Google bans Mozilla and AGPL licenses from Google Code

[bp1509]

The Mozilla Public License (MPL) is the latest casualty of Google's decision to remove open-source licenses from its popular code hosting service.

The search giant has said Google Code is no longer accepting projects licensed under MPL, although existing MPL-licensed code is allowed to stay.

The move comes two years after Google Code launched, when MPL was one of just seven licenses Google allowed developers to use. Others included Apache, BSD and the Free Software Foundation's GPL and LGPL.

Google's MPL ban follows the block on FSF's Affero GPL. That decision's seen a number of projects abandon Google Code for rival hosts.

As with Affero, the reasons for Google's decision are not entirely clear.

On the one hand, it sounds like Google is using its critical mass to force an industry reduction in the number of open-source licenses. Open source programs manager Chris DiBona said - as with Affero - the move is designed to stop license proliferation inside Google Code. A decent objective.

He told the O'Reilly Open Source Convention (OSCON) developers are welcome to host MPL projects elsewhere, just not on Google Code. He noted you could still build plug-ins for Mozilla's Firefox browser without licensing under MPL.

Here's where the proliferation argument stumbles, though. DiBona said MPL is not widely used to justify a place on Google Code - also the reason given for blocking Affero.

OK, so proliferation as a concept is bad.

Proliferation is not bad, though, when a license grows in popularity. Two things are needed to pass muster on Google Code: to be used in "thousands" not "hundreds" of projects, plus a dose of "gut measure" from DiBona and his team. "It's so arbitrary," DiBona told The Reg.

It’s Kafkaesque in its simplicity.

It really, though, sounds like Google is concerned about the threat some licenses might pose in terms of code authors and hosts (Google) getting prosecuted by holders of intellectual property (IP) and by the degree of ownership over its own code Google might have to surrender.

Recalling Microsoft saber rattling (here and here) over IP in open source, DiBona told OSCON: "Most open source licenses have not a thing to say explicitly about patents or trade marks."

He added: "That's the reason we use the Apache license as the default license," for Google's projects.

So, no surprise: Apache is considered "safe" for developers, and safe for Google's own business.

This could certainly explain Google's aversion to Affero, which says companies like Google running services are distributing code and must allow consumers of those services to modify and pass on that code. That could threaten the Google's secret algorithmic sauce.

MSL, though, seems relatively harmless. And, how can Google dump MPL when it still seems to accept GPL, a license Microsoft takes strong exception to.

As DiBona told us of the decision to drop MPL: "We [Google] will be unpopular for a while."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/googlecode_bans_mpl/

Thoughts?

[Frak]

Ok, well, most projects are licesned under variants of GPL as it is. The MPL people will be mad, but the most rest of us aren't very worried.

[Bachstelze]

Yeah, the MPL sucks anyway...

[days_of_ruin]

The Mozilla Public License (MPL) is the latest casualty of Google's decision to remove open-source licenses from its popular code hosting service.

The search giant has said Google Code is no longer accepting projects licensed under MPL, although existing MPL-licensed code is allowed to stay.

The move comes two years after Google Code launched, when MPL was one of just seven licenses Google allowed developers to use. Others included Apache, BSD and the Free Software Foundation's GPL and LGPL.

Google's MPL ban follows the block on FSF's Affero GPL. That decision's seen a number of projects abandon Google Code for rival hosts.

As with Affero, the reasons for Google's decision are not entirely clear.

On the one hand, it sounds like Google is using its critical mass to force an industry reduction in the number of open-source licenses. Open source programs manager Chris DiBona said - as with Affero - the move is designed to stop license proliferation inside Google Code. A decent objective.

He told the O'Reilly Open Source Convention (OSCON) developers are welcome to host MPL projects elsewhere, just not on Google Code. He noted you could still build plug-ins for Mozilla's Firefox browser without licensing under MPL.

Here's where the proliferation argument stumbles, though. DiBona said MPL is not widely used to justify a place on Google Code - also the reason given for blocking Affero.

OK, so proliferation as a concept is bad.

