Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
What is open source?
When the Open Source Initiative first
set up shop, the plan was to obtain a trademark (in the US) for the term
"Open Source," and to restrict use of that trademark to licenses which were
deemed to uphold open source values. That plan came to an end when the
trademark office turned down the application. Some time later, the OSI
trademarked "OSI Certified"
instead, but, by then, the momentum was gone. Use of the OSI Certified
mark has been minimal. There is, it seems, little demand for a trademarked
stamp of approval for open source licenses.
That situation could yet change, however, as a crop of relatively new companies pushes the boundaries of the term "open source." At the top of the list may well be SugarCRM, which bills itself as "commercial open source." The company's web site says "We thought there was better way. Why not write our product in public and distribute it through an open source license?" Despite these words, the license created by this company, the SugarCRM Public License (SPL), is not on the OSI list of open source licenses - and it's not clear if it ever will be. The SPL is based on the Mozilla Public License, but it includes (among other things) some text at the end:
However, in addition to the other notice obligations, all copies of
the Covered Code in Executable and Source Code form distributed
must, as a form of attribution of the original author, include on
each user interface screen (i) the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo and
(ii) the copyright notice in the same form as the latest version of
the Covered Code distributed by SugarCRM, Inc. at the time of
distribution of such copy. In addition, the "Powered by SugarCRM"
logo must be visible to all users and be located at the very bottom
center of each user interface screen. Notwithstanding the above,
the dimensions of the "Powered By SugarCRM" logo must be at least
106 x 23 pixels. When users click on the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo
it must direct them back to http://www.sugarforge.org. In addition,
the copyright notice must remain visible to all users at all times
at the bottom of the user interface screen. When users click on the
copyright notice, it must direct them back to
http://www.sugarcrm.com
These requirements on how the software is to be used are rather intrusive for what is supposed to be a free license; most open source licenses do not prescribe the layout of an application's windows. The folks at SugarCRM, suspecting that the OSI would not consider such requirements as being free, opted not to ask for OSI approval at all. But they call their license "open source" all the same. SugarCRM's John Roberts makes no apologies for his license, stating that the attribution requirement is necessary to keep others from stealing his company's work. He goes on to say:
I hope OSI does not get stuck in the past or it could, and I think
will be superseded by a new open source organization that more
people both developers and users feel represent their real
interests and values.
Attribution is here to stay. If you refuse to acknowledge it, you are trying to stop change, which will be very hard to do I believe. Ross Mayfield, representing Socialtext, has also come out in favor of attribution requirements. He has submitted for discussion a general policy statement on attribution requirements and the form they can take. It supports a relatively restrained version of the requirement which might find broader acceptance. Not everybody buys the argument that web-based applications have a need for attribution which did not exist for prior generations of free software. Michael Tiemann says:
Now somehow the argument is being advanced that because somebody
else can grab Software X, run it on their own hardware and offer it
as a service, this is somehow different than being able to download
a compiler from the net, build a new cellphone, and sell it by the
millions without payment to the developers who created such a
fantastic toolkit. I don't see it.
So there are some decisions which will have to be made here. One is: to what extent are attribution requirements simply a form of proper credit for the creation of free software? And to what extent are they an attempt to exercise a sort of proprietary control over software which, as a result, is not truly free? The SPL requirements on the presence, positioning, and linkage of logos do not look all that different from the invariant section requirements in the GFDL - and those requirements are widely held to be non-free. A programmer who borrows even a single function from SugarCRM's code base must thereafter make his or her entire application "powered by SugarCRM," assuming the licenses are compatible at all. It would not be surprising to see a consensus build to the effect that this requirement makes the SPL a non-free license. The bigger question which is being forced by this discussion, however, is: what does "open source" mean? When the term was first coined, there was concern that businesses would attempt to use it for licenses which were decidedly not open. That sort of abuse has not been much of a problem - so far. But now we are seeing businesses apply the term to code which, to some people in the community at least, is not open source. Problems often start small and grow from there; if some businesses are able to get away with calling licenses without OSI-approval "open source," others will do the same with much more restrictive licenses. There will always be somebody who is willing to test the limits. What can be done about any future abuse of the term "open source" is not clear, however. There is no trademark, so there is no legal mechanism available to shut down such claims. The OSI could attempt to regain control of the term with a publicity campaign and a stronger effort to push the "OSI Certified" mark. But the OSI has been largely inactive and out of the public view for some time, and it is not generally seen as a representative body. So it is an organization with a relatively small mind share and relatively small moral authority. It's not clear what the OSI can do at this point. (See also: David Berlind's long article which started the current round of discussion). (Log in to post comments)
Richard Stallman was right Posted Nov 29, 2006 19:15 UTC (Wed) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link] "Free" as in "freedom" turns out to be a more important, and longer-lasting, concept than "open source". Funny how Richard Stallman was looked on by many as a loony for insisting on this, yet the longer things go on, the more obvious it becomes that he was simply--and correctly--taking the long view.
