Slashdot Mirror
Delicious Details of Open Source Court Victory
jammag writes "Open source advocate Bruce Perens tells the inside story of the recently concluded Jacobsen v. Katzer court case, in which an open source developer was awarded $100,000. Perens, an expert witness in the case, details the blow by blow, including how developers need to make sure they're using the correct open source license for legal protection. The actual court ruling is almost like some kind of Hollywood movie ending for Open Source, with the judge unequivocally siding with the underfunded open source developer."
It's actually the appeals court that was sympathetic. Twice. The lower court seems to have had less understanding of the Open Source developer's plight.
Using "the right one": means the right Open Source license. A real key here is getting one that had competent legal help in its drafting. There are a few real duds on the OSI list, including a font license that I swear allows you to convert the font to the public domain. Only the programmers who wrote it don't see it that way.
Sorry about the lack of paragraph breaks. I tend to write too many of them and the editor responded by using too few of them. He might have fixed that and the web cache hasn't been flushed yet.
Bruce Perens.
I am gainfully employed in consulting companies, mostly, that are trying to cope with Open Source but still have the old mindset. That's what they have me there to fix. Of course lots of people who are gainfully employed get paid to work on Open Source today. But it's interesting, when I visit these companies, that I already know their hottest programmers - through Open Source.
Bruce Perens.
It's the SIL font license. This is the problem paragraph:
The problem is, if you embed the font, it explicitly says the license doesn't apply any longer. If you then extract the font, the authors of this license assume that the license magically applies once more. I am far from sure that is the case.
Bruce Perens.
Most of my customers are in embedded systems. Sometimes, it concerns Android, and I have told them that Android does not represent the quality that should be expected out of an Open Source project. But their customers are asking for Android. So, we don't really get to make that decision.
Bruce Perens.
Jammag just wrote this submission in a hurry. It means use the right Open Source license.
Bruce Perens.
Here's the link to their donations page:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/donations.shtml
I have to admire what these guys are doing and the good it will do for the open source community as a whole (at least in the US). I've seen this case pop up off and on over the years, and it always struck me as a scary plight for an open source developer to be in.
(Not affiliated with the project in any way and nobody asked me to post the link - I just think a slashdot effect is in order here given what they're doing and what he's been up against.)
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
The court said that Katzer deliberately misappropriated and obfuscated. My guess is that he would have done so to anyone he thought he could beat. The failure of the license took what should have been a short case and made it longer. Of all the terms in Open Source licenses, I never saw myself having to fight a case over the right to be attributed properly. We had just a little thin thread to fight with, IMO.
Bruce Perens.
It went to appeals court twice and the appeals court ruled both times, then handed the case back to the lower court. The main precedents come from the appeals court.
That's the way it always is. Lower court precedents aren't terribly useful because only that court has to follow them. Appeals court precedents are more valuable, and the appeals courts are more respected as expert jurists so that other courts follow them even if they don't have to.
The precedents are that Open Source licenses can be enforced, and with all of the mechanisms that have been put in place to enforce proprietary licenses, including summary judgement. To get that, we had to show that the Open Source developer has an economic interest in his work even though he isn't paid by legitimate licensed users of the work, and is harmed by an infringer even though he isn't paid.
To you and me it seems odd that anyone had a problem with that idea. But we're inside the revolution.
Bruce Perens.
If you read the story, rather than the summary, you will find that Jacobsen is of course all over it. The summary is written by an editor who wishes you to read the story based on the credibility of a writer whom you already know, yours truly. And I am, to some extent, telling the story from the perspective of my own involvement.
I am also taking the opportunity to advertise my work as an expert witness, which I get damn little chance to do because every other case I've participated in has sealed and thus I can't show anyone my writing samples!
Sorry if that annoyed you. All of the work on the case was done for free. I get a little money from Datamation, but far from enough to live on.
Bruce Perens.
The outcome of this case is beneficial both for Open Source Software community and the Model Railroading hobby.
In general model railroading is a very open and diverse hobby. Some are better with structural engineering and carpentry, others with electronics, model building, methods of railroad operation, et cetera. As a community we work together to share and improve our techniques, both to improve ourselves as modelers and to increase our satisfaction from the hobby. There are many well established venues for sharing our knowledge, from regular conventions (NMRA National, Regionals, and plenty of Special Interest Groups), a large number of printed an online periodicals, online communities, and just general "how did you..." questions at any old time.
Unfortunately our openness attracts thieves and greedy sorts who are more interested in making a quick buck than improving the hobby, and manufacturers and other entities attacking hobbyists is nothing new. I imagine this greedy nature is present in all hobbies and walks of life, but it seems to be more common now than when I entered the hobby 20 years ago.
Hopefully the outcome of this case will make others that prey on innocent hobbyists think twice.
Thanks, Bruce, for your well-written summary of the case. I'd mod your article up +1: Insightful if the Internet gave out mod points.
I dti'r na ndall is ri' fear na leathshu'ile.
FYI, the $100,000 doesn't include legal fees, the agreement specifically includes that Katzer will pay the "reasonable" legal fees of Jacobsen. What this means is that if Katzer thinks the legal fees are too high he can complain to the judge and the judge will review but otherwise Katzer is going to pay the legal fee's separately from the $100,000 he's paying Jacobsen.