HP’s CTO Martin Fink gave the closing keynote at the recent LinuxCon Europe conference. He argued that the proliferation of open-source software licences is (once again) having a bad effect on the health of software projects http://lwn.net/Articles/660428/.

That much would not be so controversial, except he also claims that the use of non-copyleft “permissive” licences is adding to the problem. He justifies his argument thus:

The Apache 2.0 license is currently the most widely used "permissive" license. But the thing that developers overlook when adopting it, he said, is that by using Apache they are also making a choice about how much work they will have to put into building any sort of community around the project. If you look at Apache-licensed projects, he noted, "you'll find that they are very top-heavy with 'governance' structures." Technical committees, working groups, and various boards, he said, are needed to make such projects function. But if you look at copyleft projects, he added, you find that those structures simply are not needed.

The difference stems from the fact that in Apache-licensed projects, "you've always got people who are trying to go off and do their own proprietary thing." That makes their contributions to the open-source project difficult to integrate and often at odds with other participants. In a copyleft project, such as the kernel, "there is no incentive to try and carve out your own little area." As a result, contributors just do their work and the project advances.

Certainly this statement of his is beyond dispute: “Copyleft is a simple, good thing: share and share alike.”