Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Explaining Open Source Software

Posted by michael on from the score-5,-informative dept.

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.

4 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Great overview! by linux_user_31337 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This article is exactly what I need to explain open source to my dad, a lawyer. It's especially difficult getting the concepts behind open source across to him now that I'm writing open source code (BSD license, no less) for a *living*.

    Thanks again, Groklaw. It's so wonderful having some lawyers on *our* side!

  2. More ways to prevent people from doing their job by Brahmastra · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Here's one of the guidelines from the article:
    1. Do not permit the uncontrolled importation of software onto company computers. Do not permit employees to download freeware, shareware, or Open Source software onto company computers without first clearing the license terms with the legal department. At the same time, bar the use of proprietary software except to the extent that the company can account for the permitted licenses. In other words, know what you are putting on your machines--to do otherwise exposes your company to risk.
    At least for me, this would severly hamper my ability to do work. For example, I sometimes use perl to parse through MAP files. So, if I wanted to download a FREE version of perl and run it, I have to go to some lawyer to explain why I want to use it? I can think of a hundred other reasons this would be a bloody pain, and result in a lot of bureaucratic hassle for engineers.
  3. We need translation to and from legalese. by dexterpexter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It should be obligatory that any person involved in deciding this case should have to read a writeup such as this one. All too often those making the decisions are as tech savvy as dung beetles. It has been successfully argued in court that a certain hacker (in the misused sense of the term) could not have possibly been responsible for a breakin because the end IP was not the same as his home one and that "IP addresses are like DNA. Identifiers that cannot be changed." When we have the technologically unsavvy making rulings on technology issues, how can we expect any differently? If this SCO case is won, it will probably be on the backs of people who can't figure out how to attach files to their emails.

    This has been long-needed. We demand that legalese be put into "plain English," should we not expect attorneys to require the same?

    We need Open Source and related licenses explained for dummies (pehaps a book, anyone? Open Source For Dummies), for the those of us knee-deep in all of this who have a grasp of what is going on, and for the legal entities who will ultimately decide the case.

    This case will never be won so long as people believe that SCO can claim .h files, error number listings, and parts of the C standard library because "they look the same as that 'er Linus thingy code", and as long as people continue to equate open source royalty-free software with an attack on capitalism. Perhaps in addition to an Open Source for Dummies, the courts need a Basic Programming for Dummies as well.

    Yes, we need more articles like this one.

    --

    *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
    "We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
  4. Re:Eh? by cubicledrone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Water is free.

    Water is a $5 billion industry.

    Seems simple enough.

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.