Short bio: Computer Scientist, FOSS supporter (read more)
Tux Machines (TM)-specific
Today I'm pondering if the current open source model is still valid or if it's outdated.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? The software writer owns the copyright so why put users or potential users through the paces of licensing? What exactly is to be gained by creating and enforcing a license for this kind of software?
Currently, there are 64 active licenses listed on the Open Source Initiative's (OSI) website and more are pending approval. 64 licenses is more than just a little ridiculous.
Seriously, you're telling me that the people who keep coming up with license ideas can't use one of the existing ones? The ones who read through the 63 other licenses looked at each other and said, "Nope, these just won't do--we need to come up with our own license."
Take a look at the OSI's Open Source Definition and then ask yourself if you find licensing a necessity or a frivolous exercise: