LWN: Comments on "Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software"

Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have

JanC_ — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 05:47:58 +0000

I'm pretty sure that any non-trivial piece of software is covered or might seem covered by at least one patent. And it doesn't really matter if the patent is stupid & obvious, or that the patent only seems to cover the software at first glance if you look at it from a weird angle but really doesn't, if a company with deep pockets sues you over it, you're screwed.

Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have

Wol — Sun, 29 May 2011 18:50:20 +0000

However, the district of East Texas doesn't (much as it might like to) have jurisdiction over the world.

For example, where I live, software patents are EXplicitly NOT permitted. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the EPO granting them in contravention of their constitution :-(

Cheers,
Wol

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

Wol — Sun, 29 May 2011 16:37:00 +0000

Statistical howler 101 ...

Just because A implies B (successful businessman implies good at sports when kid) doesn't mean B implies A (good at sports implies good businessman).

Most new businesses go bust. It seems the skills that give a business the best chance are also those that tend to lead success on the sports field. But it's quite likely that successful businesses are lead/run by people who have the ability to do well (but not excel) at sport. If they excel they stay in sports. If they don't, when they go into business they are more likely to excel there than the general populace as a whole.

Cheers,
Wol

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

AdamW — Fri, 27 May 2011 07:15:44 +0000

to be clear, there's a big difference between contributor agreements and copyright assignment. The former without the latter is pretty uncontroversial: any project needs a solid legal basis on which to use contributions, and a standardized agreement that just formally says 'you can use the stuff I send you under these licenses' is a convenient way of doing that, for both parties. Projects also benefit from the ability to relicense to another (improved) F/OSS license, and contributor agreements can make this much easier, obviating the need to track down every last contributor and ask permission to relicense, including the one who moved to a cave in the Himalayas a decade ago.

What's much more controversial are contributor agreements which require copyright assignment: not just you keeping copyright of your code but granting specific rights to it to the project in question, but you actually assigning ownership of the contribution to the project.

It's important not to conflate the two.

Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have

AdamW — Fri, 27 May 2011 07:04:36 +0000

dave: your position is all very well in the abstract, but it looks fairly absurd in the real world. As was pointed out, Sun was rather up front about the fact that it had a big patent stash, that you had to pass the conformance tests to be immune from the big patent stash, and that the conformance suite was not F/OSS and was not going to be. it's a bit oblique of you to pretend that all this is irrelevant to the practical issue of people actually believing that Sun wanted them to be able to exercise their F/OSS rights in relation to Java. You and I might think software patents are fundamentally broken and everyone should ignore them, but the District of East Texas doesn't, and people who want to hang on to their assets are going to listen to that...

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

AdamW — Fri, 27 May 2011 06:51:44 +0000

I don't know much about RH policies, but I don't think RH or Fedora sponsors any journalists to FUDCon. Things might be different for more corporate shindigs like RH Summit, I dunno about that.

I know some conferences sponsor journalists to attend.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

AdamW — Fri, 27 May 2011 06:49:52 +0000

well, it wasn't just Novell. OO.o contributors from various other organizations had the same perception, and were very happy to jump on the LO bandwagon.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

AdamW — Fri, 27 May 2011 06:42:13 +0000

But...if that's true, why do so many retired athletes screw up their business ventures so badly? :)

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

farnz — Thu, 26 May 2011 17:34:33 +0000

Effectively, what you're saying is that if the Banshee developers had chosen to take their code proprietary, they wouldn't have trouble with Canonical taking advantage of the benefits of Free Software.

While that's certainly true, that's not a benefit to Free Software, and if that's the sort of thing that people are coming up with that justifies copyright assignment, then I'm going to remain sceptical of Mark's motivations.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

loftsy — Thu, 26 May 2011 17:24:11 +0000

Heh - OK I guess you've got me there. If you license basically says "Do whatever you want with it" then you don't make much downstream control!

Still - it doesn't change the fact that retaining copyright provides you with options. In this case it would have to come down to relicensing.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

mjg59 — Thu, 26 May 2011 16:59:53 +0000

Banshee's under MIT/X11. If they'd wanted to do that, they could have done.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

loftsy — Thu, 26 May 2011 16:39:20 +0000

I'll give you a specific example to illustrate how having more control over your code gives you more flexibility over distribution. Please note I'm using an example to show a more general point - I haven't actually thought long and hard about potential Banshee business models of which I'm sure there are many.

Banshee could have written the Amazon plugin under a more restrictive license which prevented Ubuntu from changing the billing code. Then used their control of the Banshee source-code to allow the usage of the proprietary plugin.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

Wol — Thu, 26 May 2011 12:33:49 +0000

Successful businessmen are usually those people who did well on the games field at school.

And kids who do well at games are rarely the sharpest knives in the block.

