August 10, 2009

Does GPL still matter?

As open source gets more commercial, GPL's idealism is overridden by developers' business needs

Jeff Haynie reached a crossroads last summer. Haynie, CEO of Appcelerator, a firm that develops open source cross-platform application development software, made a decision filled with implications for his company's future. That decision: to toss away his upcoming product's Gnu General Public License (GPL), the best-known and most popular free software license, in favor of what he viewed as a more business-friendly alternative. "We initially started the product with a GPLv3 license and we decided last summer to move the license to Apache," Haynie says.

Haynie isn't the only business-oriented open source community member to have made, or at least pondered, a move to a GPL-free future. A June study conducted by Black Duck Software, an open source development tools vendor, shows that the Free Software Foundation's GPL -- although far and away still the dominant open source licensing platform -- could be starting to slide. The survey found that despite strong growth in GPLv3 adoption, the percentage of open source projects using GPL variants dropped from 70 to 65 percent from the previous year.

[ Stay up to speed with the open source community via InfoWorld's Technology: Open Source newsletter. | InfoWorld's Savio Rodrigues explains why software vendors tend to stick with GPL. ]

Before deciding to pull away from GPL, Haynie says Appcelerator surveyed some two dozen software vendors working within the same general market space. To his surprise, Haynie saw that only one was using a GPL variant. "Everybody else, hands down, was MIT, Apache, or New BSD," he says.

"The proponents of GPL like to tell people that the world only needs one open source license, and I think that's actually, frankly, just a flat-out dumb position," says Mike Milinkovich, executive director of the Eclipse Foundation, one of the many organizations now offering an open source license with more generous commercial terms than GPL.

Alternative licenses offer liberal code distribution terms (which means more revenue potential) and more clearly written licenses -- and they have eager and qualified developer communities, advocates say.

GPL limits developers' ability to make money
As the open source market continues marching away from its roots -- the lone developer who creates a useful product as a labor of love -- appreciation for the idealism that lies at the GPL's heart is diminishing. Businesses that view open source development as a path to a profitable future rather than as an altruistic mission are increasingly balking at what they view as the license's excessively restrictive aspects concerning code improvements.

Read more about developer world in InfoWorld's Developer World Channel.

Close

On Twitter now

Software licensing

Powered by Twitter

On Twitter now

additional resources
White Paper - How to Improve Delivery of Advanced Web Applications

White Paper

Virtual Workforce: The Key to Expanding The Business While Cutting Costs

Get the independent advice and expertise you need to support a virtual workforce.

Go inside:
The three-step approach to making a virtual workforce a reality.
The four flavors of client virtualization technologies.
The three key initiatives that solve IT challenges.
Download now »
White Paper: Successfully Secure Your Wireless LAN With Wi-Fi firewalls.

White Paper

Addressing Linux Threats Leveraging Fewer Resources

The increase in Linux popularity has increased the frequency and sophistication of malware attacks. Read this 2 page white paper now to learn how you can protect your Linux environment with real-time protection that is certified by all major Linux vendors.

Download now »
White Paper - The 2009 Handbook of Application Delivery

White Paper

The 2009 Handbook of Application Delivery

Ensuring acceptable application delivery will become even more difficult over the next few years. As a result, IT organizations need to ensure that the approach that they take to resolving the current application delivery challenges can scale to support the emerging challenges. This handbook elaborates on the key tasks associated with planning, optimization, management and control and provides decision criteria to help IT organizations choose appropriate solutions.

Download now »
White Paper - Is Your Backup System Outdated?

White Paper

Mid-range Storage Considerations

A common misconception is that mid-range storage requirements are dramatically different than that of a larger enterprise. Mid-range storage users may require less capacity, but they have similar functionality and management requirements. This ESG paper examines mid-range storage needs and reviews a new solution that adjusts size while retaining value, performance and functionality.

Download now »
Chris_maresca 10-Aug-09 9:15am
I've advised more than 60 startups on open source and business strategy. The one constant about licensing is that license choice should be driven by business model. No license choice happens in a vacuum... I would also point out that I've had two clients using the Apache license have their code taken and re-used by competitors, so it's not necessarily the most ideal license either, unless those are your business goals. Chris http://www.chrismaresca.com
ricegf 10-Aug-09 10:02am
This is a timely and interesting article, but it includes two glaring and rather obvious errors. First, "all software must be free, even if they have to force it to be free". This is an odd statement that contradicts the premise of the article. Nobody is "forcing" anyone to do anything, else how are the products featured in this article "moving away from the GPL"? Second, "you've got to give [GPL-licensed software] away for free, and you've got to give the source code away for free as well". This is just blatantly false. The GPL has always explicitly permited applications to be sold, and permited recovery of the cost of distributing source code. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney for license details, and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html for the philosophy behind this decades-old decision. The article also only lightly alludes to a serious and growing problem with the proliferation of the non-GPL variants - license compatiblity. If I need 3 libraries to build my product, and each are available under a different license, what license can I use to release my product that maintains legal compatiblity with the above? The FSF is careful to characterize GPL compatibility (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses), but other license maintainers generally leave you on your own. Businesses are free to choose the license they use for their software, but the first step in making this choice is accurate information. Don't take Mr. Edwards word for it - do the research yourself.
mamede 11-Aug-09 8:40am
I agree with the writer. Free is free. Free to open, free to close. Nothing "forced" is really free. Long life to BSD (and variations) licence!

Sign up to receive InfoWorld Resource Alerts

Subscribe to the Developer World Newsletter

Receive a weekly roundup about the art and science of software development.

©1994-2010 Infoworld, Inc.