Should an Open Source Licence Ever Be Patent-Agnostic?

Sharing lies at the heart of free software, and drives much of its incredible efficiency as a development methodology. It means that coders do not have to re-invent the wheel, but can borrow from pre-existing programs. Software patents, despite their name, are about locking down knowledge so that it cannot be shared without permission (and usually payment). But are there ever circumstances when software patents that require payment might be permitted by an open source licence? That's the question posed by a new licence that is being submitted to the Open Source Inititative (OSI) for review.

On Linux Journal.

Follow me on Twitter @glynmoody

Into Africa

If there were ever a region that could benefit immensely from open source, it is Africa. And yet South Africa aside, not much seems to be happening there, partly for lack of support for those evangelising there. This should help:

The Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA) has received a grant from the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) towards the FOSS Advocacy for West Africa (FOSSWAY) project. FOSSWAY is a one-million dollar project which is intended to entrench advocacy for free and open source software in the Western part of the African continent beginning January 2009.

FOSSWAY will advocate for FOSS and its use at all levels including academia, the media, and secondary, vocational, and technical educational institutions. The project will also advocate for consideration of FOSS issues in the formulation of policies and standards in the sub-region. The project shall not just promote, but also actively enable all participating agencies, schools, universities, standards bodies, media groups, advocates, groups and individuals to use and benefit from FOSS. Having drawn its project team from among the best of advocates, practitioners, technicians, developers, and trainers in FOSS from the region, FOSSWAY promises to push the benefits of FOSS beyond the boundaries attained so far, and increase the adoption and use of FOSS in the West Africa. FOSSWAY, in its cross-cutting nature, shall include FOSS research, hands-on training, competitions, media campaigns, on-the-ground roadshows, and prizes.

Let's hope this marks the beginning of big things for open source story in Africa.

Google Squirms

Google seems allergic to the AGPL:

So, first AGPL was not good enough for Google because it was not OSI-approved. That limited its popularity... Now it is OSI-approved. Still, it is not popular enough to be accepted in the Google closed open source hosting site?

...

C'mon Chris, give developers the ability of using AGPL for their own projects in Google Code. Your fight for no proliferation of licenses is something I subscribe to, but AGPL is the license of the future, no matter if Google likes it or not. And I can guarantee you it will become even more popular if it is accepted in Google Code...

AGPL Gets OK from OSI

On Open Enterprise blog.

Perens Goes Peripatetic

Bruce Perens has achieved the remarkable feat of being one of the leading figures in the open source world without ever becoming a fixture anywhere for very long. Apparently, he's off again:

I have left Sourcelabs, and am planning another start-up. Stanley is in 2nd grade now, which leaves me with time to be a CEO again.

It will be interesting to see where he lands.

Badgeware Comes in from the Cold

Has badgeware - software whose licences requires attribution to be displayed in all copies - gone legit? Roberto Galoppini seems to think so:

Badgeware is not only OSI approved, but it is also endorsed by the Free Software Foundation now, with its flagship license. The debate is over.

Microsoft Now Officially Open Source...

..well, some of its licences, at least:

Acting on the advice of the License Approval Chair, the OSI Board today approved the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) and the Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL). The decision to approve was informed by the overwhelming (though not unanimous) consensus from the open source community that these licenses satisfied the 10 criteria of the Open Source definition, and should therefore be approved.

This is surely the right decision: refusal on the grounds that it was Microsoft would have been petty in the extreme - and would have played straight into its hands. Open source is strong enough to welcome Microsoft into the fold, even if it is still something of a black sheep. It will be interesting to see what the company does with its shiny new licences. (Via 451 CAOS Theory - Matthew Aslett's new gig for those who don't already know.)

Microsoft Bends its Knee to the OSI

So, Microsoft has finally done it, and submitted two of its licences to the OSI for approval. Here's my earlier analysis of what's going on here.

OpenProj

For many years, the only decent free end-user app was GIMP, and the history of open source on the desktop has been one of gradually filling major holes - office suite, browser, email etc. - to bring it up to the level of proprietary offerings.

Happily, things have moved on, and it's now possible to use free software for practically any desktop activity. One major lack has been project planning, traditionally the (expensive) realm of Microsoft Project. No longer it seems. With the launch of OpenProj, the open source world now has a free alternative, for a variety of platforms.

It's still too early to say how capable the program is, but it's certainly a welcome addition. The only other concern is the licence, which seems not to have been chosen yet, although an OSI-approved variant is promised.

Update: Apparently, if I'd taken the trouble to install it, I would have seen that the licence is the Common Public Attribution Licence. (Thanks to Randy Metcalfe.)

Why Microsoft is Going Open Source

All is explained here (well, not all, but a bit.)

Solving the Open Source Conundrum

As I've written elsewhere, people have realised that there's a bit of a problem with the term "open source". It's becoming too popular: too many people want to stick the "open source" label on their wares without worrying about the details - like whether they conform to the "official" Open Source Definition (OSD).

The real conundrum is this: how can the use of the term "open source" be policed when it has no legal standing, since it is not a trademark. Theoretically, anyone can use it with impunity - for anything. This is obviously a problem for the "real" open source world, which needs to find a way to encourage vendors to use the term responsibly.

Peer pressure is certainly important here, but there may be another factor. In the course of research for a feature, I came across IBM's big patent pledge of January 2005:

IBM today pledged open access to key innovations covered by 500 IBM software patents to individuals and groups working on open source software. IBM believes this is the largest pledge ever of patents of any kind and represents a major shift in the way IBM manages and deploys its intellectual property (IP) portfolio.

Back then, this was mildly interesting, if greeted with a certain cynicism. But today, in the wake of Microsoft's sabre-rattling, patents are much more of an issue for all open source companies, which makes the next paragraph of the IBM announcement particularly pertinent:

The pledge is applicable to any individual, community, or company working on or using software that meets the Open Source Initiative (OSI) definition of open source software now or in the future.

So there we have a major incentive to meet the OSI definition of open source: if you do, IBM will let you use a good wodge of its patents. This means that in the event of patent Armageddon, where IBM and Microsoft slug it out in the courts, you will not only be safe from any direct attacks from IBM, but might even enjoy the indirect halo effect of IBM's patent portfolio.

Although IBM has not exactly guaranteed it would come rushing to the aid of any OSI-approved damsel in distress if it were attacked by the Microsoft dragon, its patent pledge does contain an element of this implicitly. It's certainly easy to see the benefits for IBM of such a move, both in terms of positive publicity and direct competitive advantage. At the very least, Microsoft is likely to think twice about attacking any company that has this kind of patent hook up with Big Blue.

If you don't adopt the OSI approach, though, you're outside the IBM castle, and on your tod when that nice Mr Ballmer comes calling about those patents he claims your company infringes. And since you're not playing nicely with the official OSI crew, don't expect any help from its big corporate chum, IBM.

Now, tell me again why you don't want to go legit with this "open source" label?

EUPL Gets the Big "Yes"...Well, One of Them

So EUPL - the European Union Public Licence - is now approved, by the European Commission at least:

The Commission has approved the EUPL on 9 January 2007, as a licence to be used for the distribution of software developed in the framework of the IDABC programme.

The only trouble is, it's not actually on the list of OSI-approved licences. This leaves it precisely where...? (Via Andrew Katz.)