Making The GPL Easier For Companies To Swallow

stupidNewbie writes "There is a new GPL "wrapper" gaining momentum on Capitol Hill. Dubbed O-STEP, the Open Source Threshold Escrow Program allows vendors to license their products until so many millions are made, then agree to release the code under GPL. This sounds like a good bridge for companies looking to tap into the strengths of open source distribution." Starting from zero, it can certainly gain momentum quickly -- sounds like a good idea though.

Comments

My target is $10,000,000,000

[floppy ears]

The Open Source Threshold Escrow Program would create goodwill for software vendors trying to sell products to government agencies and large companies afraid of proprietary vendor lock-in, said Tony Stanco, creator of the program, known as O-STEP.

Here's how O-STEP would work: A vendor puts a piece of software in escrow with Stanco's Center of Open Source and Government, based at George Washington University. The company determines a sales threshold that it wants to reach before the software is released under an open source license. After it hits that threshold, the software is released as an open source product.

Great, so I want to get on the good side of the government and big companies by signing up for this license. I think I'll just set my target for $10 billion so I don't have to worry about it ever actually going open source, god forbid.

Re:My target is $10,000,000,000

[Pharmboy]

Great, so I want to get on the good side of the government and big companies by signing up for this license. I think I'll just set my target for $10 billion so I don't have to worry about it ever actually going open source, god forbid

But the point is, the amount is declared up front. The buyer sees that the seller won't open up until he makes 10bil, and another that is looking to make 150mil, then he looks at the 150mil knowing it will go open source sooner, and his costs of licensing will go down on an already installed infrastructure.

I don't know if this really is the way to go, and at first I though, 'eh, sounds silly'. But the more I looked at it, the more interesting it is. The one thing that I DO like about it, is the fact that it assumes that being 'open source' is important and desirable to the end user. While appearant to you and I, to other consumers who don't know or care what OSS is, it exposes them to the idea.

As to the application of it, I have always thought that Microsoft should release the source for DOS 6.x and 16 bit versions of Windows. Of course, the time to do it would have been when 98 came out.

Re:Not Bad...

[joyoflinux]

Well, anything is better than no consideration of the GPL at all..

Cooked books

[MrLint]

This is gonan be good in theory, but just wait until someone makes it *really* big with something, and then you arent ever going to be able to find actual *revenue* charged to the product, just circumventing their responsibiility. I can think right now the money they make will be from selling 'software service' contracts and not actual software products.

But we didnt make any money.

[Zapdos]

I am sure that with the propper acountants anyone can always break even and never make any money.

Reminds me of copyright law.

[Anonymous Coward]

One can always get the Congress to bump up the thrashold for you.

This is a stupid idea!

Too many loopholes

[teetam]

What is to prevent a company from spinning off another company and giving over the code to that, just as it is approaching the threshold? The original company can reposition itself as something else and then GPL only a small, inconsequential portion of its source code!

I believe it will be difficult for a company that is making good money by selling proprietary software to suddenly turn open source.

A company going downhill (like Netscape) can do this though, because they have nothing to lose.

I think a successful company will try very hard to find loopholes and get around opening up their primary source of income. Also, if the company is public by that time, will the shareholders like it? Won't they desert the company en masse near the expiration date?

Re:They'll never reach the threshold.

[TopShelf]

Exactly - all you need to do is bloat R&D expenses, or route marketing through a shell company at a bogus rate, etc. There a zillion ways to rake in the $$$ without hitting the threshold.

Think about it - basically, if an application became a runaway hit, the vendor would only reap a portion of the proceeds. I like the way the article says that "The purchasers are very excited about this." Of course they would be - if a product takes off and becomes more desirable (because everybody else is using it), chances are that it will be available for free in a short time! What a bargain!

Hmmm... now what's that old saying about something being too good to be true...

Be very, very afraid

[0x0d0a]

I'm just worried that things will get out of hand.... how many millions are we talking before source is released?

