LPC: Michael Meeks on LibreOffice and code ownership

Naturally enough, LibreOffice is one of the good things; it's going to be "awesome." It seems that there are some widely diverging views on the awesomeness of OpenOffice.org; those who are based near Hamburg (where StarDivision was based) think it is a wonderful tool. People in the rest of the world tend to have a rather less enthusiastic view. The purpose of the new LibreOffice project is to produce a system that we can all be proud of.

Michael started by posing a couple of questions and answering them, the first of which was "why not rewrite into C# or HTML5?" He noted with a straight face that going to a web-based approach might not succeed in improving the program's well-known performance problems. He also said that he has yet to go to a conference where he did not get kicked off the network at some point. For now, he just doesn't buy the concept of doing everything on the web.

Why LibreOffice? Ten years ago, Sun promised the community that an independent foundation would be created for OpenOffice.org. That foundation still does not exist. So, quite simply, members of the community got frustrated and created one of their own. The result, he says, is a great opportunity for the improvement of the system; LibreOffice is now a vendor-neutral project with no copyright assignment requirements. The project, he says, has received great support. It is pleasing to have both the Open Source Initiative and the Free Software Foundation express their support, but it's even more fun to see Novell and BoycottNovell on the same page.

Since LibreOffice launched, the project has seen 50 new code contributors and 27 new translators, all of whom had never contributed to the project before. These folks are working, for now, on paying down the vast pile of "technical debt" accumulated by OpenOffice.org over the years. They are trying to clean up an ancient, gnarled code base which has grown organically over many years with no review and no refactoring. They are targeting problems like memory leaks which result, Michael said, from the "opt-in approach to lifecycle management" used in the past. After ten years, the code still has over 100,000 lines of German-language comments; those are now being targeted with the help of a script which repurposes the built-in language-guessing code which is part of the spelling checker.

OpenOffice.org has a somewhat checkered history when it comes to revision control. CVS was used for some years, resulting in a fair amount of pain; simply tagging a release would take about two hours to run. Still, they lived with CVS for some time until OpenOffice.org launched into a study to determine which alternative revision control system would be best to move to. The study came back recommending Git, but that wasn't what the managers wanted to hear, so they moved to Subversion instead - losing most of the project's history in the process. Later, a move to Mercurial was done, losing history again. The result is a code base littered with commented-out code; nobody ever felt confident actually deleting anything because they never knew if they would be able to get it back. Many code changes are essentially changelogged within the code itself as well. Now LibreOffice is using Git and a determined effort is being made to clean that stuff up.

LibreOffice is also doing its best to make contribution easy. "Easy hacks" are documented online. The project is making a point of saying: "we want your changes." Unit tests are being developed. The crufty old virtual object system - deprecated for ten years - is being removed. The extensive pile of distributor patches is being merged. And they are starting to see the addition of interesting new features, such as inline interactive formula editing. There will be a new mechanism whereby adventurous users will be able to enable experimental features at run time.

What I really came to talk about was...

There is a point in "Alice's Restaurant" where Arlo Guthrie, at the conclusion of a long-winded tall tale, informs the audience that he was actually there to talk about something completely different. Michael did something similar after putting up a plot showing the increase in outside contributions over time. He wasn't really there to talk about a desktop productivity application; instead, he wanted to talk about a threat he sees looming over the free software development community.

That threat, of course, comes from the growing debate about the ownership structure of free software projects. As a community, Michael said, we are simply too nice. We have adopted licenses for our code which are entirely reasonable, and we expect others to be nice in the same way. But any project which requires copyright assignment (or an equivalent full-license grant) changes the equation; it is not being nice. There is some behind-the-scenes activity going on now which may well make things worse.

Copyright assignment does not normally deprive a contributor of the right to use the contributed software as he or she may wish. But it reserves to the corporation receiving the assignments the right to make decisions regarding the complete work. We as a community have traditionally cared a lot about licenses, but we have been less concerned about the conditions that others have to accept. Copyright assignment policies are a barrier to entry to anybody else who would work with the software in question. These policies also disrupt the balance between developers and "suit wearers," and it creates FUD around free software license practices.

Many people draw a distinction between projects owned by for-profit corporations and those owned by foundations. But even assignment policies of the variety used by the Free Software Foundation have their problems. Consider, Michael said, the split between emacs and xemacs; why does xemacs continue to exist? One reason is that a good chunk of xemacs code is owned by Sun, and Sun (along with its successor) is unwilling to assign copyright to the FSF. But there is also a group of developers out there who think that it's a good thing to have a version of emacs for which copyright assignment is not required. Michael also said that the FSF policy sets a bad example, one which companies pushing assignment policies have been quick to take advantage of.

