The GNU General Public License (GPL) used to dominate open-source licensing, but its hold appears to be slipping according to new research from Black Duck Software. While GPLv3 has seen a 400-percent increase in adoption, and though the GPL and its variants still claim over 65 percent of all open-source projects, Black Duck reports a 5 percent decline in GPL adoption.
This drop makes sense, given the GPL's decreasing relevance to the modern world of network-delivered software and the increasing value of data over software.
ZDNet's Dana Blankenhorn points out that there are no clear replacements arising for the GPL, and he's right. But I'm not sure that's the point.
Peter Vescuso, executive vice president of marketing and business development at Black Duck Software, argues that we're starting to see greater diversity in licensing approaches, as "many developers are selecting licenses that are less restrictive, a move that underscores the broader adoption and value of open source in today's multisource development environments."
Perhaps. Or perhaps developers simply don't care that much about open-source licensing qua licensing very much any more. The real value in open-source software is no longer the software, but rather the resultant services that are delivered over the Web, a theme that Tim O'Reilly has been hitting consistently over the past six years.
The GPL was highly relevant in the Software 1.0 world because it was a great way to protect software assets. In effect, the GPL became the preferred way to replicate the copyright regime, except under the banner of free software.
Today, the GPL (and open-source licensing, generally) is irrelevant.
It's irrelevant because the GPL protects nothing in a world where software is delivered over the Web, because the GPL's "distribution clause" isn't triggered. The GPL becomes BSD/Apache, in short.
Because of this, Web developers long ago stopped worrying about open-source license requirements and instead are focused on data-driven lock-in. Open-source software becomes a way to build free services that encourage adoption, which adoption yields valuable data. That data is the crown jewels in a networked world, as O'Reilly suggests.
Because Web developers don't necessarily need to protect their software, we're seeing more adopt licenses like BSD, Apache, and other permissive licenses in order to foster community, rather than protection, around their software. Those who persist in seeing the world through the Software 1.0 lens continue to try to protect the software, which is why we're seeing a four-fold increase in AGPLv3 adoption. (AGPLv3 extends the definition of "distribution" to include network-based delivery of software.)
The GPL isn't dead, and perhaps it's not even dying. But that isn't the point. The point is that the real question is Web-based delivery of software, and current licensing has almost nothing to say on that topic.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
There's a lot of money in free software.
That's good news, because as the recession takes its toll on IT budgets, a new study suggests that companies can save $387 billion in development costs by using open-source software.
Talk about a stimulus.
Black Duck Software arrives at the $387 billion number by applying industry cost estimation standards to the available 4.9 billion lines of open-source code. Additionally, the company:
Estimates that 10 percent of IT application development spending is redundant with existing open-source projects, (which means that) U.S. companies could realize savings of more than $22 billion a year through the reuse of (open-source software) in application development.
These findings are consistent (if a bit inflated) with those from a 2006 study by the European Commission's Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry, which found that it would cost European firms 12 billion euros to reproduce the then-extant (high-quality) open-source code base.
They're also a nice counterbalance, Glyn Moody argues, against the claims that intellectual-property infringement costs the U.S. economy $250 billion each year.
While it is undoubtedly true that some companies lose money to IP infringement, the much bigger drag on the system is all the money wasted trying to protect IP in 20th century ways (digital rights management being one of the classic attempts to treat digital goods like physical property).
Open source frees us from some of these traditional shackles and enables software to spread more freely (as in freedom), yet not without charging for services and software that accompany it. The $387 billion number may be over- (or under)-stated, but it becomes relevant when your own IT group is able to shave licensing, deployment, and development costs by using open-source software.
Yes, you can.
With budgets being cut, now is the time to tap into the innovation and flexibility of open source. Open source isn't solely or even chiefly about reducing costs, but that's a great side effect.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Black Duck has admitted to "borrowing" Palamida's database of open-source projects/licenses, without giving attribution or any other indication that it had taken the data from Palamida. Legal? Yes. Wrong? Seems like it to me.
After two days of intense investigation, we have confirmed that most of our database has been copied directly--word for word and misspelling for misspelling, with very few original additions to our initial work," said Palamida spokeswoman Melisa LaBancz-Bleasdale.
Just because one can do something doesn't mean that one should.
Black Duck argues that it only uses a "small slice" of Palamida's data. Maybe. But apparently it was enough to be noticeable to Palamida. It seems to me that the two should collaborate on this sort of database, but this kind of action hardly leads to the trust required for collaboration.
Is Black Duck in the wrong? Thoughts?
- prev
- 1
- next