Oh, infinite, definitely. This is a proposal coming from programmers, not businesspeople.

Sun and Apple don't have to make money selling their respective operating systems. They can happily make money on "related services" and hardware.

The problem is that every time developers try to deal with legalese, they take this basic humans-are-honest philosophy that works pretty well in development groups and would never, never work in the business world.

The only really reasonable approach is a flat time limit. Basing it on installed seats is a tough call, even, and that's much more straightforward than "money made". Who's going to do the counting -- Sun?

What about security?

[Descartes]

Ok let's assume this scheme actually would work.
Imagine you have a piece of software that is being used by the government in some fairly sensitive places.(uh, that didn't come out right)

Anyway, they hit their sales quota and the source gets released. Now every malicious cracker has access to code at the same time as the development community. Imagine if this were a microsoft product! I think the crackers would be finding and exploiting bugs way faster than the open sourcers could fix them.

Don't get me wrong I think open source in it's current form is safer than closed, but that's because while it is gaining market share the security bugs can be worked out.

Revenue & Expiration

[diakka]

This sounds like a decent idea. I would propose that there be some kind of time limit as well as a revenue limit. Say, 5 years or $5,000,000 in revenue, whichever comes first.

I would also expect that you get the source to begin with so that you're not SOL when the company "changes their mind".

In general, I rarely purchase any software, but I would be happy to purchase something if I had a guarantee that it's going to be opened up later on.

Re:They'll never reach the threshold.

[iabervon]

It's based on sales, not on net income. It's a bit harder to arrange to never show any sales, and still survive as a company.

The idea is for major customers to demand this, not for companies to be interesting in doing it on their own. There are no benefits at all for the producer in this system, except that you may be excluded from consideration by major customers if you don't play along.

Re:misses the point

[erikharrison]

DOOM?

Quake?

Guarenteeing that software which recieves a certain level of popularity becomes Open Source means that the community can pick up development where the company left off.

There is always the danger that a company will cease to support a product which has become integral to your operation. This is one of the much touted benefits of Open Source - self and community support. This guarentees that sort of support in the long term while ensuring that the companies get there profits.

loophole??

[spazoid12]

allows vendors to license their products until so many millions are made, then agree to release the code under GPL

What if I release product "Bob" and after I reach threshold-1 licenses I discontinue the product line. But, I immediately then begin marketing product "Jimmy", which had been under development just in time for the end of "Bob", and which happens to satisfy the needs of "Bob" users. Rinse, repeat.

Re:Not Bad...

[mbogosian]

A reasonable code escrow system will be a gov't office that recieves source code, and that enters it into the public domain once a pre-set revenue from the project is met.

So long as it is indeed based on revenue and not profits. We all know slippery companies can be when it comes to finances.

And don't tell me that companies aren't above offering software under a GPL wrapper to gain momentum or appear community friendly without ever intending to follow through.

The article isn't clear about this, but the entire exchange (money too) would have to be in the hands of the escrow entity. I know that's the definition of escrow, but that didn't seem obvious from the proposed solution...the escrow company would effectively have to have their own storefront or purchasing mechanism so they could keep track of the dollars.

Who drafted this?

[Bushwacker]

Neither The PCWorld article nor Slashdot give any reference to who is drafting this or how to contact them. I would like to start a formal letter followed perhaps by a popular petition to have this bill either tabled or ammended in a way that gets rid of the obvoious loopholes caused by the abiguity of the proposal's language. As-is, this bill if passed would be non-progressive at best, and completely detrimental to the OSS movement at its worst.

Opening source isn't that easy

[grotgrot]

Most commercial software also includes many components licensed from other companies. The company doesn't have the right to open source that. It takes a considerable amount of effort to go through the code and disentangle the 3rd party bits. It may also be necessary to check all comments since there may be libellous comments that are okay within the confines of the company.

For an example of how bad this is, look at how long it took Netscape to release Navigator after they decided to open source it.