Skype Concedes In GPL Dispute

from the don't-mess-with-the-GPL dept

Tom wrote about the Skype/GPL case yesterday, and it's worth noting (as many in the comments did) that partway through the hearing, Skype gave in and agreed to drop the appeal and abide by the lower court ruling. That's a good thing. However, from the comments on Tom's post, it appears that many seemed to have misunderstood what he wrote, believing he was (a) supporting Skype or (b) disparaging GPL. It appears to be neither. He pretty clearly states that it's a "desperation" play by Skype, and so it's not at all surprising that Skype gave in after the court indicated that Skype's arguments were not convincing. Tom also does not appear to be disparaging the GPL -- he notes how it helped encourage much more openness in software development.

His actual point, which got less attention, was whether the power of the GPL specifically is waning as other licenses gain prominence -- and, specifically, whether it would be so horrible if the GPL somehow went away. He's not suggesting that's a likely or ideal scenario -- just questioning what would happen. And, the point he makes is that while the GPL paved a very important path, we're seeing other options now appearing, and that's a good thing for open source. Developers now have a much bigger choice among licenses they can choose to adopt, and that competition can lead to interesting innovations. It's not an anti-GPL post -- but recognition that the hopes and dreams of open source software development are no longer tied to the success or failure of the GPL. And that's a good thing for both the GPL and open source.

Filed Under: gpl, licenses, open source
Companies: skype

Does The GPL Still Matter?

from the expired-license? dept

The GNU General Public License heads to court again today, as Skype attempts to defend its distribution of Linux-enabled SMC hardware handsets that appear to be in violation of the operating system's open source license. It's easy to guess why Skype is fighting the suit, which was brought by GPL activists: the company relies on a proprietary protocol, and releasing the code could give competitors an advantage. You can't blame them for trying. Although in the past few years the GPL has made important strides in establishing its legal enforceability, it's still conceivable that a court could find something wrong with its unusual, viral nature.

Few think that this will be the court case that makes or breaks the GPL. Skype's already lost early rounds of this fight, and the claims it's now making seem so broad as to imply desperation. Besides, the case is being tried in the German legal system, which to date has proven friendly to the GPL.

But even if the license was invalidated, either in this case or another, there's an argument to be made that the GPL has already served its purpose. Its impact on the world of open source software is undeniable: by ensuring that an open project would remain open, the license encouraged programmers to contribute to projects without fear of their work being coopted by commercial interests. And by making it difficult, if not impossible, for a project derived from a GPLed project to go closed-source, it encouraged many programmers to license their efforts under open terms when they otherwise might not have.

But today, with open source firmly established as a cultural and commercial force, the GPL's relevance may be waning. The transition to the third version of the license left many in the open source community upset and intent on sticking with its earlier incarnations. And an increasing number of very high profile projects, like Mozilla, Apache and Open Office, have seen fit to create their own licenses or employ the less restrictive LGPL. The raw numbers bear out the idea of a slight decline in the GPL's prominence, too: Wikipedia lists the percentage of GPLed projects on Sourceforge.net and Freshmeat.net, two large open source software repositories, as 68% and 65%, respectively, as of November '03 and January '06. Today, the most recently available numbers show that Sourceforge's share has fallen to 65%, and Freshmeat's share has fallen to to 62%.

This is, of course, a small decline, and the GPL remains the world's most popular open source license by a considerable margin. But it does seem as though there may be a slowly decreasing appetite for the license's militant approach to copyleft ideals. I certainly don't wish Skype well in its probably-quixotic tilt at the GPL, but if they were to somehow get lucky at least they'd be doing so at a point in the open source movement's history when the GPL is decreasingly essential.

Filed Under: gpl, licenses, open source
Companies: skype

The Open Source Model Is About Organization, Not Who Signs Your Paycheck

from the peer-production dept

Nick Carr points out a report from the Linux Foundation that finds that most contributions to the Linux kernel come from people who work at companies. Nick Carr says this is a sign of a "shift from the volunteer to the corporate model," which I think misses the point on a couple of different levels. For starters, most of the people contributing to the kernel are professional programmers, and most professional programmers have jobs in the software industry. So it's totally unsurprising that most kernel contributors work for software companies.

But Carr's observation also misses the point in a deeper way. What makes the open source model unique isn't who (if anyone) signs the contributors' paychecks. Rather, what matters is the way open source projects are organized internally. In a traditional software project, there's a project manager who decides what features the product will have and allocates employees to work on various features. In contrast, there's nobody directing the overall development of the Linux kernel. Yes, Linus Torvalds and his lieutenants decide which patches will ultimately make it into the kernel, but the Red Hat, IBM, and Novell employees who work on the Linux kernel don't take their orders from them. They work on whatever they (and their respective clients) think is most important, and Torvalds's only authority is deciding whether the patches they submit are good enough to make it into the kernel. Carr suggests that the non-volunteer status of Linux contributors proves that the Internet "doesn't necessarily weaken the hand of central management," but that's precisely what the open source development model has done. There is no "central management" for the Linux kernel, and it would probably be a less successful project if there were.

