Slashdot Mirror
Can You Be Denied the Right To Support OSS?
jerico.dev writes "I am currently selecting a CM tool for a project. Important condition: the software must be OSI compliant. I considered Alfresco, since they call themselves 'open source.' Then I heard from several of Alfresco's partners that they are not allowed to do projects based on Alfresco's GPL edition because their partnership contract denied them the right to do so. They only can support Alfresco's enterprise edition. But Alfresco's VP of business development Matt Asay told me that their enterprise edition is not OSI compliant. Does anyone in the Slashdot crowd have experience with partner contracts of other OSS vendors? Is it normal that Sun, Red Hat, etc. force their partners to decline projects based on their open source editions? It's probably legal to do so, but do you think it is legitimate and fair?"
Thing one; Don't ask for legal advice on slashdot, ask a laywer. I don't really think this should be worth saying, but I think it can even be illegal to give legal advice; which this is not.
Now on with the rampant speculation.
a) If you have your own software you can distribute it under any terms you want. Including "like the GPL but you can't provide commercial support"
b) The partner agreement is probably not related to GPL software distribution so the GPL isn't relevant.
c) they can probably stop doing business with anyone giving support if they want.
d) details likely vary from country to country and so on so a lawyer would need much more detail to help you
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
open source != free
LostCluster, you are right, if you want to make money with it, it's ok to pay for it. Open source != free. Agreed!
Why do you want an OSI compliant product: In our case principally to avoid vendor lock-in. No company is forced put the "open source" label to their product.
So if you get an OSI compliant product that you have to pay for and that's supported, then as a customer, you're happy to pay for it. (I think that's Red Hats case.)
In this case you're forced to buy a proprietary product from an "open source" company if you want support...
And can set the terms for use of their software, and provision of their support, as they see fit. They can set terms in their partnership contracts restricting what those partners can do with the software, that would take precedence over the license of the software itself. This does, of course, assume that they themselves hold copyright on all code covered by their commercial license and partnership contracts, or have secured permission from the copyright holders for distribution under these terms.
That said, if you simply download the GPL version and then have nothing to do with them or their partners, you are still free to do anything with it that the GPL normally permits, provided their GPL version does not use an altered GPL.
Huh? Please elaborate on that. I thought the whole point of the GPL was that there is no such dividing line: if you're a user, you have the right to hack it too.
Well, it seem as if it would be legal. It also seems like a good reason to look for someone else to work with.
I have nothing against paid support plans (as long as they actually support you). That's a cost, and needs to be paid. I wouldn't even mind a company that just ran a bulletin board for customers as their support center, and charged for accounts (included, perhaps, as a part of the cost of the software). Though if that's their support, they'd better not charge as much.
Back awhile I used to purchase my software from KRUD (Kevin's RedHat Uber Distribution) because the support from Red Hat was so bad. (I can't justify Enterprise Level support, so that's not what I'm talking about. But their end user support was pitiful with their included support.) These days I generally wing it, live with some things instead of fixing them, etc. because I'm *not* a systems level guru, and I can't find decent support, so I just use Debian or Ubuntu where things usually work, or you can usually get help from free sources. And if it's not clear what to ask or who to ask, well, I live with it. None of the support options I see are both cheap enough to afford and good enough to be better than that which is available for free.
This is a real problem, and one reason that some people buy from Dell (I don't know how well that works out). My notebook from ZAReason is working well, and they've supported it well, but I'm dubious about upgrading the system. So it'll stay on Hardy Heron for awhile. The defect of having support is that you stick with the system that's supported. You *can* change, but then your system isn't supported anymore.
The ZAReason notebook is interesting. It's totally open (in some sense). You can even hack the hardware. But once you start making changes, you're on your own. So this is analogous to what you want from the CMS system. Because it's open, I'm not tied to them for support. Because they're the experts, and I'm not, I still am. If they refused to support me, I *could* find someone else, but I'd be much more likely to see what changes I could make that would let them support me.
OTOH, if Alfresco are using some contractual trickery to say that experts can only support the proprietary version, I'd definitely look elsewhere for my system.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Don't be daft.
If you develop and distribute a GPL program, you run into various requirements that do not apply if you just use it.
-josh
Huh? Please elaborate on that. I thought the whole point of the GPL was that there is no such dividing line: if you're a user, you have the right to hack it too.
Elementary: As a user, you are free to use the software as much as you please. As a developer, you are free to hack it for your own use with no restrictions. But if you distribute it, you are bound to distribute it under the GPL, which includes distributing the source too.
disclaimer: I work for Sun.
Sun does not have 'free' versions and 'for fee' versions of software. Most of Sun's software is offered free for download & commercial use, you just pay if you want support. Our CEO has stated publicly that it is his goal to eventually have ALL of our software open sourced and free for use, but some of our software has licensing (between Sun and other companies) keep that from happening right now.
This signature is a waste of 42 characters
You missed the point entirely; he has nothing against paying for support, its the fact that the supported version of the software ISN'T under the GPL and not OSI compliant. He wants to use OSI certified software AND pay for support for it.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
You know, I've read through your history. You are extremely arrogant and self-centered. Having a disability does not excuse your being a jerk to people. Being down-modded is not a statement about your worth as a person.
But this is: You are a child.
* Anonymous because, what the hell, this guy sounds like one to hold a grudge.
The open version has been abandoned by the developers and consultants...
Luckily that's not the case. The problem is that the only OSI compliant source Alfresco is publishing is an unstable development version.
So IMHO Alfresco's "open source" tag is just a marketing gag. But that's another topic.
What? Can't afford the developemnt talent to fork developement?
Yes I can afford to do so. Know what: We are already working on the fork. Fortunately there are a lot of open source developers who'll help and see their business opportunity in service rather than software. There'll be a stable community version soon that may be supported by everyone! (Just not the poor Alfresco partner's but that's their problem, not ours. :-D)
Suddenly that closed-source product doesn't seem like such a bad deal now.
Oh yes it does! And it'll look a lot worse once we've done our job and made Alfresco what it's now only called: open source. :-D
So yes, it's all just about business: Those who think that they can still sell code rather than service have not understood the economics of open source. They'll always loose in the long run. Bet's are on for Alfresco.