Business Week did a good overview of the GPL debate here. One of the more interesting outputs from a rather quiet Linux World last week in SF. The question that is becoming more clear as the GPL 3.0 debate continues is "is open source a crusade, or a permanent change in the structure of the software industry?"

In other words, should we continue to add restrictive elements to the GPL license beyond where we are today regarding what you can and can't do if you use GPL licensed code in a software product of yours. For example, should the next rev of the GPL address the use of Digital Rights Management? (more in the article). The point I would make here is that much as we might like to see all open source software with a single license, that will probably never happen. There are too many agendas. Some projects might think its just fine to have their software used on devices that include DRM - others will not. Not that I am advocating license proliferation - I'm not. But a modest set of licenses with pragmatic differences seems like an obvious thing to do.

So, if you accept my premise, then whats next? In a word, transparency. Just like we have used that term to describe a more descriptive set of financial reporting standards - we should consider it as well for the content of software. Fully disclose what you use - where it came from - what license it uses. My answer is a bit self-serving I know, but I do think it will enable open source to remain viable and valuable over time - with a portfolio of licenses to choose from, depending on the situation. Something along those lines will give us the best chance for the software industry to reconcile the divergent agendas, while still capturing the benefits that open souce has already delivered.