Slashdot Mirror
Explaining Open Source Software
scubacuda writes "Mark Webbink, Red Hat's general counsel, has written an informative article explaining free and open source software. Geared towards attorneys, he explains the various licenses and addresses several myths about OSS." One to bookmark.
And remember, once the GPL, MPL, Artistic License, etc, have been cleared through legal, anything under those licenses is no longer barred from downloading.
Best Slashdot Co
Actually the quote says "...without first clearing the license terms with the legal department."
So for example, don't let your employees use GPL software until you understand what the GPL is. Fair enough. After you approve the GPL license terms, people are free to use GPL software.
Did you interpret this to mean that you would need approval for each piece of open source software? Because yes, that would be a huge pain! I don't think that is what the guideline meant. Getting an open source license approved once isn't a big deal.
----- rL
a lot of bureaucratic hassle for engineers.
This is the entirety of justficiation for the existence of most "corporate" "departments." It's also a very efficient way to ensure universal mediocrity.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Yes, that is definitely idiotic big-company-think. I think a manager should be responsible for informally overseeing or okaying use of random new tools. Using a tool is very different from incorporating source code, copy-and-pasting material, and doing something that creates a potential legal issue. As a manager, if somebody says they need Winzip, emacs, bash or whatever to feel comfortable and get work done, then more power to them. It should be made completely clear to them that they can't download source code or software from any source on the internet for use as a part of a product, runtime component or anything like that without approval from a manager and legal. Beyond that, there's nothing you can do but trust your employees, make the potential consequences really clear, and conduct regular code reviews to spot anything potentially suspect (primarily just to spot shitty, lazy code, but if somebody really cut and pasted a bunch of code, it would probably be obvious if you knew their coding style, your company's coding standards, and so on).
It is a bureaucratic hassle, but it is a necessary one. Let's look it in a slightly different way: the lawyer has to support and defend the company's software use in court. This is basically a sysadmin type job: the network sysadmin defends the company's network from technical threats, and insures the smooth running of the network. To do this he needs to know what software is in use. The company's lawyer needs to defend the company from legal threats and insure the smooth handling of legal matters. To do this he needs to know what legal agreements the company is a part of.
Now, Perl should be a perfunctory check: can we use GPL software for development purposes? Yes, but make sure you don't use the code. Simple. Just like the IT department will want to know you are using a programming package, and have agreed to not write a virus to destroy the network. Why? Because they will get the calls when it breaks something, and they need the info to effectively do their job.
Help the lawyer do their job. It is as necessary in today's world as yours. Hampering them will just make them angry, and likely to want to retaliate by hampering you.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
How about an explanation that works for suits?
Something like this:
- Open source and free software is like disk space. You used to pay $1000 for 1GB, today you get 1Gb for $1.
- This is possible because the Internet has made communications so cheap that the traditional huge costs of making software - design, management and infrastructure - have been largely eliminated.
- "Closed software" businesses like Microsoft would very much like you to continue paying 1970's prices for software.
- But the fact is that your competitors are benefiting from high-quality free packages like OpenOffice, Apache, PHP, Linux, and MySQL.
- You should really be switching your IT budgets from paying for software licenses to paying for support and custom development: this is the best way to keep an edge in the market.
Every dollar spent on buying overblown commercial software that has a free equivalent is a dollar wasted. Are you sure you want to waste your money?
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Lighten up - This is the first I've heard of this article (Okay, I saw it last week on Groklaw too) and it's extremely relevant to the issues facing OSS in the coprorate world, especially with S.C.U.M. lurking about. (That's SCO Corporation's Underhanded Management, BTW). Putting this on the Slashdot front page makes sure that "many eyes" we talk about so often have actually seen it. Getting the word out about good, relevant, useful tools (well, once in a while) is one of the reasons I still come here.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
"Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic."
...
Mild humor value aside
How many icebergs did the Ark bounce off of? And if we are accepting the Ark and Flood we have to also accept that God was piloting the Ark, have to take the entire story or none at all , and piloting was the problem with Titanic not construction. That is we are being fair and objective.
Personally if the pro Open Source lawyer is making statements like the above the document's credibility comes into question. Where there is one piece of spin and misdirection there may be more. I would prefer a objective unbiased legal analysis. The author should hold the jokes for the conference presentations.
I wish. Unfortunately the lawyer resorts to the same GPL FUD I see all the time:
BZZZT, wrong Lawyer-man. Pointing out that "Protective LicensesSo if "Protective" licenses offer no additional protection for my code than "Non-Protective" licenses, the question is what is the difference and why is Lawyer-man lying about it?
I know the answer, do you?
Serve Gonk.
"Closed software" businesses like Microsoft would very much like you to continue paying 1970's prices for software.
Gibberish.
1970s prices means that if you want a database engine you rent if from IBM at $40,000 per month, plus the cost of the two system programmers you need to keep the JCL running.
Microsoft prices mean that you get two database engines free with your word processor, and you don't have to pay again next month.
Some people here do have short memories.
Poor analogy. Water is an industry because it requires purification.
Perfect analogy. Rainwater is about as pure as water gets. Water is an industry because it's more convenient to pay for water than it is to set up basins on the patio.
Purified water cannot be "copied" ad infinitum.
As a matter of fact, there is so much water available that "copying" it is a non-issue. In fact, it's a red herring.
Anyone who claims that there is money to made selling Open Source software is daft.
Red Hat's market cap closed at $3.17 billion on Friday, up 304% for the year.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
"How can he put Linux as an example of GNU software!? which is under the GPL license just for histerical reasons, and is not part of the GNU Project!."
I think you mean hysterical.
Calm down. The GPL is a GNU project licence, i.e. it was created as part of the GNU project. So the Linux kernel uses a GNU licence. That is all...