ATI R600g Gains Mip-Map, Face Culling Support

[V!NCENT]

That's not in any of the GPL licenses, it's in the boilerplate attached to files (if desired). See the license page on busybox.net for info on the "or later" wording.

There is this "or later" thing that is in the GPLv3 and also GPLv2.1 if I'm not mistaking.

Change is unlikely to cease once GPLv3 is released. If new threats to users' freedom develop, we will have to develop GPL version 4. It is important to make sure that programs will have no trouble upgrading to GPLv4 when the time comes.

One way to do this is to release a program under “GPL version 3 or any later version”.

Source: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html

Even though BusyBox code, as a whole, can only be used under GPL version 2, some individual files may have more permissive licenses: "GPL version 2 or later" - meaning that you can also reuse the code from this source file for a project which is distributed under GPLv3, and "Public domain" - the code in these files have no licensing restrictions whatsoever.

Source http://www.busybox.net/license.html

Some files in BusyBox are indeed "or later" and those files can be upgraded to GPLv2.1 and GPLv3. The Copyright holder(s) decide if they make entire, partial, or no files available as "or later".

[monraaf]

The GPL is anti-social and discriminates against people based on what they want to use your code for while permissive licenses are friendly to everyone, independent of whether they agree to your specific, narrow-minded, and unforgiving world view or paranoias.

Permissive licenses are more social and more friendly than "copyleft" licenses, and anybody who values people more than computers should avoid the L(GPL) and go for a true Open license.

What you are basically saying is that if I choose to release software under the GPL then I'm not only anti-social or engage in anti-social behavior but I'm also narrow-minded and suffer from paranoias. Well thank you I think it's a lot better than the usual GPL-NAZI, COMMUNIST and whatever more comes out of the BSD camp. But still it's a moral judgment, your moral judgment, and you morals are not necessarily mine.

All in all I don't think it's wise to choose a software license based on subjective values such as morals, one should choose a license on what one hopes to achieve with it.

While far from perfect, when it comes to open source software I do have a strong preference for the GPL and LGPL in some cases. But regardless everyone should not listen to me or you but just explore the different licenses out there and pick the one that suits her/him the best. Whether it be GPL, BSD-style or proprietary it's fine with me. Although I do prefer to contribute to (L)GPL licensed projects, I won't judge people on their license choice if they choose to pick another license and frankly I don't like to be judged on my choices and preferences regarding software licensing as well.

The only gripe I really have with closed source software is when companies such as ATI and NVidia use it to lock me out of my own hardware, that really pisses me off. Other than that I'm pretty satisfied with the (mostly GPL'd) open source software ecosystem out there.

[adamk]

Thus, the proprietary program will be much better, everyone will use that, which means that no one will contribute to your open source program, delivering the final blow to it.

Which, interestingly, is exactly what didn't happen with BSD/OS, which died in 2003. Nice try, though.

Adam

[curaga]

Some GPL versions are upgradeable. I don't remember the details. This was a big point in GPLv3 anyway. So if you license under the GPLv3 and the GPLv4 or GPLv5 comes around then anyone can take your code and choose what version of the GPL license they want to redistribute it with.

That's not in any of the GPL licenses, it's in the boilerplate attached to files (if desired). See the license page on busybox.net for info on the "or later" wording.

But what if your open source software is competing against proprietary software?

If I were to do that, and wanted a BSD license, I'd of course use the BSD-with-advertising-clause one. And prominently display on my pages that Prop Soft (tm) uses my software, link to their page showing that here.

[Agdr]

But what if your open source software is competing against proprietary software?

If you use a BSD-like license, the proprietary company can just incorporate all your code, but you can't do the same, so you are going to be at a serious disadvantage.

Since, in addition to that, the proprietary company can pay developers, it's going to be hard to beat them.

Thus, the proprietary program will be much better, everyone will use that, which means that no one will contribute to your open source program, delivering the final blow to it.

That's why the GPL exists and is a better choice than BSD licenses, unless you are sure no company would be interested to compete with the software in question.

