I’m pleased OCLC is, from now on, going to release it’s open source software under the Apache 2.0 license. With the proliferation of open source licenses, they are right that yet another variation makes it more difficult on people using open source licenses (to figure out what each one means and which licenses are, or are not, compatible). The ASL is a good choice because it is one of the most permissive; though the ASL 2.0 is not currently compatible with the GPL, I just can’t believe this won’t be remedied at some point in the future (maybe with the release of the GPL v3.0(?)).

What I’d love to know is how they went about making the decision that they did. In his weblog post and an earlier one, Thom Hickey mentions that one of their concerns was that for-profits would take their code and build proprietary solutions on top of it. The GPL is the standard answer for this concern because it imposes a condition that the code, or anything linked to it, must be made available under the same conditions as it was received. OCLC put this concern aside, though, and selected a license that allows people to reuse their code in proprietary ways. [As an aside, some people who like the restrictions but want to play nice with the rest of the open source community release under the GPL with exceptions.]

It is an interesting decision (and one based, partially, on faith… faith in the open source community). The argument goes that, if one keeps the code completely open (so open that a proprietary interest could repurpose and build on it), it won’t matter because the open source community will be able to do the same thing that the proprietary entity could (and in the same amount of time (or at least before the other gains a significant share of the market)). OCLC was convinced of this, in part, it seems, because of the thoughts of Eric Raymond. Raymond believes the open source community is strong enough now that it doesn’t need the protection of legal threats… that there is a social movement that will and does compete with proprietary software on a level playing field.

I wonder, though, how the library software community figures into this. Does this mean that OCLC sees the library open source community as large enough to stand up against a proprietary entity? Or, does it mean OCLC is interested, more and more, in releasing software that is not specific to the library community? By moving us into the larger context, libraries take advantage of a larger pool of developers. Or, is it just that OCLC (affectionately known as the 800 lb. gorilla… or, wait, is that LC?) believes that it has enough developers to easily compete with its competitors?

There has been much talk about the “glow” of open source (and the non-tangible benefits on which those releasing open source software can capitalize). Releasing one’s code as open source certainly gives the gorilla a friendly smile. After all, who says a 800 gorilla is a bad thing… wouldn’t you want one on your side? With this move to the ASL, it looks to me like OCLC is once again signaling to libraries and library software developers, “We are on your side.”