Comments on: Open-source Alfresco shifts to GPL

Document management company hopes license change will mean more outside programmer involvement.

[ahickey]

Looks like a simplistic decision

I remember reading that most of the top flight Open Source projects are effectively being contributed to by paid for employees at Red Hat, Sun, IBM,... So, expecting that a move to GPL will magically get you free programmers I expect is mis-guided.

Even though Open Source is free to use and distribute sonebody still has to code it and only professional grade programmers can do this effectively. Amateur programmers may tweak, but the big leaps require a lot more skill.

[dargon19888]

Absolutely...

Why do you think that IBM released Derby under Apache's licensing?

Not sure about Eclipse but I think its got its own licensing too.

TANSTAAFL applies.

Hint: IBM sells support for Derby under the initial Cloudscape brand. Sun sells support under OpenJava. But what happens when a bug is found that effects a paying customer? Does IBM or Sun Fix the bug and then provide it to the open community right after the fix is made and tested, or do they wait until the next release cycle.

There are pitfalls to certain opensource projects that will hamper the growth and development of the software.

[SigurdMagnusson]

Why GPL? Seems contrived. Why not the BSD?

I wonder why they didn't adopt the BSD license? That makes it
seem like they merely want to use open source to create mass
awareness and adoption but still restrict possibilities available to
people using the software. Why are they so afraid? Are they not
confident in the calibre of their people or product?
We open sourced SilverStripe [http://www.silverstripe.com]
under the BSD license because as committed and passionate
users of open source for years (e.g. SilverStripe relies on PHP5,
MySQL, Apache/Lighttpd) we are obliged to give back software
to the community, and let them do as they please with it. Of
course, open sourcing means mass market and allowing
developers to contribute code, and a lot of fun and satisfaction
by being able to touch and benefit lots of people with your
programs, but looser licenses let you get even more than that.
I also disagree with the notion that the base system should be
dual licensed; it implies that you ever get the "buggy,
unsupported" core, unless you pay for the "solid, reliable" core.
It feels like supermarket products sold for $2 with generic
packaging and $9 with fancy. I think its far better for the core
system to be free and stable, with no differences between the
free download and the Fortune 500 buyer... with premium
features or services to be charged where it makes commercial
sense from the purchaser. Think of flickr, where you have a
major community using the free service, but if you want to store
or upload heaps of photos, then you pay a small, equitable fee.

[giovanisp]

Web dev = Affero GPL

Web developers should start using the Affero GPL license, which is now compatible with GPLv3, to protect their web applications to be used as proprietary ASP services. The web is not (yet) free software.