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?