Filed Under: distributed model, linux, open source

Bill Gates Claims Open Source Means Nobody Can Improve Software

from the say-what-now? dept

Wired is running an interesting article about Bill Gates' thoughts on the pharmaceutical industry, which he's increasingly focused on as he transitions out of Microsoft and into his foundation. He clearly understands the basic problem, though I think he has the wrong solution in brushing off the idea that "open sourcing" medicine is a huge opportunity. As for why... well, I'll be discussing that in a future post. Instead, for this post, I wanted to focus on a rather bizarre statement out of Gates (all the way at the end of the article) in discussing why he dislikes open source software. His complaint is that open source creates a license "so that nobody can ever improve the software." It's hard to figure out how to respond to that statement since it's the exact opposite of how open source software works. The exact point is that anyone can improve the software. It's proprietary software like Microsoft's that's limited such that only Microsoft is allowed to improve it. It's no secret that Gates isn't a fan of open source software, but it still seems odd that he would make a statement that is so obviously false, both in theory and in practice. Perhaps old FUD habits die hard, but one would hope that as he enters "retirement" he'll have a more open mind on such things.

Filed Under: bill gates, open source, pharmaceuticals

Why The RIAA May Want To Side With Open Source Developers In France

from the what-is-distribution-anyway? dept

We all know that the RIAA has been pushing for a certain definition of what constitutes "distribution" online these days (which the courts are still in flux over). An anonymous reader points to a case in France that the RIAA may want to pay attention to -- where it may find itself siding with some strange bedfellows: open source developers. Apparently, some of open source developers have sued the large French ISP Free/Iliad for failing to offer up the software used in the 3 million routers that customers use, despite the fact that it includes GPLed software (which requires that any software you distribute also be available to others for free). The ISP has responded by claiming that it hasn't actually distributed the software, since the routers are still officially a part of its own network -- and therefore the software doesn't have to be offered up.

In other words, simply giving the routers to users doesn't count as distribution in his definition -- which would certainly go against the RIAA's "making available is distribution" claim). However, as the link above suggests, it could get even worse. If you follow the same definition that Free/Iliad is making, then an ISP could purchase a site license for certain applications or content and then let everyone on its "network" access it, since it wouldn't be "distributing" it. Thus, suddenly, it may be in the RIAA's best interest to side with a bunch of open source developers before the definition of "distribute" in France gets defined in a way that the RIAA wouldn't much appreciate.

Filed Under: distribution, france, gpl, open source, riaa

Is Sun Backtracking On Software Patents?

from the hopefully-not dept

MySQL's execs have always been outspoken critics of software patents. Back in 2004, we wrote about the company CEO's well-reasoned article about how software patents had become the nuclear stockpiling of the modern era. Companies were forced to patent everything just to have enough ammo to make sure others didn't sue them for patent infringement, and the end result was huge legal bills and wasted money that wasn't going towards innovation at all. Since then, the company has remained vehemently against software patents. However, now that Sun has purchased MySQL, the company is apparently being pushed to cut back on its anti-software patent stance. Someone who prefers to remain anonymous sent in some blog posts highlighting how Sun has removed MySQL's anti-software patent page. To be fair, among larger companies, Sun has certainly shown a much better understanding of how patents can be anti-innovation as well as how the patent system is often abused. But, at the same time, it also has a bunch of patents and has demonstrated in quite explicit fashion just how those patent nuclear wars work. So, of companies out there, Sun seems less bad concerning software patents than other firms. But it's still rather disappointing to see it erase MySQL's excellent public stance against software patents from the web -- even if it did make a silly April Fool's joke about open source software this week.

Filed Under: open source, software patents
Companies: mysql, sun

Red Hat And The Power Of Infinite Goods

from the economics-of-free dept

The New York Times has a great write-up of the continued rapid growth of Red Hat. Despite the looming recession, Red Hat is predicting 30 percent revenue growth in the coming year, to more than half a billion dollars. For a few years, Mike has been talking about how to make money while giving away infinite goods, and Red Hat could probably be the poster child for his argument. Despite the fact that virtually all of its "products" are available for free on the Internet, Red Hat is still convincing companies to pay it hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, the reason this works is that Red Hat's product isn't its operating system or other software. Red Hat's product is access to the time and expertise of its employees, and to Red Hat's extensive ecosystem of developers, hardware vendors, and others who have built atop the Red Hat platform. Because Red Hat stands at the center of this tight-knit web of relationships, their employees are better-positioned than anyone else to quickly solve customer problems. And it turns out that companies are willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for that assistance.

