www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: In a different universe [WAS: Move log4cplus' license to ASL 2.0.]
Date Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:28:49 GMT
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Ceki Gulcu<ceki@qos.ch> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> none of those products could have been developed under such a dubious
>> license. in that universe, open source would have been litigated out of
>> existence leaving only GPL'd free software and closed source software as
>> the only alternatives. the library problem would have been solved by
>> horizontal consolidation into a small number of closed source platform
>> vendors (similar microsoft's .NET offering circa 2000).
>> the political argument sometimes used by Free Software advocates against
>>  non-copyleft licenses boils down to that such a universe (with a
>> conclusive split between free software and closed source forcing
>> developers to choose either GPL or closed source) would have more free
>> software than this one.
> LGPL is not easy to grok and AL is arguably a better license. However,
> that does not mean that Lucene (just an example) could not have been
> successfully licensed under LGPL.
> It so happens that in the Java world
> AL is dominant which pressures java oss projects to adopt AL. In other
> environments, peer pressure has oss projects adopt licenses other than
> AL.  I personally do not buy the argument that the liberal nature of
> AL had or has a decisive influence on Apache's success, but that's
> just me yapping from the fringes.

Open Source Java projects, unlike its counterparts in other language
spaces, has always been very linked to corporate development.
Permissively licensed projects have therefore been far more successful
as companies are much more comfortable with a permissively licensed
project than copyleft. AL2 has done well because it's the one of the
few modern permissive licenses (ie: talks about patents).

An Apache licensed windowing system for Linux, or a browser would have
no such advantage and not have much of a license value.

On your side of things, it'll be interesting to see how the success of
sfl4j and logback compare in a couple of years. Ah reckon sfl4j should
have eradicated commons-logging by then, but log4j will still be the
common used library.

> Greg Stein recently pointed at an article [1] suggesting the demise
> of GPL. According to page 2 of that article, GPL+LPGL cover 64.8% of
> surveyed open-source projects with Apache at 3.9% and that's an
> article about GPL's irrelevance!  If the GPL could talk, it would say:
> "Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated".

"Rumors of your importance however are also greatly exaggerated" :)
Really... 64.8%. Even if we look at the fact that a Linux server to me
is one product but in reality is a thousand projects, 64.8% is way
higher than my Java view of the world would think. Or Perl where
everything is Artistic/GPL (and should be considered Artistic and not
GPL for such a survey given that Artistic is the more liberal
license). What are these projects and why don't I care about them?

Said somewhat tongue in cheekly, I know I'm the product of my
ecosystem and am probably not seeing ecosystems full of GPL that would
matter if I would but pay attention - personally I think the number is
bolstered by the large number of people who don't think about their
licensing and choose the name they recognize the most.


Dual licensing boggles me - jQuery is dual MIT/GPL. Why???? It's not
as if GPL code isn't full of MIT + BSD code. Why confuse things by
applying an utterly useless GPL license. Weird.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message