Slashdot Mirror
IBM Improving Open Source License
True_Seeker writes "IBM appears to be modifying its open source license (examples with OpenDX and Jikes) to make it more acceptable to the open source community, according to an article at PCWeek. They are even seeking OSI's blessing on it. "
So is it just me, or will this desperate move accomplish nothing, at least nothing for the general hatred of IBM?
What general hatred of IBM? If you feel you hate IBM just go back and look at all the technology they invented that you use. IBM invests big bucks in R&D that often benefits everyone, not just it's profit margin.
IMO, you couldn't be farther from right. Without support from the business world, Open Source is as good as dead: It will just take a smarter Microsoft to erase any good it might do.
On the other hand, if the business world sees experiments by companies like IBM and Netscape succeed, then corporate software will continue to explore the currently-dark-and-scary path of giving away intellectual property.
The maxim of capitalism is simple: If one can't make money, he goes out of business. OSS will be a true revolution if and only if it is demonstrated that it doesn't preclude profits. IBM has a better shot than anybody right now at demonstrating this. Strategically, they're one of our strongest allies.
I thought the question was settled once and for all yesterday that the GPV is nothing close to free, and to say so is just spreading lies. I guess you prefer useless holy wars. What a wonderful board this is!
>After all, when you buy a copy of Windows, you don't sign any contract saying you won't make copies for all your friends, but your first use of the product counts as your agreement to abide by the licensing terms.
That's not what restricts copying.
Commercial sales of all types in the U.S. are generally covered under the U.C.C., or Uniform Commercial Code. It's what regulates that if you go into a restaurant, sit down, and ask for food, you are legally obligated to pay for it. Software sales rules are clearly spelled out, including the right to make back-up copies, the restriction on giving copies to anyone else, and I believe things like being able to resell the software.
Generally if you want to change the conditions, you need to go with a contract, and that's when signatures are needed. (Also, for larger transactions, a contract is generally preferred.) Thus the whole shrink-wrap license idea is highly questionable legally, and there has been some effort by SPA types to get the UCC updated to legitimize those licenses.
IANAL, but I apparently do have a default score of 2...:-)
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I'm really glad to see that IBM is working with the free software community. I had the opportunity to review and comment on a few pre-public-announcement drafts of this license, and the IBM staff was very cooperative in changing the license to meet the community's needs.
This and the Apple license are important because we are working out how the deep-pockets corporation can participate in Open Source without running rough-shod over the free software community. In both cases, problems with the licenses were aired in public forums and the corporations responded positively.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
Point well taken.- -----
I guess what I'm looking for is an official stance from OSI that states what it would like to see in free/open software licenses...
------------------------------------
Reveal your Source, Unleash the Power. (tm)
>But why would IBM want to make their products more "acceptable" to the open-source community?
Because they want the contributions of open source developers. IBM isn't selling the software, they're selling services based on it. So getting those free open source eyeballs is a big plus; it makes the software better, and thus more competitive with non-free alternatives.
>QT went free and open-source, yet was hated since
it still was commercial.
Well, QT isn't as hated as it was. But there's still discomfort at helping develop something that someone else is making money off of (as QT has both free and non-free sales). Since IBM isn't doing this directly, making the license as friendly as possible allows them to do this. QT can't make their license freer than it is without damaging their business model.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Troll fixed the Qt license and I immediately endorsed it. I think the people who hate them can't be the same people who are making a big software contribution. GNOME and KDE are working together on various issues (and they have been for a long time, even before the license was resolved, though most people did not notice).
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
That's not a bad idea. It might be worthwhile to have an OSI memorandum stating what it considered to be open. It, though, (IMO) should be disclaimed heavily as the opinion of one group of voices in the OS community.
Though it is not stylish to compare the OS movement to Communism, as is being discussed in another thread, there are some similarities between operating systems today and the Russian Revolution. Similarly, if one voice somehow becomes the only voice to be heard, the original ideals of the revolution will be quickly obscured by the policies (whether benevolent or not) of the single voice. While this is not a bad thing as long as that voice caters to the needs of the masses, should it cease doing so without sufficient recourse available to the people, that voice quickly degenerates into what we saw develop under the "Stalinist" period of Soviet history.
With Open Source greetings,
awc
IBM needs the patents to defend themselves against patent infrigements lawsuits. When someone claims IBM violates their patent, IBM can usually provide an array of IBM patents the other company is violating. Result: A cross-license agreement.
Firstly, keep in mind that most companies thrive less on actual strength than on customer perception. By defining their own OpenSource license, they put their name in the headlines: at least for us in the OSI/FreeSoftware community. (side point: how do you classify those who support both concepts?)
