Apache or GPL?
Summary: If your company wants to release its own code, and control that code, if open source is mainly a marketing concept to you, then a BSD license such as Apache or Eclipse makes perfect sense. On the other hand, if you're looking for a community to extend your code, to build your code, and to defend your code with their bug fixes and forum support, then the GPL works best.
Matt Asay today switched his license alliegiance, to Apache from the GPL.
Before anyone starts in with the Arlen Specter jokes, let me say that based on the criteria he sets out, adoption, his argument makes sense. (I also think Matt is better-looking than Specter, at right, from his own Web site, no matter what party you belong to.)
Once an open source product is released into the market, users don't really care what license it uses.
If you are looking to businesses to fund further development, a good argument can be made for Apache or even the Eclipse license. Google likes Apache, IBM Eclipse, and your user-in-the-street could probably care less.
What counts on this question for me is not adoption but development.
If your company wants to release its own code, and control that code, if open source is mainly a marketing concept to you, then a BSD license such as Apache or Eclipse makes perfect sense.
On the other hand, if you're looking for a community to extend your code, to build your code, and to defend your code with their bug fixes and forum support, then the GPL works best.
Communities develop best where rights and responsibilities are equal. But business and democracy are two different things. Business exists to exploit code for profit. Communities seek to exploit code for the shared benefit of all.
I think it's possible that, over the last few years, many companies confused corporate projects with community projects. They made noises about community support, and supporting the community, but they were really in it for themselves, this was obvious to everyone, and besides their code wasn't terribly exciting to anyone other than business allies.
On the other hand many companies have proven you can make a lot of money from the GPL. If you're willing to really embrace the community you create, to nurture that community, and to take no more from the community than the community feels is your due.
Some are finding that a rather big if. It is this if that caused the open source movement to break away from Stallman and his FOSS advocates a decade ago. And that basic, ideological divide remains.
To my way of thinking Matt just figured out which side he was on all along.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Are pigs flying.
Name me one company that makes a LOT of money
Hint: $25 million a YEAR (Red Hat earnings) is NOT a lot of
money.
$9.74 billion a QUARTER (Apple) IS a lot of money.
Exactly!
IBM does make money indirectly by exploiting OSS. Google to a lesser extent. You could argue Apple (BSD), Sun went belly up trying to become a OSS software company. Oracle maybe sorta.
But very very few make much money at all directly from OSS. And I agree 25 million is not a lot. Symantec wouldn't even look at creating software that made only 25 million.
Also the whole "community" thing has to be viewed properly. Is the community large or small? Are there really _many_ contributors (a community) to the various OSS projects or are their just a few key contributors (a group) on any given project. Are the contributions new code and new features or are they ports of existing?
That would make sense....
Now I don't know about you but 25 million in my pocket would be pretty nice right about now. I really don't care what Symantec would look at.
Now I guess you'll want to claim that this is somehow "exploiting" FOSS but if you read the GPL this is perfectly in bounds. Maybe your exploitation argument could be taken up with Stallman or one of those that back the AGPL. Not everyone that uses or supports FOSS think along those extremes.
For an individual
None of the companies you mentioned actually make a lot of money exclusively due to FOSS, so your point is invalid.
But most of the companies....
Thats the problem with this country. We are so in love with big corporations that we don't want to look at the small time operation that got them there. Sadly this is why most are doomed to be slaves to these same big corporations. Thats not what true American spirit is about.
Disagree with part of your point
25 million for redhat is chump change. That's all there is to it.
I also reject your connection between one individual extrapolating that to a whole company of those sizes.
I do agree with your second paragraph though.
You really need to get out more....
http://www.networkworld.com/techinsider/2007/032607-guide-linux-paypal.html
Amazon is run totally on Linux. Their cloud computing service is all built on RHEL. Ebay's whole operation rests on their custom IDE built from Eclipse. Thats how these companies achieve their success. They take FOSS and build on it in house while the peons of the world try to buy everything from Microsoft and wonder why they can't reach that level. Maybe one day you'll learn how the big boys actually do it.
Sure Storm
RE: Apache or GPL?
RE: Apache or GPL?
how funny....
If you talk in Obama printing presses it is not, however if you look back at Red Hat and its beginnings it is AWESOME.
Earning my RHCE was my biggest accomplishment as of yet and I am working on my next CERT right now.
Comparing Apple to RedHat is foolish, they are not doing the same business model. Red Hat does consultation, support and offers software solutions based off entitlements NOT licenses.
Entitlement & License are different animals and Red Hat is GROWING!
We are a complete Open_Source shop and do NOT use any Windows MS software period.
People are afraid of the truth and the truth is Open_Source is superior and it saves you money with its flexibility and the ability to cope with CHANGE that happens in IT as a constant variable.
Regardless, I can tell you how much money 'Centos' generates for a business that keeps the bottomline tight and allows for purchasing of new hardware and other investments.
;)
Keep trying...but he's right, from
RE: Apache or GPL?
Red Hat Earnings
Key Investors Issues
- Net income was $24.3 million or 12 cents a share, up 20% from $20.3 million, or 10 cents a share in 2007.
- Total revenue was $165 million, an increase of 22% from $135 million in the year ago quarter.
- The firm repurchased 2 million of stock.
Year to Date Highlights:
- Revenues were up 27.6% to $486 million.
- Net income came in at $63 million or 33 cents a share, up from $55 million or 28 cents a share in the prior year.
Third Quarter Highlights
Total revenue was $165 million, an increase of 22% from $135 million in the year ago quarter on 17% growth in subscription revenue to $135 million or 82% of total revenue.
u proved your own point... apple's osx is running on top
No... it's BSD...
Why so pathetic behavior?
"[i]i'm not sure it's gpl. i think rather it's under the berkley bsd license.[/i]"
So who were you correcting, you slick polite genius?
That's the point of GPL
And you are damn right you should be mad about it. Those damn evil developers, wanting to eat and pay their bills! How DARE they!
GPL is superior to BSD
Nor does it allow backroom deals like Novell-M$.