Proliferation is not bad, though, when a license grows in popularity. Two things are needed to pass muster on Google Code: to be used in "thousands" not "hundreds" of projects, plus a dose of "gut measure" from DiBona and his team. "It's so arbitrary," DiBona told The Reg.

It’s Kafkaesque in its simplicity.

It really, though, sounds like Google is concerned about the threat some licenses might pose in terms of code authors and hosts (Google) getting prosecuted by holders of intellectual property (IP) and by the degree of ownership over its own code Google might have to surrender.

Recalling Microsoft saber rattling (here and here) over IP in open source, DiBona told OSCON: "Most open source licenses have not a thing to say explicitly about patents or trade marks."

He added: "That's the reason we use the Apache license as the default license," for Google's projects.

So, no surprise: Apache is considered "safe" for developers, and safe for Google's own business.

This could certainly explain Google's aversion to Affero, which says companies like Google running services are distributing code and must allow consumers of those services to modify and pass on that code. That could threaten the Google's secret algorithmic sauce.

MSL, though, seems relatively harmless. And, how can Google dump MPL when it still seems to accept GPL, a license Microsoft takes strong exception to.

As DiBona told us of the decision to drop MPL: "We [Google] will be unpopular for a while."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/googlecode_bans_mpl/

Thoughts?

You should put articles you didn't write in quotes.

[ghindo]

I never understood why Google Code limits the licenses you can use on their site. Is it that hard to offer more licenses?
You should put articles you didn't write in quotes.+1

[madjr]

Yeah, the MPL sucks anyway...

i don't know much about the MPL, so why it sucks?

[smartboyathome]

i don't know much about the MPL, so why it sucks?

I don't have much of an opinion on the MPL, but the reason some people say it sucks is because you cannot use the logo and icons and such with their product if the code is modified.

[Frak]

I don't have much of an opinion on the MPL, but the reason some people say it sucks is because you cannot use the logo and icons and such with their product if the code is modified.
The icons are non-free. They are proprietary units of the Mozilla Corporation (a for profit, subsidary of the Mozilla Foundation).

[days_of_ruin]

I don't have much of an opinion on the MPL, but the reason some people say it sucks is because you cannot use the logo and icons and such with their product if the code is modified.

That seems fair though.Maybe not the icons part but if you fork a project
should the original project get to keep its identity?

[Frak]

That seems fair though.Maybe not the icons part but if you fork a project
should the original project get to keep its identity?
Iceweasel is a semi-fork of Firefox licensed under the GPL using OSS icons.

[Mateo]

Yeah, anyone who forks a project simply because they don't like licensing of an icon is a bonafied extremist.

[Frak]

Yeah, anyone who forks a project simply because they don't like licensing of an icon is a bonafied extremist.
It was the Debian team. The OS from which Ubuntu is derived.

[Keyper7]

Yeah, anyone who forks a project simply because they don't like licensing of an icon is a bonafied extremist.

It's not about liking the licensing or not, it's about it being coherent with your own or not.

Firefox does not comply with the licensing policy that Debian uses. They had two options: fork it or accept the violation. The first option is easy because Debian never aimed to be a popular mainstream distribution so it does not have to worry about not having the firefox branding. The second option is complicated because if you start making exceptions in your policy, where do you draw the line?

Debian chooses the easy way of being strict by default with an optional non-free repository. LinuxMint chooses the easy way of having no restrictions by default and an optional free installer. Ubuntu chooses a very complex path of accepting certain things (firmware, firefox logo, etc.) while denying others (opera, acroread, skype) and offering a solution in between for the rest (binary video drivers, proprietary fonts, etc.).

This creates several problems like people not liking to have proprietary bloat they don't need, people arguing that "if they include this, they should include that" and so on. I applaud Canonical for trying to reach a balance between freedom and user-friendliness, but this is an insanely hard task.

So what you're calling "bonafied extremism" is actually a very logical choice from Debian that avoids more problems than it creates.

[bp1509]

You should put articles you didn't write in quotes.

quoting an entire article to correct a mere etiquette error, also isn't entirely proper either.

[Mateo]

It was the Debian team. The OS from which Ubuntu is derived.

Not at all surprising.

[Mateo]

It's not about liking the licensing or not, it's about it being coherent with your own or not.

