News Blog

I just read Glyn Moody's post on the importance of open data and, increasingly, open source, in science. Good science requires good data--data available to any who want to replicate another's results and ensure that true science is going on, not pseudo-science.

Marry that to Tim O'Reilly's insistence that data, not code, is the new lock-in (and cross that with my own declaration that Microsoft's new platform for lock-in is Sharepoint, not Office), and you end up with what I think is an implicit, urgent need in open source today:

The need to ensure data remains free/open.

Michael Tiemann has an excellent piece on open-source licensing over on his Open Source Initiative (OSI) blog. He captures what I've been trying to say about Microsoft's application for OSI certification, in part (though he doesn't address this in his blog), as well as the importance of open-source licensing, generally.

Want the CliffsNotes? Open-source licensing works because it breeds trust in process and code, not in people.

What does this mean?

It's almost funny (almost) to see how out-of-context my words can be taken. On one side, I can have Microsoft calling me to ask me to not criticize the company as I so often do (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and....you get the point).

Then I have Groklaw suggesting that I'm wrong to think the OSI shouldn't discriminate against groups bringing licenses to it based on past behavior. I would have thought that, if weighed in the balance, people would tend to find me anti-Microsoft (though I admit I don't find it hard at all to separate out Microsoft's products from its strategies). But not enough for some in the open-source community, apparently. This is unfortunate, as I'm a regular reader and supporter of the work that Pamela does at Groklaw.

The sad thing is, the OSI and the open-source community may have brought this upon ourselves.

I really, really don't understand this. I understand that Microsoft has a history of aggression against open source, as Chris DiBona wrote recently on the Open Source Initiative's (OSI) license-discuss e-mail list. I compete with Microsoft and have for many years. I get that Microsoft has been bad.

But discrimination is explicitly against the OSI's Open Source Definition, as Bill Hilf noted in responding to criticism from Google's Chris DiBona on the e-mail thread:

There is an ugly feeling growing against Microsoft in its attempts to have a few of its shared-source licenses certified as OSI (Open Source Initiative)-approved. The general sentiment is that OSI approval is for everyone except Microsoft.

I compete with Microsoft. My livelihood depends on beating Microsoft. I have worked for two companies that have been run over by Microsoft and its leveraging of monopoly power. I'm at least as familiar with Microsoft's legal and business tactics as most people, and probably more so than most. I've been on the losing end of Microsoft's monopoly power more than once.

But I don't believe in discrimination. Not even of the "bad guys."

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.

Tim notes that Microsoft will be submitting its shared-source licenses to the OSI for approval. He calls this "huge, long-awaited,...and earthshaking." It's actually none of the above, but it is welcome.

It will do little to blur the "bright line between Microsoft and the open-source community," as Tim suggests it will. That bright line is increasingly drawn by Microsoft, and not by the community. This will not erase patent FUD, for example, from the collective consciousness. But I suppose it does help Microsoft to start acting like a full participant, rather than an outsider.

But this isn't the real news.