By Phil Albert LinuxInsider Part of the ECT News Network
05/11/04 6:00 AM PT
By carefully taking into account the nature of the products and services being provided by the organization, the revenue models for providing those products and services, and the culture of the organization's developers and programmers, you can develop an open-source policy that meets the unique needs of your organization.
How Much is 'Free' Costing You? Learn how DaveRamsey.com saw a 567% uplift in ROI with Omniture. This complimentary guide and webinar cover the most important factors in selecting an analytics solution. Download Now.
What is the safest advice an intellectual property attorney can give clients concerned about potential litigation? "Do absolutely nothing."
The truth is that making or selling any products might get you sued for patent infringement. Advertising might get you sued for trademark infringement. And don't connect your computers to the Internet, because employees might download copyrighted materials improperly.
By doing absolutely nothing, the attorney can make sure the client never gets sued. Of course, the client would not remain in business for long. In business, unlike on Seinfeld (a show about nothing), doing nothing is not always the best advice.
Good legal counsel should take into account the risks that the business has to endure to provide its products and services. What are the client's needs, demands and constraints? This is especially true when it comes to an organization's policies on the use of free or open-source software.
Downstream Constraints
Let us assume you already have an open-source policy. It covers when and how incoming free or open-source software can be used and what can be incorporated in outgoing products, services and support. Let us also assume that legal counsel has reviewed and approved the policy.
Does the policy take into account your business model, corporate culture and the personalities of your programmers? If not, even the strictest policy might not be practical, and not following it might be worse than having no policy at all.
Programmers and businesspeople often have divergent views when it comes to the ownership of intellectual property. Complying with strict corporate policies might rub some programmers the wrong way. They might see it as an unnecessary exercise, like reinventing the wheel.
Smart companies will consider the organization's culture and position in the industry, as well as the style of its lead technical staff, allowing them to develop a policy toward the in-licensing of software that is a perfect fit for the organization.
Legal liability around the use of open source is a complex issue, where interpretations and rules are constantly shifting. That's why some legal advisors recommend not using open-source software at all. Others recommend that organizations limit the use of software to that which has no downstream constraints.
A "downstream constraint" is a licensing term that limits what the licensee can do with the software. In other words, any constraints that the programmer puts on the licensee also limits what the licensee can offer to its customers.
Policy and Business Model
If the programmer licenses software under the GPL, the licensee has a downstream constraint that prevents the licensee from limiting downstream copying. A company that does not want to be limited in what it does with its products needs a policy against the inclusion of code that is licensed with downstream constraints.
The organization should stick to software that is licensed under an open-source license with no constraints and software for which the organization has negotiated a license with the copyright holder that allows the business goals to be met.
Your policy should reflect your business model. For example, a company that gets most of its revenue from a large number of per-copy purchases of low-cost software would do well with a more restrictive policy toward the inclusion of open-source code. For this company, one violation of an in-license could lead to large liability and costs associated with product recalls.
However, if a company gets most of its revenue from a few sales of expensive software, a more relaxed policy might be more appropriate. In this case, inadvertent errors such as the inclusion of code for which the source code is not provided, or code for which the copyright notice was mistakenly omitted, can more easily be fixed and the liability per revenue dollar is likely to be lower.
Production Generation
The inclusion of code licensed under the GPL or some other license that does not allow sale and distribution compatible with the organization's revenue model can be a major concern for software developers with proprietary sales revenue models -- that is, source code not provided, per-copy licenses with no sublicensing.
Naturally, those developers would want more restrictive policies than, say, a company with a revenue model that relies more on services, support and the relationship between the company and the customer . In the latter case, the company might not worry too much about being faced with a choice to release source code to be in compliance with the GPL.
The policy also needs to take into account how the company's programmers and other technical employees generate products. Some programming cultures use tools and code that are freely available. One might expect more openness with code among programmers in the fields of cryptography, image processing and networking, where tried-and-true algorithms are used over and over across many organizations.
