netsoftwaresolutions.net

Open Source Software

Licensing Issues or Not
By Alfred Adebare

The Wikipedia Encyclopedia describes open source as “practices in production and development that promote access to the end product’s sources.” Before the label open source was coined, developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept. In fact, earlier researchers used a process which is similar to open standards to develop telecommunication network protocols. Characterized by contemporary open source work, this collaborative process led to the birth of the Internet in 1969. Its application to software gained popularity with the emergence of the Internet. It is said that the open source label came out of a strategy session held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape’s announcement that it planned to release the source code for its browser Navigator.

The politically correct version is that to clarify a potential confusion caused by the ambiguity of the word “free”, so that the perception of free software is not anti-commercial, the label open source (contributed by Chris Peterson) stuck. The official version is that it was to shed the confrontational attitude that had been associated with free software in the past and sell the idea on pragmatic, business case grounds to the commercial world. Whatever it may be, Netscape listened and released their code as open source under the name of Mozilla. That was the beginning of the contemporary open source movement, whose main champion today allegedly is the Open Source Initiative (“OSI”) which makes and continues to make a case for the open source software to the commercial world. Consequently, we have seen the application of the open source philosophy in other fields inlcuding biotechnology. Linus Torvalds, a finnish software engineer who initiated the development of the Linux kernel went as far as saying “the future is open source everything”.

According to the OSI, the case for open source software is simple – free access to read, redistribute and modify the source code of a piece of software results in a rapid evolutionary process that produces better software. Advocates of open source argue that when programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing.

However, evangelists of free software have been at pains to clarify that open source software is not synonymous with free software. The philosophy of the open source movement is based on practicality and not ethical considerations while free software is based on freedom, not price. Borrowing from Richard M. Stallman, “free software” and “open source” describe the same category of software, more or less, but say different things about the software, and about values. While the two are not synonymous, both have a common enemy – proprietary software.

Critics of open source say that open source fosters an ambiguity of a different kind, in that it confuses the mere availability of the source code with the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute it. But open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code; the use of open-source software must comply with a number of criteria including as to re-distribution, depending on the license under which it is distributed. Different licenses require different criteria. For instance, under the GNU General Public License (GPL) published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for licensing free software, any work based on the program or any other derivative work must be licensed as a whole at no charge at all to all third parties under the terms of the GNU GPL, whereas an Apache License does not require derivative works to be open source. You can add your own copyright statement to modifications of a source code under Apache License and provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of your modifications, or for any derivative works as a whole, provided your use, reproduction, and distribution of the work otherwise complies with conditions of the Apache License. Similarly, there is no requirement that any derivative work created under an Academic Free License (AFL) or a Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) License, should be distributed at all, or for free if distributed. Further, any derivative work need not be free and one can charge for it as you would for proprietary software.

The subtle licensing criteria between open source generally and free software is further highlighted when you consider that some licenses are not compatible. For instance, programs/source code distributed under PHP License is not compatible with GNU GPL since GNU GPL is a copyleft license. Which raises a couple of licensing issues:

(1) Why are there different criteria under different licenses for open source software? Presently, there are about 54 licenses certified by OSI as open source – a tribute to OSI’s philosophy – which many now see as an unnecessary proliferation of licenses, an issue that forced OSI to admit that -

“OSI’s approach on the development and distribution problems involved building as many different bridges as possible between developers and the corporate world. In doing this, we accepted a proliferation of new licenses. This is a problem in that although physical bridges between communities don’t interfere with each other, licenses do. Interference between different open-source licenses is now perceived as a sufficiently serious problem that OSI has become as a victim of its own earlier success.”

To address the issue of proliferation, OSI plans to take all existing OSI approved licenses and group them into three tiers: (i) preferred, (ii) recommended but not preferred, and (iii) not recommended. This is likely to create more confusion. One would then ask why an OSI certified license would be OSI “not recommended” license. Would a ‘not recommended’ tag not be deemed as de-approval (though OSI says its not). It would be ‘preferable’ not to have certified such license as OSI approved in the first place.

