Comments on: Maybe It Should Be Called “The Puritanical Open Source Society” http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/ Jeff Nolan's take on innovation, entrepreneurship, tech and stuff that interests me Thu, 17 May 2012 21:05:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: 451 CAOS Theory » 451 CAOS Links - 2006.12.12 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/comment-page-1/#comment-258756 451 CAOS Theory » 451 CAOS Links - 2006.12.12 Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:39:44 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/#comment-258756 [...] Maybe It Should Be Called “The Puritanical Open Source Society”, Venture Chronicles, Jeff Nolan (Blog) [...] [...] Maybe It Should Be Called “The Puritanical Open Source Society”, Venture Chronicles, Jeff Nolan (Blog) [...]

]]> By: Michael Bernstein http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/comment-page-1/#comment-53038 Michael Bernstein Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:21:26 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/#comment-53038 OK, that's interesting. I don't think 'powered by open source' actually gets you what you want though, since that basically means 'we use Linux and Apache on our servers', or whatever other combination of technology you like, because many of the important open source projects already have such badges available for use, and I don't see most of the 'commercial open source' companies using them. What exactly do you want such a certification-lite from the OSI to stand for, if not that the software is under a license that is OSD compliant? It has to stand for something, so please be specific. OK, that’s interesting.

I don’t think ‘powered by open source’ actually gets you what you want though, since that basically means ‘we use Linux and Apache on our servers’, or whatever other combination of technology you like, because many of the important open source projects already have such badges available for use, and I don’t see most of the ‘commercial open source’ companies using them.

What exactly do you want such a certification-lite from the OSI to stand for, if not that the software is under a license that is OSD compliant? It has to stand for something, so please be specific.

]]> By: Jeff http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/comment-page-1/#comment-52506 Jeff Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:53:26 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/#comment-52506 okay, fair enough. Here's a better example, and one that I know far too much about. Powered by NetWeaver instead of NetWeaver Certified. okay, fair enough. Here’s a better example, and one that I know far too much about. Powered by NetWeaver instead of NetWeaver Certified.

]]> By: Michael Bernstein http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/comment-page-1/#comment-52368 Michael Bernstein Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:26:35 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/#comment-52368 Uh. So, you want the imprimatur of the OSI, the value of which was largely built by adhering to a fairly rigorous process, without having to endure that process yourself? Hmm. In case this is not obvious, I'll tell you that this can ultimately only dilute and destroy the value of that imprimatur. Also, your 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval' supposed counter-example was very poorly chosen. You should look into what is actually required to receive one. It's actually quite difficult. What exactly, is wrong with suggesting to companies that want to offer their software as 'open source' that they use an OSI-approved license, or, if they really think their license is an improvement on existing licenses and still OSD-compliant, that they submit said license for approval? Uh. So, you want the imprimatur of the OSI, the value of which was largely built by adhering to a fairly rigorous process, without having to endure that process yourself? Hmm. In case this is not obvious, I’ll tell you that this can ultimately only dilute and destroy the value of that imprimatur.

Also, your ‘Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval’ supposed counter-example was very poorly chosen. You should look into what is actually required to receive one. It’s actually quite difficult.

What exactly, is wrong with suggesting to companies that want to offer their software as ‘open source’ that they use an OSI-approved license, or, if they really think their license is an improvement on existing licenses and still OSD-compliant, that they submit said license for approval?

]]> By: Jeff http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/comment-page-1/#comment-52323 Jeff Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:47:49 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/#comment-52323 Michael, I certainly appreciate your comments but I think you are missing my point. It's my view that OSI should offer an option for companies that want to offer their own license that satisfies, in spirit, open source principles yet does not have to go through the rigorous and time consuming process that OSI currently operates under. In other words, the "good housekeeping seal of approval". We could go back-and-forth on this and largely replicate existing debates that are underway or in the archives at OSI, but the fact remains that as more companies look at open source license options, which is good, this issue is only going to get bigger. Michael,
I certainly appreciate your comments but I think you are missing my point. It’s my view that OSI should offer an option for companies that want to offer their own license that satisfies, in spirit, open source principles yet does not have to go through the rigorous and time consuming process that OSI currently operates under. In other words, the “good housekeeping seal of approval”. We could go back-and-forth on this and largely replicate existing debates that are underway or in the archives at OSI, but the fact remains that as more companies look at open source license options, which is good, this issue is only going to get bigger.

]]> By: Michael Bernstein http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/comment-page-1/#comment-52320 Michael Bernstein Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:41:54 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/#comment-52320 Sorry about the repeated words above. OK, I've now looked at the addendum again. I'm not sure you're aware that the AGPL was never submitted to the OSI for approval. I actually started a discussion about that myself, but the GPLv3 draft proccess sort of made that moot. You might try looking through the license-discuss archives for those threads. The AGPL clause is likely to pass muster as OSD compatible in it's intent, but it has one major flaw in it's execution: It specifies HTTP as the transmission mechanism. Rather than fixing the clause, I suggest (though IANAL, and TINLA) you consider the equivalent clause from the GPLv3 draft, and consult with the FSF legal team to see whether it is stable enough to adopt yet. Sorry about the repeated words above.

