OStatic

This month marks the 25th anniversary of the founding of the GNU Project by Richard M. Stallman. GNU is one of the oldest and best-known organizations in the free and open-source world, providing not only high-quality software, but also a well-known license (the GNU General Public License), and a philosophy that continues to influence many activists and programmers. The exact anniversary of Stallman's announcement is September 27th, 1983, when he called upon programmers to join him in creating free Unix.

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.

In an article headlined The Pitfalls of Open Source Litigation , published today at InternetNews.com, Richard Adhikari claims that enterprises using open source are being sued for not complying with the multitude of licenses the software comes with, He suggests that businesses should think twice before using open-source software, lest they find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit themselves. Fortunately for the open-source community, his claims don't hold much water.

The Software Freedom Law Center just announced its fourth victory over a software company that incorporated GPL-licensed software in its proprietary product. What happens when the SFLC sues a software company, and how can proprietary software vendors best work with the open-source world? The answer depends, as always, on the license.

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?