In the discussion around Richard Stallman’s speech at Purdue and my subsequent blog post about it, there was a great focus on the philosophy of various licenses. On Twitter, the point was raised that the GPL restricts the freedom of those making derivative works. The implication being that it imposes selfish restrictions. As a response to that (and because I told “MissMorphine” that I would write on this), I thought it would be a good idea to write about my own license choices and the personal philosophy behind them. Never mind the fact that it’s five years late.
First, my general philosophy. I am a proponent of the free sharing of information, knowledge, and software. I’m also aware that producing these things requires effort and resources, so I’m sympathetic to people who prefer to receive compensation. For myself, I generally opt to make things available. In exchange, I ask that people who would build off my work not restrict the freedoms of others. In order to do that, I must restrict the freedom to restrict freedoms. This is the choice I make for my own work.
Open source licenses (and I use the term broadly here to include the Creative Commons licenses and similar) maximize freedom in one of two ways: they maximize freedom for the next person downstream or they maximize freedom to any level downstream. It’s shouldnt be a surprise to learn that the former is often favored by developers and particularly by commercial entities, as it allows open source code to be used in closed products.
My default licenses are the GNU General Public License version 2 for code and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 for non-code. The gist (and to be clear, I’m hand waving a lot of detail here) of these licenses is “do what you want with my work, but give me credit and let others have the same rights.” However, I’ve licensed work under different licenses when there’s a case for it (e.g. contributing to a project or ecosystem that has a different license).
The important thing to remember when choosing a license is to pick one that matches your goals.
Heating up the exascale race by keeping cool — Getting to exascale is going to require a lot of power and power means heating. Cooling the datacenter effectively is going to be important, and reducing the heat generated perhaps moreso.
10/26-27 — All Things Open (Raleigh, NC) — I’m presenting the results of my M.S. thesis. This is a really great conference for open source, so if you can make it, you really should.
11/14-18 — Supercomputing (Salt Lake City, UT) — I’ll be working the Cycle Computing booth most of the week.
12/4-9 — LISA (Boston, MA) — The 30th version of the premier sysadmin conference looks to be a good one. I’m co-chairing the Invited Talks track, and we have a pretty awesome schedule put together if I do say so myself.
I ended up only writing one article for Opensource.com this month, but it turned out to be pretty popular, garnering well over 10,000 views. However, that’s nothing compared to the over one million views the whole site had in the month of March. The final total is roughly 200,000 more than the previous monthly record. I’d like to congratulate the editorial team, my fellow Community Moderators, and all of the other Red Hat & community contributors who have worked so hard to reach this milestone. I’m honored to be a part of such a great team.
I’ve decided to make this a regular thing: near the beginning of every month, I’ll recap the articles I’ve written for Opensource.com in the previous month. This seems better than scattershot posts that may or may not include all of my articles. So here’s November:
If you’ve read this blog for any length of time, you know that free and open source software is important to me. It’s important to Software Freedom Conservancy as well. Conservancy is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to supporting software projects.
Conservancy provides a lot of services to member projects, including financial and administrivia. Conservancy also provides license enforcement services, including support of a high-profile suit against VMWare. Although Conservancy uses litigation as a last resort, it’s sometimes necessary. However, this has lead to some corporate sponsors pulling their funding.
In order to continue their efforts, Conservancy is moving to an individual-supporter model. I first became a Conservancy supporter last year, and when it’s shortly time to renew my support, I will contribute double. Free and open source software is important to my personal and professional lives, and the services Conservancy provide to projects is invaluable.
If you use computers at all, a Conservancy project is probably an important part of your daily life. Please join me in supporting the Software Freedom Conservancy with a tax-deductible* donation today.
*Consult your tax professional to see if donations are tax-deductible in your jurisdiction.
Tunguz compares funded project license distribution to total open source license distribution. This is a fatal flaw since there is no evidence to suggest that these are drawn from the same population. Many open source projects are small hobbyist efforts. Even large ones can be predominantly volunteer-driven, with no intention of seeing venture funding or acquisition. That alone is enough to render the comparison meaningless. A better study would examine projects looking for funding and see if any license is correlated with better results.
The article is titled “Which Open Source License Should Your Project Use if You Want to Raise Venture Capital?” but fails to answer the question. It does not even establish whether or not the license selection matters. Even if a full statistical study wasn’t feasible, commentary from a variety of VCs could help provide guidance.
Licenses are chosen for a variety of reasons. Some are philosophical, some are practical. Choose the one that fits your project best. If that means finding out which licenses the VC firms you’ll target prefer, do that. If it means using the license that’s common to the ecosystem your project lives in, do that. Just don’t rely on a few slapped-together bar charts with no credibility.