+# Is SFLC Shooting Open Source in the Foot?
+
+The [academic article by SFLC about ZFS][sflc-on-zfs] is troubling
+and may unintentionally shoot free software licensing in the foot.
+
+When I was at Sun (as part of the team that released the Java
+Programming Language by starting the [OpenJDK][openjdk] project) I often
+heard community concerns about the [CDDL][cddl] license. At the time
+the big complaint was about the ["Choice of Venue"][webmink-on-cddl] clause.
+
+I got involved because Sun had developed many essential
+Java libraries and distributed them under CDDL. The community
+requested a more permissive license and I was able to
+convince internal project leaders (and Sun's lawyers) to make
+a licensing change for a handful of these projects.
+And there was much rejoicing.
+
+Based on my experience in helping Java to become open source
+I came to appreciate the legal hacks on copyright which
+make open source possible. It's the free software license
+which uses copyright to *enable* sharing (vs. the default
+of *disabling* sharing).
+
+<a href="https://opensource.org/licenses">
+<img src="http://info9.net/images/osi-licenses.png" alt="Open Source Licenses"/>
+</a>
+
+And so I have appreciated many of the writings and speeches
+from SFLC on the mechanisms of software freedom. I was
+particularly moved by the talks about the ["Freedom Box"][freedombox]
+concept.
+
+That's why this SFLC post on ZFS sounds so off key:
+if open source works because of free software licenses
+it seems weird to weaken that foundation by prioritizing
+the "equity" (or intended spirit) of the license.
+
+Allow me to mention that as I do most of my computing these days on
+GNU/Linux I miss the super cool features of ZFS from Solaris. I did
+try an early version of btrfs and was quite disappointed (but that's
+another story).
+
+In this happy case the source code for ZFS is available, but what
+about the future, when we aren't so lucky and someone asserts in
+court that the "you know, the software license was really
+about the spirit of sharing and that means we are allowed
+to use it -- and not be held to the pesky details as written in the license".
+
+A lawyer I respect called this out: ["'Equity' has no place in US law"][pchestek-on-sflc]. The point is that for lawyers software licenses work because
+they have clear, written rules to guarantee the spirit is upheld; but spirit
+doesn't work in front of a judge -- clear rules do.
+
+Free and open source software has made so much progress in
+all facets of life why on earth would we second guess
+the licensing tools that made it possible? And why would SFLC
+try to shift the spotlight (and in this case the legal burden)
+to "a good-faith belief that the conduct falls within the equity
+of the license". Especially given the earlier comment which clearly states
+"[the combination] is inconsistent with the literal meaning of
+GPLv2 section 2(b)."
+
+**Wat?** The entire *raison d'être* for open source software licenses
+was so that developers (and users) would have clarity and
+wouldn't have to *ask permission* to use the software!!!
+
+As stated elsewhere (and like I did with those Java libraries)
+the easy solution is to have the ZFS copyright holder (now Oracle)
+reclicense (or dual license) the code under a compatible license
+(permissive or copyleft). If OpenSolaris was still a thing I might
+understand some hesitancy, but why not liberate ZFS now?
+
+So we have to wonder what could possibly be motivating this
+odd "spirit of the license" position on the part of SFLC?
+Fortunately charities that enjoy non-profit status are required
+to make public filings of their income in something called a "Form 990".
+The [latest SFLC 990 I could find][sflc-990-2013] shows SFLC getting 78%
+(or just over $5 million) from "non public support" (see page 14).
+
+A number with "two commas" would even be interesting to
+for profit companies. Just *whom* is making these "donations"
+and what exactly do they get in return? Apparently [I'm not the only one
+wondering about this question][emacsen-on-slfc].
+
+On one hand it's important to know if SFLC as a non-profit is, indeed,
+acting in the public interest (as the IRS requires). Yet the even
+bigger issue here is would "asking for a consensus about the spirit"
+trump the written copyright license and set a scary precedent for open
+source software in general?
+
+[[!tag sflc gpl cddl zfs floss]]
+
+[sflc-on-zfs]: http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.html
+[openjdk]: http://openjdk.java.net/
+[webmink-on-cddl]: https://blogs.oracle.com/webmink/entry/choice_of_venue
+[cddl]: https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0
+[freedombox]: https://freedomboxfoundation.org
+[pchestek-on-sflc]: https://twitter.com/pchestek/status/703704091227246593
+[sflc-990-2013]: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/412/412165986/412165986_201401_990.pdf
+[emacsen-on-sflc]: http://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2016/02/28/why-is-sflc-siding-with-oracle-over-linux-developers/
projects / wiki.git / blobdiff