Richard Stallman was right Posted Nov 29, 2006 20:20 UTC (Wed) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] I think you are right, however there are greats swaths of people out there who know what 'open source' is, but aren't familiar with the term 'free software'. We've largely lost that debate in the corporate millieu. Hopefully that can be turned around in the long term, but there is a huge amount of work to do on that front. And of course 'free software' opens us up to a whole load of different misconceptions from the great unwashed, who fail to distinguish it from freeware.
Tricky stuff language.
Richard Stallman was right Posted Nov 30, 2006 0:58 UTC (Thu) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link] I'm not sure there are huge swathes out there who know what 'open source' is. I've seen a _lot_ of people use it as a term to mean that the source is visible, but still potentially proprietary or somehow horribly encumbered. Like, even LWN commenters:http://lwn.net/Articles/208603/
For all of ESR's old rants about how easily the 'free software' term could be misinterpreted, 'open source' seems to be the one that really damages us in practice. I guess all the compulsive parenthesizing everyone always does with "free (as in speech)" has paid off -- maybe we need something like that for 'open source'.
I dunno what that would even be, though. 'open (as in free)'? :-)
"Free software" is still a bad term - it's completely misunderstood by the public Posted Nov 30, 2006 10:20 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link] The term "Free software" is well-understood by the general public. It means "I don't have to pay to get a copy".That is NOT what the Free Software Foundation means, and I know it well. But this continued use of a term that has a pre-existing, unrelated meaning is NOT helpful. The explanation that "it's about freedom" doesn't help, because people already think they know what it means.... they don't even ask the question. Any conversion that has to start by UNDEFINING a well-understood phrase is unlikely to go well. I wish that they'd use the term "Libre software", or at least "Freed software". Many people use the term "Open source software" even if they agree with Stallman's position, simply because "Free software" is comfusing. Companies pay millions for creating a clear brand. The FSF has failed to create a clear, unambiguous brand name for the idea that it is selling, and continues to pay a price for it. All would be better if they'd finally agree on, and start using, a term that is actually clear and unambiguous.
"Free software" is still a bad term - it's completely misunderstood by the public Posted Nov 30, 2006 22:35 UTC (Thu) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] I don't think the FSF would have any problem if everyone used the term "Libre software" the problem is you can't force people to use the term they need to do it on their own. It's just like you can't force people to think 'open source" means what OSI wants it to mean. RMS had stated that he understands the problem, but the implications of people thinking that open source is any software that in some way has viewable source, is far worse than people thinking that Free Software means no cost.
freedom software Posted Dec 1, 2006 18:49 UTC (Fri) by grouch (subscriber, #27289) [Link] How about freedom software? It's just different enough from "free software" to either avoid the emphasis on zero cost or to spark a question about the term itself. In the U.S., at least, the term calls up images that match several aspects of free software -- personal freedom, individual efforts combined into a community working toward common goals, and licensing that restricts only that which is necessary for maintaining equal freedom for users of the software.
freedom software Posted Dec 7, 2006 3:11 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Exactly. I've been using the term "freedomware", an obvious and equallyunambiguous shorter form of "freedom software" in my own writing for some time -- since "libre software" aka "libreware" first hit the spotlight. It's especially effective (and controversial, but it does get the point across) when used in combination with "slaveryware".
My newsgroup and mailinglist signature is an RMS quote that reinforces and
--
freedom software Posted Dec 7, 2006 3:43 UTC (Thu) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] I don't know, but that's far too reminiscent of "freedom fries" for me.
