pages tagged gplwikihttp://sept.info9.net/wiki//gpl/wikiikiwiki2016-02-29T17:54:18Zis-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foothttp://sept.info9.net/wiki//tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot/2016-02-29T17:54:18Z2016-02-29T16:33:00Z
<h1>Is SFLC Shooting Open Source in the Foot?</h1>
<p>The <a href="http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.html">academic article by SFLC about ZFS</a> is troubling
and may unintentionally shoot free software licensing in the foot.</p>
<p>When I was at Sun (as part of the team that released the Java
Programming Language by starting the <a href="http://openjdk.java.net/">OpenJDK</a> project) I often
heard community concerns about the <a href="https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0">CDDL</a> license. At the time
the big complaint was about the <a href="https://blogs.oracle.com/webmink/entry/choice_of_venue">"Choice of Venue"</a> clause.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <em>enable</em> sharing (vs. the default
of <em>disabling</em> sharing).</p>
<p><br />
<br />
<a href="https://opensource.org/licenses">
<img src="http://info9.net/images/osi-licenses.png" alt="Open Source Licenses" />
</a>
<br /></p>
<p>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 <a href="https://freedomboxfoundation.org">"Freedom Box"</a>
concept.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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).</p>
<p>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".</p>
<p>A lawyer I respect called this out: <a href="https://twitter.com/pchestek/status/703933428341805056">"Equity" has no place in US law</a>. 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.</p>
<p>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)."</p>
<p><br />
<strong>Wat?</strong>
<br />
<br /></p>
<p>The entire <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raison_d'%C3%AAtre"><em>raison d'être</em></a> for open source software licenses
was so that developers (and users) would have clarity and
wouldn't have to <em>ask permission</em> to use the software!!!</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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 <a href="http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/412/412165986/412165986_201401_990.pdf">latest SFLC 990 I could find</a> shows SFLC getting 78%
(or just over $5 million) from "non public support" (see page 14).</p>
<p>A number with "two commas" would even be interesting to
for-profit companies. Just <em>whom</em> is making these "donations"
and what exactly do they get in return? Apparently <a href="http://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2016/02/28/why-is-sflc-siding-with-oracle-over-linux-developers/">I'm not the only one
wondering about this question</a>.</p>
<p>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 <strong>would "asking for a consensus about the spirit"
trump the written copyright license and set a scary precedent for open
source software in general?</strong></p>
A Hug is Symmetrichttp://sept.info9.net/wiki//tmarble/posts/A_Hug_is_Symmetric/2014-07-10T16:00:08Z2014-01-13T04:32:32Z
<h1>A Hug is Symmetric</h1>
<p>An embrace is warm when two are pulled together.
A one arm hug is a patronizing squeeze that makes
for a (bad) photo op.</p>
<p>This little blog post is my > 140 response to my
new friend <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/dberkholz">@dberkholz</a>'s post
<a href="http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/2012/04/05/whither-the-gpl-why-we-dont-need-it-anymore/">The Story Of Data: Whither the GPL? Why we don’t need it anymore</a>. I met Donnie at <a href="http://fosdem.org/2012/">FOSDEM</a> this year
just after he joined <a href="http://redmonk.com/">RedMonk</a> -- the analyst
firm that is essential for anyone in software
development to follow. (Full Disclosure: RedMonk and Informatique, Inc.
do not have any business affiliation).</p>
<p>While I acknowledge that permissive licensing has become
fashionable I think it is a grave disservice to suggest that
restrictive licensing in FLOSS is withering, unneeded or for the
uneducated.</p>
<p>This recent dust up is a result of an ongoing meme
of "the Decline of the GPL" started last year by
<a href="http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2011/06/06/the-trend-towards-permissive-licensing/">Matt Aslett</a>. To which fuel was added
by a recent <a href="http://www.blackducksoftware.com/">BlackDuck</a> analysis also asserting the
the decline of the GPL. In precious few seconds of research
I was unable to to find the BlackDuck report itself, but
only <a href="http://upsilon.cc/~zack/blog/posts/2012/02/gpl_d_debian_software_skew/">mention</a> of <a href="http://techrights.org/2012/02/20/gpl-whole-story/">it</a>. Ultimately the approach
of the BlackDuck study is one of the problems. The data and methodology
have not been made available for peer review -- the basis
of the scientific method which defines progress in every
academic discipline.</p>
<p>During our first <a href="http://fosdem.org/2012/schedule/track/legal_issues_devroom">Legal Issues DevRoom</a> at FOSDEM
we had several talks touching on the impact of software
(and other artifact) licensing on FLOSS. Of special note:
John Sullivan, Executive
Director of the Free Software Foundation gave a talk "Is copyleft
being framed?" and Richard Fontana, Red Hat's Open Source Licensing
and Patent Counsel gave a talk, "The (possible) decline of the GPL, and what to do about it". Slides for these and other talks are available
<span class="createlink"><a href="http://sept.info9.net/wiki/ikiwiki.cgi?do=create&from=tmarble%2Fposts%2FA_Hug_is_Symmetric&page=%2Ffosdem%2FLegalIssuesDevRoom%2FSpeakers" rel="nofollow">?</a>here</span>. Sullivan's data
and methodology are available for review and suggest that
the use of GPL is vibrant.</p>
<p>I do hope that my friend and former Sun colleague <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/richsands">Rich Sands</a> --
who is now at BlackDuck -- can help shed some light on their analysis.</p>
<p>But I'm not here to quibble about the data. I want to talk
directly to the assertions made from the data.</p>
<h2>1. Compliance is complicated</h2>
<p>In this era of continuous development and continuous
deployment powered by tools like the uber awesome <a href="http://jenkins-ci.org/">Jenkins</a>
you can't really say with a straight face that making
a tarball and publishing it somewhere is hard.
