From c5d1a101e1626063c4d90d4e07e5014f305a020b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Marble Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:32:56 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] tmarble-on-sflc --- ...slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn | 99 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn diff --git a/tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn b/tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 0000000..adad669 --- /dev/null +++ b/tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ +# 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). + + +Open Source Licenses + + +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/ -- 2.43.0