All these complex licences (GPL2, GPL3, LGPL, Least GPL, etc) do nothing except create confusion about which license to use. I have found a simple solution that allows me to focus on my work and not on the legalese; I just use the MIT license.
If you've ever read some ToA, or EULA, you won't find GPL that bad regarding the language and length. Also, simplified/explained versions exists, which should make it more digestible.
As the author of the article said, it's a tool, and you may or may not use it. Don't downplay the need for a copyleft licence (which a cool hack around copyright, if you ask me): some people use is from a philosophical reason, and some - as the basis for their entire business model.
Reading the GPL at length, it seems as though it were written as if the only build process were C, and the only way to run software was on a single computer. The GPL is unclear when it comes to how it applies to something as complex as a content management system that could be deployed and running as a single service across multiple servers. The language it uses (linking, distribution, even 'code' itself) is ambiguous. And apparently the only clear way to ensure that you are in compliance with it is a shakedown from the Software Freedom Conservancy to grant you permission to use it in ways it was never written to handle.
The principles of copyleft are tremendously valuable, I just wish we had a modern license that reflected the reality of the modern internet, and modern software.
Yeah, its age is showing, truth to be told. That's why we have now AGPL for network programs, and LGPL for libraries.
About the ambiguity - my feeling about it is that they (Stallman and the lawyers, I suppose) leaned towards the usual way these documents are done, to make the licence more general - which irks us, the programmers. For a lawyer, "the code" is a good enough term.
I agree with you on having a new copyleft licence - but I'm afraid is hard to get something even to match GPL, and worse - you can step in the same, or other subtle traps as the initial versions of the GPL did - that tivoization stuff was nasty as hell. If only some of the licenses would "die" eventually, but the process reminds me of this comic - https://xkcd.com/927/
That's good, but there other options too that are practically similar to MIT. Most notably, the APL (Apache Public License), MPL (Mozilla Public License) and even the old BSD public license. They just differ in legal gobbledegook in their content, but essentially, you can pick and use any software under these terms and you can use/modify them in whatever manner with a peace of mind!
APL more explicitly/specifically transfers the legal rights to the user of the software through the legal wordings used. In this manner, APL is an improvement over the MIT, which in turn, is an improvement over good old BSD license. Even BSD license intended to do the same thing, but it appears that the modern law prefers every intention to be explicitly stated, rather than leaving room for assumption/derivation of that intent.
Is the Apache Public License different from the Apache License? I can't find any reference of the former and I've always seen the latter shortened to ASL or ASLv2. Apologies if this comes across as a passive aggressive correction -- I'm really curious if they're different things.
Same here. And every explanation, interpretation or clarification I see is more evidence that the licences are murky and there is no way of knowing how a court of law in my jurisdiction dealing with my cases would interpret it. Unlike my employer, which produces GPL software and has a legal department, I want something that is clear and not open to interpretation yet meets my personal goals for my personal projects. MIT fits that to a T.
