Licensing/software

The Copyleft movement started by RMS with the GPL license is the pursuit of an ethical goal in the legal framework that exists. There are many challenges impeding the movement. One is the overwhelming lack of ethics in business. I don't mean to say that business is criminal. Rather, that ethics in business as it is taught, codified legally, and put into practice in the corporate environment place it so low on the priorities list that it rarely becomes a focus or even a deciding factor. All companies claim to 'care', but very few show that in their commitment to users, customers, employees, partners, and society at large by using the GPL. In fact, when the GPL was modified to try to protect individual freedoms in the face of new technical realities, the biggest effect seems to be that companies found new ways to exploit the GPL for their own gain. If the GPL were a lifeboat, the general business/legal climate is a monsoon/hurricane like the red spot on Jupiter: massive and undying. At the other end of this movement is the user which it's designed to protect. You would think that the user, motivated by their own self-interest in protecting their own freedoms would be manning the oars, and bailing out the boat. But the reality is that 99% of the users don't know that there is a problem; or that they can do anything about it. Users blindly and willingly consume all manner of proprietary software which strikes at the movement like a giant anchor tossed overboard with a chain that is too short. More recently, user apathy has been compounded by a shift in the general cultural attitudes brought on by the pervasiveness of personal computing. Users are frustrated with the permission economy. They would be happy if copyright were severely limited or abolished. For developers, it's simple to post code on places like github without a license (or the 'wrong' license) - weakening the GPL. The paradox is that the GPL relies on copyright to protect user freedoms.

Assignment

Since only the copyright holder can initiate an enforcement claim, developers are urged to assign their works to a larger 'consortium' such as the Free Software Foundation. See Assignment

Mixed Licensing

Two of the most if not the most popular website building platforms are licensed under the GPL: Drupal and WordPress. Drupal modules are licensed under the GPL. However, there are many WordPress 'themes' (a package that affects how the site looks) that are proprietary and licensed for a fee. How then do people mix proprietary code with the GPL? The answer is that they are either violating the copyright of WordPress (if they are truly distributing themes under a proprietary license), or they (theme creators) are charging for the graphics that aren't linked with the program, but are useful for the theme. The irony is that many people who purchase these themes do not use the proprietary licensed assets (ie. PhotoShop .psd files) at all. They just download the theme, and use the point and click approach to installing and tweaking the theme. They are literally using only the GPL licensed code. Here is an example of how one vendor describes how they use mixed licensing: "If an author is releasing a theme or plugin for a platform that is licensed under the GPL, the PHP code and integrated HTML of the theme or plugin must be distributed under the GPL." "The rest of the components created by the author (such as the CSS, images, graphics, design, photos, etc) are covered by the [proprietary license]" . They really are trying to hide the fact that the theme is 99% free, and that the $50 fee you're paying is for the one or two PhotoShop files distributed with it. The Drupal Project clarifies in their licensing FAQ, The Free Software Foundation, The Software Freedom Law Center all share the same interpretation of Copyright and mixed licensing: WordPress themes must be distributed under the GPL

Popularity / Trends

What are the licenses used by projects on GitHub? 

https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2013/lcs-slides-aaronw/#/begin

GitHub has now added a 'chooser' that briefly explains 3 major license choices at http://choosealicense.com/. Sadly, it doesn't really favor nor default to the GPL.

Which licenses are used the most? 

Promulgated in 1991, GPLv2 is still after 23 years in service, the most widely used free software license of any type.

Good Reads

• Armin Ronacher http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2013/7/23/licensing/