Comments on: Open Source Licensing: Obsolete or Of Importance?

By: tecosystems » Does Copyright Matter? Or, is the End of Dual-Licensing Near?

tecosystems » Does Copyright Matter? Or, is the End of Dual-Licensing Near? — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:24:15 +0000

[...] restricting the unfettered usage of any given codebase. Copyright also has its role to play, as do trademarks. And while most of the media attention is paid to the licenses, and the differences between them [...]

By: tecosystems » Does the GPL Matter? In a Word, Yes

tecosystems » Does the GPL Matter? In a Word, Yes — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:35:22 +0000

[...] it. Consider Oracle’s entry into the market and the licensing implications; here’s what I’ve said about that in the past: Eclipse’s Ian Skerrett has argued that trademarks are more important strategically [...]

By: tecosystems » Open Source Licensing in a Networked Age

tecosystems » Open Source Licensing in a Networked Age — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:04:22 +0000

[...] for one, has argued that this limitation arguably makes open source licenses obsolete (I didn’t agree). Fabrizio Capobianco has called the loophole “the cancer of open source.” Matt Asay, [...]

By: 451 CAOS Theory » 451 CAOS Links - 2008.03.19

451 CAOS Theory » 451 CAOS Links - 2008.03.19 — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:05:52 +0000

[...] Open Source Licensing: Obsolete or Of Importance?, RedMonk – tecosystems, Stephen O’Grady (Blog) [...]

By: 451 CAOS Theory » Further thoughts on the impact of licensing choice

451 CAOS Theory » Further thoughts on the impact of licensing choice — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:50:42 +0000

[...] Open Source Licensing: Obsolete or Of Importance?, Redmonk’s Stephen O’Grady. [...]

By: tecosystems » Microsoft: More Open, More Barriers

tecosystems » Microsoft: More Open, More Barriers — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:16:49 +0000

[...] as the terms of Microsoft’s patent and open specification promises. As I’ve discussed previously, given the often permanence of legal promises, contracts and licenses, it’s not unreasonable [...]

By: James Governor

James Governor — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:47:16 +0000

licenses may “not matter” for hackers but they sure as shit matter for business people. My biggest problem with the assertion about Google and “Web 2.0 is great, who needs a license” is that Google also doesn’t really offer contracts per se. There are others in the world of mapping that have to sit back and watch Google take “liberties” with licensing terms they would normally enforce. Same in book publishing and so on. Maybe the license doesn’t matter, or maybe they do. O’Reilly has talked about data as the Intel inside. In the open world we tend to like CreativeCommons licensing, but that’s not an absence of copyright, its a simplification. And I seem to remember a bit of a tizzy when someone else called a conference Web 2.0…

we need steady foundations to build businesses upon. they are the basis of effective markets.

Finally I would like to add that Ian makes a great great point. Increasingly it may be that trademark is RedMonk’s one and only truly enforceable business protection.

By: Swashbuckler

Swashbuckler — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:39:31 +0000

“If you permissively license an asset to me, and I incorporate it into my proprietary software product (as Microsoft did with the networking stack in pre-Vista versions of Windows), you cannot retroactively impose restrictions on the code that I’ve incorporated into my offering. I retain the original rights, even if you decide to license future developments differently.”

Technically speaking, that’s not correct, at least not in the U.S. Though, practically speaking it probably is:

§ 203. Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author

(a) Conditions for Termination. — In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:

…

(3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203

By: Ian Skerrett

Ian Skerrett — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:20:46 +0000

Steve,

I certainly agree that licensing is still important and projects need to understand the implications of their choice.

However, as was initially claimed, I don’t see the GPL license as being the only path to commercial success. An open source project can be commercially successful with other licenses.

I am still not convinced on the Oracle Linux example. Even if Oracle could make extensions, RedHat has the brand (trademark) that is driving their success. In fact today, Oracle could provide ‘value add’ services to differentiate themselves from RedHat, for instances packaging of Oracle software or support, but I still believe RedHat would continue to win.

Ian

By: Dalibor Topic

Dalibor Topic — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:19:04 +0000

I’d argue that for successful projects, the ability to adapt their licensing (be it just a shift from an old version of the license they are using, to a new one) is even more important than picking the ‘right’ license at the start. User and developer bases tend to change as projects grow.