Narrow your search
There is an ongoing shift toward open-source licenses that are more permissive, reflecting an increased emphasis on building communities rather than protecting against free-riders.
Microsoft has made a number of changes to its Marketplace policies, while publishing details on the successes of its trials feature, saying nearly 10 percent of users who try end up buying.
One of open source's biggest failings has been to extend its relevance into the Software as a Service world. The OSI has finally corrected this with the approval of the Affero GPL.
Free Software Foundation releases a variation of the GPL that brings its reciprocity obligations to software running as an online service.
Canonical has licensed its popular Launchpad hosting software under the AGPLv3. In so doing, has it licensed away its best way to build a scalable software business?
The GPL makes sense as a way to protect open-source software from proprietary interests, but doesn't this simply make it a less efficient form of proprietary software?
I used to insist the AGPL was critical, but based on the market's response, I think I was wrong.
A survey suggests that 40 percent of the coders plan to deploy applications via the cloud, seemingly overlooking the inapplicability of open-source licensing to the cloud.
Many of 2007's hot trends continued to play out in 2008. Cloud computing is the new hotness--albeit still a relatively nascent trend.
Two years after the open-source licensing wars over "badgeware" and license proliferation, it's clear that customers simply don't care.