Michael mentioned a study entitled "The Best of Strangers" which focused on the willingness to give out personal information. All participants were given a questionnaire with a long list of increasingly invasive questions; the researchers cared little about the answers, but were quite interested in how far participants got before deciding they were not willing to answer anymore. Some participants received, at the outset, a strongly-worded policy full of privacy assurances; they provided very little information. Participants who did not receive that policy got rather further through the questionnaire, while those who were pointed to a questionnaire on a web site filled it in completely. Starting with the legalese ruined the participants' trust and made them unwilling to talk about themselves.

Michael said that a similar dynamic applies to contributors to a free software project; if they are confronted with a document full of legalese on the first day, their trust in the project will suffer and they may just walk away. He pointed out the recently-created systemd project's policy, paraphrased as "because we value your contributions, we require no copyright assignments," as the way to encourage contributors and earn their trust.

Assignment agreements are harmful to the hacker/suit balance. If you work for a company, Michael said, your pet project is already probably owned by the boss. This can be a problem; as managers work their way into the system, they tend to lose track of the impact of what they do. They also tend to deal with other companies in unpleasant ways which we do not normally see at the development level; the last thing we want to do is to let these managers import "corporate aggression" into our community. If suits start making collaboration decisions, the results are not always going to be a positive thing for our community; they can also introduce a great deal of delay into the process. Inter-corporation agreements tend to be confidential and can pop up in strange ways; the freedom to fork a specific project may well be compromised by an agreement involving the company which owns the code. When somebody starts pushing inter-corporation agreements regarding code contributions and ownership, we need to be concerned.

Michael cited the agreements around the open-sourcing of the openSPARC architecture as one example of how things can go wrong. Another is the flurry of lawsuits in the mobile area; those are likely to divide companies into competing camps and destroy the solidarity we have at the development level.

Given all this, he asked, why would anybody sign such an agreement? The freedom to change the license is one often-cited reason; Michael says that using permissive licenses or "plus licenses" (those which allow "any later version") as a better way of addressing that problem. The ability to offer indemnification is another reason, but indemnification is entirely orthogonal to ownership. One still hears the claim full ownership is required to be able to go after infringers, but that has been decisively proved to be false at this point. There is also an occasional appeal to weird local laws; Michael dismissed those as silly and self serving. There is, he says, something else going on.

What works best, he says, is when the license itself is the contributor agreement. "Inbound" and "outbound" licensing, where everybody has the same rights, is best.

But not everybody is convinced of that. Michael warned that there is "a sustained marketing drive coming" to push the copyright-assignment agenda. While we were sitting in the audience, he said, somebody was calling our bosses. They'll be saying that copyright assignment policies are required for companies to be willing to invest in non-sexy projects. But the fact of the matter is that almost all of the stack, many parts of which lack sexiness, is not owned by corporations. "All cleanly-written software," Michael says, "is sexy." Our bosses will hear that copyright assignment is required for companies to get outside investment; it's the only way they can pursue the famous MySQL model. But we should not let monopolistic companies claim that their business plans are good for free software; beyond that, Michael suggested that the MySQL model may not look as good as it did a year or two ago. Managers will be told that only assignment-based projects are successful. One only need to look at the list of successful projects, starting with the Linux kernel, to see the falseness of that claim.

Instead, Michael says, having a single company doing all of the heavy lifting is the sign of a project without a real community. It is an indicator of risk. People are figuring this out; that is why we're seeing in increasing number of single-company projects being forked and rewritten. Examples include xpdf and poppler, libart_lgpl and cairo, MySQL and Maria. There are a number of companies, Novell and Red Hat included, which are dismantling the copyright-assignment policies they used to maintain.

At this point, Michael decided that we'd had enough and needed a brief technical break. So he talked about Git: the LibreOffice project likes to work with shallow clones because the full history is so huge. But it's not possible to push patches from a shallow clone, that is a pain. Michael also noted that git am is obnoxious to use. On the other hand, he says, the valgrind DHAT tool is a wonderful way of analyzing heap memory usage patterns and finding bugs. Valgrind, he says, does not get anywhere near enough attention. There was also some brief talk of "component-based everything" architecture and some work the project is doing to facilitate parallel contribution.

The conclusion, though, came back to copyright assignment. We need to prepare for the marketing push, which could cause well-meaning people to do dumb things. It's time for developers to talk to their bosses and make it clear that copyright assignment policies are not the way toward successful projects. Before we contribute to a project, he said, we need to check more than the license; we need to look at what others will be able to do with the code. We should be more ungrateful toward corporations which seek to dominate development projects and get involved with more open alternatives.

One of those alternatives, it went without saying, is the LibreOffice project. LibreOffice is trying to build a vibrant community which resembles the kernel community. But it will be more fun: the kernel, Michael said, "is done" while LibreOffice is far from done. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit and many opportunities for interesting projects. And, if that's not enough, developers should consider that every bit of memory saved will be multiplied across millions of LibreOffice users; what better way can there be to offset one's carbon footprint? So, he said, please come and help; it's an exciting time to be working with LibreOffice.