"Free software" is still a bad term - it's completely misunderstood by the public Posted Dec 3, 2006 13:34 UTC (Sun) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link] Because "libre" doesn't mean anything to anyone who speaks English, and I actually misread Freed Software as Fried Software at first glance. It's difficult to tell the difference between "free" and "freed" when spoken anyways. What we need to do is start referring to Non-Free software as software In Captivity. ;)
"Free software" is still a bad term - it's completely misunderstood by the public Posted Dec 3, 2006 13:37 UTC (Sun) by cantsin (guest, #4420) [Link] In my experience, the term "non-proprietary software" is best understood by lay people, although it would be nicer to define it in other than negative terms.
"Free software" is still a bad term - it's completely misunderstood by the public Posted Dec 3, 2006 23:39 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] I don't think "captive software" will ever take off. Just look at the uptake of crackers vs. hackers... nobody uses "cracker."
I like "freedom software" suggested earlier. It's got that Patriot Act you'd-be-an-idiot-to-disagree-with-it ring to it. :)
What is open source? Posted Nov 30, 2006 0:53 UTC (Thu) by fyodor (subscriber, #3481) [Link] According to this article, SugarCRM hired Mark Radcliffe, the General Counsel for the Open Source Initiative, to draft their license. I don't know what to make of this, but it could lead to conflict of interest issues if they do apply for OSI certification. I think it is reasonable for SugarCRM to insist on credit for their work, but what they are demanding here is that you run their advertising -- specifying exact page layout, banner size, etc. In this link (from the article above), John of SugarCRM says: "Any additional libraries we may use are fully attributed in the about box of the software. Attribution goes both ways." How is that going both ways? Maybe he should attribute those libraries such that it is "visible to all users and be located at the very bottom center of each user interface screen" along with a 106x23 banner ad linking to the home page of each library. If they want to insist on a "run our advertising banners on every page" clause, that is fine, but perhaps they shouldn't name the product "SugarCRM Open Source", put "Open Source" on their company logo, all over their home page, etc. Also, despite their logo, most of their products don't seem to be open source. "SugarCRM Open Source" looks like a crippled demo for their full-featured proprietary CRM products (SugarCRM Professional and SugarCRM Enterprise).
What is open source? Posted Nov 30, 2006 2:23 UTC (Thu) by lolando (subscriber, #7139) [Link] Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't these requirements (about layout and image dimensions and whatnot) wholly incompatible with several clauses of the OSD? The license actually prevents someone from making a version of SugarCRM that's accessible to blind people (there goes clause #5), or from making a version that's usable on devices with not many pixels available (#6), or to turn it (or to re-use parts of it) into a non-web application (#10)... I don't think it can still be reasonably considered "Open Source".
What is open source? Posted Nov 30, 2006 9:05 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I would note, first, that I think the license has noticeable oddities and problems in language and form (among other things, the logo-display terms are in a "Exhibit" and there is nothing in the License that says how the Exhibit applies). I also think that the biggest misfit with the OSD is with Clause 3 ("Must allow modifications and derived works"), though the OSD is unfortunately silent on whether that means you have to allow ANY modifications or can constrain the range of acceptable modifications, subject to the other terms of the license.
However, I would say that all three of your specific issues require stretching the OSD somewhat out of shape and ignoring the Rationale statements that accompany it.
Clause 5 is about discrimination in the license terms, not in the software's function and, in any case, the license terms don't make the software inaccessible to blind people (they require the notice, in specific size and placement, but don't ban spoken interfaces or providing the notice in other forms more accessible to the vision-challenged).
Clause 6 is arguably closer, but (a) "small screen devices" is not a "field of endeavor" in the sense used in the Rationale and (b) all the requirement says is that if you want to use the software in such a device, you need to use a big enough screen, which means it's NOT a restriction on the field of endeavor, but just on some specific implementation choices.
As to Clause 10, I don't see your basis for your claim that the license "prevents someone from making...[it into] a non-web application". The logo requirement could be met in most styles of non-web application. Even if you chose to interpret "direct them back to" as meaning "open in a web page", any GUI-style interface would be able to meet the requirement. However, I suspect a court would read that, and the "click on" more loosely.
