Which is a better licensing model for open-source applications: BSD or GPL? Mark Brewer of Covalent Technologies argues BSD is better for the enterprise. Matt Asay of Novell makes the case for GPL. What do you think?
Which is a better licensing model for open-source applications: BSD or GPL? Mark Brewer of Covalent Technologies argues BSD is better for the enterprise. Matt Asay of Novell makes the case for GPL. What do you think?
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Having released software
Having released software products with both models, I believe Enterprise customers are better served by GPL as they are not then facing a licensing lock-in. What happens is this: a company wishing to share internally developed software with a partner chooses path a) proprietary lock-in license to partner, or b) open source license to partner.
To distribute under path a), BSD inputs can be used, but GPL inputs cannot be used.
To distribute under path b), either BSD inputs or GPL inputs can be used.
Clearly either license enables open source development. Therefore why promote one over the other? Too often the promotion of BSD is "for the other guy, whose material I wish to use to create a proprietary lock-in licensing scheme" is the agenda here.
In short, the BSD license can be more readily converted to a lock-in license. Is that what you want from your suppliers?
Thanks, Rich
GPL or BSD licencing
There is a basic flaw in the two analysises given: namely, what is the GPL licence? On that point turns whether most would view one or the other as better. Brewer states that GPL means you MUST give any modifications back to the original developer. Asay states that you must give your modifications back ONLY if you plan to distribute the code. Which is better changes dramically, and for whom, depending on which view of the GPL licence is correct. At this point, neither view presented is particularly incisive or compelling without that point clarified.
Re: GPL
The GPL only requires source changes to be supplied with any derived software that is being distributed.
If you read the license you'd know that.
Re: GPL
Yes, so if you distribute bespoke software used to manage your business to your employees, any one of them can demand a copy of the source code, and then go use any code you've funded the development of to compete against you.
It would be crazy for the management of any business developing valuable bespoke software to allow the inclusion of any existing code licensed under the GPL. If, on the other hand, BSD-licensed code is used as a foundation, anyone can still use that original software to compete against you, but can't use your contributions unless you allow them to.
The GPL is mostly useful for cloning/reimplementing commodity software using ideas that have already been widely developed. For new ideas that need further development (which requires funding), a BSD licence is much better, because it allows commercial developers to add value without losing control of it.
If you look at what companies like IBM and SGI have contributed to Linux, for example, it's generally old software that they originally developed to add value to their Unix systems, which were heavily based on BSD-/MIT-licensed code, including BSD, Mach and the X Window System. The key ideas which made their added software valuable are now commonplace, so it's no great loss to dump them into Linux: eg journalling added value in the early 1990s, when only high-end systems like Unix and Windows NT offered it, but it's been a standard feature in mainstream versions of Windows since Windows 2000 (released in 1999), and is a standard feature on virtually every PC sold today (and a standard feature on every Windows PC sold today).
In contrast to the dumping of old code/ideas into GPL-licensed software like Linux, the BSD-/MIT-licensed code developed in the 1980s (including BSD TCP/IP sockets, the X Window System and Mach) added a tremendous amount of value to the existing systems of the day, and the BSD/MIT licence allowed it to be folded into them and commercialised, with sockets spreading to nearly all systems, including Unix and Windows, whilst X became the standard GUI on most Unix-derived systems, as well as some others (eg VMS). The same applies to a lesser extent to OpenSSH in the '90s: secure replacements for the old BSD remote tools were badly needed, and the BSD licence means OpenSSH can be integrated into commercial systems without giving up control of the code to those systems.
Importantly, even though it can be attractive to re-license old proprietary code under the GPL, it's better for the advance of software generally to re-licence it under a BSD-style licence, so that it can be used with ground-breaking new software. However, to the extent that such software could threaten the owners of the old code, it's understandable that self-interested corporations would prefer to prevent anyone else adding value to their old code.
Ultimately, companies like IBM have based their Linux strategies on separating the high-value from the low-value software. The low-value software is distributed under the GPL in order to create a standard base layer without much innovation in the way of new features (ie just enough to be competitive with non-GPL alternatives). The high-value software is distributed under a proprietary licence, with very high licensing fees.
