is GPL v. BSD, but the Free and Open Software Learning Centre recently held a 3-way debate among GPL, BSD, and EPL.
The debate was recorded, and video is online.
The “winner” was the GPL, as debated by Matt Asay - ironic considering Mr. Asay seems to disparage the GPL quite frequently of late. His strongest points seemed to be two-fold: one, the popularity of the GPL is evidence of its strength; two, it fosters “trust” where other licenses can not.
Although I agree with the position that the GPL is – in general terms – the superior choice, I’m not sure I would argue hard relying on its popularity. Such arguments are most often fallacious (if effective). The point about the GPL fostering “trust” is very good though.
One of the most interesting arguments for the GPL that I have read is Zed Shaw’s “Why I (A/L)GPL“, which gives a developer’s-side view rooted in practical experience. Well worth reading as a “real-world” complement to the more philosophical arguments defending the GPL.
One thing that has always bothered me a little bit is the sheer number of Open Source licenses (60+ approved licenses on the OSI list). I like the Creative Commons approach much better, it seems “modular” and easier to parse. Is something like that, where options for each aspect are selectable, not feasible for software licensing? Or would you end up with 3 dozen icons in the “badge”, vs. the two or three in Creative Commons?
#1 by terry sawchuk on September 16, 2009 - 1:52 pm
When someone brought this debate up during our weekly working lunch, the best comment was “Having Asay defend the GPL is like having Dracula guard a blood bank!”
Asay has been acting like a protege of ESR: open source goof/free software bad, so it got quite a good amount of laughs.
As for the OSI (Asay again), they allow every tom, dick and redmond to have their own, no matter how similar they are to others and diluted the term open source even more than before (not just their fault, its the meme du jour. everyone wants to be open, even professional liars/politicians talk about openess).
I grudgingly accepted the self serving ‘open source’ definition that was pushed a few years but have gotten back to what I started with and the reason why I contributed in the first place: GPL.and free software.
I understand the need for less copyleft licenses for some business reasons but I am NOT an open source developer and I dont share the same goals as everyone that describes themselves as such..
I dont do BSD, I dont do MS-PL, I speak GPL.
It doesnt make the other licenses bad or the people evil, it just means I have different goals for my code than others do and calling myself and open source developer is too vague and could be interpreted as something I am not..
Free/libre software describes exactly what I do while open source is a vast porte-manteau which incorporates a lot of principles I dont believe in.
Debating the ‘best’ license is as meaningless as debating the ‘best’ song.
The best license is the one you use (anyone ever use the worst licence?).
It might be the best for you but might not be the best for other people.
This quantifying things as ‘best’ is a bit juvenile in that regard..
#2 by Jason on September 18, 2009 - 3:42 pm
Terry,
Loving the Dracula-guarding-the-blood-bank analogy! That captures the situation quite well!
I also agree that the label “best” isn’t much good outside of giving people something to discuss or argue about.