Can an Open Source Project Be Acquired? 336
prostoalex writes "Can an open source project be acquired? ZDNet's Between The Lines says yes, one just did. Software startup JasperSoft acquired Sourceforge-based project JasperReports, which involved acquiring the copyrights and hiring the lead developer for the project." I guess the point he tries to make is that the new corporate overloads can essentially have a free and non-free version of the code, and more or less orphan the free version. The problem of course is that if the non-free version gets good, others will simply fork.
Nothing wrong with that (Score:5, Interesting)
So, the corporate buyout angle is a red herring. This is no different from any developer taking their ball and going home.
No Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem of course is that if the non-free version gets good, others will simply fork.
That's only the problem for the company that bought it. It's no problem for any of us to take the open source version and de-orphan it. Having a deep pocket benefactor is actually a positive for open source. Look at IBM. They haven't acquired rights to anything yet, but in the future they may start buying up Open Source projects... you never know.
But acquiring an open source project can be a solid benefit for any business. This is good when companies take an open source project and fully fund it. That's part of the Open Source dream, IMHO. Money can still be made on services!
Who cares if it's forked into a closed area? There still is the old source to build on!
Size of the Project / Consent (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean sure for a handful of developers on a small project it'd be pretty easy to acquire the project, assuming none of them were OS zealots. However, good luck trying to acquire something as big as, say, the Linux kernel.
Author relicenses work! News At 11... (Score:5, Interesting)
The good thing here is that the original work is still covered under the TOCs of its original FOSS license, so the original author and others can continue making improvements and otherwise maintain the software.
Otherwise, move along. Nothing to see here.
I'm not sure this is entirely evil (Score:3, Interesting)
Having said all that; I really hope it's not a continuing trend.
Indeed (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:No Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm sorry, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://dvarchive.sf.net/ [sf.net] or http://www.sf.net/projects/dvarchive/ [sf.net]
It was GPL licensed, but the original author changed the license terms and managed to get sourceforge to delete everything that had once been available from the SF page. For a year or more he had claimed that he had lost the sources and was going to upload when the new version worked. Obviously that didn't happen.
I think this happened because the project's primary user base was not open source fans, so very few copies of the source were ever archived elsewhere. Apparently, open source developers were never interested enough to create a fork or even keep a copy of the source while the source was available.
Now the source simply is not available for the current version (3.x), nor even the last versions which were ostensibly GPL'd (2.1 or 3.0). (The license for the current version is not GPL.)
It has happened with other projects, and will undoubtedly continue to happen. It won't happen any time soon with Linux kernels or emacs, but when something isn't incredibly popular, it can and does happen.
My lesson leared from this, is to keep a copy of the source for anything and everything in which I am even a little bit interested. Still get burned sometimes though.
sdb
No problem! The new products are "complimentary" (Score:3, Interesting)
A new company called JasperSoft (http://www.jaspersoft.com) has formed to invest in JasperReports and offer support, services and complimentary commercial products for JasperReports.
Unless, of course, he meant "complementary"...
Seriously, the above statement seems to be saying that they will be offering mostly support and add-ons, not taking the core product private. The JasperReports software is currently under the LGPL [sourceforge.net], so there is some assurance that the original will still be available in the future, if anybody cares enough to fork the project.
Not very good recommendation (Score:4, Interesting)
Another company forked, and brought us GForge, which incorporates SVN and other improvements. Too bad GForge isn't used by the SourceForge site itself.
Food for thought.
Relicencing happens (Score:1, Interesting)
Was the ZDnet author's memory so short as to forget that SSH communications closed SSH when they produced their commericial version of SSH2 - History of SSH [hn.edu.cn]? Another project that this has "happened" to is TuxRacer but I don't think that had many outside contributions. I don't see the big deal - people should be allowed to change their mind if they are the copyright owners!
Re:I don't get it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Can we moderate an entire story as "Flamebait"?
No, but people with mod points can refrain from moderating any posts in the story. It may not do much, but it's something.
This isn't the first time (Score:4, Interesting)
Both "bought up" by corporations, but the free versions are still very much alive and kicking.
At least these JasperSoft folks have tried to answer the obvious questions and they'd continue with the free version.
Re:Hrm, there's a wrinkle here, I think (Score:4, Interesting)
The creator (aka "lead developer") owns the copyright to the software. The GPL does not transfer ownership of the copyright. All it does is license the software for others to use. GPL or no GPL, the copyright stays firmly in the hands of the creator.
The creator, of course, does not need to license the software to himself. That would be silly. So the creator, unlike everyone else, is NOT obligated to abide by the "licensee" terms of the GPL. The creator must still uphold his end of the GPL, which is to ensure that the software AS IT WAS when it was licensed to the licensee remains licensed to the licensee as long as the licensee abides by the terms of the GPL.
However, the creator can re-license NEW versions of the software under any license he chooses.
In theory, I imagine you could create a license which could restrict the creator's rights to license future versions of the software. This would be akin to a "promise" to not license the software EVER under anything but, say, the GPL. The GPL as it stands, however, has no such clause, and I can't imagine that most creators would want to tie their hands in such a way.
Re:Not possible in the EU (Score:5, Interesting)
In the US, you can buy the copyright to an artwork, and then vandalize it in any way you like and sell the vandalized copies (the classic example is painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa). In most of Europe, this would infringe the creator's moral rights, and moral rights cannot be sold. The exploitation rights cover the rights to make money from the work in a way that does not damage the integrity of the work.
Re:Not possible in the EU (Score:2, Interesting)
happened with Sendmail and Bind (Score:3, Interesting)
Course their pricing is off the wall.
I couldnt believe the FUD their sales skunks were telling the windows fools in my previous job.
I convinced the company to save the $Kash and we went with the standby from sendmail.org.
Re:Not possible in the EU (Score:2, Interesting)
What comes to selling copyrights, you can license all the rights to your copyright material, including rights to resell and relicense your works. You can even make a license that forbids yourself from selling your work! (this has happened many a time before!)
In Europe, copyrights are considered "moral rights"(droit d'auteur); the right to claim something was made by you; in U.S. the rights protect your privilege to economically profit from your work.
As such, it's possible to acquire an open source project - you just need to hire everyone who has worked on the project and change the license of all future versions.