451 CAOS Theory 
A blog for the enterprise open source community
As the GPL fades
Jay Lyman, January 28, 2010 @ 3:17 pm ETWe’re continuing to see signs that the dominant GPL open source license may be fading from favor among commercial open source software players. The latest move away from the GPL comes from content management software vendor Alfresco, which is moving to the LGPL after originally releasing its code under the GPL three years ago. The reasoning for the shift, according to Alfresco CEO John Newton, is the company sees greater opportunity beyond being a software application, particularly given the emergence of the Content Management Interoperability Services standard. Alfresco won mostly praise for its move, and it does make sense given where open source is going these days.
I believe the emerging trend away from GPL and toward more permissive, mixable licenses such as LGPL or Apache reflects the broadening out of open source software not only throughout the enterprise IT software stack, but also throughout uses beyond individual applications, frameworks and systems. More and more open source software vendors are pursuing opportunities in embedded use or OEM deals whereby open source software often must sit alongside or even inside of proprietary code and products. Similar to what we’ve seen in the mobile space — where open source software and development are more prominent than ever, but end products with accessible code are not — open source is broadening out, but it is doing so in many cases by integrating with proprietary code.
We also see some debate about the community and commercial ups and downs of GPL as organizations contemplate the balance of the two and the best way to achieve commercial success with open source software. As Matt highlights, we are seeing a choice of non-GPL licensing in order to more effectively foster community and third-party involvement, but we also continue to see GPL as a top choice to similarly build community.
While the debate about community versus commercial benefit may not necessarily be prompting movement away from GPL, I believe another recent action may indeed do so. The latest series of GPL lawsuits are aimed at raising awareness, profile and legitimacy for open source software. While those bringing the suits — primarily the Software Freedom Law Center — have exhibited a reasonable approach and settled with past lawsuit targets, these suits and publicity may still serve to steer organizations making the choice to other licenses, including the LGPL, BSD, Apache and the Eclipse Public License.
Another factor is the GPL thumping that took place during the SaveMySQL campaign as the European Commission contemplated Oracle’s proposed (and now closed) acquisition of Sun Microsystems and the open source MySQL. I voiced my concern that the SaveMySQL campaign might jeopardize or de-value open source software projects and pieces in M&A, but I believe I’m actually in agreement with SaveMySQL leader Monty Widenius that the deal and process may end up tarnishing the GPL and its reputation in the enterprise.
As stated above, much of the movement we’re seeing away from the GPL has to do with the desire and opportunity to place open source software alongside, within, on top of or otherwise with proprietary software. Non-GPL open source licenses are also more flexible in terms of integrating and bundling with other open source software licensed under other, non-GPL licenses.
We anticipated this fade of GPL as covered in our report, The Myth of Open Source License Proliferation. Given its clout, durability and continued popularity in commercial open source (and with help from continued growth of GPL-licensed Linux) we believe the GPL will endure as a top open source license. However, given their flexibility and the ability to combine with other code, we see a number of other challengers — Apache, BSD, EPL and LGPL — rising while GPL dominance wanes. We’re also watching to see whether the AGPLv3 for networked software will provide new life for GPL-style licensing and community building in emerging virtualized, SaaS and cloud computing environments.
Comments (22) Categories: Software
Hate freedom much? The GPL is strong and growing and will always be there to free people from the tyranny of proprietary licencing.
Consider reality much? As stated in the post, GPL is strong and will endure as a top open source license, but it won’t be number one for long. Those other licenses, BTW, are ironically and accurately known as ‘permissive,’ while the ‘tyranny’-busting GPL is widely and accurately known as ‘restrictive.’
JL
@JL – you don’t understand FreeBootR because he is not using corporate double-speak, AND, he is writing from the viewpoint of the user, not the corporation. The GPL IS “restrictive” from a corporate viewpoint because it does restrict the corporation’s ability to restrict the corporation’s ability to restrict one or more of the user’s four freedoms. You do remember the Four Freedoms, and their purpose, don’t you? Allow me to refresh your memory:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Corporations LOVE to use the GPL during the development process because it allows them to exploit the FOSS developer base under false pretenses. When they are ready to release the switch to the LGPL and then add their proprietary bits and bifurcate the code base into the essentially limited or useless “Open version” and the unlimited proprietary version. This bifucation allows them to produce the artificial scarcity necessary to lock in users and guarantee a revenue stream instead of continuing to add value. License changing is used along side of brain-dead patents of publicly available and ordinary programming techniques in order to steal even more from the public commons.
