Licensing

The OSI calls "Foul!" on pseudo-open source

It was just a matter of time. But eventually, it was bound to happen. Some in the industry have been playing fast and loose with the term "open source," and yesterday Michael Tiemann, president of the OSI, cried 'Foul!' on his blog. As Michael writes:

Starting around 2006, the term open source came under attack from two new and unanticipated directions: the first was from vendors who claimed that they have every bit as much right to define the term as does the OSI, and the second was from vendors who claimed that their license was actually faithful to the Open Source Definition (OSD), and that the OSI board was merely being obtuse (or worse) in not recognizing that fact. (At least one vendor has pursued both lines of attack.) This was certainly not the first attack we ever had to repel, but it is the first time we have had to confront agents who fly our flag as their actions serve to corrupt our movement. The time has come to bring the matter into the open, and to let the democratic light of the open source community illuminate for all of us the proper answer.… Read more

Mixed source mix-up: the Joomla! example

Sometimes popularity isn't worth the trade-offs it may require, it would seem. Anyway, not for Joomla!, as Linux.com highlights in an article yesterday. The Joomla! team had apparently allowed proprietary extensions to its GPL code base as a way to grow in popularity, but the effect has been to breed mistrust and confusion.

Joomla's original intention was arguably a good one: be very "open" to outside development - of proprietary and open source kinds - so as to serve a more diverse community:

It seemed that Joomla! had created a thriving economy for developers, arguably because its tolerance for proprietary extensions attracted entrepreneurs who discovered an audience hungry for inexpensive but useful add-ons. Further solidifying the third-party developers' position that they were within their rights to develop non-GPL addons, Landry and others explicitly stated in Joomla! forums that the decision about whether to allow proprietary extensions was up to the copyright holder. In a June 2006 topic entitled "1.5 licence change clarification," Landry wrote that the Joomla! license in version 1.5 would "make sure that commercial third-party developers that use Joomla! as a platform can do so without fear of having to release GPL."

The problem, however, is that it's hard to serve two masters.… Read more

The art and science of dual licensing

Stefano Comino and Fabio Manenti have written a useful paper [PDF] on dual licensing in open source. It's a decent resource for helping developers and vendors figure out why, if, and how to dual license their software. (See here for a useful explanation of what dual licensing means, and Heather Meeker's piece is a must read for anyone interested in the legal ramifications of the practice.)

I found myself agreeing with much of the authors' conclusions, but not necessarily the tone or conclusion, because they seem to see dual licensing as a way to drive sales. Of course, it sometimes undoubtedly is - for some time a large percentage of MySQL's, Sleepycat's, db4o's, etc. sales were motivated by a proprietary license waiting to "rescue" the OEM/customer from an open source license.… Read more

Open source legal: Baptism by immersion

Linux.com is reporting on a great new program offered by the Software Freedom Law Center, called the "Open Source Law Immersion Program." It's designed to give practicing attorneys the information they need to successfully grok open source (maybe so that they don't come up with "No open source" clauses in their licenses.

The Software Freedom Law Center is now inviting applications for a resident legal experience designed for practicing lawyers interested in learning more about open source software through direct on-site exposure to SFLC's open source software law practice. Positions are somewhat … Read more