Comments

• Logan

  2008-04-12 21:16:57

  So Google, like Microsoft, wants to dictate what license a developer chooses for his code. I'm shocked! No, really. Shocked!
  
  This is the same guy who was against Microsoft licenses being officially recognized as "Open Source Licenses" because they weren't "free enough". God bless hypocrisy, because he always done so.

• Victor Soliz

  2008-04-13 05:13:44

  MS' licenses remain a terrible choice though, specially the one that was specifically designed to work against the GPL.
  
  AGPL sounds interesting, I'd like to see a vBulletin equivalent on it. Perhaps if I had the time...

• Victor Soliz

  2008-04-13 05:19:49

  Anyways, google is just dictating what licenses to use if you want their hosting:
  
  

  It is also not okay to host an AGPL covered program on code.google.com by saying it is GPL, as you are telling the users of the site one thing, while meaning something else altogether. So sadly, the answer is to remove your project and host somewhere else like sf or savannah.
  
  So he was basically saying, "you can use AGPL, but not here". I actually see not much of an issue here.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-04-13 06:00:30

  So he was basically saying, “you can use AGPL, but not here”.

  
  
  Is the AGPL some form of cigarette (to Google)? Sure sounds like it.

• Rui Miguel Silva Seabra

  2008-04-13 12:32:33

  The link and quote at the end is, in fact, Real men DON'T attack straw men. Please correct! :)

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-04-13 12:48:37

  Whoopsie. I did this quickly. I googled "Real men attack straw" to just quickly find the thread and then copied the text thinking that I had already included the word "don't" (abbreviated for faster search).

• J.B. Nicholson-Owens

  2008-05-04 15:36:48

  Google isn't "dictating" any licensing for the works hosted on Google Hosting. Copyright holders get the power to choose their license (this is a power, not a freedom, because the act of licensing means determining terms for others, not for oneself). Google is offering hosting with restrictions aimed at benefiting themselves, Google isn't able to change the terms of the license unless the license for a work unless the work's license already allows relicensing. If Google were dictating licensing Google would be the sole copyright holder to the works hosted on Google Hosting and they'd use that control over the licensing of the works hosted there.
  
  So it's interesting to note why Google restricts the set of allowable licenses (and Brad Kuhn of the Software Freedom Law Center did an excellent job of this in his post to Fabrizio Capobianco's blog -- http://www.funambol.com/blog/capo/2008/03/google-blocking-agpl-in-google-code.html#c4629641731974008715).
  
  @Logan: With regards to your claim: "This is the same guy who was against Microsoft licenses being officially recognized as “Open Source Licenses” because they weren’t “free enough”. God bless hypocrisy, because he always done so."
  
  What's your source for RMS saying this?
  
  At first blush, your comment reads like someone who doesn't understand that RMS isn't in the open source movement, someone who might be attributing something to him and then arguing against that point (hence the quote at the end about not attacking straw men). So I'd like to know where I can find RMS advocating against Microsoft's licenses being considered "open source" for any reason, particularly because "they weren't 'free enough'".
  
  RMS has spent plenty of time in talks and essays explaining how he doesn't want his work or the free software community he founded (over a decade before the Open Source Initiative began the open source movement, by the way) "lumped in with them [the open source movement]" (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html and the updated essay which is linked from that same location). RMS wrote: "We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want to be lumped in with them. We acknowledge that they have contributed to our community, but we created this community, and we want people to know this. We want people to associate our achievements with our values and our philosophy, not with theirs. We want to be heard, not obscured behind a group with different views."
  
  So I'd find it surprising if he were advocating one way or another on which licenses the Open Source Initiative approved of. To my knowledge RMS doesn't even advocate as such regarding the licenses he wrote.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-05 07:41:39

  J.B. Nicholson-Owens,
  
  I think he was referring to Chris DiBona, not to RMS. See http://www.linux.com/feature/118677