Comments on: Google Code vs License Proliferation http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/08/06/licenseproliferation/ because technology is just another ecosystem Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:15:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: From Tolstoy to Tinker Bell. Down from Berkeley to Carmel. « Tuna Park http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/08/06/licenseproliferation/comment-page-1/#comment-542227 From Tolstoy to Tinker Bell. Down from Berkeley to Carmel. « Tuna Park Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:58:10 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/?p=2192#comment-542227 [...] and become the most well known.   The estimable Stephen O’Grady of RedMonk raises good points about the need not to get one’s knickers in a twist about the large number of open source [...] [...] and become the most well known.   The estimable Stephen O’Grady of RedMonk raises good points about the need not to get one’s knickers in a twist about the large number of open source [...]

]]> By: tecosystems » AGPL: Open Source Licensing in a Networked Age http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/08/06/licenseproliferation/comment-page-1/#comment-542016 tecosystems » AGPL: Open Source Licensing in a Networked Age Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:07:03 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/?p=2192#comment-542016 [...] it comes to license styles and trends, I tend towards laissez-faire, to be sure (e.g. my apathetic response to the license proliferation crisis). In this, the ASP loophole question is no exception. If the [...] [...] it comes to license styles and trends, I tend towards laissez-faire, to be sure (e.g. my apathetic response to the license proliferation crisis). In this, the ASP loophole question is no exception. If the [...]

]]> By: Simon Phipps http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/08/06/licenseproliferation/comment-page-1/#comment-450723 Simon Phipps Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:44:44 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/?p=2192#comment-450723 All well and good, DeWitt, but the way to fix it is at source at OSI rather than usurping their authority. Like Stephen, I can't help suspecting this is more about justifying Google's rejection of AGPL and CDDL. And I actually do oppose proliferation, as I've blogged in the past[1]. [1] http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/addressing_proliferation_deeds_not_just All well and good, DeWitt, but the way to fix it is at source at OSI rather than usurping their authority. Like Stephen, I can’t help suspecting this is more about justifying Google’s rejection of AGPL and CDDL. And I actually do oppose proliferation, as I’ve blogged in the past[1].

[1] http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/addressing_proliferation_deeds_not_just

]]> By: DeWitt Clinton http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/08/06/licenseproliferation/comment-page-1/#comment-450452 DeWitt Clinton Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:56:38 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/?p=2192#comment-450452 Hey Stephen, I started a thread over on FriendFeed in response. The basic concern is that it increases the burden of compliance for the users of open source code, and ultimately reduces the reusability of the code, which runs counter to the presumed original intent of the licensor. See: http://friendfeed.com/e/a6edd1dc-8857-2458-d645-63e22e07faa8/Google-Code-vs-License-Proliferation/ Cheers, -DeWitt Hey Stephen,

I started a thread over on FriendFeed in response. The basic concern is that it increases the burden of compliance for the users of open source code, and ultimately reduces the reusability of the code, which runs counter to the presumed original intent of the licensor. See: http://friendfeed.com/e/a6edd1dc-8857-2458-d645-63e22e07faa8/Google-Code-vs-License-Proliferation/

Cheers,

-DeWitt

]]> By: Sean http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/08/06/licenseproliferation/comment-page-1/#comment-450440 Sean Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:36:05 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/?p=2192#comment-450440 One of the rationales for this may be something mike muller pointed out to me a while ago (http://www.enduden.com/~mmuller/news/index.html) "I've also decided to move away from my own BSD-ish license and onto something more standard - in this case, the LGPLv3. For a long time I used my own license because I feared the GPL to be too restrictive for businesses to be willing to use GPL code. None of the less restrictive licenses in use seemed to express what exactly I wanted. These days, however, it seems that pretty much everybody is using GPLed code, and I've come to accept that a lot of the restrictive provisions of the license (particularly some of the anti-patent provisions of GPL3) are really important for the FOSS community. Also, as it turns out, it is now the special one-off licenses like mine that hinder business adoption of the code - they create a whole new hurdle of having to be approved by the legal department. So ODB is now released under LGPLv3. " One of the rationales for this may be something mike muller pointed out to me a while ago (http://www.enduden.com/~mmuller/news/index.html)

“I’ve also decided to move away from my own BSD-ish license and onto something more standard – in this case, the LGPLv3. For a long time I used my own license because I feared the GPL to be too restrictive for businesses to be willing to use GPL code. None of the less restrictive licenses in use seemed to express what exactly I wanted. These days, however, it seems that pretty much everybody is using GPLed code, and I’ve come to accept that a lot of the restrictive provisions of the license (particularly some of the anti-patent provisions of GPL3) are really important for the FOSS community. Also, as it turns out, it is now the special one-off licenses like mine that hinder business adoption of the code – they create a whole new hurdle of having to be approved by the legal department. So ODB is now released under LGPLv3. “

]]>