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: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).

Re:Dear OSS Zealots

[ceeam]

Uhm, haven't you just redefined GPL?

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.

Google wants "changes to how OSI does licenses'"

[HaeMaker]

Well, here is what Google was concerned about:

1) We will want a label explicitly deterring the use of the license.
2) We will want the bod list archives open for any discussions of webm. We
are not comfortable with OSI being closed.
3) We need to know OSI's current corporate status. I heard that osi was a
california corporation again, but I would like to know, from the group, that
this is true for 2010 and that there aren't any issues there.

So, they want the OSI to be more open, and they want to discourage the use of the WebM license by others to prevent license sprawl, and they want to verify OSI's corporate status.

Anyone else have a problem with these changes? They seem help everyone.

Re:Dear OSS Zealots

[jedidiah]

Use a brand new license and people are right to be suspicous.

Licenses are like reading someone else's source code. They're bastard cousins of contracts
and contracts are complicated twisted things specifically engineered to try and screw the
other guy. This is a reason to avoid license proliferation and a reason to stick to what
is well understood. Legal language has consequences.

So the obvious question is why has Google chosen to add to the mix or start from scratch.
What are they up to? What is the motivation that already isn't encapsulated in one of the
pre-existing licenses.

A new license needs to be vetted just like any other legal language.

Re:Kinda misleading

[fermion]

Certainly it seems like an issue with OSI, not with open source in general. In particular can someone explain this:
2) We will want the bod list archives open for any discussions of webm. We are not comfortable with OSI being closed.

Why would an open source firm lack transparency?