Cheers,
Wol

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

farnz — Thu, 26 May 2011 08:11:12 +0000

On a similar level, how about OpenSolaris (which required assignment) versus Linux? Both were mature kernels - if copyright assignment makes things better, why didn't Shuttleworth choose to switch to OpenSolaris instead of Linux?

My trouble with his analogy is exactly the same as yours - I see that long term, projects with contributor agreements go proprietary. Projects without stay free. If I'm contributing to proprietary software, I expect to be paid hard cash for my code. If I'm contributing to free software, I'm happy to be paid in kind.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

renox — Thu, 26 May 2011 08:04:06 +0000

> If the Banshee project had a copyright assignment policy then they would be in a stronger position to negotiate revenue share with the distributions.

Only if they're willing to threaten to go from a free license to a proprietary license only otherwise their position wouldn't be much stronger.

If a project do this, it wouldn't be considered anymore as a free software project I think..

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

farnz — Thu, 26 May 2011 08:02:40 +0000

I don't see how such an agreement would help the Banshee developers; they choose to release their code under GPL terms, and Canonical/Ubuntu are complying with those terms. If one entity held all the copyrights on Banshee, I still don't see how they could use that leverage to affect Canonical's behaviour.

Copyright-wise, what Canonical is doing is legal. Its the morality of their actions that's in dispute; legal ownership of the copyright is a non-sequitur.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

markshuttle — Wed, 25 May 2011 10:26:04 +0000

The meetings were an open invitation, lots of people both for and against CLA's were present or represented. They were not "closed door" in any sense. Chatham House Rules are a very good device for encouraging people to speak their minds without fear of attribution, and the best way to make progress on complicated discussions when there are inflammatory topics on the table.

Harmony is not "rebooting", it's got a draft which is appropriate for discussion.

FTR, Jake's article fairly represents my commentary. Under the circumstances, with me speaking fast and him taking notes, it's a very reasonable rendition.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

loftsy — Wed, 25 May 2011 05:00:43 +0000

If the Banshee project had a copyright assignment policy then they would be in a stronger position to negotiate revenue share with the distributions. So your example actually illustrates Mark's point precisely.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

fabsh — Mon, 23 May 2011 07:21:35 +0000

You could always turn down the gift if you think it's not worth it. As in real life, you aren't required to take a gift.

Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have

dlang — Sun, 22 May 2011 23:11:21 +0000

patent infringement doesn't need to be proven to put a company out of business, a lawsuit is enough (it takes a lot of money to defend against a patent lawsuit)

Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have

dneary — Sun, 22 May 2011 21:13:26 +0000

> All software with a free software license can be considered free until it
> is actually found to infringe a patent.

I would say *proven* to infringe a patent. And that needs a court case. And a bucketload of money. And not $1 bills.

So, all software is free, and the patent system is broken, and keeps approving patents which, if challenged, would be invalidated. So, as I said, I don't worry about patents, and I don't think a patent should ever be a reason not to write a piece of free software.

Cheers,
Dave.

Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have

rahulsundaram — Sun, 22 May 2011 08:22:36 +0000

If a patent license is available, it is not a infringement anymore.

Evidence - "problems" companies have

halla — Sun, 22 May 2011 08:09:40 +0000

In my two+ years of working with Nokia on Calligra for Maemo and MeeGo they have always been exemplary. Working upstream, in our bugzilla, in our code repository, with us, coming to sprints and events, taking responsibility to grow the community by engaging with students. And with immensely valuable results, like much better import filters, new text engine for Words and lots, lots more.

Evidence - "problems" companies have

nhippi — Sun, 22 May 2011 07:57:33 +0000

Yes, the evidence is quite out there. Watch for example the Nokia Maemo saga. Lots of people would complain that some modules of code (which those people had no intention of ever modifying) were not open source. Complaining rather than celebrating the fact that company moved from 100% closed source to 90% open source.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

pflugstad — Sun, 22 May 2011 00:30:37 +0000

According to the "Mythical Man Month" it's 3x to make it usable by others, and/or 3x to be a reusable component in a system (more or less), or 9x for both:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month#Proje...

This is covered in the first 5 pages of the book, which can usually be read online from Amazon. And it jives very well with every software project I've been involved in over ~20 years.

Anyone who does software as a profession needs to have read this book. And if your manager has not - find a new manager.

Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have

dlang — Sat, 21 May 2011 10:30:14 +0000

and the patent holder decides to not license it for free software

for example, the RCU patent has been licensed to all software under the GPL IIRC

Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have

DOT — Sat, 21 May 2011 09:54:43 +0000

There is a reason why patents are such a huge pain in the ass of free software; it's not orthogonal at all. But let's not overstate the problem. All software with a free software license can be considered free until it is actually found to infringe a patent.

Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have

dark — Sat, 21 May 2011 06:29:37 +0000

It seems plausible to me. There are so many of them, so vague and so broad. And software contains so many parts that might infringe. It seems unlikely that there would be no overlap, for any program that does anything useful.

Either way, how can you prove for any piece of software that it's not covered by any patents?

Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have

faramir — Sat, 21 May 2011 05:40:45 +0000

>Then no software is free.

Are you saying that ALL software is covered by
patents? That seems implausible.

Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have

dneary — Fri, 20 May 2011 23:36:54 +0000

> If you aren't allowed to use the software without explicit permission of a
> dictator (patent owner), how can you call that software free? It fails the
> first rule of software freedom.

Then no software is free.

Dave.

Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have

DOT — Fri, 20 May 2011 21:49:29 +0000

If you aren't allowed to use the software without explicit permission of a dictator (patent owner), how can you call that software free? It fails the first rule of software freedom.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

hingo — Fri, 20 May 2011 21:37:13 +0000

So is the reason Mark is failing to make this case, because he is not making any sense?

Sponsorship

Kluge — Fri, 20 May 2011 18:59:34 +0000

jspaleta does occasionally seem a little Ubuntu/Canonical/Shuttleworth obsessed. But IMO his comments on this article have been quite constructive. In fact, he seems determined to give Shuttleworth more benefit of the doubt than the interview implies he should have.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

jberkus — Fri, 20 May 2011 18:26:25 +0000

Shuttleworth completely fails, in this interview, to explain the relationship between copyright assignment and making projects commercially-friendly. For that matter, he muddies the distinction between contributor agreements and copyright assignments, a difference which is quite important.

For that matter, PostgreSQL, a project which he holds up as an example, does not require any copyright assignment. MySQL, which did require copyright assignment, was legendary for lack of external contributions and for playing fast-and-loose with licensing. So he's defeating his own arguments.

I think that Mark has an argument here, but this interview completely fails to express it effectively.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

dlang — Fri, 20 May 2011 18:22:09 +0000

>>"one model is to have the exact same code with multiple licenses, one open, one closed."

>I don't understand. why bother with the later then ? what's the benefit ?

the benifit is that companies that are paranoid about GPL 'infection' no longer need to worry about it. MySQL's business was based on doing exactly this, selling the same code that was available under the GPL under a closed license for people who didn't want to comply with the GPL (or were afraid of what the GPL could require them to do, even if it didn't)

I agree that full copyright assignment is overkill for any of this. I'm not trying to claim that full copyright assignment is needed for anything.

however I am saying that there are reasonable ways to dual-license code, and that if an organization is going to do so, they will need some contributer agreement that gives them the right to do so with the code contributed from outsiders.

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

shmget — Fri, 20 May 2011 15:06:23 +0000

"one model is to have the exact same code with multiple licenses, one open, one closed."
I don't understand. why bother with the later then ? what's the benefit ?

"As I understand it they develop enhancements that go into a closed version, but that version automatically becomes open after a given time period"

That sound like a reasonable compromise I could live with...
But I think that Copyright assignment is an overkill to achieve this goal... although I am unsure of how to have the licensed worded to _guarantee_ that outcome (i.e not just hoping that the 'company' will do the 'Right Thing(tm)')

Bear in mind that 'Corporations' are psychopathic by design (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation )

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

wookey — Fri, 20 May 2011 13:14:10 +0000

Interpretation of the GPL. The GPL allows to charge for "support" and "the cost of physically transferring a copy". It does not forbid donations.

I think you're confusing source and binary distribution rules here. Nothing in the GPL prevents making a charge for binaries. The rules are about charges for source (if it's not already accompanying the binaries). http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Actually selling GPLed binaries isn't practised much because everyone else can give it away so the price is strongly driven towards zero. And almost all entities just start there and leave it there. Buy people do pay for GPLed software in various circumstances, e.g from app stores (or at last I assume they do).

Projects and managing their donations

pabs — Fri, 20 May 2011 00:22:43 +0000

It just means that there are complex issues with motivations at play when the profit motive is introduced or already established within a community.

Google's model of introducing monetary motivation seems to be working well, at least from an outsider's point of view.

This is getting off-topic though, we need a separate article.

Projects and managing their donations

dlang — Thu, 19 May 2011 19:41:15 +0000

do does that mean that companies should never pay people to work on open source projects?

or does it mean that if anyone working on a project is getting paid that people who aren't getting paid shouldn't contribute?

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

dlang — Thu, 19 May 2011 19:36:28 +0000

There are actually two models of operation that could involve non-open licensing, and you are making an assumption about what is involved.

one model is to have the exact same code with multiple licenses, one open, one closed.

personally I don't have a problem with this, either way supports the product (the open license with code, the closed license with money), and even RMS doesn't have a problem with this approach

the second model is the one you are concerned with where the company has a limited product under an open license, and an 'enhanced' product under a closed license.

I think this can be done sanely, and don't have a big problem with it, but it does have the problem that you describe where a company may be reluctant to implement something in the open version that they have implemented in the closed version

I believe that ghostscript is an example of this done sanely. As I understand it they develop enhancements that go into a closed version, but that version automatically becomes open after a given time period