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.
Canonical is considering releasing Launchpad under the AGPL open-source license. This would be a very big win for the AGPL.
Google gets a free ride when it comes to open source. The AGPL would change this, which makes Google's rejection of AGPL-licensed code from its Google Code site so infuriating.
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.
The General Public License has long been the preferred license for open-source businesses, but new analysis suggests that Apache-style licensing may yield more adoption and money.
Two years after the open-source licensing wars over "badgeware" and license proliferation, it's clear that customers simply don't care.
Licensing has dropped way down the list of hot-button issues relevant to open-source software. The best evidence of this is what's happening around cloud computing.
Google has wrongly banned the Mozilla Public License from its accepted licenses for Google Code. This is wrong-headed and misguided.