The GPL version 2 has been in decline for some time, and has just dipped below a 50 percent adoption rate among open-source projects, according to new data released by Black Duck Software.
While some of this decline may be due to GPL version 3's increased adoption, at least some may derive from growing commercial interest in Apache-style licensing.
GPLv2 adoption falls below 50 percent
(Credit: Black Duck Software)One of the best indications of this shift is Red Hat's decision to license the JBoss HornetQ project under an Apache license, rather than the Lesser General Public License, to which it had previously defaulted.
Having said that, it's important to note that Apache's share of the market hasn't been growing dramatically (see the July 2009 data), which lends further weight to a hypothesis that GPLv3 is cannibalizing GPLv2. Even so, I find the dip interesting, and anecdotally I'm seeing a groundswell of support for Apache.
This isn't to suggest that the GPL doesn't matter: it clearly does. As Redmonk analyst Stephen O'Grady recently noted, "the GPLv2 is more popular than all of the other licenses on the (Black Duck) list...combined."
But as Open Core becomes the default business model for "pure-play" open-source companies, we will see more software licensed under the Apache license.
The GPL makes sense in a world where vendors hope to exercise control over their communities (by constraining the sorts of derivative works that remain palatable to would-be competitors or "free-riding" users), but if the desire is to foster unfettered growth, Apache licensing offers a better path.
I don't see an end to GPL adoption anytime soon, as its ethos appeals to a certain class of developer and because it can offer tangible development and business benefits, as I'll be arguing at Monday's "Which open-source license is best?" discussion with the Free and Open Source Software Learning Centre. The whole Apache vs. GPL debate may be much like Coke vs. Pepsi: a matter of personal preference and nothing more.
With GPLv2 adoption dropping below 50 percent of open-source projects surveyed by Black Duck Software, however, it's very possible that preferences are starting to shift in favor of Apache licensing.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Not everyone loves cloud computing. Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and creator of the GNU operating system, says cloud computing is "stupidity" that ultimately will result in vendor lock-in and escalating costs.
"The interesting thing about cloud computing is that we've redefined cloud computing to include everything that we already do," Stallman said, in a report posted by The Guardian on Monday.
Richard Stallman, speaking at MIT in 2006.
(Credit: CNET Networks)Cloud computing, the latest marketing description for a notion put forth by computer industry companies in recent years, moves most of the computing power--and sometimes data--to servers maintained by companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Amazon. The classic example of cloud computing might be Gmail, offered by Google.
Stallman says cloud computing forces people to hand over control of their information to a third party. His objections echo his longstanding belief in non-proprietary software. "One reason you should not use Web applications to do your computing is that you lose control," he said. "It's just as bad as using a proprietary program.
"Do your own computing on your own computer with your copy of a freedom-respecting program. If you use a proprietary program or somebody else's Web server, you're defenseless. You're putty in the hands of whoever developed that software," he said.
Stallman dismisses cloud computing as industry bluster. "It's stupidity. It's worse than stupidity: it's a marketing hype campaign," he said. "Somebody is saying this is inevitable--and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it's very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true."
|
Lotus knows there's more to work than just email.
Connect with people. Get live feeds. Create widgets. Work securely online or off. Try IBM Lotus Notes.
|
 |
The GNU mascot
(Credit: GNU.org)The Free Software Foundation has released Happy Birthday to GNU to celebrate the silver anniversary of the operating system.
The film, presented by actor/comedian Stephen Fry, offers a basic history of GNU's Not Unix (GNU). Fry describes how Richard Stallman announced a plan in September 1983 to develop a free-software, Unix-like operating system called GNU, and adds that the Linux kernel was re-released under the GNU General Public License in 1992. The GNU/Linux combination provided the first completely nonproprietary way for people to run a PC.
Peter Brown, the Free Software Foundation's executive director, said the video should act not only as a reminder of GNU's history but as a "rallying call for the work that still needs to be done."
"We intend for the 25th anniversary to be more than just a reflection on the history of the free-software movement. Because, despite all of the success brought about by the GNU system and other free-software projects, we still need a determined effort to replace or eliminate the proprietary applications, platforms, drivers and firmware that many users still run," Brown said in a statement.
What do you get an operating system that has everything? How about GNU's official stuffed gnu?
(Credit: GNU.org)The foundation plans further releases as part of the monthlong anniversary celebrations, with announcements timed for Software Freedom Day on 20 September and for the GNU anniversary itself on September 27.
In the video, available for download at GNU.org, Fry says that proprietary operating systems are akin to "bad science," as unofficial modifications to the operating system are prohibited.
"You can't really fiddle with your operating system, and you certainly can't share any ideas you have about your operating system with other people, because Apple and Microsoft, who run the two most popular operating systems, are very firm about the fact that they own that," Fry says.
The actor goes on to say that, for many people, it is natural not to be able to make modifications, but Fry asks why making modifications should be illegal.
"All knowledge is free and all knowledge is shared in good science. If it isn't, it's bad science, and really a kind of tyranny," he says.
Tom Espiner of ZDNet UK reported from London.
- prev
- 1
- next
