An Ongoing Discussion of Open Source Licensing Issues
Our Mailbag
More on the Eben Moglen / Tim O'Reilly argument
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:01:00 -0700
Tim O'Reilly has now written about the ~1/2 hour interview he recently did with Prof. Eben Moglen on "Software Licensing in the Web 2.0 Era" at OSCon 2007, in a post entitled "My Tongue-Lashing from Eben Moglen": http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/08/my_tonguelashin.html
It's interesting and thoughtful -- and also includes an .ogg-format clip of the interview that will let me finally see it on my Xubuntu G3 iBook. ;->
Pending my doing so, here's an excerpt from Moglen's remarks, concerning the much-discussed ASP loophole aka SaaS (Software as a Service) loophole:
"We've got to conclude that what Google does, they have a right to do in freedom. They shouldn't need anyone's permission to run programs. Stallman was right about that at the very beginning. If you have to ask other people's permission to run a program, you don't have adequate freedom. And that means you've got to have the right to run programs for someone else. And what's more, you have to have the right to make private modifications. Because if you don't have a right to make private modifications, and keep them to yourself whenever you want to, then the principle of freedom of thought is being rudely disrupted by a required responsibility to disclose what you are thinking to someone else... So if we take the philosophical responsibility to provide freedom seriously, we're going to have to say ... their rights, properly protected, may conflict with other people's rights, properly protected. The solution isn't to reduce anyone's rights."
As I feared, Prof. Moglen (and impliedly the FSF) is saying that ASP deployments should be seen as private modification and usage, and that private usage must not be encumbered by, say, copyleft obligations tied to the act of offering codebases up for public usage via network access.
This stance, ironically, ends up amounting to a BSD-licensing position. Advocates of that position, sooner or later, tend to voice the standard BSD-advocacy mantra: "So what if it permits creation of proprietary forks? If you're any good at what you do, you'll just outcompete them."
Which is fine if you are OK with working hard to produce free / open source software, only to see a competitor take a branch of your work proprietary. FSF has always, until now, been the prime examplar of a group that is not OK with that -- that, in fact, invented the concept of copyleft as a means by which software authors can, if they wish, prevent that dilution of (their portion of) the commons.
Matt Asay of former badgeware firm Alfresco has just said pretty much the same thing, and I think he's right (http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9763068-7.html):
GPL is the new BSD in Web 2.0, and why this matters The Internet turns open-source licensing on its head. Copyleft is neither copyright nor copyleft anymore in the Web world. It's just copy, because distribution of a service over the Internet doesn't count as distribution in the archaic licensing language that plagues most open-source licenses.
[ ... ]
[ Thread continues here (1 message/5.14kB) ]
When will CPAL actually be _used_?
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:16:21 -0700
More to come, I'm sure.
----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <[email protected]> -----
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:04:03 -0700 To: Ross Mayfield <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] From: Rick Moen <[email protected]> Subject: When will CPAL actually be _used_?Hello, Ross. I noted with great interest Socialtext's submission of Common Public Attribution License to OSI, at the beginning of July, and in fact posted favourable comments on it to the license-discuss mailing list, at that time. The OSI Board then, of course, approved it on July 25.
Since then, your firm's press releases and numerous bits of news coverage (The Register, CMS Wire, eWeek, and quite a few others) have proclaimed your firm's conversion of Socialtext Open to this new OSI-certified licence.
In addition, your firm's Web pages began prominently featuring OSI's "OSI Certified" regulated certification mark logo, which may be used only for codebases released under OSI certified open source licences.
So, I am obliged to ask: When will your product actually use CPAL? To date, it is not. To wit:
o The SourceForge.net project at http://sourceforge.net/projects/socialtext/ has, as the latest downloadable tarball, Socialtext Open release 2.11.6.1. It's perhaps understandable that that form of access to source code still gets the user only code under the "Socialtext Public Licence 1.0" MPL 1.1 + Exhibit B badgeware licence -- because that tarball, your latest full release, was dated May 22, 2007, prior to your CPAL announcements.
o However, what's a bit more difficult to understand is that following hyperlinks for source code access on your coprorate Web site takes you to http://www.socialtext.net/open/index.cgi?socialtext_open_source_code, which cites a svn command to check the "head" development codebase out of repo.socialtext.net -- and that code, your very latest developer code, is likewise under Socialtext Public Licence 1.0.
So, when is Socialtext going to actually use the OSI-certified licence that it's been claiming in public to be using?
Also, would you mind please removing the "OSI Certified" logo from your pages until such time as you are legally entitled to use it? Thank you.
As a reminder, I called your attention here on December 29, 2006 to your then-advertised wiki page http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/ claiming in error that Socialtext had submitted SPL 1.0 to OSI's certification process, when it had not done so. You acknowledged the critique, but Socialtext did not fix the misstatement of fact until I reminded you of it a second time, here, on January 22, 2007. I hope that your firm's correction of its erroneous public licensing information, this time, will be significantly faster.
