Google WebM Calls "Open Source" Into Question

snydeq writes "As open source becomes mainstream, vendors are under pressure to market their offerings using the 'open source' brand to the highest degree possible — a trend that may eventually degrade the meaning of 'open source' as we know it, Savio Rodrigues writes. Witness WebM, which Google has positioned as an open alternative to H.264. After examining the software license, some in the open source community have questioned whether WebM should be classified as open source software. Google did not use an OSI-approved license for WebM, meaning that, at least in theory, WebM cannot be considered open source under the OSD — the 'gold standard' by which many government and business open source policies are defined. Moreover, when prodded for OSI review, Google required that the OSI agree to 'changes to how OSI does licenses' as a precursor to submitting a license for OSI review and approval. 'When Google, one of the largest supporters of open source, goes out and purposefully circumvents the OSI, what signal does this send to other vendors? How important is using an OSI-approved license likely to be in the future if other vendors follow Google's lead?'" An anonymous reader adds: "It turns out that libvpx, Google's VP8 library, isn't compatible with the GPLv2. Google is apparently aware of the problem and working on a solution.

Comments

FSF Free Software, however.

[David Gerard]

Note that WebM is, however, FSF-approved Free Software.

The FSF is rather more active than the OSI, and is unlikely to, e.g., get its corporate registration suspended just because they were too arse-disabled to get their paperwork in.

We do need some sort of organisation like the OSI, perhaps even the OSI itself. But I'm entirely unsurprised someone would consider the present OSI just not to have its shit together enough to be taken seriously.

Re:FSF Free Software, however.

[mzs]

That link makes no claims that it is a FSF approved license, just that FSF is a proponent of using WebM format on the web. I would imagine a FSF approved license would be one of the GNU ones. They make statements about which licenses are GPL compatible at times, this was not such a statement either.

Re:FSF Free Software, however.

[pavon]

I would imagine a FSF approved license would be one of the GNU ones.

Actually the FSF approves of using any license that meets their definition of free software. They discourage the use of GPL-incompatible licenses for new projects, but have no problem with contributing to existing projects under an incompatible license.

Re:FSF Free Software, however.

[David Gerard]

It's an official FSF press release in which the FSF states that it's free software. It's not a place in their list of approved licences, but it is the FSF officially calling it free software. What you "would imagine" is incorrect - there are many licenses the FSF lists that are not GPL-compatible.

Re:I sense scaremongering

[David Gerard]

Has anyone run it past debian-legal yet? That would also be a credible mark of acceptability as free software.

Re:I sense scaremongering

[KiloByte]

It is not compatible with GPLv2. It is very clearly compatible with GPLv3 (at least the problem section pointed in the article).

Kinda misleading

[jythie]

This sounds a lot less like 'google calls open source into question' and more 'google calls OSI into question'. I am not immediately seeing anything in this license that makes it sound non-OSS, all it seems to be lacking is the rubber stamp of a particular group within OSS, which is not the same thing. Especially since google's complaints about OSI do not seem to be related to software but instead to process.

compatibilty

[mzs]

I am not a lawyer. Here's the gist. the license is not compatible with:

GPL, GPL2, LGPL2

compatible with:

BSD, MIT

likely compatible with:

Apache, CDDL, Mozilla

unlikely compatible with:

GPL3

This all boils down to the patent clause at the end. It makes further restrictions upon distribution. They are worded in a way that looks to be compatible with Apache and the like, but someone from the FSF should really step in and announce if the two different patent clauses are compatible in GPL3 and WebM license.

That's all that really matters to most, it is not an OSI approved license, since it has not been submitted. That matters to some organizations in choosing a license.

Re:I sense scaremongering

[KiloByte]

debian-legal is a place for discussion, the final decision is made by the FTP-masters. And lo, libvpx cleared through NEW today, without any bumps.
The article is merely a trolling attempt.

It is 'Open' enough for me,if it has the following

[lazy_nihilist]

* Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
* Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
* Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
* Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

Re:Did any of you actually *read* the controversy

[c0d3g33k]

Whoops. Wrong article. Here you go: http://lwn.net/Articles/389611/

Re:I sense scaremongering

[KiloByte]

Yeah, no matter how clear it appears to me, it may be better to get a statement from the wolf's mouth. I mailed licensing@gnu.org asking for their word.

Re:Dear OSS Zealots

[Kjella]

Actually, quite many licenses are GPL-compatible without being the GPL. They tried very hard in the GPLv3 to make more licenses compatible by letting you add various bits:

a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or authors of the material; or
e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors and authors.

But yes, ultimately the GPL says "no more restrictions". It doesn't matter if those restrictions are a good idea or not, if noone thought to include them in the license text they're not permitted.

Oddly enough, if I look at the GPLv3 under patents there's one word I'm not seeing here:
"Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version."

The word I don't see is "irrevocable". Does this mean Google's patent termination clause is GPLv3-compatible? Good question indeed.