Why be creative when you can just steal what you want, and then treat your customers as thieves? It works for Microsoft.
Thanks for posting GreyGeek, but I think you’re also overlooking a few realities:
1.) we cover the commercial adoption of open source; this doesn’t mean we don’t care about non-commercial perspectives, but they are frankly not as relevant here.
2.) I know of NO successful open source vendor that has a ‘useless’ open source or community version, and we have warned against lack of straightforwardness on what is free, what is paid and what is offered in either case.
3.) Finally, there is a need for a revenue stream, which not only feeds the corporation, but feeds the community and its developers. As much as open source developers love to code, most still need to get paid.
You seem to imply the GPL is the only real open source license, and I couldn’t disagree more. You also seem to imply vendors making licensing changes are pulling one over on their communities, but I doubt they would proceed or succeed if it did not have benefit for both company and community.
JL
The key thing that you don’t understand is that the GPL is much more friendly to corporate contributions than the GPL.
Look at the Linux kernel. Do you think that IBM and others would have contributed their crown jewels to the kernel if their competitors (e.g. Microsoft), could have just ripped their contributions and put it into their operating systems? No way.IBM still has its IP even when others provide additions (though IBM won’t have them unless it uses dual-licenses), so if their competitors want proprietary implementations of their IP, they have to come knocking on IBM’s door. I certainly wouldn’t contribute to any project without similar guarentees, and I’m not alone.
The LGPL and BSD license both have their place, but the GPL is the license of choice if you want to protect your IP while still being open source.
That’s a fair and good point, Anil. You’re not alone in this thinking, and thus we will continue to see GPL chosen. However, we will likely see even more LGPL, Apache, EPL and other open source licenses chosen to accommodate a changing market and meaning for commercial open source.
JL
About the “freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3).” GPL specifically restricts this freedom. If your modifications use other code that is licensed under a GPL-incompatible license, GPL specifically forbids distributing the modified copy (assuming modifier is not the copyright holder of the other code).
I’m not actually sure if GPL forbids even creating or running the modified copy in the first place (your freedoms 1 and 0), but I think not.
And to add insult to injury, it’s the stated political purpose of GPL do just this, restrict everybodys, including non-copyright holding users’ freedom to mix GPL code with GPL-incompatible code.
So there.
Some great points, Jay. This all makes perfect sense – for open source ECM offerings to truly reach critical mass inside business – environments that will increasingly a mixed bag of proprietary, open source, home-grown and SaaS applications – flexibility is essential. Nuxeo chose LGPL years ago for exactly the same reasons. More here: http://blogs.nuxeo.com/cmckinnon/2010/01/ecm-as-a-platform-recent-developments-suggest-yes.html
Thanks for sharing, Cheryl. This all seems to line up with our recent customer/end users survey that shows flexibility is rising in prominence as a factor/benefit of open source software, as well.
JL
So one company decides to move from GPL to LGPL and now GPL is doomed to oblivion? Boy, it’s getting harder and harder to find non-sensationalist writing in the Web’s haystack…
There are a few examples of movement away from GPL. And where exactly did we mention anything about ‘doomed to oblivion.’ If I can quote myself
‘Given its clout, durability and continued popularity in commercial open source (and with help from continued growth of GPL-licensed Linux) we believe the GPL will endure as a top open source license.’
Sooo sensationalist …
JL
>As the GPL fades.
Oh yeah…. you definitely didnt try to bait people with that title.
No siree Bob…. you would neeeever do that.
The GPL is what it is. Use it or dont but understand that whether some company uses it now or changes to another license in no way changes what the license does for my projects and for those that will start new ones.
This need to be loved, to be the only one that many people harbour is not right. I wish that all projects were GPLed but it doenst mean I dont understand why others dont want to.