Best Regards, Rick Moen [email protected] (speaking only for himself)
----- End forwarded message -----
[ Thread continues here (3 messages/8.86kB) ]
SCO Group follies
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:47:19 -0700
----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <[email protected]> -----
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:44:37 -0700 To: [email protected] From: Rick Moen <[email protected]> Subject: [conspire] Novell beats SCO; also, CABAL meeting tomorrow! ;->I thought I'd pass this along. Also, mail from Darlene reminded me to mention that tomorrow, 4 PM to midnight, is the CABAL meeting here in Menlo Park.
I made the same sort of plum-jam marinade as last time, except this time I'll have had a chance to let the meat (mostly beef, this time) soak it up for 3+ days instead of a couple of hours.
So, don't be strangers.
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:59:12 -0700 To: [email protected] From: Rick Moen <[email protected]> Subject: [svlug] (forw) SCO v. Novell DecidedGroklaw coverage is at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070810165237718 .
Note also: (1) Judge Kimball left Novell's claim against SCO Group for slander of title still undecided. (2) SCO Group now owe to Novell the copyright royalties money it collected from Microsoft and Sun, which is considerably more money than it now has. (3) The SCO v. IBM and Red Hat v. SCO cases can now proceed.
----- Forwarded message from David Chait <[email protected]> -----
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:12:07 -0700 From: David Chait <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: SCO v. Novell DecidedFor all of those who haven't heard yet, there has been a ruling on SCO v. Novell this afternoon, and SCO lost massively.
(reposted from groklaw.net)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. Therefore, SCO's First Claim for Relief for slander of title and Third Claim for specific performance are dismissed, as are the copyright ownership portions of SCO's Fifth Claim for Relief for unfair competition and Second Claim for Relief for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court denies SCO's cross-motion for summary judgment on its own slander of title, breach of contract, and unfair competition claims, and on Novell's slander of title claim. Accordingly, Novell's slander of title claim is still at issue.
The court also concludes that, to the extent that SCO has a copyright to enforce, SCO can simultaneously pursue both a copyright infringement claim and a breach of contract claim based on the non-compete restrictions in the license back of the Licensed Technology under APA and the TLA. The court further concludes that there has not been a change of control that released the non-compete restrictions of the license, and the non-compete restrictions of the license are not void under California law. Accordingly, Novell's motion for summary judgment on SCO's non-compete claim in its Second Claim for breach of contract and Fifth Claim for unfair competition is granted to the extent that SCO's claims require ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights, and denied in all other regards.
[ ... ]
[ Thread continues here (3 messages/24.77kB) ]
[ILUG] Solution needed for terminale server licensing problem.
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:38:27 -0700
Another one for the list.
----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <[email protected]> -----
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:31:52 -0700 To: [email protected] From: Rick Moen <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [ILUG] Solution needed for terminale server licensing problem.Quoting Michael Armbrecht ([email protected]):
> There are alternatives to MS Project, most of them done in Java. > This one (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openproj/) looks very > MS-Projectish. It's Open Source....
Sadly, no, it's not. Quoting my summary at "Project Management" on http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Apps/:
Licence is deceptively claimed to be open source, but in fact is MPL 1.1 plus a proprietary "badgeware" addendum that impairs third-party commercial usage by requiring that derivative works include mandatory advertising of OpenProj publisher Projity's name and trademarked logo on "each user interface screen" while specifically denying users a trademark licence.
-- Cheers, Rick Moen Age, baro, fac ut gaudeam. [email protected] -- Irish Linux Users' Group mailing list About this list : http://mail.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug Who we are : http://www.linux.ie/ Where we are : http://www.linux.ie/map/
[ Thread continues here (4 messages/9.93kB) ]
Suggestion for domain-check licensing
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:54:25 -0700
----- Forwarded message from Matty <[email protected]> -----
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:37:56 -0400 From: Matty <[email protected]> To: Rick Moen <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Suggestion for domain-check licensingOn 7/16/07, Rick Moen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi, Ryan! Thanks for the version 1.4 update. You still might want to > consider the following suggested small tweak, if you want the script to > be open source: > > > # License: > # Permission is hereby granted to any person obtaining a copy > # of this software to deal in the software without restriction > # for any purpose, subject to the condition that it shall be > # WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > # MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. >
Hi Rick,
I came across your Linux Gazette article this weekend. Great write up!
I thought I updated the licensing for domain-check last month, but it
looks like I saved the file with the wrong name. Ooops.
I just moved
the updated file into place, and it's now licensed under the GPL (the
same as Ben's Perl script). This should allow you (and anyone else) to
use it for whatever you want.