(2) Why are some licenses not compatible with others? We may well appreciate that compatibility goes beyond the issue of license proliferation. For example, the FSF considers all versions of the Apache License incompatible with Version 2 of the GNU GPL. About version 2.0 of the Apache License, they say:

“The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don’t think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)”

Apache Software Foundation (ASF), which publishes the Apache License, has adequately replied to FSF’s statement, stating that ASF does not share the same goals as FSF. For the time being, the controversy rages on. Compatibility is really a relationship issue; free software movement and the open source movement can be likened to two political camps within the free software community. While it can be argued that GNU GPL is not compatible with a number of licenses because the philosophy behind GNU GPL is freedom – which proponents of free software have cried themselves hoarse from the rooftops for decades now – GNU GPL itself publishes a list of free/open source software licenses that are GPL incompatible, distinguishing between non-copyleft and ‘not strong copyleft’. Even, copyleft licenses like xinetd have also not been spared and was held incompatible because it places extra restrictions on redistribution of modified versions that contradict the redistribution requirements in the GPL. Don’t they share the same goals? Yet the free software movement has complained that to be lumped together with open source software is restrictive for free software since open source software allegedly has a much weaker criterion than free software. Then one may ask, what is the criteria for determining compatibility with GNU GPL even for copyleft free software licenses? At least FSF is not intending to classify licenses in the same manner as OSI – for now.

(3) Don’t some of these licenses support a ‘one way’ street attitude described by John Udell in the Open Source Citizenship where developers are encouraged to take and not give back to the community. Or it could be akin to the situation described by Stallman where commercial developers invited to the “Open Source Developers Day” meeting in August 1998 said they intend to make only a part of their work free software (or open source) since the focus of their business is on developing proprietary add-ons (software or manuals) to sell to the users of the free software. According to Stallman, those developers requested that this should be regarded as legitimate, as part of the community, because some of the money is donated to free software development. Whichever way you look at it, it is a dangerous trend for the future of open source software.

The ideals and philosophy of open source is threatened by the ‘marriage of convenience’ of open source with the commercial world, which makes a strong case for the traditional free software movement. It is, perhaps, taking the adage ‘making a case to the commercial world’ too far. Eventually, there may such a blend of both the open source movement and the commercial world that we are not able to distinguish between the two. The enemy would have sneaked in unawares and made sport of all ideals and philosophies of the open source movement.

These are all valid concerns that the open source community needs to address. In closing I have a word of advise for the open source movement from my grandmother which I find appropriate – If you don’t know where you’re going, remember where you’re coming from.

Sources

1. Wikipedia Encyclopedia

2. Open Source Initiative

3. The Free Software Foundation

4. The Apache Software Foundation

5. Richard M. Stallman in “Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution”

6. John Udell “Open Source Citizenship”.

Software Piracy

We regularly hear reports about the cost to the software industry of software piracy, but are the claims to be taken at face value? Statistics are notoriously biased towards what the author is trying to say.

Types of Software:

There are three basic types of software, although these do have their own subsections, as will be discussed later:

1. Commercial software, purchased with a licence for one or more computers. This generally is coupled with some form of support and regular updates to patch errors etc. Sometimes a new version of the software is offered at a reduced rate as “update”. This type of software is generally relatively expensive and is often designed to cover specific industrial purposes. The big exception is the various sets of “office” software, which are designed for use in the commercial environment, but can naturally be equally used for various tasks at home. The most common application in this category is, of course, text editing. Most of the other classic “office” applications, such as calculations and data bases are only of limited use in the domestic environment, although they will be used in some cases, particularly now that the more computer-literate generation is growing.

2. Simplified or “lite” versions of the commercial software. These are intended principally for small businesses and enterprises that do not need the complete capabilities of, say, a 3-D modelling system, but must be able to view such documentation and prepare compatible drawings. Again, the “office” environment was a long time not represented in this sector, but has recently started to be available. These will also come with a single or multiple, but limited licence and now mostly be registered with the manufacturer.

