June 01, 2009

The fight over open source 'leeches'

Open source is supposed to be all about community, but as commercial open source becomes the norm, fewer developers are giving back. Is that hurting open source?

Further complicating the case was the origin of the code used by Actiontec: an unnamed Asian OEM that embedded it in the router's integrated circuits. Similarly, Cisco purchased parts from a vendor in China containing embedded code that should have been shared under the GPL -- but wasn't, says SFLC attorney Aaron Williamson. And that led to a suit filed late last year.

It's quite possible that the Asian vendors had never even heard of the GPL, much less thought about complying with it, he says. Still, the ultimate seller bears responsibility for the actions of its suppliers, and when education and persuasion fail, Williamson and his colleagues are prepared to sue for clients who step forward.

He figures that similar issues involving firmware are likely to arise. The Verizon case concluded with a favorable settlement for the developers last year, and Williamson says the Cisco lawsuit is close to a similar outcome.

The provision of the GPL that tripped up Verizon and Cisco is known as "copy left," which requires that users make changes public to code covered by the license. But you won't find that provision in Apache's licenses.

"We feel there are enough enticements without holding a gun to someone's head," says Apache Software Foundation president Justin Erenkrantz. The Apache license, he says, "is hard to violate because it basically says you can do whatever you want as long as you don't use our name." IBM, for example, can't claim its HTTP server is Apache, but it can note it is "powered or based" on Apache.

Why many enterprises are open source vampires
Given the forgiving terms of the license, it's not surprising that Apache doesn't have many problems with violations, but Erenkrantz goes further, praising Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, Yahoo, and even Google -- often labeled a freeloader -- for making significant contributions. He's not alone in letting Google off the hook. Matt Asay puts it this way: "A year ago I was a vocal critic of Google, but they've come around."

Asay, though, doesn't give everyone a pass. "Enterprise IT is the biggest consumer of open source software, and it gives almost nothing back to the community," he said in an interview. Particularly galling to him is the fact that the worst offenders generally aren't technology companies that might reasonably worry about giving away a competitive advantage, but mainstream enterprises that don't have such an excuse.

Why not comply? "I spoke at a CTO breakfast and asked that question," Asay recalls. "Some said it was hard to get approval from their company legal team, which worried about liability issues. Others simply didn't see the benefit."

No benefit? Open source projects -- and there are more than 100,000 on SourceForge alone -- may or may not use a license that "requires" a user to contribute back, but those who don't contribute back lose a key advantage of the model: collective support for new code. Companies that go it alone have to spend time and development money making fixes to "forks" that could be handled by others -- a powerful incentive to play by the rules.

Even so, the culture of collaboration, which is really the ideal of open source, doesn't run very deep in most companies. Institutions, as Woods pointed out, simply aren't wired that way -- yet.

Bill Snyder is a contributing editor to InfoWorld. He also writes the Tech's Bottom Line blog.
Close

On Twitter now

Open source initiatives

Powered by Twitter

White Paper

D2D Virtual Tape Library Replication Primer

This whitepaper explains the terminology and concepts behind Data Replication technologies and establishes some sizing rules through worked examples. Learn the new paradigm in disaster tolerance—protect data anywhere.

Download now »

White Paper

An Alternative to Virtualization for Datacenter Cost Savings

Server virtualization is a popular option for dealing with mounting datacenter costs. Another equally promising approach is the use of an Application Delivery Controller. Citrix NetScaler provides a low-cost way for organizations to reduce their server count and accrue cost savings from a reduction in space, cooling, power and personnel.

Download now »

White Paper

Why Your Firewall, VPN, and IEEE 802.11i Aren't Enough to Protect Your Network

The emergence of WLANs has created a new breed of security threats to enterprise networks.

Included in HP ProCurve WLAN solutions is security technology that alleviates threats from WLANs through:
* Monitoring wireless activity inside and out of the enterprise
* Classifying WLAN transmissions into harmful and harmless
* Preventing transmissions that pose a security threat to the enterprise network
* Locating participating devices for physical remediation

Download now »

White Paper

Bringing the Edge to the Data Center

Effectively address data protection challenges, implementing solutions that help store and protect business–critical data while cutting costs and improving efficiency and reliability.

Download now »
jimmyed2000 1-Jun-09 9:02am
So who are all of these open source developers and contributors? I disagree with Matt Asay on this topic. How many hobbyists need a CMS? Not many. I would think that almost all of the contributions that Alfresco gets are made by IT professionals working for enterprise organizations. Those organizations are paying those IT professionals. So indirectly all of their contributions come from enterprises - it's just not a direct contribution. James http://jamesdixon.wordpress.com
ian807 1-Jun-09 9:21am
And what were open source developers *expecting* to happen? Open source has always looked to me to be just another way for corporations to extract free labor from the young and naive. Corporations are not benign entities famed for upholding their end of a perceived social contract. They are self-serving, nothing else. To them, open source is just a resource. If they are not forced to uphold an obligation to return something, they won't, unless it immediately profits them to do so. Vaguer promises of future benefits motivate only college sophomores, not corporate executives. Bottom line? Open source projects were fun for the "Living in Mom's basement" crowd, but it's time to grow up.
rdm 1-Jun-09 9:23am
I understand people wanting others to participate in their activities, but demonizing people for being "leeches" seems, to me, to be totally wrong-headed. If you do not want people to be happily using your software without feeling the need for anything else... Seriously, if you are unhappy because people are using your free software, you need to re-think what you are doing. Meanwhile, if *your* software project is in danger of dying, I very much doubt that this would be because of your satisfied users. I am not prepared to solve other people's business issues for them, but as a starting point, you might think about what you would do if you had some highly successful marketing but were selling no products.

Sign up to receive InfoWorld Resource Alerts

Subscribe to the Technology: Open Source Newsletter

The one-stop resource center for IT professionals.

©1994-2009 Infoworld, Inc.