What do you get when you cross a prominent French businessman with the GPL? A whole lot of scattered thinking.
Case filed Monday in New York by the Software Freedom Law Center alleges 14 electronics retailers sold products containing BusyBox software in violation of license.
Microsoft confirms that a tool intended to allow Netbooks to more easily move to the new operating system was based in-part, and unintentionally, on open-source code.
Richard Stallman acknowledges that the GPL can't guarantee software freedom, but Apache licensing just might.
The fall of GPLv2 below 50 percent of all open-source projects may not be cause for panic, but it likely is a harbinger of more Apache code to come.
Redmond is proving that it can compete with open source on open source's terms by licensing LinuxIC under the GPLv2 license.
The 5 percent drop in General Public License adoption likely reflects a shift in perception as to the value of open-source licensing.
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.
I used to insist the AGPL was critical, but based on the market's response, I think I was wrong.
Appcelerator has found that the Apache Public License will improve its adoption more than the GPL will.