If you want your library to be _used_ by proprietary software, use the LGPL, which allows that, but forces to release modifications to the library itself.

[V!NCENT]

Or just look at the endless confusion and irritation caused by GPLv2 vs LGPL vs GPL3 vs GFDL incompatibilities.

Some GPL versions are upgradeable. I don't remember the details. This was a big point in GPLv3 anyway. So if you license under the GPLv3 and the GPLv4 or GPLv5 comes around then anyone can take your code and choose what version of the GPL license they want to redistribute it with.

This may trigger some tinfoil hat feelings, though...

[elanthis]

[*]If you want to incorporate code you did not develop and do not want to pay for into your own proprietary product, then permissive licenses are basically your only choice. That's why Microsoft and Apple love this type of license.

Or if you need to incorporate code which is Open but GPL-incompatible due to any number of issues from how overly specific the GPL is with its terms and how inflexible it is with its grants.

For reference, see why Linux still lacks DTrace or ZFS.

Or just look at the endless confusion and irritation caused by GPLv2 vs LGPL vs GPL3 vs GFDL incompatibilities.

[*]If you are a coder and you get infatuated by the idea that Apple one day might use your code in one of their proprietary products then
a permissive license is also good for you.

Or if you like the idea of helping out people instead of being so incredibly freaking paranoid about corporations. The PEOPLE in those companies are the ones solving problems, and they're the ones who benefit from having quality, supported, documented code available to them to get their job done faster and with less stress. The GPL is anti-social and discriminates against people based on what they want to use your code for while permissive licenses are friendly to everyone, independent of whether they agree to your specific, narrow-minded, and unforgiving world view or paranoias.

[*]If you are Google and want to make sure your new video codec gets industry-wide support, then a permissive license is also a good choice.

Or if you are anybody and want your code to be used by any and every Open Source project, not just Free Software projects. For instance, X.org, which started this whole discussion.

Other than that I recommend the (L)GPL for open source software

I recommend avoiding the (L)GPL for Open Source software, since they only just barely avoid violating criteria 6 of the Open Source Definition despite the fact that people like you actually seem to WANT the (L)GPL to violate that criteria to protect you from The Company(tm).


I got a Thank You this morning from a developer working at a large company doing in-house proprietary software; not a software company that will sell the software but which makes software for affiliates and in-house use. He thanked me because one of my libraries (which I haven't even worked on in almost a year) helped him solve a problem that would've taken him months to solve on his own. I don't care that he's getting paid to use my library and not giving me any cash; I wouldn't have gotten freaking paid if it was GPL'd, either, so that would just be the absolute stupidest thing to get upset about in the world. Getting paid was never part of the equation when I wrote the library. What's awesome -- and what drives me to create Open Source software when I can -- is that my work helped somebody out and made their day better. If he gets paid for it, I'm even happier for him. If his company does well and their products are better as a result and their customers get more value for their money, then I'm happy for them, too. The end result is that there are less bugs, less reinventions of the wheel, and a higher quality of life for everyone involved.

Permissive licenses are more social and more friendly than "copyleft" licenses, and anybody who values people more than computers should avoid the L(GPL) and go for a true Open license.

[monraaf]

Isn't LGPL a relatively permissive license anyway? (at least compared to GPL)

Yeah, it's pretty permissive. Anyway it's each person's own responsibility to educate him/herself about the different licenses out there before releasing/contributing/using code.

[nanonyme]

Isn't LGPL a relatively permissive license anyway? (at least compared to GPL)

[monraaf]

Sane licensing.

/ducks

It depends on what you want out of the license.

1. If you want to incorporate code you did not develop and do not want to pay for into your own proprietary product, then permissive licenses are basically your only choice. That's why Microsoft and Apple love this type of license.
   
2. If you are a coder and you get infatuated by the idea that Apple one day might use your code in one of their proprietary products then
   a permissive license is also good for you.
   
3. If you are Google and want to make sure your new video codec gets industry-wide support, then a permissive license is also a good choice.

Other than that I recommend the (L)GPL for open source software