Thanks, - Ryan
-- UNIX Administrator http://prefetch.net
Groklaw's OSI item
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:18:26 -0700
----- Forwarded message from Matthew Flaschen <[email protected]> -----
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:12:51 -0400 From: Matthew Flaschen <[email protected]> To: License Discuss <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Groklaw's OSI itemRick Moen wrote:
> (I call it bad because it trivially impairs usage, while > simultaneously utterly failing in its probable goal of being a copyleft > licence within the ASP industry.
Actually, CPAL does have a network clause (unrelated to the advertising clause, which does nothing for the SaaS problem):
"The term ???External Deployment??? means the use, distribution, or communication of the Original Code or Modifications in any way such that the Original Code or Modifications may be used by anyone other than You, whether those works are distributed or communicated to those persons or made available as an application intended for use over a network. As an express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You must treat any External Deployment by You of the Original Code or Modifications as a distribution under section 3.1 and make Source Code available under Section 3.2."
This is taken from the Open Software License.
This would seem to require SaaS deployments provide source code to end users.
Matt Flaschen
----- End forwarded message -----
----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <[email protected]> -----
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:17:06 -0700 To: [email protected] From: Rick Moen <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Groklaw's OSI itemQuoting Matthew Flaschen ([email protected]):
> > Actually, CPAL does have a network clause (unrelated to the advertising > clause, which does nothing for the SaaS problem): > > "The term ???External Deployment??? means the use, distribution, or > communication of the Original Code or Modifications in any way such that > the Original Code or Modifications may be used by anyone other than You, > whether those works are distributed or communicated to those persons or > made available as an application intended for use over a network. As an > express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You must treat > any External Deployment by You of the Original Code or Modifications as > a distribution under section 3.1 and make Source Code available under > Section 3.2." > > This is taken from the Open Software License. > > This would seem to require SaaS deployments provide source code to end > users.
I stand corrected! Thank you. That's the problem with writing from unaided memory, before getting around to checking of original documents.
CPAL thus does indeed join GPL w/Affero, OSL 3.0, ASPL 2.0, and Honest Public License as licences with SaaS-oriented copyleft clauses.
----- End forwarded message -----
when is an open source license open source?
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:51:48 -0700 ----- Forwarded message from 'Rick Moen' <[email protected]> -----
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 19:34:19 -0700 From: 'Rick Moen' <[email protected]> To: Aaron Fulkerson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: when is an open source license open source?Quoting Aaron Fulkerson ([email protected]):
> Dreamhost must have been having probs: > http://www.oblogn.com/2007/06/26/open-letter-to-osi/ try again. > Alternatively: http://www.mindtouch.com/blog/2007/06/26/open-letter-to-osi/ > (same post just cross-posted)
Hi, Aaron. Thank you for the URL. Being tied down in a software upgrade at the moment, I don't have much time to comment, but here are a few thoughts. I speak, here, largely as a student of rhetoric.
1. Just so you know, "open letters" have always been non-starters: They pretty much scream "ignore me", to most people. This has nothing to do with the merit of what's said; it's just a reflexive reaction people tend to develop towards anything described as that.
IMO, if you want to be taken seriously, refactor to avoid that unfortunate language. E.g., you could send an actual letter to the OSI Board and then reproduce on your Web site a copy of it.
2. The paragraph starting with "If you read my personal blog..." will tend to give to casual observers the impression of your dwelling on and boring them with your past complaints. To be really blunt, it has the surface flavour of whining (e.g., "been called infantile names"), and nobody likes a whiner. Again, this has nothing to do with the substance of what you're saying. It's a presentation issue, and presentation is important, because people filter what they read mercilessly, and you want to avoid all the obvious reasons (common heuristics) why people stop reading something and move on.
3. The phrase "I've left lengthy comments at OSI" in this paragraph is unfortunate for the same reason: The reader of your current point doesn't have any use for this information, and it just gives such readers another candidate reason for ignoring you. They may dismiss you as one of those tireless cranks who deluge online forums with barrages comments and then complain that nobody takes them seriously.
4.
> I've blogged about SugarCRM and it's CEO John Roberts previously (the > last bit of this post).
And your point? None is evident. Again, since there's no obvious reason cited why you mention this, the casual impression this gives is of someone who simply blogs a great deal, and wants to send readers on a long chain of links because what you say is so very vital in its full detail that you couldn't possibly summarise, i.e., like a crank.
5.
[ ... ]
[ Thread continues here (1 message/16.87kB) ]
Junk CNet story from Matt Asay (MySQL, badgeware)
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:37:15 -0700
Lawyer, ex-badgware firm Alfresco executive, and OSI Board member Matt Asay writes a "NewsBlog" at CNet news.com, in which he comments on open source. A couple of days ago, that column published a compendium of whoppers[1], attempting to accuse open source users of hypocrisy.
