To GPL or not to GPL?

[IBBoard]

The code for WarFoundry is currently licensed under the LGPLv3, which keeps the source open but means that anyone can take the library (the API) and create their own front-end under a different license. I initially wanted to do that for the freedom of the developers so that they weren't tied to GPLing their own front end, but it does mean a commercial company or individual could (in theory) take the API, use it with their own front-end and not return anything to the community. As long as they didn't modify the API then they wouldn't need to redistribute anything beyond what we already make public.

What I'm wondering is whether it is better to switch to the GPL. According to this graph I can keep my main "IBBoard Utils" LGPLed and incorporate them in a GPLed WarFoundry API and GPLed WarFoundry GUI. In theory it seems good because it means that someone couldn't take the WarFoundry API and write a "better" closed-source GUI around it, but it does restrict people's choice of license to just the GPL, which not everyone will like.

The other alternative is the AGPL, which is the GPL but for networked apps. Since Mono has an ASP.Net implementation, the WarFoundry API could be used as the back-end to a web-app and any modifications aren't considered as redistributed under the GPL. With the AGPL then making the web app publicly available means modifications have to be published. I like the idea, but I almost wish there was a "ALGPL" so that people didn't have to open-source their web app (although that gets us back to the "should we move from LGPL to GPL" point again!)

Any thoughts? Or do most people not care about licenses?

[Frostlee]

well, i care about license and i like the FSF licenses at most, but i know not everyone share my thoughs.
actually i think that if you wish to switch from LGPL to GPL just becasue you fear that "a commercial company can take my API and use them!" well, in this case YOU SHOULD switch immediatly, becasue the LGPL was born exactly for allowing the free software to be included in commercial project.
but before switch think this: the cannot modify the API. this meas that they think your API can already work well in a commercial software. well, i think this will be great and can be a very good thing for warfoundry. maybe they can be even interested in supproting you for debugging them... or what else.
anyway.
instead of asking "will this license fit warfoundry?" i think you should ask "what i want people can do with my code? what i dont want / dont let they do?" and only after ask if there's a license wich fit that.
and in the end: until warfoundry is free software i'll consider a great project and i will not use anything else (maybe except rollcall )

[IBBoard]

Please, please, not Rollcall - it's closed source and it should stay that way for the sake of everyone's sanity That is if I even have the source around still! It was fine in the 1990s, but it's showing its age now

Your thinking is along similar lines to mine: Software should be free where it could be, but not everyone agrees with the GPL and its "viral" nature.

My original thinking with the LGPL was that a) my IBBoard util projects are used by other apps that I've not open sourced yet, so I'd keep to one license and b) I didn't want to force other people making UIs to use the GPL (because not everyone likes it). Unfortunately the LGPL does let commercial software use it as well. As you said, that's a good thing because it means WarFoundry is obviously stable and feature-filled enough for someone's commercial use, and it would be more testing/support, but it's also what Richard Stallman warns against as a reason for LGPLing a library (people saying "you'll get more users").

Ideally I think I want people to be able to use it in their own applications without forcing the GPL on them, but I also want to stop people profiting by selling the code as well It's a bit like an "LGPL with a 'can't link to closed source' restriction" or "GPL with an allowance for linking to other FSF approved licenses" license

I guess at the end of the day the chances of some commercial company using the code are somewhat slim anyway, and probably not worth worrying about too much. Kind of like worrying about getting hit by a meteor!

[Frostlee]

i am actually building a meteor-proof bunker hidden under my home...

well anyway, then listen to this idea:
i think that your utils could be just on plain LGPL since you said is the most appropriate to them;
while you can put the rest under the GPL with the "allowance" notice, or a notice that that users/developers can request a "special exception" to the GPL.
but in the end you are right, dont worry too much about, probably most of end user dont even know what a license is!

[IBBoard]

Based on the link in my first post to the little flow chart and this compatability table it looks like a GPLed app can use LGPLed libraries without a problem (barring versions issues).

That means I could GPL WarFoundry and keep the core utils under the LGPL for my other apps (until/unless I eventually open source those as well).

At the end of the day my licensing thoughts revolved around "how can I write software and make it freely available for people to modify and write new front-ends for, preferably without forcing a license on people". The priority was the "keeping it open" with not forcing a license being an ideal situation. It may be that people have to use the GPL, but there aren't many people who have that strong and objection to the license (and if they do then they'll probably also object to Mono as well!)

Even if WarFoundry is GPLed it doesn't physically/technically/legally stop companies using it, it just means that their code also needs to be GPLed. That'll stop a lot of companies on the basis of IP, but that's just a choice they've made - Redhat, Novell, IBM, Sun and more all make GPLed or similar apps without a problem and even Apple have contributed back to OSS

Unless anyone has any arguments, I think that settles it - all of the code will be migrated to the GPL soon There's only one small contribution from Gregmita so far, so it's effectively just my choice but I'll let the community decide as well.

As for users and licenses, the end user doesn't need to care about the GPL in general since it's a redistribution license rather than any kind of EULA. Any app that makes you click through the GPL and accept it is just being pointless (as one of the FAQ points says) and is probably doing it because users expect it.




As a side note, that FAQ page is a huge improvement over when I last read it. It was still very 1990s/C-centric when I last read it and didn't explain things, but I think they've covered every conceivable question and more now!

[IBBoard]

The Free Software Foundation have responded to a question I had about the Affero GPL v3 on libraries, which is now detailed in ticket 121.

The code will at some point be migrated to the Affero GPL v3, which provides all of the benefits of the GPL (no-one can make modifications and redistribute them without giving those modifications back to the community) without the oversight of letting a web service use the API in a way that means they don't have to redistribute the code