The most interesting part of the article is where it talks about Oracle's effort to undercut Red Hat by offering the same software at a lower cost. Apparently, as we predicted, it hasn't been going too well. And it's not too hard to see why: Larry Ellison doesn't seem to understand Red Hat's business model. What Red Hat is selling isn't software, but support. And the value of a support contract is a function of the expertise of the company providing it. Not only does Red Hat have a number of key Red Hat developers on staff, but it also has a ton of strong working relationships with developers and vendors elsewhere in the Linux community. That means that if a customer encounters a bug in its Red Hat Enterprise Linux installation, Red Hat will either have an engineer on staff who can fix it, or it will have a strong relationship with the outside developer who developed that piece of software or the firm that manufactured the hardware. That makes it more likely that it will be able to address the issue quickly and incorporate the fix into the software for future releases.

Oracle has made comparatively little effort to either hire Linux developers or foster strong relationships with the broader free software community. As a result, Oracle isn't able to provide the same kind of value that Red Hat can. Yes, Oracle tech support can fix straightforward problems, but if they need to make changes to the code, they'll often need to go to a Red Hat engineer for help getting it fixed. And not surprisingly, most customers would rather cut out the middleman and go to Red Hat directly, even if it costs a little more.

Filed Under: earnings, infinite goods, open source
Companies: oracle, red hat

The Hijacking Of An Open Source P2P App

from the scammy dept

TorrentFreak has been following the ongoing alleged hijacking of an open source file sharing system called Shareaza. Late in December, somehow a New York-based company (Discordia Ltd.) gained control of the domain name Shareaza.com and put up a new site, though using much of the artwork from the original Shareaza site. Rather than offering up the open source Shareaza software, the new site started offering a subscription service that included adware. To add insult to injury, Discordia has also threatened the real Shareaza developers due to comments in a forum about what to do about the hijackers. The latest news is that Discorida (which TorrentFreak claims has connections to the recording industry) is trying to trademark the Shareaza name, which you would think shouldn't be possible, given that the open source developers were working on the project for a few years before Discordia got access to the domain name. The whole thing sounds like quite a mess in a way that's designed to likely trick users and/or discredit the open source Shareaza project.

Filed Under: hijacking, open source, shareaza
Companies: discordia, shareaza

Trend Micro Learns That Suing For Patents On Open Source Software Can Backfire

from the don't-mess-with-the-community dept

It seemed rather bad form back in December for Trend Micro to sue a competitor claiming that its anti-virus system violated a patent for using some open source software. Not only would it likely slow down innovation in the space and allow those with bad intent to distance themselves even further from security professionals trying to stop them, it also would piss off the open source community. We've already seen that community step up in the effort to find prior art, and now Slashdot is reporting that open source supporters are starting a boycott of Trend Micro products in response to the lawsuit. It seems like yet another case of the lawyers getting ahead of the business people in deciding who to sue.

Filed Under: boycotts, open source, patents, security
Companies: trend micro

Barracuda Seeks Open Source Community Help In Fighting Off Patent Infringement Claims

from the prior-art-please dept

Back in December, we wrote about how a patent lawsuit being brought by antivirus firm Trend Micro against security company Barracuda could make computers less secure. As details start to come out about the case, the situation seems even worse than originally stated. T.J. writes in to point us to a detailed history of the case. It starts off by noting that Barracuda is asking for help from the open source community in finding and submitting prior art. That's because Barracuda makes some use of the open source product ClamAV. However, the additional details provided show how anti-competitive Trend Micro's lawsuit is, rather than being one designed to push for "progress."

Specifically, it looks like Trend Micro worked out favorable deals with the big players in the space, McAfee and Symantec, and is now using those to suggest that the patent must be valid. Yet, in its demands to Barracuda, the terms are quite stringent -- clearly designed more to punish the company for doing something so obvious as creating a gateway for antivirus scanning. Furthermore, after threatening letters from Trend Micro, Barracuda did the smart thing and filed for a declaratory judgment in Northern California, rather than letting Trend Micro file in a place like Marshall, Texas. In response, Trend Micro used the increasingly popular loophole that gives them a second way to sue for patent infringement: bringing a claim to the US International Trade Commission, claiming that Barracuda (a US company) was illegally "importing" infringing products. This method has been an effective way for patent holders to get a second shot at attacking companies they accuse of infringement -- and doing so in a "court" that doesn't need to pay attention to Supreme Court rules on what's patentable and what's not. It all adds up to some fairly sleazy moves by Trend Micro, so if you have any prior art to help show that this patent never should have been granted in the first place, send it along.

Filed Under: open source, patents, security
Companies: barracuda, trend micro