Quoting key parts:
The open-source community's double standard on MySQL posted by Matt Asay [...]
Remember 2002? That's when Red Hat decided to split its code into Red Hat Advanced Server (now Red Hat Enterprise Linux) and Fedora. Howls of protest and endless hand-wringing [http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513-5102282.html] ensued:
Enter 2007. MySQL decides to comply with the GNU General Public License and only give its tested, certified Enterprise code to those who pay for the service underlying that code (gasp!). Immediately cries of protest are raised [http://www.linux.com/feature/118489], How dare MySQL not give everything away for free?
Ironically, in this same year of 2007, SugarCRM received universal plaudits (from me, as well) for opening up _part of its code base_ under GPLv3. Groklaw crowed [http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070725161131598], "SugarCRM Goes GPLv3!" People everywhere flooded the streets to wax fecund and celebrate by multiplying and replenishing the earth.
[...] I'm criticizing the open-source community for applying a hypocritical double-standard.
No, Matt. Sorry, you lose.
First, the ZDNet link you cited simply did not feature even one member of the Linux community being quoted as criticising Red Hat in any way, let alone failing to comply with GPLv2 or any other open source licence -- for the simple reason that Red Hat didn't violate any licence, and in fact has published full source code RPMs for the full software portions of RHEL, downloadable free of charge and fully accessible to the public (which is far more than the licences require).
(RHEL includes two non-software SRPMS that contain trademark-encumbered image files. People who wish to have non-trademark-encumbered RHEL can create same by using different image files in their place, or can rely on CentOS et alii's ongoing work in doing exactly that. I've previously pointed this set of facts out to Matt directly, on an occasion when he attempted to defend his own firm's then-usage of badgeware licensing through the tu-quoque fallacy of criticising Red Hat.)
Likewise, the linux.com story you cited concerning MySQL AB's cessation of offering source tarballs to the general public (though public access to the SCM repository will remain) does not feature even one cry of protest -- for the simple reason that MySQL AB is still offering a fully, genuinely open source product.
(Accordingly, Matt's assertion about whom MySQL AB will "give its tested, certified Enterprise code to" is simply false.)
[ ... ]
[ Thread continues here (1 message/4.50kB) ]
Moglen And O'Reilly exchange at OSCon
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:55:57 -0700
----- Forwarded message from Steve Bibayoff <[email protected]> -----
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:04:50 -0700 From: Steve Bibayoff <[email protected]> To: Rick Moen <[email protected]> Subject: Moglen And O'Reilly exchange at OSConHi Rick,
Found a video of the Eben Moglen/ Tim O'Reilly exchange at OSCon. It was titled "Licensing in the Web 2.0 Era". Unfornatley, the video appears to be in a .mov quicktime format, but seems playable on Free software players(w/ unFree codecs). http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/3282956/ http://blip.tv/file/get/Radar-EbenMoglenLicensingInTheWeb20Era126.mov
Funny comment about trying to get the O'Reilly OSCon copy of the video/audio: "Regrettably, we missed the assault. Stories needed to go out, and we assumed the chat would follow familiar, boring lines. After about ten people later asked if we caught the spectacular show, The Register contacted the OSCON audio staff to obtain a recording of the session. "No problem," they said, "It will just take a couple of minutes, but you need to get O'Reilly's permission first." O'Reilly corporate refused to release the audio, saying it would cause a slippery slope. (We're still trying to understand that one.) They, however, did add that Moglen appeared to be "off his meds." http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/07/29/open-source-and-the-future-of-network-applications/
hth,
Steve
ps. What was that name of that book that you where discussing at Linux Picnix about the Renaissance? It was a case study done about Florence Nightingale, the father of the rugby school, and someone else. TIA.
----- End forwarded message -----
----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <[email protected]> -----
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:54:43 -0700 From: Rick Moen <[email protected]> To: Steve Bibayoff <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Moglen And O'Reilly exchange at OSConQuoting Steve Bibayoff ([email protected]):
> Found a video of the Eben Moglen/ Tim O'Reilly exchange at OSCon. It > was titled "Licensing in the Web 2.0 Era". Unfornatley, the video > appears to be in a .mov quicktime format, but seems playable on Free > software players(w/ unFree codecs). > http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/3282956/ > http://blip.tv/file/get/Radar-EbenMoglenLicensingInTheWeb20Era126.mov
I'll be checking this out when I'm next at a computer with the necessary software. (My Xubuntu iBook will play many Quicktime .mov files, but, since it's a G3 PPC, the unfree codecs are out, even if I wanted them present, which I really don't.)
Meanwhile, there have been a number of text excerpts from Moglen's commentary. Here's a typical one, from http://www.linux.com/feature/118201 :
[ ... ]
[ Thread continues here (1 message/6.17kB) ]
