OStatic

The term open source was supposed to remove confusion, and was deliberately chosen to emphasize what the software is, rather than what it isn't. The good news is that when the term open source was coined, just 10 years ago, the world was ready to listen, and incorporated this term into its vocabulary. The bad news is that the open source world is now so diverse, with so many licenses and commercial interests involved, that it is often hard to know whether a program is truly available on an open source basis without reading the fine print.

The Software Freedom Law Center just announced its fourth victory over a software company that incorporated GPL-licensed software in its proprietary product. What happens when the SFLC sues a software company, and how can proprietary software vendors best work with the open-source world? The answer depends, as always, on the license.

Despite continued infighting between the Free Software and Open Source communities, the OSI has blessed the new AGPLv3 license.

Late last week the AGPLv3 license (Affero GNU Public License) formally completed the OSIοΎ’s (Open Source Initiative) license review process. The AGPL license differs from the ubiquitous GPL license in a number of important ways, the biggest of which closes the so-called οΎ“ASP loophole.οΎ”

All open-source licenses are not created equal. Understanding the different licenses is essential before you start to use, and modify, open-source code.

All open-source licenses have certain common elements: They promise that the source code may be used by anyone, for any purposes. They promise that the software may be changed by anyone, in any way that they like. And they promise that people who use the software never have to pay the authors or distributors.

Why are there so many licenses? And how do they differ?