Programmers of business process software, however, write code for a specific need known by only a few, and are likely to be less open.
Corporate Culture as Guide
Companies selling highly complex software designed to crunch proprietary data models for mutual fund analysis might be more likely to accept a stricter policy against the use of GPL'ed software. Programmers at a company that develops network protocol software are more likely to want a policy that allows for use of well-coded free or open-source software, even if it means that part of the software would be constrained by a particular free or open-source software license.
So how can you know if the open-source corporate policy you formulate is the right one? By carefully taking into account the nature of the products and services being provided by the organization, the revenue models for providing those products and services, and the culture of the organization's developers and programmers, you can develop a policy that meets the unique needs of your organization.
In other words, your corporate culture will guide your corporate policy as much as the advice you get from legal counsel.
Phil Albert, a LinuxInsider columnist, is a patent attorney and partner with the San Francisco office of the intellectual property law firm Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP.
Tokyo Project Develops Linux Crash Analysis Tool May 10, 2004
"One issue IT managers are facing is managing servers in a heterogeneous environment -- how to avoid console hopping -- and consolidating management, including lights-out and provisioning," Tom Woolf, a spokesperson for Linux vendor Amphus, told LinuxInsider.
Related Stories
New Linux Kernel 2.6.6 Hits the Net May 10, 2004
"The 2.6.6 release is a very good maintenance release, which takes in a lot of the maintenance that has come in from the 2.6.1 kernel all the way up to the 2.6 kernel," Sam Greenblatt, senior vice president and chief architect of Computer Associates' Linux technology group, told LinuxInsider.
IBM Sets Out New Workplace Software Strategy May 10, 2004
There was some industry speculation that IBM's new middleware strategy -- which includes new Lotus Workplace software for collaboration, messaging and document management -- was aimed at competing with Microsoft's Office products, but analysts agreed the IBM strategy was more of a competitor with Microsoft's forthcoming Longhorn.
Linux vs. Longhorn: The Battle Is Joined May 10, 2004
Microsoft's image isn't what it once was. Much like it was with client-server computing and IBM, the IT audience is actively exploring Linux as a desktop option. There are trials backed by vendors like IBM and HP springing up all over the globe. Governments seem particularly enamored with the offering, which is an important development because governments set standards.
Mainstream Press Questions Credibility of Linux, Litigation May 07, 2004
"I have been watching Linux since its release in the early 1990s, and watching SCO vs. IBM since it began," Douglas Blank, an assistant professor in the computer science program at Bryn Mawr College, told LinuxInsider. "I believe most people in the industry feel that it is not a growing controversy, but a dying controversy. That is probably the nature of the speed at which items enter the mainstream: It takes a while."
Linux Suitable for Mission-Critical Apps May 06, 2004
"Linux has been proven in all industries that it is capable of running mission-critical applications," Marcel den Hartog, strategist for CA's Linux Technology Group, told LinuxInsider in an interview. "It is stable, reliable and handles high workloads very well."
Related News Alerts
More by Phil Albert
Sticks, Stones and the GPL November 27, 2004
No matter how good a legal document purports to be, interpretation is almost always necessary because of the limitations of language and the inability to predict all possible uses of a legal document. Don't take my word for it. Even Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds disagree on the exact interpretation of the GPL when it comes to derivative works and dynamically loaded kernel modules.
Bounty Hunters: Shootout at the Software Corral September 21, 2004
The bottom line is always that business is business. Perhaps like in the Wild West, governments and businesses will decide to solve their problems more often by sending out bounty hunters to recover the stolen goods. The problem is that in the cowboy heydays, things were simple -- "Wanted Dead or Alive" pretty much said it all. Today, bounties are more complicated.
SCO's Woes: Too Late To Turn Back September 14, 2004
SCOsource licensing is down, which indicates that SCO's Unix is losing ground to Linux. Part of the reason for this might be objections to the licensing models SCO employs and the concerns over SCO's claims to Linux. SCO does not license its Unix as openly as Linux is licensed.