India Eyeing Its Own Open Source Licence 162
Guru Goo writes "Deepak Phatak of the Indian Institute of Technology,Mumbai has begun an effort to create an open-source license that will let programmers share ideas while also letting them retain the rights to their own software modifications.The license will likely function much like the Berkeley Software Distribution or the
MIT License programs, he added. The number of open-source licenses has exploded, leaving many in the community miffed. But Phatak's proposal comes with the power of numbers. India's 1,750 colleges with computer science and electrical engineering degrees admit about 250,000 students a year. Combined with the outsourcing boom, that makes India one of the major centers for software development.
While the collaboration between academia and industry in india is not as pervasive as in the U.S., it is growing."
what the? (Score:4, Insightful)
The number of open-source licenses has exploded, leaving many in the community miffed.
Why don't they just pick one? How does entering another license into the fray solve the problem with there being too many?
Re:what the? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:what the? (Score:2)
Re:what the? (Score:3, Insightful)
And here I though Free Software was about choice.
Re:what the? (Score:2)
Re:what the? (Score:2)
Government and educational institutions still reserve slots for certain level of the caste systems. A super programmer in a lower caste system is not equal to a super programmer in a higher one. List goes on...
Free software is not about choice. (Score:3, Insightful)
In this thread, CNet is spinning the topic to focus on the open source movement, not the free software movement. There are differences between the movements [gnu.org] and, while members of them work together in practical projects, the two movements are quite different philosophically. One of those differences has to do with discussing freedoms at all (the open source movement was designed not to discuss freedom, but the free software movement focuses on it) and another difference in practice concerns the preservati
Re:what the? (Score:1)
First of all, that statement assumes that "too many" lisences is a "problem". I bet that many here would disagree (The great thing about lisences is that there are so many to choose from!).
And second, a new lisence is created to meet requirements that existing lisences do not. That's the only problem that all new lisences solve.
Re:what the? (Score:2, Funny)
s/lisences/spelling standards/
Re:what the? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is a problem. It's a problem if it makes it difficult or impossible to share code.
And second, a new lisence is created to meet requirements that existing lisences do not. That's the only problem that all new lisences solve.
Except that the article doesn't mention anything that they think is unsuitable about the present BSD-style license. It sounds to me more like a case of "me too."
Re:what the? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it's only a problem if the owner can't manage to let his code be used in the manner of his choosing.
Licenses conflict because of two reasons.
1. Unintentional conflicting requirements.
2. Intentional restrictions on the use of the copyright owners work.
#1 is a problem, with too many licenses.
#2 is not
If you wish to avoid #1, stick to a well known license.
BSD, GPL, and closed source tend to cover the requirements
Re:what the? (Score:1)
It's even more of a problem if the license allows Microsoft to profit from your code by using it in windows. Stick with the GLP.
Re:what the? (Score:2)
Re:what the? (Score:1)
Re:Unrestrictive OSS Licenses (Score:2)
This is not a fault of the GNU GPL. This is a direct result of the collusion between big business and government. The business atmosphere is clouded with misconceptions about intellectual property, overuse and abuse of patents, and the creation of an abominable copyright system which does little-to-nothing to fulfill the Constitutional requirement that rights be reserved to authors and inventors--choosing to focus solely on protecting th
Re:what the? (Score:5, Insightful)
(The great thing about lisences is that there are so many to choose from!).
Choosing a license isn't like picking a flavor of ice-cream. Choose the wrong one and you could limit your potential to use others code in your software, limit the ability for others to use your code in there software, limit the usefullness of your software, limit its distribution, etc.
The problem with too many licenses is that the incompatibilites between them become more and more complicated. Who wants to understand the intracies of 15 different sofware licenses whenever you want to use someone elses code?
Both of you are right (Score:2)
Choose any given licence for your code and you will grant certain rights, lets say A, to those who use your code and you will be denying other rights, say B, similarly. You've just ruled out your using anyone else's code requiring you to license works built on their code such that at least one right in B is included.
