My philosophy for Free/Open Source Software comes down to this: that others can take what I do and do something awesome with it.  Since I don’t know what you’ll need, I hand you every capability I have to get you started.  Others granted me that very power to get where I am, so I seek to increment that.

It’s not always simple to do: sometimes you build it, and nobody comes.  My experience is that clear code, convenient install, documentation and useful functionality all help.  An encouraging welcome helps even more, as does getting the software out in front of people.  It’s all about avoiding or lowering barriers.

We accept some barriers to modification which are reasonable: if you modify the software, I don’t have to support it.  If I make you sign a support deal which says I won’t support the software (even unmodified versions) if you modify or redistribute the software, that’s not reasonable.  If you get fired for publishing pre-release modified copyleft source code, that’s reasonable.  If you get fired for publishing post-release, that’s not.

The hardware and electricity costs are barriers, but they’re undiscriminating and reasonable, so we accept them. Even the GPL explicitly allows you to charge for costs to make a copy. The software cost of the system is also explicitly allowed as a barrier.  The software costs of the build environment are also accepted barriers (though historic for most of us): again even the GPL doesn’t require your software to be buildable with freely available tools.

As this shows, your choice of licensing is among your arsenal in keeping barriers low for co-hackers (who are not necessarily contributors!).  I believe copyright gives too much power to the copyright holder, but as copyright is so hard to unmake, I favor the GPL.  It tries to use legal power to meet the aims in the first paragraph: to force you to hand onwards all the pieces I handed to you.  It’s also well understood by people and that common understanding gels a community.

Yet, as I alluded at the top, there are a realm of barriers which licenses don’t even try to address: the code could be an unmodifiable tangle, the documentation awful, the installation awkward, or the trademarks invasive. A license can’t make coders welcome newcomers, be friendly to upstream, responsive to bugs, write useful code or speak english.

The spectrum of barriers goes roughly from “that’s cool” through “I’m not so comfortable with that” to “that’s not Free/Open Source”.  It’s entirely up to your definition of reasonableness;  only in the simplest cases will that be the same point at which the license is violated, even if that license is explicitly drafted to defend that freeness!

So, don’t start with an analysis of license clauses.  Start with “is that OK?”.  Is there a fundamental or only a cosmetic problem?   If it’s not OK, ask “does it matter?”.  Is it effecting many people, is it setting a bad example, is it harming the project’s future, is it causing consternation among existing developers?   If it is, then it’s time to look at the license to see if you can do anything.  Remember that the license is merely a piece of text.  It can’t stop anything, it can only give you leverage to do so.  It certainly can’t make using the law easy or convenient, or even worthwhile pursuing.

To close, I will leave the last word to Kim Weatherall, who once told me: “if you’re spending your time on legal issues, you’re doing it wrong”.

No tags Hide

I enjoyed Levitt & Dubner’s “Freakonomics”, and picked up the followup “Superfreakonomis” recently at an airport.  The last chapter, however, was astonishing.  The entire chapter was devoted to a glowing advertisement for Intellectual Ventures, pointing out that they own 20,000 patents “more than all but a few dozen companies in the world”, but of course “there is little hard evidence” that they are patent trolls.

But this bunch of wacky genius billionaires have solved global warming (much of which they dispute anyway) and can control malaria and prevent hurricanes from forming.  Unlike the rest of the book which covers analysis of well-known facts and disputes them with insightful economic research, this chapter is so breathless and gushy that it makes me question the rest of the author’s work.

I first came across Intellectual Ventures when The Economist reversed their 100-year opposition to patents, and the only reason I could find was a similarly cheerleading piece about this company.  (I had naively expected new research revealing some net positive of patents, or some such revelation).

Side note: when a respected information source covers something where you have on-the-ground experience, the result is often to make you wonder how much fecal matter you’ve swallowed in areas outside your own expertise.

So, what is IV actually doing?  Buying up loads of patents and licensing them to companies who calculate it’s not worth the fight is patent trolling 101.  Yet the scale they’re operating on puts them on new ground, and opens new opportunities.  It seems obvious to get corporate investors on board by promising them immunity from patent claims.  With enough patents you stop trying to license them one-by-one and just tax each industry at some non-negotiable rate.  No doubt they have more tricks I haven’t even thought of, but these potential devices really do make them a new breed of Super Trolls.

Their efforts to actually attain their own patents could simply be more of the same, but it’s also a relatively cheap but clever PR exercise (as shown by their media treatment).  This will help them when (legislative?) efforts are made to shut down patent trolls.  I’m fairly confident that they’ll simply license rather than implement anything themselves; actually producing things requires much more work, and simply exposes you to others’ patents.

Without diving deeply into this, they seem to understand two things clearly:

1. They learnt from Microsoft that government-enforced monopolies are worth billions.  Microsoft had copyright on software, this is patents.
2. Development is getting much cheaper, while patents are getting more valuable.   Cheaper development is shown clearly by free software, open hardware and hackerspaces.  Patent value increases as more of the world becomes a more profitable and enforceable patent target.

Now, I don’t really care if one company leeches off the others.  But if they want to tax software, they have to attack free software otherwise people will switch to avoid their patent licensing costs.  And if you don’t believe some useful pieces of free software could be effectively banned due to patent violations, you don’t think on the same scale as these guys.

No tags Hide