Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HP exec calls for fewer open source licenses
InfoWorld ^ | 04 AUG 2004 | Robert McMillan

Posted on 08/04/2004 12:30:59 PM PDT by rdb3

HP exec calls for fewer open source licenses
HP's VP of Linux says there is only confusion in having so many licenses
 

 
By Robert McMillan, IDG News Service August 04, 2004 

SAN FRANCISCO -- The open source community needs fewer licenses and the large number of software licenses used to release open source code is becoming a significant issue for developers and users, said a senior Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) executive speaking at the Linuxworld Conference & Expo here Tuesday.

"A lot of people don't realize that today there are dozens and dozens of open source licenses," said Martin Fink, HP's vice president of Linux. "The number has reached 52 open source licenses and will likely be 55 by the end of the week"

Open source licenses are approved by the nonprofit Open Source Initiative, (OSI) which has certified software licenses from organizations as diverse as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Apple Computer Corp., and Nokia Corp., since it was founded in 1998.

But according to Fink, there are already too many such licenses. "There really is no value, and there is only confusion in having that many licenses," he said.

To date, HP has not seen the need to create a new license for its own contributions, choosing instead to release its software under existing open source licenses, Fink said. "I approve on average three to five open source projects and contributions every single week," he said. "If I have never had to create a new license, I have a really hard time understanding why you think you do."

Fink called on open source developers in the LinuxWorld audience to try and reduce the number of software licenses. "Lets look for ways to start consolidating the existing set of licenses so that we remove the confusion that having that many licenses has on our industry," he said.

The issue has attracted the attention of the OSI board and has, at least, the potential to become serious, said Eric Raymond President of OSI. There is a "strong chance" that the organization will be more restrictive in the number of licenses it certifies, though it has not put such a policy in place, he said in an e-mail interview.

The majority of OSI-certified licenses are used in a very small number of works, Raymond said. "All but a dozen of these are vanity

licenses, usually uttered by a corporate legal department with too much time on its hands, used on exactly one project," he said.

Any confusion brought on by the proliferation of open source licensing is probably a greater issue for open source vendors, who must ensure that the products they sell do not have incompatible licenses, but it is also an issue for customers, said Chris Hjelm the Chief Technology Officer with Orbitz LLC, which uses a variety of open source software in its online travel business.

"If everyone sort of opted out of the licensing game, it would make everyone's life a little easier," Hjelm said.

At least one company, Waltham, Massachusetts-based Black Duck Software Inc. has been created to simplify the life of customers like Orbitz. Black Duck, sells a product called protexIP which allows IT managers to track their software developers contributions and to help ensure that any open source software being used or complies with its licensing terms.

Orbitz is currently having its internal code audited by protexIP, said Hjelm. "The promise is that they'll manage this complexity," he said.

For software vendors toying with the idea of adding to the plethora of open source licenses, Fink had some words of advice. "If you're out there and you're a vendor and you're planning to create a new license. Stop. Please don't. Call me."

 



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: hp; licenses; linux

1 posted on 08/04/2004 12:31:00 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John Robinson; B Knotts; stainlessbanner; TechJunkYard; ShadowAce; Knitebane; AppyPappy; jae471; ...
The Penguin Ping.

Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!

Got root?


2 posted on 08/04/2004 12:32:39 PM PDT by rdb3 (REPUBLICAN as of July 23, 2004. I have my blueprint now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

> "If you're out there and you're a vendor and you're
> planning to create a new license. ...

The problem is not GPL .vs LGPL vs. BSD, it's the phony-
baloney proprietary "open source" licenses, like Sun CSL.

> ... Stop. Please don't. Call me."

If you think you need to release under a
look-but-don't-touch, or touch-but-don't-share, don't
invent a new license.


3 posted on 08/04/2004 12:58:14 PM PDT by Boundless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

I'm not ESR or RMS, but there's basically 3 major open source licenses: GPL, BSD, and Artistic.

That OSI has "approved" a million others doesn't mean that they're used for more than one or two projects each.


4 posted on 08/04/2004 12:58:17 PM PDT by cryptical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cryptical
I'm not ESR or RMS, but there's basically 3 major open source licenses: GPL, BSD, and Artistic.

That OSI has "approved" a million others doesn't mean that they're used for more than one or two projects each.


Thanks for pointing that out, I was going to bring up the same thing. Although "Apache" should replace "Artistic" as I think that's only for the Perl language/program.

And a "license" in this case isn't the technical mumbo jumbo of a typical EULA. For example, the latest 2.0 Apache license is just 2 pages long.

The great thing about software is that if you don't like the license then don't use it. If Joe Blow releases some software under the Joe Blow License and people question its provisions, no one's going to use it.

Oh I would throw in "LPGL" into the major licenses. Course I'm not too sure on the differences between that and the "big" GPL. Maybe something about releasing programs that link to LPGL libraries.
5 posted on 08/04/2004 1:58:37 PM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

He's right. If they really wanted it to be free, they'd release it into public domain.


6 posted on 08/04/2004 4:55:46 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lelio
"Fink called on open source developers in the LinuxWorld audience to try and reduce the number of software licenses."

As a self appointed spokesman for M$, I want everyone to agree to use the M$ EULA (all your $$$ belong to us if you want to rent our stuff, too bad there is no good quickly useful alternative).

7 posted on 08/04/2004 6:50:42 PM PDT by Paladin2 (Don't confuse disagreement with argumentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
The open source community needs fewer licenses and the large number of software licenses used to release open source code is becoming a significant issue for developers and users, said a senior Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) executive speaking at the Linuxworld Conference & Expo here Tuesday.

Pulling out the rewrite pen...

"The proprietary software community needs fewer licenses and the large number of software licenses used to release proprietary software is becoming a significant issue for developers... A lot of people don't realize that today there are thousands and thousands of proprietary software licenses..."

Already most companies employ one or more people who are responsible for policing proprietary software licenses in fear of the BSA sending their shock troops. The only way any of these OSS licenses can cause any concern is if companies use the software in a way that's impossible with proprietary software, modify and extend it (unless they want to accept yet another restrictive proprietary license).

8 posted on 08/05/2004 6:05:36 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Better with an SCO license: "If you ever license our software, we own you forever." Just ask Daimler Chrysler.


9 posted on 08/05/2004 6:06:17 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson