What do all these licenses do for you? That's the 64 license question. Today I'm pondering if the current open source model is still valid or if it's outdated. Do we need licensing for open source software? Do we need the GPL, LGPL, APL and all the other licenses that plague...er, grace us? If your software is free and open source, why bother with a license at all?

Given the momentum behind open source, and how it has grown through the economic downturn, it's not surprising that an increasing array of vendors is getting involved to commercialize open-source projects.

Tim believes that open source, at least as defined by open-source licensing, has a short shelf life that will be consumed by Web 2.0 (i.e., Web companies hijacking open-source software to deliver proprietary Web services) or by traditional proprietary software vendors.

One great benefit of using Linux, Apache, and other open source software is that you can modify the code to make it perfect for your business. But open source licensing restricts how you distribute the modifications. Here's what a CIO needs to know about open source licenses.

Maybe it’s a coincidence but this week has seen evidence of tension between commercial open source vendors and elements of the open source user community. Matt Asay stirred up something of a hornet’s nest with his post questioning how open source vendors can find ways of encouraging users to contribute either code of cash in return for free software

One great benefit of using Linux, Apache, and other open source software is that you can modify the code to make it perfect for your business. But open source licensing restricts how you distribute the modifications. Here’s what a CIO needs to know about open source licenses -- making this a suitable document to show to your boss, who's been asking for a no-nonsense overview.

Open source vendors are calling on the UK government to put its money where its mouth is and police its own rules on public sector open source software procurement - which were revised in February this year.

When Motorola decided to write an "open source" Service Availability Framework they, perhaps unknowingly, illustrated a disturbing trend in the FOSS (free and open source software) world. The new OpenSAF initiative is designed to "[u]tilize an open source licensing model not tied to any commercial implementation" and in doing so remove the need for vendors to implement their own proprietary infrastructure code. Naturally, Motorola describes their motivation to the trade press (Internet News, July 2007) as an example of their desire "to get people to move away from building proprietary platforms"

Open Source came before, if not provided a platform for, Software as a Service. Open Source Licenses have a big loophole for the most common method of software distribution today...