Open Source Initiative Co-Founder Bruce Perens Resigns, Citing Move Toward License 'That Isn't Freedom Respecting' (theregister.co.uk) 69
Bruce Perens (Slashdot reader #3872) co-founded the Open Source Initiative with Eric Raymond in 1998. But on Thursday Perens posted "it seems to me that the organization is rather enthusiastically headed toward accepting a license that isn't freedom respecting. Fine, do it without me, please.
"I asked Patrick to cancel my membership, and I would have unsubscribed from OSI lists, including this one, if your server was working..."
The issue is a new software license drafted by lawyer Van Lindberg called the Cryptographic Autonomy License (or CAL). Another open-source-community leader familiar with the debate -- who spoke with The Register on condition of anonymity -- claimed Lindberg lobbied OSI directors privately to green-light the license, contrary to an approval process that's supposed to be carried out in public.
"I don't think that's an appropriate characterization," said Lindberg, of law firm Dykema, in a phone interview with The Register. "I think there are number of people who from the beginning made up their minds about the Cryptographic Autonomy License. You'll see a lot of people jumping onto any pretext they can find in order to oppose it. With regard to this idea of lobbying, there have been procedural-type communications that I think are entirely reasonable," he added. "But all the substantive debate has been on the license review and license discussion forums...."
Perens said he resigned because the OSI appears to have already decided to accept the license. He said he's headed in a different direction, which he called "coherent open source."
"We've gone the wrong way with licensing," he said, citing the proliferation of software licenses. He believes just three are necessary, AGPLv3, the LGPLv3, and Apache v2.
Meanwhile, the Cryptographic Autonomy License is envisioned for use with the distributed development platform Holo, notes the Register: According to Holo co-founder Arthur Brock, distributed peer-to-peer software needs a license that addresses cryptographic key rights, which is why the Cryptographic Autonomy License has been proposed. "We are trying to say: the only valid way to use our code is if that developer's end-users are the sole authors and controllers of their own private crypto keys," he wrote in a post last year.
Lindberg said the Cryptographic Autonomy License is applicable to current web applications but it more meaningful in the context of distributed workloads and distributed computation, which he contends will become more important as people seek alternatives to the centralization of today's cloud-based systems. "A lot of people are very concerned about this concept of owning your data, owning your computer, having the ability to really control your computing experience and have it not be controlled by your cloud provider," said Lindberg.
Perens said, "It's a good goal but it means you now need to have a lawyer to understand the license and to respond to your users."
Slashdot asked Bruce Perens for details on "Coherent Open Source." Here's what he wrote back...
"I asked Patrick to cancel my membership, and I would have unsubscribed from OSI lists, including this one, if your server was working..."
The issue is a new software license drafted by lawyer Van Lindberg called the Cryptographic Autonomy License (or CAL). Another open-source-community leader familiar with the debate -- who spoke with The Register on condition of anonymity -- claimed Lindberg lobbied OSI directors privately to green-light the license, contrary to an approval process that's supposed to be carried out in public.
"I don't think that's an appropriate characterization," said Lindberg, of law firm Dykema, in a phone interview with The Register. "I think there are number of people who from the beginning made up their minds about the Cryptographic Autonomy License. You'll see a lot of people jumping onto any pretext they can find in order to oppose it. With regard to this idea of lobbying, there have been procedural-type communications that I think are entirely reasonable," he added. "But all the substantive debate has been on the license review and license discussion forums...."
Perens said he resigned because the OSI appears to have already decided to accept the license. He said he's headed in a different direction, which he called "coherent open source."
"We've gone the wrong way with licensing," he said, citing the proliferation of software licenses. He believes just three are necessary, AGPLv3, the LGPLv3, and Apache v2.
Meanwhile, the Cryptographic Autonomy License is envisioned for use with the distributed development platform Holo, notes the Register: According to Holo co-founder Arthur Brock, distributed peer-to-peer software needs a license that addresses cryptographic key rights, which is why the Cryptographic Autonomy License has been proposed. "We are trying to say: the only valid way to use our code is if that developer's end-users are the sole authors and controllers of their own private crypto keys," he wrote in a post last year.
Lindberg said the Cryptographic Autonomy License is applicable to current web applications but it more meaningful in the context of distributed workloads and distributed computation, which he contends will become more important as people seek alternatives to the centralization of today's cloud-based systems. "A lot of people are very concerned about this concept of owning your data, owning your computer, having the ability to really control your computing experience and have it not be controlled by your cloud provider," said Lindberg.
Perens said, "It's a good goal but it means you now need to have a lawyer to understand the license and to respond to your users."
Slashdot asked Bruce Perens for details on "Coherent Open Source." Here's what he wrote back...
The "Coherent Open Source" plan asks creators of new work to place it under one of only three licenses: The Affero GPL 3, LGPL3, or Apache 2. These three were chosen because they are all compatible with each other, are all approved of by both OSI and FSF, and they provide a range of permissions suitable for different applications.
The premise here is that having so many different Open Source licenses is in general harmful to the community, due to the combinatorial problem and the need to understand so many of them, and is simply not necessary because each additional license does not bring a high value in innovation or new functionality -- at least in a way that supports the community rather than some company. Yet OSI goes on approving new ones. And the new license submissions tend to depart from the respect for freedom that has made Free Software / Open Source so successful.
If we plan a coherent strategy and go forward with it from here, we start to solve the problem of too many licenses.
