Partager via


Shared Source Licenses and Commercial Intent

In his comment to my last posting Wesley Parish pointed out something worth talking about.

"One thing that irritates me quite a bit is the "non-commercial/anti-commercial" clause in a number of the Shared Source Licenses I've looked at. Microsoft has done a big song-and-dance over the GPL being "uncommercial" because of its "Golden Rule Clause" - give as you are given to."

In one of my earlier blog entries about source licensing, I covered the fact that there are three basic license types (reference, permissive, reciprocal). Unfortunately, things are never as easy as we would like them to be. As a commercial software provider, we are constantly evaluating all of the factors that go into choosing the license that will cover a given piece of software. One of the major considerations is whether or not you are going to release a piece of code for commercial use or not. By commercial use, I mean code that will be produced and distributed for direct commercialization (per seat, per machine, per processor, etc. licensing). Indirect commercialization such as services falls outside of this definition.

So, as I said above, when a commercial software producer releases source code, the use of that code becomes paramount. If it is code that would be beneficial, for example, in the academic arena but could also carry significant commercially competitive concerns - then a license that limits its use to non-commercial environments becomes very useful. Our Rotor project is a good example of this.

There are >80 SSI programs and most provide commercial derivative rights. Limiting yourself to one type of license though is counter-productive in my mind. I'd prefer to see a menu of options open to anyone seeking to license their code. That will enable the richest set of choices for developers.

There are times that a platform-specific license, or a reference-only license will make more sense to use. It is not inconsistent to make use of these types of licenses even though they may not be compatible with the open source initiative's definition of "open." Any individual or organization should be considering the sharing of their intellectual property assets carefully and only go as far as they need to go with a given asset. Commercial open source is NOT altruism. I don't see Red Hat, IBM, or HP sharing out the profits they earn from solutions around OSS technologies. And you certainly don't see those with hybrid offerings like Novell making all of their code open source.

As for the GPL, it is not a commercial license - you can not directly commercialize GPL code (see clause 2b), that's one of the key elements to the license. Can you build commercial services and hardware solutions around GPL code? yes. Can you potentially build complementary software to GPL code that is commercial? yes (depending on how the software interacts of course). Reciprocal licensing has its place - but don't confuse it with directly commercialized software. 

 

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Comments

  • Anonymous
    June 07, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    June 08, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    June 08, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    June 09, 2005
    Steve is right. We have certainly looked at older releases of software as potential source projects (check out www.sourceforge.net/projects/wtl for a good example). The reality is that code moves forward - for many reasons. Backwards compatibility, baseline functionality, dependencies etc. Also, with platform code, you have code that carries direct implications for applications (both MS and non-MS). Furthermore, the reality is that copyright and patented materials have protected durations based on the rule of law. As with any property holder, it is a judgement call as to how long that property has value. It is not out of the question for the ideas built in an older piece of code to influence the work in a newer project. Thus, you might have a very legitimate business reason to keep that property closely held.

    That said, I think there is a great deal of value in looking at older technologies and thinking deeply about what could/should be shared and for what reasons.

    I am always open to suggetions, please feel free to submit them.

    Jason

  • Anonymous
    June 09, 2005
    I'm glad you mentioned:

    "That said, I think there is a great deal of value in looking at older technologies and thinking deeply about what could/should be shared and for what reasons."

    I have a very specific request for Microsoft. Microsoft has already got its feet wet with IBM's Common Public License and that's a recognized Open Source License.

    I am one of a few volunteers in charge of a community centre's computer lab, used to teach people how to use computers, give them a chance to learn to surf the Net, et cetera.

    Our computer lab is running on MS Windows 98. Microsoft has ceased supporting MS Win98 - and besides, we're a community centre - we don't have the finances to pay for "real" support. We do however, have some talented individuals working with us.

    What infuriates me with our setup - and it would still infuriate me if we had Win2k or later - is the opacity of the software. Microsoft would win friends - which it needs, might I suggest? - if it released the MS Win9x source tree under the CPL.

    That way, we could go on using the software we've already got, we wouldn't need to upgrade - not that we have, to upgrade requires six new computers and the software licenses, and that blows our budget completely, well into the foreseeable future; and we could also use the effort needed to maintain our own site using the MS Win9x source tree, to help the many and varied talented individuals we attract, to get jobs based on the skills they would have shown in working through the said MS Win9x source tree. Multiply that by however many community organizations around the globe who would also be beneficially affected by such a step, and it looks like more than just a PR move.

    Give it some thought - mind you, CPL or MPL - nothing so constricting as the MS WinCE Shared Source licenses, thank you.

  • Anonymous
    June 14, 2005
    "I don't see Red Hat, IBM, or HP sharing out the profits they earn from solutions around OSS technologies."

    You are definately correct, companies traditionally won't directly give money back to the community, but they absolutely give back in many other ways. For one, any changes they make are given back and they often will sponsor outside developers to improve the product with a specific feature. In GTK's case, companies, indivduals and groups are creating "bounties" for performance improvements.

    Jason, your comments have enticed me to be more open about licensing and overall I agree that one should pick the license that suits them best. And while I'm sure companies such as HP, IBM and Novell are gaining more back than they put in overall, they are giving something back and helping the collective improve as a whole.

  • Anonymous
    July 16, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 21, 2006
    In his comment to my last posting Wesley Parish pointed out something worth talking about. I do not agree. Go to http://www.aplushotels.info/judaic_Italy/unbusinesslike_Toscana/admissibility_Florence_1.html

  • Anonymous
    April 02, 2008
    PingBack from http://copyrightrenewalsblog.info/matusows-blog-shared-source-licenses-and-commercial-intent/