I expresslly appreciate the copyleft part of the license but can understand why someone wouldnt.
This zero sum game is how bloggers treat OS and browser competition and there seems to be the same need to keep track of who is #1 or #2 in licenses.
My GPLed software is no better or worse than my friends BSDed projects and whether his license is miles behind the GPL in no way diminishes his interest in his work.
I also do realize that the GPL also bothers many people just like the term free/libre software disturbs those for whom freedom is secondary.
Its so weird that my choice about my project which is open to all (including Fortune 500 company employees) bothers people so much.
The nastiness and vitriol and name calling towards anyone who talk about the freedoms is astounding.
Will the lawsuits affect future use of the GPL?
I dont think so, ompanies use the GPL with no problem if they follow the rules, which these companies did not do. But it might warn people that the GPL like any other license has to be respected. No one forces companies to use GPL, the SFLC reminds them if you do use then, please follow the simple rules.
If you werent planning to use GPL for technical reasons, that’s one thing but if you arent going to go to the GPL because hey guess what? you have to respect the agreement, then maybe you have some other issues about integrity you need to deal with at your company.
Its borderline FUD to claim that lawsuits which seek to enforce a simple license would scare off people. Its like saying that since department stores are charging shoplifters who are breaking the law, people might be afraid to go there.
Yes, the one group that will be afraid to go there are the other lawbreakers.
‘As the GPL fades …’ seems like a fairly accurate description of how I believe the GPL is fading. It’s not doomed. It’s not going away. But it is fading from its prominence as the top open source license. I don’t necessarily agree the GPL suits should drive anyone away from GPL and I think they do more to raise awareness and credibility for open source, but the effect will undoubtedly be to spur some to avoid the perceived trouble.
JL
The GPL is dead. Long live Apache2.
To be fair, I should clarify I don’t think the GPL is dying and it isn’t going away. Fading is much more accurate. Long live the GPL, and Apache, and BSD, and LGPL, and Eclipse, and AGPL, and …
JL
[...] 451 CAOS Theory » As the GPL fades … blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/01/28/as-the-gpl-fades – view page – cached An open source blog by The 451 Group. [...]
I think people are really missing the point for the Alfresco licence change.
A little bit of history can give you a lot of insight.
1- Up to alfresco 3.1, both version of alfresco were based on the same developping tree.
The only difference was that the Community version was cutting edge and the enterprise an old version more stable.
2- In Alfresco Enterprise 3.2 they changed the game. They are now developping two different tree and exchange only some functionnality, when they want to. That is why there is a lot of new “Enterprise only” functions in 3.2. That was never the case before.
3- The change from GPL to LGPL is for one reason only: being able to take code from community and add it to the enterprise version without compromising their commercial version. If they kept GPL they would need to publish their “Enterprise Only” features since they are linked in the code.
So in reality, this move from Alfresco is a deception for the community, they want to take advantage from the community.
Personnaly I think that it is time to fork Alfresco. Since one of the most important feature of a ECM is the durability and logetivity of the platform, I cannot recommend alfresco entreprise for any of our client.
So that is the real story…
Thanks for posting, Jean-Francois. Yours was one of the more thoughtful and thought-provoking comments. We appreciate your input.
JL
Thanks to YetAnotherBob for this comment, which was left on the LinuxToday link:
I wonder why this is a problem?
GPL is for a stand along program. LGPL is for a set of code that you want to have included in programs.
Where they are going here is trying to get their current program included as a set of functions in someone elses programs. That is what LGPL is for.
Why is this a problem for FLOSS? Anybody?
[...] the OpenECP project chose to license it under the Affero GPLv3, and we’re watching licensing moves to see if cloud computing prompts more use of [...]
[...] licensing were getting a bit dull (okay, that will probably never happen) … Sure, the GPL is giving up some of its dominance. OEM, embedded, mobile and other expansion areas for open source are keeping [...]
[...] licenses, either in order to encourage widespread adoption and rapid community formation, or to enable easier integration with proprietary software. And those are two key trends that we expect to see [...]