Re: "You own, at most, a serial number"
Thank you Liam - Great article. Something that you touched on: I think that data freely published open format/metadata is more important. When the ECMA MS MSOOXML IEEE controversy was fresh in our minds. I wrote a long reply to correspondence from PJ in 2010, covering my thoughts on "Standards" vs FOSS - Some of which may now be moot because of HTML and "the Cloud", but I believe that the underlying thoughts still are relevant:-
- - - - - - - - - (Split into 2 posts because of 1000 word limit) - - - - - - - - - - - -
The main difficulty that I have with the LPGL is not necessarily part of the question “Why would releasing under the LPGL lead to a direct proprietary closing of a product, in your opinion? JBoss used LGPL, I’m recalling. So I am unable to understand that part”.
The LGPL generally deals with software library packages. The library is copyrighted and requires a distributer to give a user all of the normal GPL rights for that library. The normal GPL requires that any software that is distributed should follow the normal GPL freedoms. However the LGPL allows for proprietary code to be linked to the library. One of the justifications for this approach is that the widest possible use of a LGPL library could encourage a LGPL project to become a de-facto standard. Only changes made to the LGPL library must be made available to other users under the LGPL. If identifiable sections of the distributed work are not derived from the Library, and can reasonably considered independent separate works, then the licence does not apply to this sections - i.e. Changes made to proprietary code that uses the library do not have to be made available to end users. Aggregation of another work not based on the Library does not bring the other work under the scope of the LGPL. I can see scenarios where a commercial producer aggregates a number of different FOSS libraries with a reasonable amount of their proprietary code. This could give a terrific hand-up in being the first to market a new product - This product could then be extended until it has market dominance, during which time the FLOSS libraries are depreciated and replace with proprietary “work alike” modules (Remember that the PGL is a copyright licence and not a patent, so that the ideas and implementation are not protected). The LPGL prohibits the distribution of software that incorporates patents, but it does not prohibit you from gaining a dominant market share. In any case if you do not distribute the work, you do not have to distribute changes. A few years down the track you could have a dominant work that may (in the US) be patentable. If you want to find out more, look at “Why you should’t use the Lesser GPL for your next library” at www.gnu.org. A probable example of purchased BSD licenced libraries being used by a proprietary vendor to develop a struggling product was TCP/IP networking in Windows (Spider Systems and MS). This was quite legal, and within the intent of the licence.
Before I can explain my attitude to FLOSS licences, you probably should know my background: I am not a lawyer, any opinion that I express should not be used as advice in any software project. I am a (retired) scientist and software developer. My company has produced commercial software and a couple of successful small products used mainly by the public and community sector. After selling our company, it continues to be successful - My opinions are my own and are not necessarily shared by the new owners.
I first started using computers and programming (FORTRAN) when working as a scientific civil servant in the early 1970s. Later I became the computer advisor to the scientific branch of a (very) large public monopoly. Microsoft was then a small player in the computer business - Serious scientific computing was done on mini-computers like DEC VAX/PDPs or (proprietary) UNIX machines. When the original IBM PC was introduced, we quickly realized that much of the data manipulation and storage that was done with these $50,000+ machines could be done with a <$5,000 PC. The computing establishment dismissed these "toy" computers but, because they could bring the price of some scientific equipment down from $200,000 to $100,000, we quickly worked around their problems. The real revolution started when we could network these machines with LAN Manager or Novell Netware. This allowed inexpensive commercial software like WordPerfect or Lotus 123 to do a lot of heavy lifting. Necessary custom software was written with BASIC or C. Data was stored in SQL databases or inexpensive DOS databases like MicroRim's RBase (which you could purchase from Microsoft, who did not have their own product). Computing was heterogeneous - We used DEC minis and workstations; UNIX, Apple lls, SPARC, CPM computers etc., but mostly IBM PCs running DOS with Netware to connect everything together. The major problems that we had were finding printer, network and modem drivers for all of our mixed kit.
Then Windows 3.0 came out. We quickly found that (even the Windows versions of) Lotus and WordPerfect did not work very well on Windows, but Microsoft's Windows Excel and Word products did (Odd, wasn’t it?). The organization quickly standardized on Windows, Word and Excel. All major printer and modem manufactures quickly produced Windows drivers for their products and many of our support and integration problems went away. Networking was still difficult as MS did not use TCP/IP, so we continued to use Netware and proprietary drivers. We mandated that our users should, if possible, use DOS/Windows terminals. UNIX/minis were still used as servers, and workgroup members shared Netware servers. All of the major Unix manufacturers competed with one another and did not allow easy integration of one company’s product with others. DEC seemed to make integration of PCs particularly difficult and we started to move away from them.
I changed jobs. I was now running a small commercial science based business. The equipment was obsolete and the staff's level of computer knowledge was low. We expanded the business and replaced the obsolete equipment. Almost all of the new equipment was PC based. Data was stored in MS Excel spreadsheets or Access databases (MS had employed some of the RBASE team to help write Access). As we expanded the business our System Integrator (SI) asked why we were moving from Netware to Microsoft's NT. We told him that we only needed one skills set to run the client and server products, and that the main advantage that NT had for us was that it was an applications server as well as a file and print server. NT was just beginning to support SQL products including the new SQL Server (jointly developed by MS, Sybase and Ashton Tate). Our SI was dubious as Netware and the independent SQL products were technically superior to the MS products. It seemed that we were right because within a short time many small companies were using Windows networking, and if they needed a Server they used Windows NT.
I then became the part-owner and MD of a small software start-up. We wrote specialized custom software. One of our jobs was to produce a community heritage based product for government to be deployed in remote areas without adequate communications. We had produced something similar for a couple of customers using MS technology, and when we looked around we saw that our only option was to use Windows and integrate our product with MS Office. There was no infrastructure in place to even consider anything else - We believed what we were told - Which was that the only support you could find in remote regions was MS based. What we did not know was that this support was patchy at best. Everyone said that they "knew Windows", but in practice the level of knowledge was often poor.
- - - - Continued - - - - -