3. Free or “open source” software. This is designed for general distribution and has no particular limitations as to use, except that it may not be changed in any way. Naturally, such software has its limitations, but may serve very adequately for many purposes. Practically all types of software are to be found in this category. One notable application distributes the software to read its documents freely, but charges for the software to produce the documents. This policy is arguably the motor behind its ride to a position as industry standard, since you can always be certain that he receiver can decipher whatever is sent, without long discussions about compatibility and versions.

Clearly, there can be no piracy of products that fall into the third category, except for changing of the code or reuse of the code for other purposes, but this does not appear to be a major issue at the moment, so we will concentrate our attention on the first two categories.

Both of these categories contain software that is copied and distributed either free of charge or for a nominal fee. Naturally, the full versions of the software are preferred, but the simplified versions are also to be found, depending on what is available.

Types of Software Pirate

This puts our software pirates into two categories of their own:

1. Those who knowingly use a copy of software “borrowed” from work or supplied by friends, who probably acquired it by the same means.

2. Those who prepare copies of software from an original and sell it at a low price through internet auctions or on market stands. Their customers may, in many cases, be unaware that the software has been pirated and simply be pleased to acquire a software package at a bargain price. Some will be quite well aware of the actual source, but still prepared to take this means of saving money.

Composition of the Groups:

So who is to be found in these two groups?

1. This group is very widely ranged and consists of school children, people practicing at home with the company software, various private persons with an interest in computers who will try anything that is free and, possibly, very small businesses. Many schools will supply their students with copies of software licensed for the school to enable them to complete homework or learn to use it for technical subjects. A student finishing a technical school with little or no knowledge of the technical software used in their industry will not easily find employment, so a blind eye is turned in many schools to this practice. Schoolwork is often required to be written on computer these days, and again, this is only really possible if some form of text software is available. Those who use company software at home to play with or for their children to complete homework are also a large group. The computer has become a part of our lifestyle in the western hemisphere, and many people are interested in the possibilities opened by the modern generation of powerful number-crunchers. The days of mainframe computers costing hundreds of thousands of dollars is not gone, but the small computer in a network has taken over in many areas, so the professional software that would earlier have required a mainframe connection and a whole basement full of equipment will now run happily on a home computer. There may be a loss of speed, but who cares? The vast majority of these people know full well that what they are doing is not allowed, but consider this as a very minor matter, and would laugh at any suggestion that they should purchase the software officially. The few companies that also do this are saving money that they probably do not have, despite being aware of the risks.

2. The group of people who copy software and distribute it for sale as being genuine are working simply for profit, taking advantage of the simplicity of the process and the high prices of genuine software. The general public is not aware of the penalties for this type of action and is often unsure about recognising the genuine article. Other items in the consumer market are available from many manufacturers as basically identical products, so why should this not be the case with software? Very many are simply duped into buying what they see as a cheap alternative to a brand-marked product.

Costs of Software Piracy:

So what are the real costs to the software companies?

In most cases, school and college students would not be in a position to pay the costs for the expensive commercial software they use in technical subjects, and the schools and colleges are not in a position to supply this to them free of charge. Most schools have licences for software to be used on the premises, but this is not available for the students at home. Theoretically, they will use the computers at school to complete work and practice, but this is generally not possible due to a lack of resources, or classrooms locked because of vandalism. The only way to solve the problem is for the schools to simply distribute the software to their students on the basis of it being only for their use. There is no licence and no direct upgrade possible. Generally, although illegal, this system works quite well. Schools try to copy upgrades and patches for their students, mostly successfully. The snag to the matter is that we educate people in that this is perfectly acceptable practice, despite it being illegal. No-one would think of insisting or even checking that drop-out students erase the software and no longer use it, but this is probably fairly well assured by the fact that they have dropped out in the first place!