The other side, as you said, is that you can choose which software you want to use, but in so doing, you've limited your relicensing terms to those in agreement w
Re:what the? (Score:2)
No, because you don't license software to yourself. You might limit your ability to distribute the code of other with your code using your license, but you aren't stuck. You can distribute your code under as many licenses as you want.
Oh of course. The problem comes when someone takes your code and adds to it. If you choose the GPL, then the changes made to your code by the other developer are also under the GPL. If you'd like to use this code, you're stuck in adhering to the GPL. Once your project l
The problem is... (Score:1)
The more license types there are, the greater the likelyhood that licenses will come into conflict. And then, the only people that will benefit will be lawyers.
Re:what the? (Score:1)
These are the times I miss my mod points.
Country-specific licenses (Score:2)
This is why I always recommend the GPL when possible. Some people have minor issues with it, but essentially, it's a good license, and it has more legal clout behind it than most of the others combined. The only other software license I would consider right now is the Afferro GPL, which covers use on websites.
You're right: there usually is none. I guess some people just feel
So use the Apache license (Score:2)
Is this so obvious to everyone else in the world? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this proof that the US legal risk is actually putting extra burden on US-based institutions (including corporations and universities)????
Re:Is this so obvious to everyone else in the worl (Score:1)
Re:Is this so obvious to everyone else in the worl (Score:1)
Well, this is rather offtopic, but to partly answer to the subject question and JFTR: also here in Italy it's quite common to make jokes about the american "tendency to sue anybody for anything", which is tipically regarded as a bad faith way to make money from someone instead of a way to obtain legal equity.
(Not that in Italy the justice system doesn't have its own problems, to be fair, especially regarding excessive duration of legal proceedings.)
Re:Is this so obvious to everyone else in the worl (Score:1)
USA Copyrights are void in India (Score:2)
So excuse me if I don't care about India's licensing schemes. They sure don't seem to care about ours!
Re:USA Copyrights are void in India (Score:2)
It's not like someone held a gun to his head. Would it hurt you to reveal who his (US) Publisher was? Most US and European publishers have published Eastern Economy Editions for ages, and these days pretty much everyone -- from O'Reilly, McGraw-Hill and Wiley to IDG and Sybex -- have their Indian subsidiaries which do
Re:Is this so obvious to everyone else in the worl (Score:1)
It's your country, you sort it out.
What I don't understand is...why? (Score:1, Insightful)
What's next? AmericanNationalLicense? BritishNationalLicense?
This can only be a bad thing.
Re:What I don't understand is...why? (Score:2)
Re:What I don't understand is...why? (Score:1)
Count me *well* out of that one.
That makes sense (Score:3, Funny)
A fair and even price (Score:5, Funny)
Would that digit have been 0 by any chance?
Re:A fair and even price (Score:2, Funny)
I'd say it was 1, and he counted it out on his fingers just so there was no mistake ...
Re:A fair and even price (Score:2, Funny)
Re:A fair and even price (Score:1)
what about (Score:2, Interesting)
this program follows "free use" and "free distribute" section of abc license
this way, there can be ONE license and everyone can taylor a license of their needs from sections of the license
"Please permit these groups to coexist peacefully (Score:2, Funny)
"Dr. Phatak's dream is to see a resurgent India catching up with the world using Information Technology as the spring board. He hopes to make IT work for the millions of Indians so as to enable them to lead an honorable, comfortable and peaceful life full of love and harmony."
But best of all, under P^2's 'hobbies':
" Giving unsolicited advice to unsuspecting individuals and groups."
He's a natural
Re:"Please permit these groups to coexist peaceful (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually in a way, I rather envy these up and coming third world states as they begin to make their presence felt. They have few advantages in the global economy, but its like the Russians; they had the best mathemeticians in the world because all you needed to learn it was a pen and paper. Well all you need to learn software, graphic design, or any of the many related fields is a computer, and they are getting cheaper by the week.
