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. "
>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.
>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.
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.
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
Who says there's a general hatred of IBM? Are you saying you hate IBM...that the Open Source community in general hates IBM?
Desperate move? Hardly, IMO. On the contrary--it's a smart move. I doubt IBM could give a rat's a** whether or not anyone in the Linux community likes them. This would be a desperate move if they NEEDED to attact open-source types in order to survive. IBM could completely ignore the existence of Open Source and it wouldn't make too big a differnece as far as their earnings are concerned.
I see this as smart business. Of course IBM wants to make money...but I believe their contribution to the Open Source community is valuable for a lot of reasons. Here are a couple:
(1) Big name support behind the OSI. That's the only way we're going to get more people to use Open Source--and realize that it's a great software development model.
(2) It gives IBM the opportunity to give back to the OSI. The contributions they can make have the potential to be very helpful...their Java compiler is WAY faster than the standard Sun compiler. We get to look at the code they contribute, and can decide if they're being helpful or not anyway.
I'm not usually too thrilled about big companies either, but they are a fact of life. I personally think way too much time is spent whining about how terrible big companies are...if I stop and think, there are many better ways to use one's brainpower.
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?
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.