/joh'liks/ n.,adj. 386BSD
We describe the origin and orientation of the "Free Software" vs. "Open Software" efforts via respective licenses.
Lynne Greer Jolitz
Usually when we discuss a piece of software, we attempt to enhance our understanding with a program or fragment of code which illustrates the topic. Therefore, it is quite frustrating to discuss as major a tool as GCC, where the code is available to anyone upon request but we are prevented by the "copyleft" from showing you any code fragments. As such, we feel it important to examine the history and some effects of the copyleft. The copyleft on GNU software was born out of rather turbulent circumstance. In the mid-1980s, a number of commercial entities made a practice of "appropriating" software developed at MIT and other universities and placing their own copyright on it. Richard Stallman, then (and still) at the MIT Media Lab (originally MIT AI Lab), was involved with some early LISP software development, and experienced first hand the ruthless and bloody battle between Symbolics and LMI over LISP software enhancements. At the same time, AT&T was leading the forefront in the development of license agreements for UNIX, though not investing much at that time in the development of UNIX itself. This obvious (and still successful) locking up of research led Stallman and others to work on software projects which would be unencumbered by licenses, copyrights, and other restrictive means. Stallman's EMACS for the PDP-10 was one of the first visual editors available without those restrictions. While commendable in theory, the practice was quickly thwarted by the success of Gosling's EMACS, a C-based version of Stallman's EMACS, which ran under UNIX. As more use was made of Gosling's EMACS, companies began to support it, add new features, and so forth, until finally it was locked-up by the vendors. Of course, it goes without saying that the changes to the code and new features were not returned to Stallman's group for updates, since that would have impacted a vendor's perceived competitive advantage. Basically, the copyleft was an extreme response to the excesses of a cutthroat market. While permitting redistribution, the copyleft attempts to maintain access to and control of changes in code, by requiring that source modifications be returned to the FSF for redistribution and by demanding that the source with these modifications be made available from that company to anyone for essentially a "copying" fee. A liberal reading of the license makes it practically impossible for a company to easily lock up the software. It also prevents a company from easily recouping its investment in further software development, enhancements, or support by eliminating its competitive advantage over its competitors. A large company can avoid this by developing or licensing needed software tools, but a small business or individual developer does not have access to these resources. Finally, the copyleft attempts to exert control over any discussion and analysis of the code itself in any printed medium, and states in part: "...The 'Program,' below, refers to any such program or work, and a 'work based on the Program' means either the Program or any work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications ...." Thus, according to the copyleft, a written examination of GCC, which utilizes some of the code itself for purposes of discussion, falls under the copyleft itself. This is a condition unacceptable to authors and publishers, because they make their income only from the publishing and distribution of written works, and not necessarily from software products. Perhaps this was an unintended side effect of the copyleft, but attempts to narrow it have been to no avail. Open Standards - Are they really "Open"? The headlong rush towards "open standards," an oxymoron worthy of the military, is no solution either, but merely an effort to mask the implicit control, development, and innovation of a proprietary object by a vested interest by calling it "open." The only open standard is one that has an openly accessible model or example of the standard itself. Just as a mathematical formula in physics is meaningless without example problems and solutions, a standard based on a proprietary object is also meaningless without code solutions which justify its worthiness --and the code answer book to this open standard should not be subject to ransom through the use of "licensing" fees and anticompetitive product controls. Such a standard must also be equally accessible to those developing proprietary and nonproprietary works. This not only mitigates the inherent competitive disadvantage for the small innovator, but is also a disincentive to the development of proprietary "copycat" standards alongside the open standard, in an attempt to undermine its use. In similar fashion, the true goal of the GPL is "free software", not "open source". Any attempt to reserve rights is seen as a prelude to making it no longer free, or making a sham of its free aspect. Which explains the conflict between "open source" and "free software" - the fear of "open source", like "open standards", being subvertable. Ironically, anything can be subverted. The point of doing open source or free software is to retain attribution - you do it for the fame of having done it. What if someone wishes to erase even that? Then, they could attempt to make similar software, and not attribute the indirectly derived work, attempting the "sin of omission"? Many in the press have remarked on this as a historical injustice. Berkeley Copyright License Recently, the trend at many universities and research institutions has been to permit access to university-developed code through simple copyright procedures which permit modification and redistribution with attribution. The copyright used by TeleMuse, for example, is similar to the University of California at Berkeley (UCB) copyright and is designed to be simple and direct; see Figure 1. Figure 1: The copyright used by TeleMuse in the 386BSD article series
/* Copyright (c) date, name-of-author. All rights reserved. * Written by name-of-author, date-written. * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are freely permitted * provided that the above copyright notice and attribution and date of work * and this paragraph are duplicated in all such forms. * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. */ According to Marshall Kirk McKusick, UCB CSRG Research Computer scientist and president of USENIX; "We have the capitalists with their copyright and the radicals with their copyleft. We are at the 'copycenter,' since we allow redistribution with credit to the authors. Our goal is to have as many people as possible use our software." In January of 1991, CMU adopted a variant of the UCB copyright for the MACH operating system. Copyright vs. Copyleft This different approach to copyright does not attempt to regulate the development and distribution of code as does the copyleft. Instead, software is made available with the full knowledge that it will be incorporated into many different projects. These projects, in turn, will ultimately enhance the international competitiveness of the computer industry itself, by allowing individuals and small businesses the same access to these development tools as large corporations. After all, it is the individual and small business which are the sources of innovation in our society. Anything less (including the copyleft) results in a competitive advantage only for large companies with a vested interest in the status quo. The Free Software Foundation deserves high praise for leading the fight against locked-up software. Some GNU packages, such as GCC and EMACS, have been used by small firms and research groups to develop innovative and unique software and products, which would not otherwise have been feasible for these economically strapped entities. Even 386BSD might not have been possible had we not been able to leverage other resources like GCC. However, as the climate in which the copyleft was developed has moderated, we hope that the FSF will moderate its stand as well, and at the very least permit unfettered discussion and analysis of the code in print. We have every confidence that there will continue to be a flow of new software back to the source from companies, individuals and research groups. It is time vested interest started offering innovative and competitive works and stopped preventing innovation through the "anticompetitive" use of copylefts, open standards, and licensing. Those who maintain a competitive advantage through the inappropriate use of these methods, instead of through true innovation, have done so at the cost of the competitiveness of the entire domestic computer industry.
|
|