Comments on: On the fall and rise of the GNU GPL

By: Analisa : Trend Lisensi Permisif « Tanya Reza Ervani Tentang LINUX

Analisa : Trend Lisensi Permisif « Tanya Reza Ervani Tentang LINUX — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 03:25:31 +0000

[...] dengan gambar yang diperoleh pada Juni 2008, Juni 2009, dan beberapa penelitian CAOS dari bulan Maret 2010 mengindikasikan penurunan yang terlihat pada pengguanaan GPL, terutama [...]

By: 451 CAOS Theory » The trend towards permissive licensing

451 CAOS Theory » The trend towards permissive licensing — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 14:57:09 +0000

[...] latest figures with those provided in June 2008, June 2009, and some previous CAOS research from March 2010 indicates a steady decline in the use of the GPL family and the GPLv2 in [...]

By: 451 CAOS Theory » The future of open source licensing

451 CAOS Theory » The future of open source licensing — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:15:04 +0000

[...] GPL is certainly not going away any time soon (any more than we have previously discussed) but commercial incentives mean that non- and weak-copyleft licenses are highly likely to be the [...]

By: Ecommerce

Ecommerce — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:02:54 +0000

We do find GPL3 and AGPL a lot more beneficial at our end due to the sustainable economic virtues it possesses.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:30:18 +0000

Predicting a GPL decline with cloud computing is not only bad science, but spurious since the GPL doesn’t place any of the restrictions implied here to so called “cloud computing”. The GPL never has even when cloud computing was previously called “software as a service”. This is the hole the AGPL is trying to fix.

The rise of permissive licenses over the GPL is from the usual level of paranoia and FUD, but is also the result of Enterprise software companies *distributing* their work with free software packages, libraries and frameworks.

The AGPL is slow to pickup on a wide scale, but that makes it more important that it should be promoted precisely because of the rise of so called “cloud computing”.

By: Matthew Aslett

Matthew Aslett — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:56:55 +0000

Anders,

I agree with your viewpoint, apart from the point about control and community. I agree GPL is great for true communities, but when it comes to vendor-led projects we have seen that the GPL, when used alongside copyright assignment policies to ensure that the vendor has control of the project, restricts community input. More permissive licenses give vendors control over the use of the output, *and* can also be used to quickly encourage community engagement.

By: Anders Norgaard

Anders Norgaard — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:02:53 +0000

I think the percentage decline of FOSS projects under the GPL is a natural consequence of increased corporate participation in FOSS development. The GPL and share-alike provisions works great for communities of people who want to create something great.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=4129

Corporations and their lawyers and bureaucrats on the other hand are distrustful of anything they cant control, and are more likely to prioritize control over community – and go with something like an Apache license.

By: Don Christie

Don Christie — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:34:18 +0000

At Catalyst we favour the GPL3 and AGPL for many reasons. However one important one is that to us it makes most commercial sense from a sustainability perspective. In picking third party software we prefer the GPL as it is a reasonable indicator that the project founders had thought about sustainability *and* their users rights.

By: Chris Aniszczyk

Chris Aniszczyk — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:05:21 +0000

I think that the GPL (strong copyleft) is on the decline. I blogged about my opinion recently that I expect to see a strong rise in weak copy left licenses like the LGPL and EPL [1]. My theory of how GPL was popular was because when people chose a license, they chose it based on their experiences. They probably heard of the kernel and knew that it was GPL therefore through it was good. Developers aren’t good with legal matters. Another theory I have is that when project hosting sites like SF.net first started out, GPL was one of the licenses generally pushed. I could be wrong, who knows. I just know I see a pattern when Eclipse, Symbian, Codeplex start offering weak copy left licenses.

[1] – http://aniszczyk.org/2010/02/08/eclipse-symbian-and-the-rise-of-the-weak-copyleft/