Open Source Licenses
IANAL, but I like to pretend like I am on the Internets. This past week at NICAR, the discussion of open source licenses came up in one of the evening tracks over a few bourbons, or it might have been wine by that point, but I digress. The general theme: licenses are confusing.
I know a little bit about them I’m hoping to shed some light on them for fellow journalisty type developers who are thinking about releasing their code but aren’t sure which license they should use.
Caveats and such: I’m seriously not a lawyer, this isn’t legal advise, and so on, et cetera. Please talk to one if you have serious legal questions.
Range of Licenses
There are 69 official open source licenses in use. There are many, many more that are snowflake licenses—licenses that have provisions that are unique to them. Many companies, including ones that I’ve worked for in the past, have created custom licenses by modifying one of the main open source licenses. Many of these have been written by lawyers, but snowflake licenses are an unknown quantity until they’ve been tried in court.
You should avoid snowflake licenses for your open source code. Having a license that is unique to your project increases the barrier to entry. Each developer has to read and understand the license and try to tease out any differences you have with the more common licenses.
Instead of going the snowflake route, opt for one of the popular open source licenses that are commonly used. Each of the licenses have their place, but I’m going to touch on the three that are the most common and one additional license that I think journalists should be familiar with.
GPL: The Viral License
GPL, the Gnu Public License is possibly the most popular and familiar of the open-source licenses. It’s the license that the Linux Kernel and many of the tools that ship with the Linux operating system are released under as well as the wildly popular WordPress blogging platform. I can distribute GPL software any way I want. I can give it away, I can charge, I can do some hybrid of those two. One thing I can’t do is limit what you do with it after you acquire it.
The GPL is a copyleft license, sometimes referred to as a viral license. It’s viral because it forces your hand when it comes to licensing derivative works. Any derivative software must be distributed a compatible license like the GPL. In other words, if I came up with a way to modify Linux and wanted to distribute it, I would have to distribute it under the GPL license. That distribution could be paid, but anyone who pays for it could then redistribute it at will.
GPLv3 has some interesting provisions to. Namely, the Additional Terms. These are optional things that the author can add. For example, 7b requires “preservation of… author attributions” in a project. This is useful for businesses who want to release their software, but want make sure that their competitors can’t do a find-and-replace for their competitor’s name and repackage the software as their own and have to fully credit them, including displaying logos in the user-interface and such.
New BSD and MIT: Do what you will
On the other end of the spectrum are the New BSD (more commonly referred to simply as BSD) and the MIT licenses. These two licenses are much more permissive, allowing redistribution with only minor restrictions.
The New BSD license says the same thing, plus one other clause that says you can’t reuse the original package’s name nor the names of any of the contributors to “endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.” FreeBSD and OpenBSD use the BSD license as does Django.
Licenses and Communities
My thoughts on licenses have evolved over the years. Jacob Kaplan-Moss introduced me to the idea of thinking of licenses as a community identifiers (Side note: he was introduced to this thought process by Van Lindberg, the current PSF Chairman and author of the book Intellectual Property and Open Source). All communities have certain things that they use to identify those who they have a common interest with. Rockabillies have fashion sense and a music that’s unique to them. Gangs have the color of their clothes. Developers have their languages and their licenses.
Releasing software meant to be a part of those communities without following the cultural norms within those communities is a sure way to stick out. It’s like walking into a rockabilly bar dressed in a suit. You should always have a good reason for bucking the norm within a community that you want to be a part of. Trying to release GPL licensed code that builds on top of Django means that you’re not part of the community—you’ve set yourself up as an outsider.
Releasing your software with a more restrictive license than is common in a community that you’re trying to participate in also means you’re placing further restrictions on those in the community. You can use their BSD or MIT licensed code, but they can’t use your GPL code in their projects. That’s essentially telling the other developers that you love their contribution, but not enough to let them use what you’ve built under an equally permission license.
So what to use?
This is where I should mention discussions of being in Rome and so on, however, I think you should use another license: Apache License 2.0. Apache is essentially a BSD license with two very distinct modifications.
- Any contribution to the project is considered to be made under the terms of the Apache License. Contributor License Agreements (CLAs) can be used to enforce something similar with BSD or MIT licenses, but they aren’t guaranteed. The Apache License bakes the terms of the contribution in by default. 1. Apache grants a full rights to any current or future patents that might be derived from the contribution.
If I had [the licensing of Django] to do over again, it would be Apache today.
JKM’s endorsement on the grounds of patent protection was the reason that I advocated to use the Apache License on the Armstrong Project when we started instead of BSD, which is more common in the Python community (remember, community signifiers and all). I’m not worried about any current contributor, I’m worried about who might own the work a contributor makes in 1, 2, or 5 years.
Most newspapers are in a state of flux right now. Let’s say The Timbuk2 Independent contributes a few components to Armstrong. In a few years, they get bought by MegaNewsProfitExtraction, Inc. who then starts evaluating all of the intellectual property they’ve acquired. They realize the contribution from The Independent is patentable and apply for an receive a patent for their small contribution. Under a license like BSD or MIT MNPE, Inc. can now go around attempting to collect all of the patent licensing fees they’re due based on your use of Armstrong.
I don’t think that scenario is that far out there. Remember, you never write the rules for the guy you like, you write them for the one you don’t. Assuming this scenario, the best thing we can all do to protect ourselves is use a license that protects us from the future patent trolls that are lurking under the bridges of acquisitions.
Got other ideas? I’m interested in hearing them.