Goodbye GPL, hello BSD?
September 2, 2007
Here’s a question that’s been on my mind lately:
Should I switch away from using the GPLv2 for my software?
So far I’ve been using the GPLv2, but now that it has been superseded by version 3 I’m a bit at a loss at what to use for new projects. Do I stick with using version 2? Do I read and try to understand version 3 enough that I’m comfortable using it? Or do I use something else entirely?
It’s important to me that I’m able to fully comprehend the license I put on my own software. The BSD license wins hands down in this category: it is short and written in very simple language. For comparison here’s the number of words in the BSD, GPLv2 and GPLv3 licenses:
| License | Number of words | Number of lines |
|---|---|---|
| BSD | 223 | 26 |
| GPL2 | 2968 | 340 |
| GPL3 | 5644 | 674 |
A strong argument in favour of the BSD license there, but the length of each license is not the full story. Lowering the barrier of entry is also important. You can use BSD-licensed code in any closed-source applications—be it a commercial application or binary-only freeware. (Maybe you’re too embarrassed of the code to release it?)
More users means increased likelyhood of receiving feedback—in the form of code, bug reports or otherwise—that benefit all users. Thus I’d rather have a larger pool of “free” and “non-free” users than a smaller pool of “free” users of my software, even if the “non-free” ones use it in a commercial application and don’t directly contribute code back.
At this point I’ve pretty much made up my mind. Unless someone hits me over the head and points out a glaring flaw in my arguments upcoming releases of my software (at least the libraries) will be released under the revised BSD license.
September 3, 2007 at 9:27 am
yes you should
September 11, 2007 at 4:34 am
First, ask yourself: “Am I comfortable with someone selling my code back to me with random changes and no source code?” If you find the prospect is revolting, then stick with the GPL.
Next, you state that ‘BSD == more users’. But is it true? Why is Linux is more popular than Net/Open/FreeBSD? Why is there no BSD version of GCC? Why does the activity (development and downloads) on SourceForge tend to be mostly GPL? Before we get into a flamewar, let’s consider the various groups using your software:
- End users: They don’t care about SW licenses (just look at all the people using Windows!)
- Developers: Most don’t care, but some are BSD bigots and some are GPL bigots. There’s enough on either side to be a wash.
- Companies incorporating your software: Of course they would prefer BSD. But only if it matters.
For example, Linksys, Sony, and Nokia all use Linux and other GPL libraries as the base of their platforms. As long as the GPL doesn’t touch their “value add” software, they are happy to build on Linux, BusyBox, etc.
So if you have a library that you want people to use (think SleepyCat Software), consider BSD (or LGPL). If you have an application or an OS, moving to BSD may not help at all.
Notes:
- GPL v2 isn’t going away. If you were happy with it, you should continue to use it.
- If you left in the “Or Later” clause on your software copyright statement, then your software is already both V2 and v3 already (the re-distributor gets to choose).
- Reasons to use GPL: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd
September 12, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Dan,
Thank you for this post; it was an interesting read. I also enjoyed the post you linked to. As you put in your closing notes:
This is indeed my situation. Much of the software I write are libraries, as it happens. As David also points out in the article I linked to, the BSD license is good if you want your software out there and used by as many as possible.
Now, I’m not under the illusion that switching licenses suddenly will give me a lot of users. I don’t believe that. But I don’t want the license to be a barrier to entry, and I don’t expect to be making money on this software (I do that in my day-job)—only reputation.