Firefox does not comply with the licensing policy that Debian uses. They had two options: fork it or accept the violation. The first option is easy because Debian never aimed to be a popular mainstream distribution so it does not have to worry about not having the firefox branding. The second option is complicated because if you start making exceptions in your policy, where do you draw the line?

Debian chooses the easy way of being strict by default with an optional non-free repository. LinuxMint chooses the easy way of having no restrictions by default and an optional free installer. Ubuntu chooses a very complex path of accepting certain things (firmware, firefox logo, etc.) while denying others (opera, acroread, skype) and offering a solution in between for the rest (binary video drivers, proprietary fonts, etc.).

This creates several problems like people not liking to have proprietary bloat they don't need, people arguing that "if they include this, they should include that" and so on. I applaud Canonical for trying to reach a balance between freedom and user-friendliness, but this is an insanely hard task.

So what you're calling "bonafied extremism" is actually a very logical choice from Debian that avoids more problems than it creates.

It's a complete waste of time. Spending more than 5 seconds to fork something over the license of an icon is zealotry, plain and simple. This had nothing to do with "logical consistency", it was about zealotry. We both know that. Let's not pretend otherwise.

[Frak]

It's a complete waste of time. Spending more than 5 seconds to fork something over the license of an icon is zealotry, plain and simple. This had nothing to do with "logical consistency", it was about zealotry. We both know that. Let's not pretend otherwise.
It was actually so it could agree with the Debian Manifesto. All software used on the system should be open source, and since it was simple to make Firefox fully open source, they did so.

[Polygon]

yeah, all they really do is just change the logo/name and add this one little extra security feature with 0 size images for cookie tracking or something, hardly what i would call a fork.

[Keyper7]

It's a complete waste of time. Spending more than 5 seconds to fork something over the license of an icon is zealotry, plain and simple. This had nothing to do with "logical consistency", it was about zealotry. We both know that. Let's not pretend otherwise.

If you're going to disagree with what I said, you need better arguments than "because I said so". You're not giving any real arguments, just repeating "it's zealotry, it's zealotry, it's zealotry" over and over again.

Please re-read my previous post again and tell your opinions about the issues I pointed out, because so far we have:

Debian: does not comply with licensing (verifiable fact)

You: it's zealotry (subjective opinion)

If I was the maintainer of a project and I was not worried about its mainstream popularity, I'd definitely avoid the complex maze of relying on subjective opinions to make decisions.

[koenn]

It's a complete waste of time. Spending more than 5 seconds to fork something over the license of an icon is zealotry, plain and simple. This had nothing to do with "logical consistency", it was about zealotry. We both know that. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Wow, you were present when this issue was discussed ?
When did you become a Debian dev ?

[Mateo]

It was actually so it could agree with the Debian Manifesto. All software used on the system should be open source, and since it was simple to make Firefox fully open source, they did so.

This isn't counter to what I said at all. I agree with you. This is why they did it. And, in my judgment, it is extremism.

[CarlosNYB]

I'd use the term 'purism' -- but when you consider the history of lawsuits between unix systems, copyright craziness in recent decades, etc., it's nice to know that there are systems out there which are ENTIRELY free of trademark/copyright complications.

[Frak]

I'd use the term 'purism' -- but when you consider the history of lawsuits between unix systems, copyright craziness in recent decades, etc., it's nice to know that there are systems out there which are ENTIRELY free of trademark/copyright complications.
Even in the fact that possibly non-free things (mono) are just labeled non-free to be safe and placed in the non-free repo.

[ghindo]

The Debian/Firefox debacle seems more like a licensing/legal issue than anything.

[D-EJ915]

quoting an entire article to correct a mere etiquette error, also isn't entirely proper either.
That's not an etiquette error, it's plagiarism.

Anyway, I don't really see why having multiple licenses for software would be difficult.

[Frak]

The Debian/Firefox debacle seems more like a licensing/legal issue than anything.

Because that's exactly what it is.


Anyway, I don't really see why having multiple licenses for software would be difficult.

In the case of Google, legality on IP and patent concerns.
In the case of Debian, legality on trademark and freedom concerns.