Solutions to Software Piracy:

Student Software:

Low-Cost Software:

One of the best-known software companies has recently started to sell a slightly simplified version of their software in a student package, stating that this is not for commercial use. Naturally, this is being distributed to everybody without regard to their true status as student or not! Nevertheless it is a definite move in the right direction. Providing an affordable alternative is the first step towards a solution for this problem. The quality is good and it contains all the usual features that are needed.

Other companies also offer free software for student use, but this is in most cases pitifully inadequate and simply not up to the job and no preparation for later commercial practice. It remains to be seen how far the availability of reasonably priced student software will affect sales of the commercial product. One of the factors presumably behind this move is the general attitude that the present software is perfectly adequate and can be used for a length of time without being replaced. Since many software houses have distanced themselves from the idea of upgrade software for older versions at a reduced price, this attitude will probably cause sales of the full commercial software to be limited to new systems, and not as an improvement on older systems.

The new wave of student software is probably intended to bridge this gap somewhat by providing extra revenue. Whether the fears of the others that the production of a student version at greatly reduced price will cut into their sales of the full, commercial version will prove to be correct, or the alternative view that these are complementary products will prevail will remain to be seen.

Benefits of Student Use:

It is undoubtedly true that someone who has trained on one type of software will tend to remain loyal to it as far as company policies allow and that this is a definite motivation to purchase a type of software, hence the policy of the schools is unlikely to be challenged or mentioned publicly. Nevertheless, there is no reason for forcing our youth into criminal activity! Providing a solution that allows people to use these applications during training legally should be a priority for the software houses that will bring some revenue in the short term, and possibly more in the long term. One of the problems in the computer branch has always been the emphasis on short term results and quick profits, but this attitude will have to change soon to allow for these factors.

“Fun ” Use:

Again, the people who use the company software at home for fun cannot really be seen as a risk to the profits of a software company. They would simply spend their time otherwise in the evenings if they did not have this possibility! The matter only then becomes problematic when they begin producing work privately for other companies. This would then definitely be a matter for concern, both for the producers of the software and other companies in the same branch, who have to calculate the costs of software into their prices.

Geographical Factors:

The problem is also geographically different. Most of the software packages originate, at least on paper, from the United States. The prices in Europe tend to be 1.5 to 2 times higher, without considering sales tax of any type, which is generally higher in most European countries. Whilst this may not be of consequence for the run of low-cost software, it is a significant difference when complex design or technical applications are considered. This price differential is often explained by higher support costs or translation costs, but these factors alone cannot be the complete reason. A change in this policy would probably help to reduce the level of use of copies in the commercial field at least. Splitting software packages into easily-upgraded elements would also enable small companies to purchase what they need immediately and then add the extra features in time as and when necessary.

Reasons for Software Piracy:

Software piracy is legally a crime, but it is a crime that is still acceptable in our society. Very little has been done to combat it for a number of reasons. One reason is that it is almost universal amongst users of computers. Many people “need” an application once per year and do not wish to pay the sometimes horrendous cost for the commercial licences. Companies have made no real attempt to combat it until now, since this is a form of free advertising, and the benefits of having it available to students have been mentioned above. It is only now, when the earning curve start to tip downhill that this is seen as a threat to company existence. In reality it is relatively simple to make something extremely difficult to copy. Impossibility is a dream in the computer world these days!

Concluding Remarks:

That criminal activity should be hindered and software piracy is, broadly speaking, theft, is quite correct, but the solution is not just to seek out and punish wrong-doers, but to find a solution for all these groups of people who, for one reason or other, wish to use the software, but cannot, or will not, find the means of paying the present market cost. An imaginative solution to this problem could well be the break-through that a company needs to make itself known in every household, provided the product is correct.

Simon Fowler is a graduate in Mechanical Engineering and now works as sales technician for flue gas analyzers. He is presently employed by madur electronics in Vienna, Austria.