Secondly, I object to stating that IBM stands as an enemy and not a friend because they file many, many software patents. While I do agree that there is a level of hypocrasy in claiming to support the OSI while filing software patents, this doesn't mean they are an enemy. There is great danger in the mentality of "if you are not with us, you are against us." The OSI is young yet, and IBM has no way of knowing if it will last -- what I see in the software patent frenzy is an attempt to create a "safety net" while cautiously supporting OSI. I suspect that as the OSI continues to gain support, IBM will become less paranoid.
Besides, at a company that large, what else do the lawyers have to do? :P Might as well set them up writing an OSD-compatible license than writing proprietary ones, no?
INAL, nor am I expert. Just my $0.02
import disclaimer;
Posted by the Proteus
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
...and thanks to all who've tolerated my stupidity. I am enlightened.
I haven't seen any of this on license-discuss. Either the OSI has abandoned public input on licenses before they're "branded", or IBM has put out a press release alittle early.
--
Just another day hearing about how OSS is becoming more of a mainstream reality...
One concern:- -
I believe that there will come a time in the very near future, if it isn't already
time, when there will have to be some `house cleaning' in the Software Licensing
department... There are so many out there that claim to be Free or Open... I'd like
to see OSI officially put out a license that states that this is the license to use
if you wish to keep it free/open...
Maybe I'm just trying to simplify something that can't be....
*shrug*
----------------------------------------
Reveal your Source, Unleash the Power. (tm)
I'm not too knowledgable about the open-source community, and I've only started with Linux a few months ago, so forgive me if I sound stupid.
But why would IBM want to make their products more "acceptable" to the open-source community? I mean, isn't that, to quote Pulp Fiction, "an excersize in futility"? QT went free and open-source, yet was hated since it still was commercial. And this is IBM, one of the largest corporate empires, right? If Windows goes open just for the UNIX fanatics, I'm guessing the numbers in Microsoft users will stay the same.
So is it just me, or will this desperate move accomplish nothing, at least nothing for the general hatred of IBM?
IBM has changed their OpenSource license. The new one is included in the latest experimental release of the PostFix MTA. It was reviewed by Debian IIRC.
I really hope this license will be compatible with the other major free software licenses out there.. It is a same that all the new Open Source software out there seems to be incompatible with each other.
I still believe that one of the pure Free Software licenses without to much restrictions or special cases should be recommended to new participants of our community. Such as the GPL - you are free to use it however you want, but please distribute it in a free manner - or Xfree (BSD without advertisement) - please don't hold us responsible if anything goes wrong but otherwise do what you like. Programmers don't like reading all these different licenses and asking laywers if the code can really be used together
Why doesn't OSI recommend only two or three really free licenses and discourages people from invention YAPL - Yet Another Public License?
IBM had done quite well by free software recently. They are using both Apache and Linux as the basis for real products and have contributed to Apache in a significant way. Yes they are trying to make money, but that does not mean that they can not be part of the free software movement too.
I think several groups within IBM have realized that they make more money selling services and pre-packaged sollutons than in boxes of software.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
The GPL is the only license that's _completely_ _utterly_ incompatible with any other license. This is why so many people hate it. Next time please get your facts straight.
Has any thought been given to the legality of any software license (yes, M$ included)? If it doesn't have someone's signature on it, how can it be a valid contract? Will "assumed signatures" hold up in court?
IBM/BSD/Sun/whoever owns source code for program x. They have the right to release it with whatever license they choose. If you don't like the license it's released under, don't contribute to the project. If it's so important to you that you can't possibly stay away from it, send the company/person in question a thoughtful, well-written, non-angry email detailing your opinions and their relevance to the piece of software in question.
If you ask me rating licenses is a non-issue.
-- The Sage does nothing, and nothing is left undone. --Lao Tzu
What would help alot more would be if IBM were to stop applying for software patents and to make plans to open its current patent portfolio freely to the public. How a company can claim to support open source on one hand and then be the largest producer of software patents in the world is, in my mind at least, ludicrous.
Granted, IBM is a large company, and I'm sure that there are those there that are true believers in open source, but the company as a whole has actually chosen to stand as one of our enemies, not as our friend.
We need to remember here that, as with almost all companies, IBM is interested in open source only so far as it gets them money. If IBM weren't of this opinion, they'd be using the GPL, BSD, or other similar already-in-place license, instead of choosing a license to gain some kind of additional advantage for them.
Please, IBM, the open source community would be much better served with the elimination of software patents than it would by yet another open source license.
At work, they switched over to using Postfix on our mail hub, and the server load dropped dramatically. It's a large company, so the server is handling a lot of traffic; it's been very reliable.
Perhaps more importantly, I have a lot of faith in Wietse Venema's skill at writing secure code.
This is a real win for the free software community. (I hope IBM benefits from it, too.)