Google has gotten itself into a little bit of a licensing game again. This time, the company’s open source leader Chris DiBona had to come out and reverse a previous ban of the Mozilla Public License (MPL) from Google Code open source project hosting. The thinking was that MPL represented only a minimal number of projects, so to cut down on license proliferation, Google would just leave that one out. However, it turns out that little license and the limitations Google created were critical to some pretty important open source projects and communities, particularly Eclipse.

DiBona says Eclipse’s petitioning is prompting the software giant to rethink its licensing approach: “We’ve resisted until now as we felt that the features of the Eclipse Public License (EPL) were not unique enough to justify its inclusion. This hasn’t changed, but how we think about licenses is getting a bit more nuanced,” DiBona says. Adding that Google wanted to support Eclipse developers and show solidarity with them, DiBona goes on to say that the May 2008 removal of the MPL from Google Code “seemed a little absurd.”

Google is adjusting and it should be commended for owning up to a goof (which seemed a little strange since it was complaining of possible combinations and interations that skyrocket as the number of licenses grows” at the same time saying community-specific licenses (EPL, MPL, CDDL) “tend to create islands of code.”

However, I’m wondering now about the AGPL, which is viewed as both a risk and an opportunity depending on your perspective. We’ve also seen Google open up recently and contribute code using the Apache Public License (APL), which is now compatible with General Public License (GPL) thanks to GPLv3. Both of those licenses are OK on Google Code, but still AGPL remains prohibited.

License proliferation is a real and significant issue, but for Google to claim its license bias lies purely in a desire to address that issue is somewhat disengenuous. There are other considerations, such as code-sharing requirements, which are extended to SaaS under the AGPL. One of the big strengths of free and open source software is the flexibility and freedom to choose among a variety of options, and licenses are no exception. Rather than explaining why it won’t allow some licenses as anti-proliferation, Google should figure out a way to offer more of the options including EPL, MPL and AGPL.