Slashdot Mirror
What to Protect in Open Source Software
eldavojohn writes "I found a brief blog by Marc Fleury on something that seems to almost be an oxymoron — what you need to legally protect in Open Source Software. The short of it is that you should trademark your name and brand it. Which might explain Xen's stance on the use of the brand 'Xen'. Another short blog notes that you should also maintain control of your distribution channels. Fleury also states this interesting tidbit on protecting intellectual property in OSS, 'Short of filing patents, there isn't much you can do in OSS. Let's face it the IP is there for everyone to see. If you are in a mode where a lot of the value is the code itself then open sourcing under GPL or equivalent reciprocal license may be a good choice for you. At least you will make sure that ISV's that re-use your license get in contact with you and many of them will pursue dual-licensing, a strategy that is known to work to monetize an OSS user base (mySQL).' Is there anything else you should take measures to protect in open source software? Is it possible to maintain control of a project under the GPL or are you constantly faced with forks?"
You protect anything that is truly new and creative. Which is rare in most technology.
Didn't Red Hat already demonstrate this principle, years ago? Hopefully for his sake, they didn't trademark it too, pfft...
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Otherwise... protect it from what? If somebody swipes the code and locks it down under proprietary license, you can go after them for violating copyright terms. Otherwise, the whole stinkin' point of Open Source is to share the code. Can the author of TFA say "duh" for us?
If what you're licensing as open source code is covered by software patents (blecch), then it's already covered under patent law.
If you're that worried about distribution, do what RH and nearly every other distro maker does - have official mirrors. Anything outside of that and you don't have to take responsibility for it.
Otherwise, unless you fully grok what it is you're getting into by doing so, maybe you shouldn't open the license on your source code? This ain't rocket science here...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Why even "protect" it? First off, the most you should do is trademark your name or possibly your logo, the problem is, if you have a large enough base of people using your software, and you go out of your way to make it "protected" chances are someone is going to fork it into a more free version such as what happed with Firefox and Debian. As for forks, very, very, very few people are going to fork your code unless either there is a leadership disagreement, your work is not free enough, there is serious problems with the code or it is unmaintained, those are just about the only cases where it actually "forks" now if it is big enough of a project, there is going to be forks, however probably 80% die out within the first year and the 20% that remains are either lagging behind the main version or have very limited appeal. People will be quick to point out such things such as Cent OS and Red Hat Linux, however Cent OS is aimed for hobbyists or small businesses who don't need commercial support. Red Hat sells support, not Red Hat Linux. So moral to this post is, don't over "protect" your work, its no big deal if someone forks it, in Open Source, may the best code win.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
Free/libre and open-source software is a product of freedom natives, people who regard freedom as a fundamental non-negotiable human value. Many freedom natives have been born in environments where they were in interaction with lots of other freedom natives.
A freedom native will make money with free software by offering great user support.
Now people who believe in control (control freaks) have learnt about the free software community and try to monetise by building upon its spectacular success. But being freedom immigrants, and keep being in interaction with other control freaks, they cannot comprehend how you can make money without using control. They think that the essence of capitalism is to squeeze the customer, lock users in proprietary platforms, etc. Thus, even though they adopt the free software insignia (they may use the GPL and place wikis on their sites), their mindset is still that of a control freak (they use their trademarks abusively, etc). They aren't true freedom natives.
So, a freedom immigrant will try to make money with free software by maintaining a dual-licensing scheme for corporate clients, by maximising as much as possible their grip on their trade marks, by making shadow deals with distributors, etc. And if they succeed to create a cash flow with these methods, their user support may suck.
When I evaluate a free software application for use in my personal and business machines, I try to understand whether it is made by a freedom native or a freedom immigrant. I prefer software written and supported by freedom natives, even if the freedom immigrants use the same licence.
being GPL means, most of all, that there is no protection against forks. after all, GPL _is_ the ability to fork (ignore RMS's politics and all the other noise.)
how do you avoid forks? by being on the right side - everyone pulls in slightly different directions, and any project would be a mess if it accepted all of them. it's also not just a matter of choosing - ideally, if a fork is threatened, the mainstream would trump the fork. that is, instead of some little feature X, develop a bigger, more general thing that is a superset of X. turn the fork into a trivial an unappealing, limited special case. I'm not advocating hyper-featurism, but to embrace big-picture generalizations.
No. It is utterly impossible. That's why Linux and the GNU project had to close up shop.
JTF: In your heart, you know we're right.
...the comments. They get bullied by the rest of the code because they're "different". Even the compiler excludes them, the poor little buggers.
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
One of the selling points of open source is, I'm afraid, precisely that the creator doesn't have final control over it. This is what gives users assurance that they'll be able to maintain the software even when the creator's interests diverge from theirs. If adding a particular feature or fixing a particular bug wouldn't be of any benefit to the creator, or worse might actually go counter to the creator's plans for the software, but would be of major benefit to me as a user it's a good thing for me when the creator can't assert control and prevent me from adding that feature or fixing that bug.
Ubuntu is an exception that proves the point. It went off in a very different direction than Debian. -- as such, I don't consider it as much a parallel fork as a symbiotic tangent.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.