Open Source Prime Time? Sometimes...

No doubt the open source movement is having a significant, tangible, positive impact on the technology industry. It's success grows every day as we see it moving up the priority list of IT Managers and CIOs in large part because of the cost savings it offers. Even though open source has arrived on a macro scale, I see plenty of difficulties on a micro scale, which reminds me open source needs to make significant strides to be truly mainstream.

The micro level difficulties range from quirky annoyances to significant impediments to performing necessary activities. For example, I spoke at a PLI legal continuing education course on open source licensing a few months ago, and I will speak on a panel at the Open Source Business Conference next week. Both presentations required submission of slides and associated documentation prior to the presentation. A message went out to presenters: "Our presentation machines *do not* support OpenOffice." Microsoft PowerPoint and Microsoft Office were the only supported formats (in fact, sometimes even PDF is not supported). In addition, when collaborating with colleagues, no matter how carefully one converts OpenOffice documents to Microsoft Office formats, formatting and content problems are almost certain to occur.

[Update: OSBC presenters received an e-mail update today notifying us that OpenOffice documents are in fact supported for the presentation. Great news! One small step towards making open source practical for everyone in all circumstances.]

On an even more granular level, while open source tools are generally pretty good, they are not quite ready for full product use. Redlining, for example, is a critical tool lawyers and others use for tracking changes between different versions of contracts. While I use OpenOffice a majority of the time and am largely satisfied with it, the document comparison feature is inaccurate and unreliable. (For a positive spin on use of OpenOffice and other open source software in legal workflows, check out the Open Source for Lawyers website.)

My point is not to steer you away from open source. On the contrary, I am a heavy user of open source applications for my work and personal projects including Mozilla Thunderbird and Lightning for e-mail and calendar, and GIMP as a Photoshop alternative. However, I am acutely aware of the limitations of these applications when it's crunch time. When I have 15 minutes to produce a redline that will properly display all the sneaky changes an opposing attorney has made to a contract, I simply can't rely on OpenOffice. I hope this changes sometime in the near future.

Magic and Fear vs. Open Source Reality

I am surprised at how easy it is to let the magic or fear of open source sidetrack discussions that should be firmly rooted in legal considerations. Maybe this is because open source evokes such polarized reactions ... true believers show fanatical devotion to the open source movement as if it is a religion, while technology dinosaurs grumble about risk and cling to the notion that open source is a fad. The reality, of course, is that the majority of us fall somewhere in between these extremes and are in a constant state of assessment as to how best to use open source to our advantage. In making these assessments, we need to take care that we don't let the rhetoric around us cloud our judgment.

Attorneys need to pay special attention to this because one of the critical roles we play is to give an honest assessment of the facts and risks. Unfortunately, even the most experienced attorneys can be distracted by the level of rhetoric around open source, particularly when open source isn't a primary practice area. Like all legal issues, analysis of open source issues requires a disciplined approach. Here is short hierarchy of things to consider in order of priority (using GPL as the context in some cases):

1. Know the law. This is obvious, yet open source discussions often fail to include an explicit discussion of basic legal issues. In his 2001 essay on Enforcing the GNU GPL, Eben Moglen (then General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation) made it clear that even though the idea of free software is unusual in the world of proprietary intellectual property rights, "as a copyright license the GPL is absolute solid." Contract law is as important to open source as copyright law. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals used contract law to reach its ruling in the recent Jacobsen v. Katzer case. Finally, the increased litigation surrounding the GPL (such as the Busybox line of cases and the FSF v. Cisco case) are as important a reason as any to make sure you know what the law says about open source.

2. Know the GPL. The basic concepts of copyleft and the goal of the GPL seem easy enough to understand - if you modify GPL-licensed code, you must distribute your modifications in source code. While this is generally true, the details of the GPL are critically important to determining how to comply with the license. The Software Freedom Law Center's Practical Guide to GPL Compliance provides a list of details that could be the subject of claimed violations. Truly understanding the GPL can be an impossible task when we consider the flexibility and ambiguity intentionally built into the GPL. Reading and understanding the SFLC's Practical Guide, FSF's FAQs on the GPL and other resources is important in interpreting the GPL.

3. Understand the community's priorities. One of the distinguishing elements of open source is the deep involvement of the community. Even if you think you have the "right" answer to a particular open source question under the law or based on a valid interpretation of the GPL, the community might reach an equally valid answer under its own analysis and interpretation. As a result, open source activities cannot be considered in a vacuum.

4. Evaluate where your business goals fit. Don't let irrational exuberance or paralyzing fear over open source rule your decision making. Open source decisions are business decisions like any other within an organization and should be subject to the same types of review and decision making considerations. Open source is a tool for use in achieving business objectives, but is not an objective in itself.

Admittedly, none of this is new ... these tips are considerations businesses evaluate every day. Even so, consider this a friendly reminder that open source is neither magic nor the bogeyman. It is just another tool in your toolbox and should be treated accordingly.

Copyrights: Alive and Kicking in Open Source

As mentioned in my previous post, this is the first in a series of posts about the role of intellectual property rights in open source businesses. Copyrights and copyright ownership are a significant part of all open source businesses and are as relevant today as ever before.

In a world where the most popular open source license (the GNU Public License) embodies the philosophy of "copyleft," it would be easy for an open source company to ignore the value of copyrights and copyright ownership. It is even easier to ignore copyright ownership with the great success of a company like Red Hat whose business is built on a foundation of software with so many copyright owners that the concept of ownership becomes virtually irrelevant. In spite of this, open source companies must make copyrights and copyright ownership a top priority, and must implement business policies that protect and exploit copyrights as necessary to make their chosen open source business models effective.

Copyright ownership seems "old school". For decades, proprietary software companies have tightly controlled their copyrights in, and generated revenue by, granting limited scope usage rights to customers. The rise in popularity in open source business models in recent years has changed the way software companies use copyrights and the rights they grant to customers. Companies that license their software as open source, by definition, can't prevent others from exploiting their copyrights to make a better product, or by setting up a consulting or service business based on the same software. Differentiation is the only way an open source company can survive in this environment, and copyright ownership is a critical element of differentiation for any open source business models.

Most open source business models roughly fall into two categories: dual-license or service-oriented. Open source companies that retain ownership of copyrights (either by creating code themselves or through an assignment of rights from contributors) can implement a dual licensing model. While the purists in the open source world might see the use of closed source value-add components as a contradiction to the open source values, realists recognize that the value and quality of open source software cannot be sustained unless a revenue stream accompanies it. The dual license model gives open source companies that own copyrights incredible flexibility. Not only can they license their software to companies that would not typically entertain use of open source software by providing a closed source license, but they can also develop add-on components that retain the open source nature of the core software while generating value that was not previously there.

Open source companies that implement a service-oriented business model can also benefit from copyright ownership and differentiation. These companies can extend the value they provide beyond their services by creating their own add-on components for which they own the copyrights. These components can be licensed as closed source, or under a dual-license model, which gives an open source company a new level of flexibility.

Open source companies with all levels of revenue can enjoy the good news that copyrights are generally easy to protect and exploit. They are created spontaneously upon creation of copyrighted work and can be exploited through basic license agreements or through transfer of ownership. Registration of copyrighted material, which enhances a company's ability to enforce copyright infringement claims, takes very little time or money. Even in cases where copyright ownership is not deemed important as a primary business strategy, open source companies should pursue ownership and protection of copyrights to the greatest degree that makes sense for the chosen business model to preserve flexibility and enable differentiation.

In my next post, we will look into possibly the most important intellectual property right of all for open source companies: trademarks.