fliptw wrote:Major corporations have nothing against open source software, they may have something against a common open source license.
The common "open source" license in question is the GNU General
Public License, and it is in fact much older than open source itself,
which has only existed for a decade.
The GNU GPL originates from the "Free Software" movement, the
goal of which is to promote software that grants its users the
freedom to modify and redistribute it, effectively shifting control
over it from its original developers to its users.
This conflicts in several areas with the business goal of making as
much money as possible, which serves purely in the companies' own
interest.
In particular, Microsoft noted the fact that GPL-licensed software
requires that any derivatives of it are also licensed under the GNU
GPL; if you write a program that uses GPL'ed code, it may only
be distributed under the GPL. MS used this to compare the GNU
GPL to a "cancer" and make uninformed people afraid of it.
This is why some companies avoid the GNU GPL or even "open
source" software altogether.
A few other things worthy to note at this point:
- Major corporations such as Microsoft never talk about "free
software", only "open source". I'm guessing this is because the
former puts emphasis on users' freedom and is therefore far
more dangerous to these companies when brought more into
public awareness.
- The GNU GPL is a copyright license, not an EULA/contract.
Mere usage of software falls outside its scope; you don't have
to worry about it if you don't copy or modify the programs
covered by it.
As for Apache - its license is more permissive. It doesn't require that
the freedoms granted are preserved across modification/redistribution,
so Microsoft's "cancer" comparison doesn't even apply. The Apache
license is `corporate friendly'.
