FOSSwire

Slashdot is reporting that popular free software accounting package SQL-Ledger recently secretly changed their licence from the GPL to the SQL-Ledger Open Source Licence. The project leader did this without notifying anyone on the project.

Users of the popular accounting package SQL-Ledger were being kept in the dark about a recent license change. Two weeks ago a new version of the software was released but along with it came the silent change of license from GPLv2 to the 'SQL-Ledger Open Source License' — presumably in an effort to prevent future forks like LedgerSMB. As it turns out, the author was making deliberate attempts to prevent the community from finding out about the license change. No posts to the SQL-Ledger mailing lists asking about the license change were getting past moderation and direct questions to the author were going unanswered. Just recently the license was switched back to GPLv2. This behavior is not a first for this particular project, and is part of the reason for the original LedgerSMB fork. Does a project maintainer have an ethical obligation to notify his or her community of a license change? What about a legal obligation?

It is being presumed that the reason for the licence change was to try to avoid forks of the code (for the uninitiated - a fork is where a project's code is taken by one set of developers and they split up from the main branch and do their own thing with the code). The licence has now been changed back to the GPL, but it raises questions about whether this is an ethical, or even a legal move.

There are a lot of different open source licences out there, and it can sometimes be a bit confusing if you're not intimate with the details of each one. So here's a quick roundup of three of the most popular licenses and the difference between them.

Just a quick disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, so don't depend on my explanations on the licences here. All the usual disclaimers apply.

GNU General Public Licence

The GNU General Public Licence, or GPL as it's often called, is the most popular free software licence and it's used by many different projects, including the Linux kernel, the GNU tools and literally hundreds of others.

You can find the legal text for the GPL here, but here's a quick summary of what it means.

Basically, you're allowed to use, redistribute and change the software, but any changes you make must also be licensed under the GPL. So that means you have to give everyone else the same rights as you got. Fair's fair, right?

There are also other restrictions and there's quite a nice human-readable version at the Creative Commons site.

The GNU Lesser General Public Licence

The LGPL is similar to the GPL, but is more designed for software libraries where you want to allow non-GPL applications to link to your library and utilise it. If you modify the software, you still have to give back the source code, but you are allowed to link it with proprietary stuff without giving the source code to all of that back.

Again, there's a nice friendly look at this on the Creative Commons site.

The BSD Licence

In contrast to the GNU licences, the BSD licence is very permissive. Used originally by the BSD operating system, it covers a fair amount of software.

The BSD basically says "here's the source code, do whatever you want with it, but if you have problems, it's your problem". That means you can take BSD'ed code and turn it into a proprietary application if you so wish - there's nothing saying you have to give the code back (although it is nice to do so).

The BSD licence is very small because it is so simple, and often looks like this:

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the [[whoever]] nor the names of contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

There are also several other licences (the MIT for example) that are similar in spirit to the BSD.

Obviously, that's not all the licences - there are plenty, and developers choose them for different circumstances. Some are restrictive, but preserve the free-ness of the code like the GPL, and some are much more permissive.

The Free Software Foundation call the GPL-style restrictions (you must release any modifications under the same licence) 'copyleft'. Mr Stallman himself has an essay about this and other issues on the GNU site. Bear in mind though, this article does push Stallman's personal views on software licences quite heavily. Take with a pinch of salt if necessary.

The Free Software Foundation have just released their third draft of the next version of the most popular free/open source software licence, the GNU General Public Licence.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) today released the third discussion draft for version 3 of the most widely used free software license, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL).

Today's draft incorporates the feedback received from the general public, official discussion committees, and two international conferences held in India and Japan. Many significant changes have been made since the previous draft, released in July 2006. In recognition of this fact, the FSF now plans to publish one additional draft before the final text of GPL version 3.

Apparently, the changes since draft 2 include:

• First-time violators can have their license automatically restored if
  they remedy the problem within thirty days.
• License compatibility terms have been simplified, with the goal of
  making them easier to understand and administer.
• Manufacturers who include the software in consumer products must also
  provide installation information for the software along with the
  source. This change provides more narrow focus for requirements that
  were proposed in previous drafts.
• New patent requirements have been added to prevent distributors from
  colluding with patent holders to provide discriminatory protection
  from patents.

All of the drafting is being done in the open, and you can take a look at or join in the discussion on the FSF's GPLv3 website.

What becomes GPLv3 will have repercussions for the whole computing industry and judging by this press release, it looks like Stallman and friends are looking to prevent another MS-Novell deal.

It's certainly interesting stuff.