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.
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!
Lawyer: You mean you *want* it to be free?
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
On the subject of using volunteers versus paid programmers:
"Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic."
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.
...and I think that any CXO of a "mainstream" company would have his eyes glazed over by the "Fundamentals of Copyright Law" section.
I suggest excerpting the article, to start with the "Myths of Open Source Section", as that looks short enough for most CXOs to handle, and then go with the rest if the CXO expresses further interest.
libertarianswag.com
I see your point, but free stuff makes people like the product, unless the said product is crap, in which case he will know this and just give up. However, if the product is good and useful, people will donate. Its a fact of life, you see it everywhere like here and here. Both those sites give something for nothing, and they manage to make a living perfectly well.
):
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.
.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.
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
Yes, we need more articles like this one.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
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
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).
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.
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
"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.
But which is riskier, licensing practices that are constantly being challenged or those that, in their simplicity and effectiveness, have avoided challenge.
This is why the GPL, BSD, etc licenses are so wonderful. They are aligned with the user's needs. It's really tough to violate them as an end-user. You just download the software, use it, and you never even have to *accept* the license at all!
Just like anything else in life.. you buy a car, the car company doesn't really care what you do with it. Now, if you take it apart, learn how it works, and start selling copies for half price, they might want to chat with you.. but only a very small percentage of car drivers would do that. Even the ones that do work on their cars do it for their own personal enjoyment. Same with the GPL.. hack as much as you want, just keep your eye on the terms when you start re-distributing.
Once legal departments start to figure this out, free software will make bigger and bigger inroads. "Wait, you mean with FreeBSD we never have to worry about being targeted by the BSA? Whoa.. *mind blown*".
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
You missed the point, there are two problems. One is source code, the second is unlicensed software. Having an unlicensed copy of a piece of software can be a huge legal issue. Not having a policy where software have to be approved in some formal way only makes the legal issue worse. "Big company think" is not universally wrong, occasionally they do the right thing. Whether the rare right choice being made was accidental or not I leave to a different discussion.
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.