OStatic

All open-source licenses are not created equal. Understanding the different licenses is essential before you start to use, and modify, open-source code.

All open-source licenses have certain common elements: They promise that the source code may be used by anyone, for any purposes. They promise that the software may be changed by anyone, in any way that they like. And they promise that people who use the software never have to pay the authors or distributors.

Why are there so many licenses? And how do they differ?

This week brings some interesting debates on open source licenses, their limits and shortcomings, and their strengths. For example, this post explores a number of misconceptions that people have about the General Public License (GPL), which is the license behind about two in three open source software projects, as shown by Black Duck Software here. The case discussed in the post concerns a Goldman Sachs Group programmer, Sergey Aleynikov, who was arrested--by the FBI, no less--and charged with stealing computer code designed to automate Goldman Sachs' massive trading business. Aleynikov's defense was that he was only trying to download open source software governed by the GPL.

Meanwhile, as Savio Rodrigues notes, on August 31st, a smackdown debate on open source licenses will take place in Ottawa, Canada. Luminaries from the open source world will each defend various types of open source licenses, and everyone is invited to submit questions for the smackdown. You can submit your questions here, and they'll be answered during the virtual event, which you can sign up for here.

Developers of Trillr, a microblogging project similar to Twitter, announced this week that its source code is now available to anyone who wants it. The idea for Trillr was conceived in 2007 as a peer group experiment among team members who wanted to learn more about Python and Django, and was created as an enterprise tool with enhanced features like group discussion and a user directory.

Trillr project member Stefan Aust admits the code base is kind of crappy as it stands now, but that's to be expected since it was part of a learning process. He says that, looking back, he would have done some things differently but notes, perfect source code does not create communities. Our source code can.

The KDE project has announced the date and some detail regarding its first annual Camp KDE event. This developer conference was conceived at the KDE 4 Release Event that took place earlier this year in Mountain View, California, and aims to get developers all over the world more involved in the KDE project.

For most people, the most important part of a software license is the end. That's because they're totally uninterested in the license itself; they are merely interested in scrolling past it, so that they can click on OK and install the software that they are running. For users of open-source software, however, licenses should be extremely important, because they determine what you may and may not do with a particular program. Open-source developers have long debated the merits of the GNU General Public License vs. the BSD License. As open-source software becomes mainstream, and is integrated into larger systems, these age-old arguments are less theoretical than ever, and should be understood not only by developers, but also by managers and executives of organizations working with open source. Van Lindberg's new book is an excellent place to start.

Word around the campfire is that Microsoft is starting to get a bit impatient with Yahoo! That's a good thing, from where I'm sitting.

A report from Todd Bishop's Microsoft Blog (on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Web site) has the details, from an unnamed source.

On previous occasions it's been mentioned that it takes very specific behaviors for the Free Software Foundation to file suit against a company for violating the GNU GPL license.

Today, the FSF let Cisco Systems know in no uncertain terms that line had been crossed. The complaint centers on the Linksys brand routers, and the firmware used on those products.

The FSF Europe's Freedom Task Force and GPL-Violations.org have jointly prepared a few guidelines on how to best report (and avoid) license violations. Some of the advice is common sense (suspected violations are best handled in private, reported only to the involved parties, and organizations such as GPL-Violations and the appropriate branch of the Free Software Foundation), but reminders are always useful, especially in the heat of the moment.

Joe Zonker Brockmeier, openSUSE community manager, announced this morning that openSUSE 11.1 RC1 will not only sport new features and bug fixes, but a new license. The openSUSE release is licensed under the GNU GPL version 2, with the included packages retaining their governing licenses.

Previously, openSUSE installations required an agreement with the terms of the distribution's license. With the 11.1 RC1 release, the license text will be displayed at installation so that the user is aware of the license, but clicking I agree won't be necessary. Brockmeier says that this licensing is based on Fedora's license procedures, and that work is being done to clarify trademark guidelines in openSUSE to make redistribution easier.

Matt Asay at CNET directs readers to Glyn Moody's take on the Gartner Group's findings that 85% of enterprises are using open source software.

The Gartner numbers seem positive, and encouraging -- especially in light of the acknowledgement that the remaining 15% are planning to move toward more open source software in the near future. Then Gartner drops the bad news -- cases that Moody says don't end badly (they are usually remedied with a polite phone call) or even happen terribly frequently (12 or so cases a year) -- that 69% of companies have no formal method of evaluating and cataloging their open source applications, leaving them at risk of intellectual property liabilities.