These countries have a chance to learn from the mistakes made by the weste
A license-picking wizard (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there an "Open Source license-picking wizard" anywhere?
Remember the old mainframe(?) "animals" game in which you pick an animal, and it would keep asking you questions to differentiate between two types, until it guessed your animal, or didn't have your animal in it's list? (actually it was a binary tree)
We could use one of those. It keeps asking us questions, one at a time, until there is only one license that matches our selections. Any new license can be added to the tree at any time by creating a question that differentiates it from the license you would otherwise get by answering the questions for it.
- bp
Re:A license-picking wizard (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A license-picking wizard (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL and, for example, a Microsoft EULA, are so different that you'd need an advanced degree in symbolic logic to come up with ways to categorize them like that.
Re:A license-picking wizard (Score:2)
That's the best argument for throwing them out and starting with something that can be understood by real humans.
Re:A license-picking wizard (Score:2)
Not really, but there are really only two (maybe three) sane choices (unless the project you are developing for uses a different license already, or you already know better):
Anything else risks your license being incompatible with large swaths of software (in the linking sense) and possible failing the DFSG. Moreover, using uncommon licenses means that you're more and more on your own for figuring out what they mean.
This article has very little to do with India (Score:5, Informative)
- Phatak is not India. He's a professor in one college in India.
- This is not a massively-funded government project. It's one person trying to design a license agreeement, for God's sake. Anyone can do that without implying a nuclear-weapon-like government strategic program. If a professor in, say, OSU was to design a new license, would Slashdot run a story saying "America designing its own Open Source license"?
- I know Phatak. He's a good teacher, but tends to like thinking up grand visions, and sees himself as some kind of leading light carrying India to leadership and glory in the tech world. Not many people other than him see him that way. No reasonable journalist would report his statements/plans as representing what 'India' is doing.
Re:This article has very little to do with India (Score:5, Funny)
Knowing Phatak, though, I'm pretty sure he did nothing to dissuade the reporter from thinking he represented the entire country
Re:This article has very little to do with India (Score:4, Interesting)
I completely agree. Besides, in India as is the case elsewhere GPL wound makes sense for most of the open source developers who do not what to see their work hijacked.
There may be a few specialized cases where GPL, BSD, MIT or IBM's public license do not meet the needs. These projects are going release under a different license like so many other projects and companies have done elsewhere.
Re:grand vision (Score:2)
"Never" is a long time. Lots of companies and people make money with OSS, and nothing's going to change that.
IPA (Score:2, Funny)
Nothing like compiling your free-as-in-speech and free-as-in-beer software with an IPA.
bah (Score:2)
hawk
Doesn't the GPL already do this? (Score:4, Informative)
Er, um, doesn't the GPL already do this??? You don't have the rights to -- say -- close-source the entire code, but you can do whatever you want with your own code.
If, on the other hand, he wants to go with a berkely-style license, then please go with the berkeley style. I'm one of those who believes that we already have enough licenses. I'm wondering if Phatak fully understands the licenses that are already out there?
If what he wants is a "look but don't touch" license (a'la some of MS's 'shared source" initiatives) then I'd be inclined to say "thanks but no thanks".
Perhaps the OSI should require people who want to propose yet another Open Source license to show cause why the new license provides something valuable beyond the already existing set.
Re:Doesn't the GPL already do this? (Score:1)
I think you just made his point on why he wants a license other than the GPL. You can do whatever you want..except close the source..that doesn't sounds like whatever I want, which is a good reason to pick another licensing model.
If what he wants is a "look but don't touch" license (a'la some of MS's 'shared source" initiatives) then I'd be i
Re:Doesn't the GPL already do this? (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't the GPL already do this? (Score:2)
You can't remove the license for the copies of the code that are 'out in the wild', but you have every right to release a copy of your own code under any other license you want (including the Microsoft EULA, presuming that it's legal).