OK, I’ve now looked at the addendum again. I’m not sure you’re aware that the AGPL was never submitted to the OSI for approval. I actually started a discussion about that myself, but the GPLv3 draft proccess sort of made that moot. You might try looking through the license-discuss archives for those threads.

The AGPL clause is likely to pass muster as OSD compatible in it’s intent, but it has one major flaw in it’s execution: It specifies HTTP as the transmission mechanism.

Rather than fixing the clause, I suggest (though IANAL, and TINLA) you consider the equivalent clause from the GPLv3 draft, and consult with the FSF legal team to see whether it is stable enough to adopt yet.

]]> By: Michael Bernstein http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/comment-page-1/#comment-52317 Michael Bernstein Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:30:55 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/#comment-52317 Uh, whatever makes you think that the OSI's position is that no new licenses can be considered for inclusion? It's certainly true that the OSI wants to minimize the proliferation of approved licenses approved going forward, but if a license satisfies the OSD, fills a need (especially a common one) that can't be satisfied by using an existing license, isn't gratuitously incompatible with other important licenses, and is reusable by other projects, they will almost certainly approve it. And who said anything about assigning IP rights? Uh, whatever makes you think that the OSI’s position is that no new licenses can be considered for inclusion?

It’s certainly true that the OSI wants to minimize the proliferation of approved licenses approved going forward, but if a license satisfies the OSD, fills a need (especially a common one) that can’t be satisfied by using an existing license, isn’t gratuitously incompatible with other important licenses, and is reusable by other projects, they will almost certainly approve it.

And who said anything about assigning IP rights?

]]> By: Jeff http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/comment-page-1/#comment-52247 Jeff Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:10:25 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/#comment-52247 Hi Michael, thanks. Have you even looked at the Socialtext Public License? http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi/spl100.pdf?action=attachments_download;page_name=socialtext_open_source_wiki;id=20060725230840-0 The OSI position that the world of commercial open source software can be boiled down to 63 (?) licenses just doesn't work for me, as the CEO of a company or interested market observer. Even though it is open source it is still intellectual property that is being licensed, in this case as open source but it is still a license. I don't understand why the OSI can't look at my license agreement and for some nominal fee tell me that it confirms to the basic minimum requirements for what open source is, and is therefore "OSI Certified". This is the real problem that the OSI has, rather than blaming companies for wanting their own license agreement for their asset. If you want to assign your IP rights to OSI or FSF then great they can make it available under any license they want, but the commercial software is not going to work like that and the dearth of commercially successful open source companies should be a greater concern for OSI and license proliferation. Hi Michael, thanks.

Have you even looked at the Socialtext Public License?
http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi/spl100.pdf?action=attachments_download;page_name=socialtext_open_source_wiki;id=20060725230840-0

The OSI position that the world of commercial open source software can be boiled down to 63 (?) licenses just doesn’t work for me, as the CEO of a company or interested market observer. Even though it is open source it is still intellectual property that is being licensed, in this case as open source but it is still a license. I don’t understand why the OSI can’t look at my license agreement and for some nominal fee tell me that it confirms to the basic minimum requirements for what open source is, and is therefore “OSI Certified”. This is the real problem that the OSI has, rather than blaming companies for wanting their own license agreement for their asset.

If you want to assign your IP rights to OSI or FSF then great they can make it available under any license they want, but the commercial software is not going to work like that and the dearth of commercially successful open source companies should be a greater concern for OSI and license proliferation.

]]> By: Michael Bernstein http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/comment-page-1/#comment-52243 Michael Bernstein Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:51:27 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/#comment-52243 Sorry, the 3rd paragraph should read '..., and so on, attempt...'. Sorry, the 3rd paragraph should read ‘…, and so on, attempt…’.

]]> By: Michael Bernstein http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/comment-page-1/#comment-52241 Michael Bernstein Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:49:44 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/12/12/maybe-it-should-be-called-the-puritanical-open-source-society/#comment-52241 "The minute you start advocating purity laws is the minute your movement “turns the worm” by repelling rather than attracting advocates." Ha. We've heard that before. It is a demonstrable fact that by insisting on principles such as the right to fork and no restriction on fields of endeavor we have created a large and growing body of software that can be both used *and* re-used. Many of the additional restrictions that advocates of 'commercial open source', 'shared source', 'hybrid source', and son attempt to add would hinder the growth of this shared body of code because they ultimately hinder the use of the code by some set of users or it's re-use by some set of developers. Either now, or under easily forseen future circumstances (death of a company, new network communication models). Purity has stood us in pretty good stead, and got us where we are today. We're in it for the long haul, with horizons measured in decades, not years or quarters. “The minute you start advocating purity laws is the minute your movement “turns the worm” by repelling rather than attracting advocates.”

Ha. We’ve heard that before. It is a demonstrable fact that by insisting on principles such as the right to fork and no restriction on fields of endeavor we have created a large and growing body of software that can be both used *and* re-used.

Many of the additional restrictions that advocates of ‘commercial open source’, ‘shared source’, ‘hybrid source’, and son attempt to add would hinder the growth of this shared body of code because they ultimately hinder the use of the code by some set of users or it’s re-use by some set of developers. Either now, or under easily forseen future circumstances (death of a company, new network communication models).

Purity has stood us in pretty good stead, and got us where we are today. We’re in it for the long haul, with horizons measured in decades, not years or quarters.

]]>