Novell's strategy is less clear, but probably amounts to more or less the same thing: provide a low-cost, low-value commodity layer licensed under the GPL, then make sure the innovation goes into higher-level layers, which are separate packages (so not bound by the GPL) licensed under proprietary licences, with high licensing fees.
GPL - How to make money on it?
Unlike the BSD license, I see very few companies able to make money by using a GPL license. Even RedHat has had to come up with copyright to avoid people distributing it's CD's. The code is still GPL.
With GPL a company can spend many man years and $$$ and after all that their competition can come by and take the latest GPL code and compete. How's that fair?
Re: take the latest GPL code and compete. How's that fair?
I can go to school and university, than compete with my teacher. Id that fair?
Albert Einstein learned about the speed of light from Maxwells calculations and built it's theory upon the knowledge of other scientits. Is that fair?
If you buy a GPL software, than it's the support and the future development and the integration knowledge what you pay for, not the blank features on the white paper by itself. A product alone does not help anyone, it is the integration with other products and the future development what counts today.
Johann Thomas
Re: take the latest GPL code and compete. How's that fair?
I can go to school and university, than compete with my teacher. Is that fair?
Albert Einstein learned about the speed of light from Maxwells calculations and built it's theory upon the knowledge of other scientits. Is that fair?
If you buy a GPL software, than it's the support and the future development and the integration knowledge what you pay for, not the blank features on the white paper by itself. A product alone does not help anyone, it is the integration with other products and the future development what counts today.
Johann Thomas
RE: How to make money on it?
> With GPL a company can spend many man years and $$$ and after all > that their competition can come by and take the latest GPL code
> and compete. How's that fair?
It's fair because the 'company' knew (should have known) beforehand about the requirements of the GPL, and should have factored that 'risk' into their business plan.
I think that BSD vs. GPL depends on your vantage point. If you are a developer who feels that certain critical key infracture should be open and transparent to all (e.g. an OS kernel, a web browser), and could benefit from massively parallel development without falling into the control of a small group, then GPL ensures that.
If you are an entrepreuner whose goal is to gain a competitive advantage from a new idea, then relying on BSD/LGPL software offers more protection.
It should be noted that in the technology industry new ideas have a comparatively short shelf life and tend to be copied, emulated and re-implemented in different ways, once proven successful.
Eventually, regardless of the licensing, widely used software features that must adhere to open standards (e.g. http servers) become commodities, available from many vendors. At that point the profit margins are so thin that it makes business sense to continue to develop them as common infrastructure, again irrespective of the licensing.
GPL - How to make money on it?
Dear sir or madam, the use of GPL is your choice. You
are not forced to so release. One uses GPL when one wishes
to facilitate general world-wide participation in your
software project, and get contributions from others,
leading to generally stronger features.
Once one has chosen to do this, is it right that another
party should grab that code and make it proprietary?
This is the weakness of BSD, and the strength of GPL.
Your choice.
BSD vs GPL licenses
Mark Brewer's assertion that the GPL "can be too risky for enterprise customers", implying that it allows software vendors to incorporate changes made by those self-same customers, thereby surrendering their competitive advantage, does not bear scrutiny. Only if those customers then distribute the software are they then obliged to make public any changes they have made. (Making copies within an organization does not constitute distribution. This is made clear in the licensing FAQ at Gnu.org: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution.)
Indeed, the BSD license actually offers fewer benefits to an end-user of software, simply because the GPL increases the likelihood that improvements made by third parties (and subsequently distributed) will be made available to them.
The choice of license under which to distribute a program is a matter for the copyright owner. There is nothing to stop a vendor from releasing a program under the GPL while at the same time offering a version to resellers or system integrators under a commercial license which allows them to keep their changes private. Such dual licensing schemes are not uncommon and are used by open source products such as the MySQL database or Asterisk PBX.
That is not to say that software vendors should not carefully weigh the obligations and benefits of using components licensed under the GPL, because of its "viral" nature. Those wishing to enjoy the benefits of reduced development costs and faster time to market cannot complain about the resultant GPL'ed nature of their applications, but then they have a choice.
Robert Welbourn
Product Line Manager
Aastra Telecom
Billerica, MA