GitHub's ChooseALicense.com
GitHub has launched a new site which is a pretty good reference for software licenses: http://choosealicense.com
Curious on your thoughts and impressions.
It uses the term "open source", which is weak, encourages the use of version 2 of the GPL over version 3, and refers to the "MIT License". I don't see a real problem with it; the OSI website does all the same things (or at least I think so), but I wouldn't refer to it as a resource for someone wondering what license to choose. https://gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html is just fine.
1. They use the term "open source" because it is the more popular and accepted term for the type of software with most developers. Thankfully their license list contains licenses classified as "free software" as well except for the "No License" option. They probably included it to answer questions on what happens when you omit a license.
2. The GPL v2 is still important and they probably list first due to the popularity of projects like the Linux kernel using it. If they did NOT have v3 on the list, then it would be an issue.
3. On the OSI page and through usage over the years, the "MIT License" has been pretty defined in what it is. The majority of projects under this license follow Expat. If it was me, I would prefer to go with a 2 or 3 clause BSD if Apache 2.0 wasn't an option.
1. They use the term "open source" because they support that philosophy, not free software. As such, it is irrelevant to me. I support free software, not open source.
2. GPLv2 is not important for consideration for a new project. It's an old license, and I think it's silly that some people (*cough* Linus Torvalds *cough*) refuse to accept version 3 of the GPL.
What doesn't Linus like about the GPL v3?
Version 3 of the GPL removes the "tivotization" of the GPL and creates issues for some hardware vendors, so therefore moving to GPLv3 is not possible at this time for the Linux kernel.
That can't be it, because he licenses Git as GPLv2-only, too. It's pretty obvious he just doesn't like version 3 of the GPL.
Relicensing Linux is practically impossible. Because there were contribution from tens (hundreds?) thousands of developers and no copyright assignment, there are as many copyright holders. Each of them should explicitly agree to any relicensing.
But, yes, Linux Torvalds himself said he wants hardware vendors to be able to ship devices with his kernel and the technical impossibility (enforced by hardware restrictions) to run modified versions. In this context, the GPLv2 can be respected even if the freedom to modify the software is blocked in practice. GPLv3 prohibits this practice known as tivoization.
Other famous Linux developers, such as Alan Cox, see the GNU GPLv3 as an improvement over the previous version.
I'm actually curious about this topic regarding the GPL and hardware. Are they talking about firmware on a device or more in line software that runs on a smart TV that may have its own applications?
Here is how it works:
- The software (in our example: the Linux kernel) is developed and compiled;
- A hash (i.e., a digital signature) of the binary is computed and "integrated" into the hardware (no way to modify it);
- The hardware only execute the binary if its hash matches the one in the hardware.
The manufacturer can perfectly comply with the terms of the GPLv2, in particular, let the user access the source code and modify it... but the modified software will refuse to run on the device she bought. The GNU GPLv3 legally prohibits that practical blockage.
It's maddening that many companies intentionally prevent you from running your own modified copy of software on your own computer.
On 23/07/13 13:51, magicbanana wrote:
> Relicensing Linux is practically impossible. Because there were
> contribution from tens (hundreds?) thousands of developers and no
> copyright assignment, there are as many copyright holders. Each of
> them should explicitly agree to any relicensing.
A relicensing of an entire kernel wouldn't have to happen overnight, or
even in five years. What if the Linux kernel contributors eventually
decided they liked the GPLv3, and set out to make the kernel
GPLv3-compatible in a decade. All it would require is for developers to
agree to license future contributions under the GPLv2 or later.
New device drivers come about and occasionally old ones sometimes become
deprecated. A significant amount code gets refactored and replaced over
a decade period. Apparently some kernel developers have always licensed
their code GPLv2+, so it's not like all code has to be replaced. It
would be interesting to see how much of the kernel from ten years ago
has been replaced now. I think a timeframe of ten years could be
feasible (but I'm not a kernel dev or a relicensing expert, so maybe I'm
wrong - I can only speculate).
But I don't think this would ever happen. Kernel developers do what they
do best: write code. Although I think the GPLv3 solves problems and is
better than the GPLv2 (especially the TiVoisation clause), I think it
would be a waste of time to try attempting to convince the kernel devs,
as many have already made up their minds. There are more important
things to spend time on. Maybe other projects will be convinced to use
the GPLv3.
Andrew.
I heard somewhere, maybe in a lecture by Richard Stallman, that relicensing the kernel to GNU GPLv3 will not require much work. It's mainly that Linus (and maybe others) just don't like the license.