Are liberal licenses a better future proofing

A couple of days after the Kable Open Source conference, I looked up Gianugo Rabellino’s blog and read his then most recent blog article, “Of Oracle, Sun and Open Development” about the impact of M&A on open source investment protection.

The conclusion I draw from his article is that open source adopters need to make investment protection a selection criteria. Its well understood that the vibrancy of the product community is crucial, so its just obvious that taking a view on the future is as important. Gianugo also argues that liberal licenses enhance the ability of a community to survive M&A activity. I think he’s probably right, and this means that license terms might become important even to end user sites who have no intention of distributing software. It may also be worth measuring how diverse an open source development community is before adopting the software. …

The duty to publish bites

I have been talking to some customers about Sun’s policy to publish Solaris as CDDL, and found that some of their staff are ‘balls out’ fans of the GPL; this places a duty to publish your source code if you have used GPL code and publish your binary. This is a very serious duty, and I am not sure these fans are getting management or their legal departments approval. The register reports that British Telecom have decided to publish their home appliance code because they feel that otherwise they may be in violation of the GPL since their home hub appliance uses Linux which is published under the GPL.

They are being hunted by http://gpl-violations.org/, whose page states

The ultimate goal is to make vendors of GPL licensed software understand that GPL is not public domain, and that there are license conditions that are to be fulfilled.

ooOOOoo

Originally posted on my sun/oracle blog, republished here in June 2016. …