Hey, I have a hot news flash for ya... (Score:4, Informative)
<rant>
You mean just like almost every other OSI-certified license? Hey, I wrote this code that is a modification to X. I am licensing under license Y. But guess what! I still own my code. I still hold the copyright. Unless you're working with someone who requires any contributions to their code have copyright assigned back to them, you always retain your rights to do whatever you damn well please with your code. All the license does is give other people the same rights I have with some (more or less) restrictions that I, as owner of the code, don't have to follow.
Like, say, there's this project that is dual-licensed under the GPL gratis and a proprietary/closed-source license for a fee...then I can write this additional module of functionality that tacks onto it. I, as owner of the code, can then decide to keep it to myself and not worry about the GPL (because it only kicks in if I distribute), or I can choose to release my code under the GPL (which does not give the project "principle" the right to include it in the proprietary/closed-source license) OR I can do exactly what the other folks are doing: release my modifications gratis (or for a fee if I want to...not that I'd collect much from anybody because the first person who paid could turn around and release it gratis) under the GPL and license it back to the project principle under the proprietary/closed-source license gratis or for a fee if I so choose.
I have all these options because I retain my rights to the code I write, period.
Now, what it strikes me as this guy wants to make something somewhere between the GPL and BSD licenses. A little less scary to PHBs (see: GPL) and a little less scary to developers who believe in "share and share a like" (see: BSD). I just don't know enough about the myriad of other licenses out there to know if something like that already exists...although I suspect it does.
</rant>
Of course, I'm probably way off base and will be undoubtedly regaled by many of the
Re:Hey, I have a hot news flash for ya... (Score:2)
You know just the top off my head I think LGPL, CCL, and the MPL would fit that bill.
It's hard to know what people want but if you can't find an open source license that fits your needs you aren't really looking very hard.
GPL, LGPL, CA-TOSL, etc, etc. etc. (Score:1, Redundant)
Agreed! (Score:1)
It's just like the GPL (Score:4, Funny)
Licensing maze (Score:4, Funny)
Chip H.
slightly offtopic... (Score:1)
Re:slightly offtopic... (Score:1, Troll)
If India has some CEO/CTO/CFO types to spare,
the USA could sure make use of them. We have
far too many greedy, lying, thieving, morally
challenged corporate officer types here that
could stand to spend some time in a "moral values
re-education facility"^H^H^H prison.
Not to mention that working at 1/10th the price
of our current corporate overlords would be
great for corporate morale, the shareholders, and
the bottom line.
India and Pakistan are in a bar (Score:1, Funny)
Pak: So you think you are big shots with your own open source license now?
Ind: We are super-power. Of course we have Open Source licenses! When will you get computers in your third world country?
Pak: We have computers and many other things. You do not know about us, because your people live in shacks and answer the telephone for Americans.
Ind: Better to live in a shack and have a high-paying technical job than to eat cows and live in huts as your p
Miffed at too many OSS licenses. (Score:2)
But, if they're going to write new licenses, can they at least write them in English, or at least in something with a Latin alphabet.
Re:Miffed at too many OSS licenses. (Score:2)
Re:Miffed at too many OSS licenses. (Score:2)
> what language do you think they speak in India?
Cyrillic, right?
Thoughts on Collaboration with Industry (Score:1)
While the spirit of the BSD license is refreshing, the unfortunate reality is that this license represents a one-way trip from the coder to industry, at no cost to industry.
Why do you think Ballmer stated Microsoft's relative affinity for OpenBSD some time ago?
In practice corporate collaboration on campus means little more than extremely low cost labor for the corporation.
It sounds to me like this person doesn't particularly mind the work p
Mumbai == Bombay (Score:2)
Re:Mumbai == Bombay (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Mumbai was Bombay (but Bombay lives on still) (Score:2)
Great... (Score:2, Interesting)
So what.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats the beautiful thing about open source, just as the community must maintain code for the code to thriv
one more thing (Score:3, Informative)
One of the issues that has increased the speed of out sourcing is that the indian rupee has dropped significantly against the US dollar in recent years. When it starts to rise again the cost of outsourcing and employing people in india will increase that could have both possitive and negative aspects on the sectors in question.
