An Open Letter to Linus
To: Linus
Subject: Episode 3 of Grumbling Public Luminaries
Come on Linus, wake up! There are ogres out there who are ready to eat your lunch and include you in the menu!
But first allow me to digress and examine the latest salvo in the war between proprietary and open source software.
Licensing is in the eye of the beholder!
A slyly attractive, legally beautiful, monumentally crafted GPLv3 has finally precipitated out of the ether of copyright law. The only surprise may be in how mild the final version really is. But mildness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
To a simple mind, there's something for everyone. Just like you, people of all persuasions have found parts of the document to like and parts not to like. In this manner, GPLv3 is unusually fair to everyone!
Novell praises GPLv3
Novell enthusiastically welcomes V3, yet it continues to be party to an agreement with Microsoft where non-Novell customers are at risk of being sued by Microsoft if they use free and open source software. Promises of differential legal protection plainly violate the spirit of fairness baked into all free and open source software licenses, including V3 and the older V2.
Nonetheless, and to its credit, Novell unequivocally promises to distribute software covered by V3, such as Samba and gcc. Distributing, with warranty, V3 components of Novell products is apparently within the letter of Novell's agreement with Microsoft, but contradicts its intention. Ultimately, the result may substantially weaken Microsoft's ability to use third parties like Novell to drive a wedge through the free and open source software community.
Microsoft condemns GPLv3
Microsoft protests that V3 is out-of-touch and is, in any case, incapable of affecting its own actions since it was not, is not, and never will be a party to the stipulations of the license. Yet this unapologetic protester has unilaterally and unceremoniously withdrawn its promised patent indemnification covering Novell Linux customers when software distributed is touched in any manner by V3.
At the same time, acting as if it can operate independently of its partner's sudden chill, Novell assures its customers that they are categorically protected from being sued by Microsoft in their use of any product or component sold by Novell, whether or not it is covered by V2 or V3. Novell's distribution of V3 components, in the context of its agreement with Microsoft, is an outcome unintended by Microsoft that may allow V3 to work it's magic anyway.
Therefore, there is a clear risk to the balance sheet of benefits that Microsoft can derive. No matter how bullishly it may argue to the contrary, Microsoft cannot escape the result that its relationship with Novell may unwittingly indemnify all recipients of GPLv3 software through the poison pill of uniform patent protection demanded by V3 license compliance.
Linus rebukes the anti-DRM provisions of GPLv3
Linus, you have been somewhat grumpy about V3. You argue that V3's anti-DRM provisions are misplaced. People ought to have no restrictions in how they use your software, period. If I may dare to say so, you are well known for your directness. For occasional curmudgeons like yourself (and perhaps Mr. Stallman as well), I'd recommend we think of the GPL as standing for Grumbling Public Luminaries. Perhaps you have so much invested in your own creation that you may not be able to see a path that can provide better health insurance against diseases like the anti-Linux lobby that's ready to strike at any opportunity and is always looking for a good lunch!
And then there's a cast of millions of others, praisers as well as grumblers (some people just don't like the color of your tie)
Many think V3 is just too much legalese. "Who can really understand it?", they ask. It may be brilliantly clever in its articulation of canonical concepts of jurisprudence, but most adopters of software licenses are not lawyers. The license is crafted with so much polish that it could be cast in a thousand non-English tongues without ever loosing a syllable of meaning. It's that good. It was penned by an undisputed legal genius, yet it is clear that the formal presentation has been targeted primarily for lawyers.
But this is good news for many leading open source corporations. With heavily invested in-house counsel, they are happy with the license. It reflects the kinds of reciprocity requirements that healthy businesses can use to maintain a level playing field in the software market. Once they can compete fairly, strong open source players prefer to exploit packaging and service differentiation. Having a common, well crafted license, in their opinion, only helps grow market size. Qualified competitors can vie for their slice of business from a far larger and richer pie.
In addition, V3 provides an umbrella of protection against aggressors who are increasingly trying to game a broken software patent system.
GPLv3 is here to stay
In the current license landscape, V3 will co-exist with alternative approaches, some compatible, some not. Variation among licenses expresses different ideals in promoting communities among software innovators and authors, who ultimately are the copyright owners.
Viewed in isolation, some argue that V3 represents an unnecessary proliferation of open source licenses. The truth is, however, matching licensing language to the variety of real world legal goals and requirements demands diversity, not uniformity. One license cannot fit all needs. Freedom and flexibility of choice lie at the foundation of innovation, whether the problem domain is developing software code or developing legal frameworks that protect that code and encourage its use. And it is the preservation of choice that leads to a natural solution for honoring investments in current licensing schemes while at the same time being able to benefit from a diversity of newer approaches.
Expand the turf, don't fence it in
For those desiring the least fragmentation and the largest possible community adoption of free and open source software, multiple licensing is the answer. Simply put, if you are an open source author, license your software under the widest spectrum of options that still reflect your policy for sharing or sharing-alike. Instead of using minor differences to reject options for the protection and promotion of important technologies, open source copyright holders and managers like yourself should give adopters the widest choice possible not only in software but also in the legal framework surrounding it.
The challenge for open source copyright holders and managers, Linus, is to think on a larger scale of community. You should strive for inclusiveness by putting in the hands of your users the power to choose, within guidelines you select, which licenses cover their redistribution of your work. At the same time, you can ensure that your broad goals for sharing and reciprocity are met as widely as possible. Adopters who want to redistribute your work, and potentially their modifications, under V2 are free to do so. Adopters who want to incorporate your work seamlessly into a V3 project or product are equally free to do so. In effect you are setting a general policy for share-alike but your users are able to select the specific language that they require for their needs.
If your kernel can begin to move toward a more flexible licensing policy, many Linux adopters, who personally prefer simpler reciprocity licenses like V2, can live happily along side those who want stronger protection, like anti-DRM and patent provisions. Multiple and flexible licensing by the copyright owner provides the best antidote to community fragmentation caused by license proliferation. But more importantly, flexibility gives your users the freedom to choose the degree to which software is protected while remaining consistent with your overall goals. Traditional users can continue to work in the V2 licensing environment they are already comfortable with. But, at the same time, a broader spectrum of users can adopt a stronger and arguably better license like V3. You will end up strengthening the whole community's defenses against the anti-Linux forces. Not just for the software you produce and manage, but for everyone's contributions as well.
So Linus, don't be an easy target. Don't be a menu item for somebody else's lunch. Instead, expand your own cuisine.
© Robert Adkins, Technetra
