[...] GNU GPL [...] designed to protect the openness of the source code [...]
That isn't accurate. When someone copies open code into a closed project, they are doing exactly that - copying. It does not diminish the open project except for the loss of potential
contributions, but those contributions are not theirs to "protect". The only closed parts are the parts written by the new author, who has the Right to keep his work closed if he so chooses, and to distribute it on whatever terms he sees fit. There are plenty of ways proprietary developers can make money without any government-backed "don't copy that floppy" nonsense. If source access is of value to the customers of a proprietary software developer, then they can create market pressure for contractually limited source access (one can even see Microsoft's source code that way), time-limited hybrid source
, etc. What copyLEFT does is use government force to limit people's options, no differently from how it is used by BSA
, etc - or probably even worse, because those organizations are not lobbying for software, music, and movies to be paid for by the state!
The PHP license is a BSD styled license.
I look at software freedom as a scale
, not a matter of black and white. The PHP license [TXT]
is slightly less free than the BSD license, mainly because of the restriction on use of the PHP name. The CC0
, BSD, MIT, and ISC
licenses (in that order - the shorter the better) are in turn less free than WTFPL
and "public domain", although the last two could create difficulties in some countries. I consider it debatable whether the Apache license, vim's license, and especially the perl's "Artistic License" are really copyFREE.
Either way, open source is a good thing.
Not when it's paid for at tax-victim expense, and not when it comes with government-enforced strings attached, written in pages of legalese.