Indian Currency here : http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=US
Re:one more thing (Score:2)
You missed several points. First of all, the rest of the world is aware of the Indian IT boom; it appears that Indians did not learn from the U.S. There is nothing we can do about it :(
The price of an average contractor has increased; take it from somebody who worked closely with the "other side." Also, top Indian business officials understand that their economy is as strong as the rest of the world that is willing to support it. As soon as the other contries cut the pipe, the outsourcing boom will become
Re:one more thing (Score:2)
Re:one more thing (Score:2)
Glad India's going BSD instead of GPL (Score:2, Insightful)
Going BSD gives India a way to get a leg up on Western programmers. India doesn't have to share i
Not if they don't release (Score:1)
Indian GPL Outsourcing license (Score:2)
1. All your codes are belong to us
2. All your jobs are belong to us
3. Let the hiliarity ensue
Fricken Academics... (Score:2, Insightful)
The beauty of the GPL as opposed to BSD or MIT schemes is that it uses existing copyright laws to ensure that programmers can actually be recognized properly for the code they create.
This means a lot more than having the respect of your peers. It means being able to feed your family.
Of course, GPL won't enable you to make money in and of itself, but it prevents others from directly
Re:Fricken Academics... (Score:2)
The ONLY thing the BSD license requires is recognition, in the form of retention of the copyright attribution.
Re:Fricken Academics... (Score:2)
It's the PROBLEMS with the GPL that are driving people, organisations, and countries to use other licenses. The GPL is fatally flawed outside of an academic model.
Why we don't need more licenses... (Score:2)
Now, pretend you want make an OSS project, and you're license-neutral really. You can choose code from one, but not the other. That is completely unreasonable and silly, but legally so. It was never intended to split OSS into many different code bases, with duplication of effort. If anything,
Re:Deepak Phatak? (Score:2)
Re:Deepak Phatak? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Deepak Phatak? (Score:1)
Re:Deepak Phatak? (Score:3, Informative)
If pronunciation is "phutaak", meaning is boom,
if pron. is "phaatuck", meaning is gate.
Re:Deepak Phatak? (Score:1)
Food!
The 'f' in wtf stands for food.
Re:Deepak Phatak? (Score:1, Offtopic)
MOD TROLL DOWN PLEASE! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:You failed... (Score:2)
Re:You failed... (Score:2)
Here's the whole of section 5:
A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is de
Re:You failed... (Score:2)
Re:You failed... (Score:2)
Thank you for taking the time to point out the missing information.
Re:MOD TROLL DOWN PLEASE! (Score:1, Informative)
If a commercial program linking to LGPL library by using header files forbids modification of the program in their EULA, then they are not living up to their LGPL obligations. If you bother reading commercial software EULAs, you'd know that virtually all of them prohibit reverse engineering and modifications.
This is a tricky situation because allowing modifications means allowing a user to, for
Re:MOD TROLL DOWN PLEASE! (Score:2, Informative)
Given the incomplete information provided, your points are fairly well taken, but answer this one for me.
If the LGPL requires what you say:
"If a commercial program linking to LGPL library by using header files forbids modification of the program in their EULA, then they are not living up to their LGPL obligations"
then just exactly what is the point of the LGPL versus the GPL? It seems the essence of your argument points to the two licenses being effectively the same animal.
And just for reference,
LGPL contradictory? (Score:2)
You are effectively arguing that the original poster must be wrong because the *intent* is something else. *Intent* means nothing, only the implementation specified in the license matters.
To me the first line of section 5 contradicts the argument the parent poster wanted to make.
You may simply misunderstand it. "A program that contains no
Re:LGPL contradictory? (Score:2)
I think the fourth paragraph of Section 5 defines it pretty well actually:
If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, and small
Re:LGPL contradictory? (Score:2)
That's not general understanding or simple intent. That's pretty cut-and-dry.
I don't think so. That could, and perhaps should, b