Attibution Posted Nov 30, 2006 2:39 UTC (Thu) by nathan (subscriber, #3559) [Link] These attribution requirements would be less onerous if they were in the form of a Help->About dialog box. Sugar's requirements don't scale and would use up my screen real estate for their advertising. Quite frankly one of the things that annoys me about Microsoft products is their title bars -- Word's for instance says, IIRC, '<FILEFOO> Microsoft Word' -- why are microsoft so insecure they feel the need to label everything?
Uh, what? Posted Nov 30, 2006 3:28 UTC (Thu) by dion (subscriber, #2764) [Link] I'm typing this in a Firefox window labeled:'LWN: Comment editor - Mozilla Firefox'
How is that:
Uh, what? Posted Nov 30, 2006 4:18 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] 1) It isn't2) You can change it
Uh, what? Posted Nov 30, 2006 15:27 UTC (Thu) by vmole (subscriber, #111) [Link] Um, that's due to your window manager setup. Change it if you like.
Attibution Posted Nov 30, 2006 12:55 UTC (Thu) by kamil (subscriber, #3802) [Link] I'm guessing this is done so that you get a more descriptive text when you use Alt+Tab to switch between windows.
What is open source? Posted Nov 30, 2006 8:14 UTC (Thu) by ber (subscriber, #2142) [Link] By definition "Open Source" is a different word for Free Software, see the OSI FAQ about it. So the question can be rephrased as What is Free Software? The four freedoms are a very good approach to discuss if something is Free Software or not. Most important is to educate people about this, so they can make up their mind about a specific software themselfs. A trademark will not be as helpful as people that understood more about it.Note that the invariant section possibility in the GFDL came to be because the legal world does treat text and literature different from software and source code. Beside texts are differently used. So it is not clear, what freedoms somebody would usually demand from a text and how to best legally secure this. Thus the comparision of invariant sections in the GFDL license to the software problem of SugarCRM is not the best in my view. It works in the way that it shows what practical problems might be introduced; it is confusion from the licensing point of view.
What freedoms are needed for text? Posted Dec 5, 2006 7:30 UTC (Tue) by kevinbsmith (subscriber, #4778) [Link] Two freedoms I expect from free/libre text are:
1. Ability to incorporate portions of that text in my GPL/Apache app (e.g. in a help screen)
The invariant sections in GFDL seem to break both of those.
What is "reasonable" Posted Nov 30, 2006 9:24 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Much of the discussion here is about free versus open and whether the license would meet the OSD definition of a free license. On the other hand, the current GPLv3 draft explicitly allows adding terms requiring author attribution.
Without considering whether the rest of the license would be GPLv3 compatible, but the specific terms in Exhibit B (presenting the logo) seem to be allowed by GPLv3. To argue that they aren't would require claiming they weren't "reasonable", which would be pretty difficult in the absence of any guideline for "reasonability".
What is "reasonable" Posted Nov 30, 2006 22:57 UTC (Thu) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] Yes but, doesn't it become unreasonable when the combination of all the sofware that should be attributed each wants an individual space for their logo? If this was to be considered acceptable everyone would want their fair share of the space.
Re: What is "reasonable" Posted Dec 1, 2006 16:32 UTC (Fri) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link] >Yes but, doesn't it become unreasonable when the combination of all the This is exactly right. One of Richard Stallman's requirements for a Free Software licence is that it must be compatible with itself. That is, you should be able to take code from two different pieces of software, both covered by the same licence (or suitably minor variations thereof) and combine them. He uses the TEX licence as an example of one that isn't compatible with itself--it doesn't let you do this. Insistence on including everybody's logos will sooner or later lead to a similar problem.
No other legal mechanism? Posted Dec 4, 2006 8:20 UTC (Mon) by pdundas (subscriber, #15203) [Link] What can be done about any future abuse of the term "open source" is not clear, however. There is no trademark, so there is no legal mechanism available to shut down such claims. This is not true - at least not in jurisdictions where there are laws about truth in advertising, misrepresentation, and passing something off as something it is not. If there is a clear and widely understood definition of "open source" (and I believe that this is strongly arguable), then if something is clearly NOT open source, anyone advertising it as such may be committing a criminal offence. Whether this particular gem stretches the definition of open source beyond breaking point is the sort of thing you could ask a procurator fiscal, prosecutor, or similar official, and ultimately a court to decide.
|
|||||||||||