license

OSI gives two Microsoft licenses its blessing

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has formally approved two of Microsoft's licenses:

Microsoft Public License and Microsoft Reciprocal License I never doubted that these would be approved, but am glad to see the studied manner in which the process was (mostly) carried out. To me, this shows Microsoft the correct way to engage in open source: through the front door, rather than through back-door patent FUD.

Michael Tiemann of OSI writes on the process:… Read more

No time for EULAs

Few people other than the lawyers, product leads, and a handful of seriously committed users actually know what's in a product's EULA, the end-user license agreement you need to accept before it will install.

Users see the EULA as a long, seemingly pointless block of textual mumbo jumbo; for publishers, it's a legal fallback.

Since some EULAs can trap you into welcoming bundled adware and third-party info-sharing, it's in your best interest to slash through the dense legalese and know what you're agreeing to. EULAlyzer, a free, quick bit of software from the makers of SpywareBlaster, practically does it all for you.… Read more

The license proliferation canard

Canard: a deliberately misleading fabrication.

That's the word I thought of when I read this article on how open-source license proliferation threatens adoption of open source in the enterprise. I stopped thinking of license proliferation as a serious threat to open source back in 2004 when the Open Source Initiative last beat this drum. Since then it has been very clear that license proliferation is a minor threat at best.

The analyst Saugatuck disagrees:… Read more

A court reads open-source licensing the wrong way

Mark Radcliffe writes cogently on his blog about a recent court decision that may have wide implications for open source. It's not a software case.

It revolves around model trains. Curiouser and curiouser....… Read more

Microsoft licenses audio watermarking technology

Microsoft said Wednesday that it has signed a deal to license audio watermarking technology from its research labs to Seattle-based Activated Content.

While watermarking technology is often used as an antipiracy measure, Microsoft said its technology allows companies to add-in other types of content and services into the watermarked audio. One of the big potential applications is adding advertising to streaming media, according to a report on MediaPost.

"We are excited about this agreement with Activated Content because they are uniquely positioned to extend this audio watermarking technology to new emerging applications and we feel great about supporting the … Read more

Who decides what "distribution" means in open-source licenses?

I had dinner with a friend the other night. He works at a large retailer on the IT side and was telling me why he and his company are reluctant to embrace GNU General Public License (GPL)-licensed code. In sum, he didn't want to have to release source code. In my never-ending quest to foist the GPL on anyone with a pulse, I took issue with his concern.

"You're an end-user of software, not a distributor thereof. Why should you care about open source requirements relative to your source code? Open source licensing is triggered on distribution."

To this, he raised an interesting, and valid, point, and one that I had heard from a large financial services company before:

"But what about a distribution within the company to a subsidiary or some other corporate affiliate? It's an open question whether that counts as a distribution or not."… Read more

The 21st century's best open-source license?

I've been mentioning Larry Rosen's Open Software License (OSL) off and on over the last few weeks.

But today I decided to give OSL a deep dive in light of the failure of General Public License (GPL) version 3 to protect software developers from network distribution of their works and the success of the Common Public Attribution License (CPAL) in protecting these same developers by calling out network distribution.

The OSL works because, like the GPL, it's concerned with contributions, not credit (i.e., attribution). Ultimately, this is what a strong open-source license should provide. It's the best protection of freedom and, let's be frank, revenue.

The OSL is, in my opinion, one of the best licenses for the 21st century. Here's why.… Read more

What does CPAL mean and how did it get approved?

NOTE: I am not speaking for the OSI in this (or any other) blog entry.

I will admit to entering the OSI's deliberations of the recently approved Common Public Attribution License a little late, and leaving early, so I don't have the full context as to how or why it was approved (given the stink around attribution licenses last year). I'm not a big fan of the license (having developed a distaste for this form of license in last year's brouhaha over attribution licenses), but I applaud Ross Mayfield in the way he went about it.

It's interesting that last year's anathema is suddenly mainstream, as Michael Tiemann notes:… Read more

Source code, the foundation of all other open-source benefits

Mike Olson and I shared the stage at OSCON recently, talking about whether all software should be open source. I was planning to post about this, since I didn't feel that I had explained my position well on stage (having both Mike and Tim against me didn't help.) But Mike apparently also felt that he had more to say, and has blogged it here.

Unfortunately, reading Mike's clarifications (posted in response to some apparently rude e-mails sent to him after the fact, which is not appropriate) makes me think that I disagree with him more than I thought I did. Mike is a wonderful person and a great addition to the software community. But his perspective is wrong on the value of source code. Here's why.… Read more