Free Software supporters reject software religion for common sense.
More and more open source projects are moving away from the GPL hard license and are adopting more “rational" licenses like Apache, writes Wired magazine. The share of GPL-projects fell from 70% in June 2008 to 57% now.
A striking example of this trend is Mike Olson, one of the pioneers of the free software movement who participated in the creation of the Berkeley DB in the early 90s. Later he worked as executive director of Sleepycat Software, which built a completely successful business with this DBMS on a free license, similar to the GPL.
As it is known, the GPL allows anyone to modify the code, but obliges them to return the changes to the community and distribute their product only under the GPL. However, in 2009, Olson founded Cloudera, the first company that set a goal to make money on the open source development of Hadoop (a platform for high-performance computing on Google’s MapReduce and GFS development). And he abandoned the GPL in favor of Apache, which does not force him to share his work with the community. What is most interesting, Olson believes, the transition to more rational licenses is only for the benefit of the entire open source community.
Although many open source advocates categorically oppose “unclean” licenses that are not compatible with the GPL, the statistics suggest the opposite. Mike Olson is far from the only one who abandoned "religion." Analysts from RedMonk and other free software experts confirm that the GPL license is clearly losing ground in the field of corporate software.
')
"The open source business part of the move went in the direction of the Apache licensed model, and Mike Olson was ahead of the whole movement," said Matt Asay, a longtime supporter of the GPL, who had opposed Apache-like licenses for many years. But now even he recognizes this trend. “He was the guy who, behind the scenes, was constantly talking about the hardness of all of us who believed in the GPL.”
The main forces that help care for the GPL are web giants like Facebook and Twitter. Unlike traditional software companies, they publish a lot of very good open source projects, but only under permits. By their example, a whole brood of open source developers like Cloudera appeared, and these products look much more attractive for corporate customers, because they do not impose strict restrictions on them, like the GPL. True or not, the fact is that many businesses are afraid of the GPL - they are afraid that they will be forced to give the proprietary code, but with the Apache license there are no such fears.
According to the analytical service Black Duck Software, which tracks the popularity of free licenses, the GPL is still in the first place, but its share is noticeably decreasing. The percentage of GPL projects dropped from 70% in June 2008 to 57% now, while the share of Apache and MIT rose to 5% and 11%, respectively. True, representatives of the Free Software Foundation do not agree with this statistics, because they do not understand what data it is collected on. At the same time, other analytical agencies (RedMonk, OuterCurve Foundation) confirm the trend.
From prominent open source recent projects that use Apache, you can call Hadoop, OpenStack and Cassandra. MIT licenses use CloudFoundry and Node.js. Not to mention the fact that under Apache there are mobile platforms - and Android, and the recently announced webOS from Palm / HP.
Why this is happening is difficult to say. Analysts say companies like Facebook, Twitter or Google are not so confused by the fate of the code. They themselves built their systems on free products and are therefore happy to give something to people without demanding anything in return. Therefore, they do not want to impose strict restrictions on the GPL, but simply give the world their development. At the same time, they feel that there will be a return in any case, they simply do not want to force people. If the GPL allowed to use the code for free, but required to pay for it with its own code, then Apache / MIT - in a sense, this is freedom without restrictions.
By the way, there are hybrid options, such as dual licensing. This model was used in Sleepycat Software. They could give you Berkeley DB completely free of charge under a GPL-like license, but if you paid money, they gave you Berkeley DB under another separate license that did not force you to share the code. “The GPL is like a virus, and we offer medicine,” Olson said at the time. “Or you infect your intellectual property, or pay us.”
Now is a new time, says Olson. When it comes to business and money, you need to focus on the interests of customers, rather than convert them to their faith.
A striking example of this trend is Mike Olson, one of the pioneers of the free software movement who participated in the creation of the Berkeley DB in the early 90s. Later he worked as executive director of Sleepycat Software, which built a completely successful business with this DBMS on a free license, similar to the GPL.
As it is known, the GPL allows anyone to modify the code, but obliges them to return the changes to the community and distribute their product only under the GPL. However, in 2009, Olson founded Cloudera, the first company that set a goal to make money on the open source development of Hadoop (a platform for high-performance computing on Google’s MapReduce and GFS development). And he abandoned the GPL in favor of Apache, which does not force him to share his work with the community. What is most interesting, Olson believes, the transition to more rational licenses is only for the benefit of the entire open source community.
Although many open source advocates categorically oppose “unclean” licenses that are not compatible with the GPL, the statistics suggest the opposite. Mike Olson is far from the only one who abandoned "religion." Analysts from RedMonk and other free software experts confirm that the GPL license is clearly losing ground in the field of corporate software.
')
"The open source business part of the move went in the direction of the Apache licensed model, and Mike Olson was ahead of the whole movement," said Matt Asay, a longtime supporter of the GPL, who had opposed Apache-like licenses for many years. But now even he recognizes this trend. “He was the guy who, behind the scenes, was constantly talking about the hardness of all of us who believed in the GPL.”
The main forces that help care for the GPL are web giants like Facebook and Twitter. Unlike traditional software companies, they publish a lot of very good open source projects, but only under permits. By their example, a whole brood of open source developers like Cloudera appeared, and these products look much more attractive for corporate customers, because they do not impose strict restrictions on them, like the GPL. True or not, the fact is that many businesses are afraid of the GPL - they are afraid that they will be forced to give the proprietary code, but with the Apache license there are no such fears.
According to the analytical service Black Duck Software, which tracks the popularity of free licenses, the GPL is still in the first place, but its share is noticeably decreasing. The percentage of GPL projects dropped from 70% in June 2008 to 57% now, while the share of Apache and MIT rose to 5% and 11%, respectively. True, representatives of the Free Software Foundation do not agree with this statistics, because they do not understand what data it is collected on. At the same time, other analytical agencies (RedMonk, OuterCurve Foundation) confirm the trend.
From prominent open source recent projects that use Apache, you can call Hadoop, OpenStack and Cassandra. MIT licenses use CloudFoundry and Node.js. Not to mention the fact that under Apache there are mobile platforms - and Android, and the recently announced webOS from Palm / HP.
Why this is happening is difficult to say. Analysts say companies like Facebook, Twitter or Google are not so confused by the fate of the code. They themselves built their systems on free products and are therefore happy to give something to people without demanding anything in return. Therefore, they do not want to impose strict restrictions on the GPL, but simply give the world their development. At the same time, they feel that there will be a return in any case, they simply do not want to force people. If the GPL allowed to use the code for free, but required to pay for it with its own code, then Apache / MIT - in a sense, this is freedom without restrictions.
By the way, there are hybrid options, such as dual licensing. This model was used in Sleepycat Software. They could give you Berkeley DB completely free of charge under a GPL-like license, but if you paid money, they gave you Berkeley DB under another separate license that did not force you to share the code. “The GPL is like a virus, and we offer medicine,” Olson said at the time. “Or you infect your intellectual property, or pay us.”
Now is a new time, says Olson. When it comes to business and money, you need to focus on the interests of customers, rather than convert them to their faith.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/138294/
All Articles