The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs. Which license is best for a given library is a matter of strategy, and it depends on the details of the situation. At present, most GNU libraries are covered by the Lesser GPL, and that means we are using only one of these two strategies, neglecting the other.
So we are now seeking more libraries to release under the ordinary GPL. Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it.
Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser GPL in certain cases.
The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other libraries. Adding the copyright notice display at startup is optional. Developers should keep in mind that GPL intends to prevent any additional restrictions on the software. When using any portion of GPLed software, the modified version retains the same rights.
As such, the user should release the updated source to subsequent users only if the user releases the modified software to the public. Any software previously licensed under GPLv3 will remain free and cannot restrict competition. With LGPL, users can keep source code private, as it only requires the release of the modifications to the original free library.
It allows subsequent users to replace only the GPLed portions of the software in the future, without having any option to change the proprietary portions of the software. It aims to help developers maintain their fast-paced build and release cycles while addressing license issues early in the process.
Or book a Demo with one of our experts to learn more about Snyk License Compliance Management solution. For them, open source is a pragmatic and practical component in building software as opposed to an ethical choice, and I suspect this is why we have seen such a growth in the use of MIT and Apache licenses.
My guess is that the GPL will continue to be a popular choice of license, but developers will view it increasingly as a purer free software license. I suspect that projects that have an ethical commitment to software freedom will prioritize the GPL over other licenses, but for businesses where there needs to be the balance we discussed earlier, I suspect the MIT and Apache licenses will continue to grow in popularity.
Either way, the great news is that open source and free software is growing, and while there may be complexity and change in how licenses are used, what matters more is that technology is increasingly becoming open, accessible, and available to everyone.
It's a comparison of two monthly snapshots, one from , one from They are therefore comparable data-sets. Jono, I think your article above doesn't adequately cover this point: companies and trade associations, in a concerted way, are pressuring developers to avoid copyleft licenses with multiple copyright holders, precisely because they want the opportunity to return to the proprietary licensing scarcity models you mention.
I also urge you to be careful about joining the chorus of people building a Zeitgeist of anti-copyleft sentiment. I know that wasn't your intention, but a lot of people just read headlines: perception becomes reality because truthiness now reigns in our political discourse.
The most important point, I think, is that it's not about the orgs you mention one of which I do work for , but that developers increasingly don't make the decisions about what license to chose: their employers do. Finally, I note you didn't mention John Sullivan's talk where he does a pretty good job discrediting the so-called "data" that shows GPL is declining -- including discrediting some of the so-called 'studies' you quoted.
It's important to keep in mind that there is no known statistically valid way to measure license usage in FLOSS, so there isn't actually a way to know factually whether GPL usage is declining. What we can observe is an anecdotal attack by trade associations and companies against copyleft, which includes substantial rhetoric about its decline. An interesting example of this: Linux Foundation tweeted just two days ago that a particular package had relicensed from AGPL to Apache license so that "everyone could now use it".
LF deleted the tweet after pushback on Twitter, which included the question "When will Linux relicense from the GPL to the Apache license so that 'everyone can finally start using Linux'?
When the organization that holds the name of one of the most popular GPL'd programs has publicly become anti-copyleft like this, we know we have a political attack going on. They didn't live through the rough transition from a fully proprietary world where Free and Open Source was treated with open contempt and actively put down by proprietary software vendors.
They continue to think that businesses can be "friends" to the community. Some private companies, perhaps, but public corporations, no. This new generation of open source devs put their trust into public corporations like Apple, Microsoft, and Google, because they can't imagine how they could go rogue and close what was once open This is similar to the conventional wisdom, held by many until very recently, that the US gov't was a benign champion of the citizens of the US and the values of the US' founders FOSS is insurance for the user, to insure that they, too, can be the developer.
It's forgotten by many up-and-coming devs who are "permissive" licensing fans. They forget that "permissive" depends on your perspective. Permissive for businesses, but not for users. I respectfully suggest they reconsider their underlying assumptions. I agree with you on the observation that there's a new generation of developers who have never known anything but FLOSS as an "acceptable" option. There's some irony, though, in your statement that public corporations can't be friends to the community that is posted on a community-oriented site sponsored by a public corporation.
No irony This seems a rather cynical perspective about companies and trade associations that I haven't seen any independently verifiable data to support. While I don't deny that some companies want to avoid copyleft licensing, from my experience, there isn't pressure on developers to avoid copyleft, it is that copyleft is either a not particularly understood within the context of their business model, or b copyleft is incompatible with their business model.
Sure, some people may only read the headline, but if they are not going to invest the time in reading and understanding the piece, I am not going to invest my time in entertaining their perspectives. This is not particularly surprising, and this is why I think this is a marketing issue. It is entirely reasonable that the company who invests in the work should choose the license. The problem is that the people making those decisions invariably don't understood the GPL and the requirements and benefits therein, and as I mentioned, I would argue that the FSF and the SFC has not anchored efforts to resolve this marketing problem which as I said, I have no issue with - those orgs can use their resources as they see fit.
Indeed I didn't reference this as I didn't know about it. As John and I discussed on Twitter, I am not saying the data I cited is telling the full story of what is really happening, but I think it is a reasonably credible source that is worthy of us having a conversation, hence my article.
Again, while observational data is in no way scientific, it does reflect what I see, and other data sources e. More importantly, I would love to see data behind the argument that GPL licensing is not declining.
I am yet to see that data. Of course, we can't get a fully accurate picture of this, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I don't think we need a fully accurate picture - what is important is that if we sense a trend, which I do believe is happening, we shouldn't bury our heads in the sand, we need to talk about solutions to the issue rather than bickering over the data. As for your comment about 'an anecdotal attack by trade associations and companies against copyleft, which includes substantial rhetoric about its decline', I just don't buy it.
I don't think there is this big conspiracy against copyleft that you see. Of course, I might be wrong, but I would like to see some real independently verifiable data that companies and trade associations are, as a general trend, attacking and encouraging developers away from copyleft. Otherwise, this is just FUD. Here is some advice. When you are going to submit a graphic as a centerpiece of your article, you should make an attempt to improve its legibility.
Even with viewing the graphic separately I can barely read the descriptors if at all. There are open source tools that could easily edit this. This may be something best presented as a list anyway. Something else which becomes apparent on expanding the graph to legibility is that the top of the graph isn't quite 0. Fair point, Greg. The article should at least allow people to click the image and see a bigger version. This data is interesting for certain purposes, but it is a bit misleading when it comes to trying to compare license usage.
It doesn't take into account that the GPL is intended to consolidate efforts while the other licenses are not. The nature of the GPL is that code tends to be contributed to the main project, and even forks usually either get re-absorbed into the main project or become the new main project. There are generally one or perhaps two forks of any project that continue to be maintained while the others wither while giving back any code that was worthwhile to the maintained fork s. Related to this is that the data is presented as percentages of the total number of projects rather than the number of users of projects.
0コメント