Even in the embedded space there are tools like <a href="https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_1.2_Overall_Test_Plan#Compliance_Test.28Covered_in_Fullpass_Test.29">Yocto</a>
make delivering "Complete and Corresponding Source" just
one of the build products.</p>
<p>For the massive, commercial enterprise which is Java™
Oracle manages to publish the <a href="http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7u2/">source</a>
code for <a href="http://openjdk.java.net/">OpenJDK</a>. Under the GPL.
And Oracle publishes it from a tightly intermingled source
base comprising open as well as closed, proprietary components.</p>
<h2>2. The collaborative development model is really all you need</h2>
<p>Bruce Perens was right: collaboration is better. Yet collaboration
is necessary, but not sufficient to build a community.
As we have become more familiar with FLOSS models it has
become increasingly clearly that copyright assignment or licensing
agreements that put a corporation in asymmetric control
of a codebase does not foster the healthiest communities.</p>
<p>When inbound == outbound licensing and everyone is symmetric
footing collaboration <em>and</em> contribution thrive.</p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/webmink">Simon Phipps</a>, also a friend and former Sun colleague,
has written about the health of projects such
as <a href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2012/02/libreoffice-founbdation-symbolises-maturity/index.htm">Libre Office</a> and assessing the health of
FLOSS <a href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/02/open-by-rule-progress-report/index.htm">governance</a>.</p>
<h2>3. Commercial products == proprietary products</h2>
<p>"Not to mention that copyleft licenses make it much harder to build
proprietary products". Well maybe we should start with understanding
there might be a difference between building products and making a
biz model around them vs. the licensing of said products.</p>
<p>With Red Hat hitting the milestone of $1 <a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/03/red-hat-hits-a-billion-dollars-in-revenue-a-milestone-for-open-source.ars">billion</a> in revenue
I think we can put to rest the question, "can you make money with
open source?" Certainly Red Hat has some proprietary licensed
products, but the crux or their business model is based on
restrictively licensed, copyleft software. Red Hat invests
an enormous amount of developer time to give back to the community...
And apparently they are not suffering for it. Apparently
this isn't too complicated for them. And apparently the
bottom line is doing just fine, thank you.</p>
<h2>4. Restrictive licensing doesn't matter in Cloud</h2>
<p>If anything the rise of "Cloud Computing" drives the
<a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html">need</a> for an <a href="https://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/new-cloud-applications-drive-popularity-agpl-">updated approach</a> to restrictive licensing.
This was the real motivation behind creating
the <a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html">AGPL</a>. Why is this? It's because traditionally
restrictive licensing kicks in when the software is <em>delivered</em>.
In web services you get data, but not software (in any form).</p>
<p>A great deal has been written about copyleft in the cloud era...
Since Donnie's post included "Data" I think it's worth
mentioning the <a href="http://webmink.com/essays/freedom-to-leave/">Freedom to Leave</a> and
the <a href="http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/">Franklin Street Statement</a>.</p>
<p><em>(Secret: data is more valuable than code <img src="http://sept.info9.net/wiki//smileys/smile.png" alt=":)" /> )</em></p>
<h2>5. You can't build a business on restrictive software</h2>
<p>Jeremy Allison has clearly articulated why the <a href="http://faif.us/cast/2011/may/10/0x0F/">GPLv3
is essential</a> for the commercial Samba marketplace to
thrive. He talks about symmetry providing a necessary
level playing field (and he spoke about this <a href="http://libreplanet.org/wiki/LibrePlanet2012/Schedule">recently</a>).</p>
<p>Evan Prodromou has built the StatusNet business on
AGPL'd software and is selling the <a href="http://schedule.sxsw.com/2012/events/event_IAP11746">Decentralized Social
Web</a> into Enterprises.</p>
<p>And NoSQL all star, MongoDB, is <a href="http://blog.mongodb.org/post/103832439/the-agpl">licensed under the AGPL</a>
and the company behind it, <a href="http://www.10gen.com/news">10gen</a>, seems to be doing just fine.</p>
<h2>Work with Me</h2>
<p>So whether or not the GPL is in decline (or not) only
scratches the surface of the how the FLOSS revolution has <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVpbFMhOAwE&list=UUfX55Sx5hEFjoC3cNs6mCUQ&index=1&feature=plcp">transformed
information technology</a> in the past 20 years.
I bet the that Story of Data in the next 20 years will
tell us that symmetric collaboration is the big win.</p>
<p>Ultimately the key thing is to remember that permissively
licensed software is also Free Software.</p>