All three licenses address the problem of software patents in some way. There is much text shared between AGPL3 and LGPL3, so the effect is sort of like having to learn 2.5 licenses rather than 3. And of course AGPL3 addresses the SaaS problem by requiring SaaS providers to share their modifications, just as the GPL required people to share modifications before SaaS. We should be asking more of companies like Google and Amazon today, since they get so much value from us. But without deviating from the ideals of Free Software / Open Source as some license proposals do.
The biggest criticisms are that it's difficult to combine with these licenses if your project is "GPL2 with no later version". There are several ways for either side of the combination to address that, but they aren't automatic. And I heard from a lawyer who really didn't like the scheme, but as far as I can tell it's just because he wants to do more lawyering.
I am all for the community needing attorneys only when it's time to enforce their licenses, not to figure out their own operations.
Slashdot used to be the place. (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a time when Bruce Perens would have used Slashdot to make his case and answer any questions.
Re: (Score:3)
That time passed around the same time Cmdr Taco rode off into the sunset.
Re:Slashdot used to be the place. (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce is an active participant on Slashdot.
He made several posts yesterday [slashdot.org].
Most likely he is just spending Sunday with his family. Or asleep. You don't get a phone call when Slashdot posts an article about you.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get a phone call when Slashdot posts an article about you.
Right, but they still drop leaflets from helicopters over the major population centers.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but they still drop leaflets from helicopters over the major population centers.
It's ok. They're not poisoned.
Re: (Score:2)
Shit. I hope I didn't miss mine.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, my comment was intended to be about how slashdot is no longer the place for breaking geek news; I recall a time when we could slashdot the BBC.
I have the utmost respect for Bruce Perens, he is actually one of public representatives in our field that has never actually disappointed me by going rogue in public or selling out.
Re: (Score:2)
The OSI was always a slippery slope vs FSF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, it's as simple as that. There are way too many different "open source" licenses and no one really understands them, least of all the people who would be in a courtroom when push comes to shove.
If you want to champion free software, then champion free software
Either you have an ideal or you don't. If you're a founder (or co-founder) of something and it turns to shit, look in the mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
You only need to understand the one you use for your work. FOSS what happens in the USA is really quite rapidly becoming of less and less importance. It will start shifting to what is happening in China, Russia, India and even the EU. So the pressure is off for English speaking FOSS, doesn't matter so much any more what happens in five eyes FOSS, that time is over.
It will be interesting to see what comes out of China with regard to FOSS over the next decade as they likely take the lead in a big way. So how
Re: (Score:2)
You only need to understand the one you use for your work
One?
You need to understand ***all*** the licenses in the components you use for your work.
For example, if you're using PostgreSQL and PostGIS you need to understand both of their (different for good reasons) licenses.
Re: (Score:3)
It was never going to be that they would be interchangeable. The BSD license dates all the way back to ~1990, and for those unaware, the BSD OS was a premier project covered extensively in the premier programmer trade journal Doctor Dobbs, an entire decade before the Open Source Initiative.
OSI named themselves The Open Source Initiative
Re: (Score:1)
Some of us haven't forgiven Bruce for licence proliferation by forking the OSD from the Debian Free Software Guidelinces because he had to be able to sell the idea to business $DEITY preserve us (and if you dig back in the mailing lists, you'll see how apt that is).
Re: (Score:3)
Bruce Perens posts frequently on Slashdot. He is just one of the many "celebrity Slashdotters" who populate this website - others include:
https://slashdot.org/~John+Car... [slashdot.org] (John Carmack)
https://slashdot.org/~CleverNi... [slashdot.org] (Wil Wheaton)
And .... erm ..... many, many more!
Re:Slashdot used to be the place. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but I also have a life, so Valerie and I went for a long walk at Point Pinole, and then for tacos and beer at East Brother brewery. I had a flight with the English Strong, Baltic Porter, Oatmeal Stout, and Russian Imperial Stout. And all of this was probably more fun than Slashdot :-)
Also, for a while the troll situation here was pretty bad. I am watching to see how things go.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Slashdot used to be the place. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for everything you've done for the open source community Bruce!
Very glad you are here (Score:2)
Bruce, I'm very glad you are here. Though you seem to have vanished for November. :)
That's okay, I vanished from my other chat for December.
You are one of a few people that I always enjoy discussing things with. Particularly when we disagree - partly because I'm aware that when you and I disagree, you might be right - I might have an opportunity to learn something.
No offense intended (Score:2)
As a British real ale fan I'd whole agreed; I polished off the a Christmas gift of a mixed crate of Great Newsome brewery in no time.
AIH, my point was aimed at slashdot, it used to the hub of that sort of communication. There was a time when a news items such as this would have broken here first.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, for a while the troll situation here was pretty bad. I am watching to see how things go.
You've called black people who were against affirmative action "racists" for "wanting to keep the status quo". You really shouldn't be calling other people trolls.
Re: (Score:3)
And all of this was probably more fun than Slashdot :-)
Yes but do enough of those flights in quick succession and you too would be having a completely incoherent argument with a stranger who can't form proper grammatically correct sentences,. kind of like Slashdot but not "on a computer". ... I wonder if that is patented :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if that is patented :-)
Yes, by Og the caveman who first made fun of Ug in cave drawings for not being able to catch a sickly antelope.
But the patent only recently ran out, so you are good to go on a non-obvious variation. However, the copyright has a lot of time remaining.
Re: Slashdot used to be the place. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Happy New Year
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Slashdot used to be the place. (Score:2)
If you are just a political dissident, I don't think anyone's going to be concerned about that.
The problem comes when people express misogyny or racial or religious hatred, or pederasty and attempt to clothe those things as dissidence, or these days even conservatism. It isn't either.
Unenforceable (Score:4, Interesting)
"with respect to the work" (Score:4, Insightful)
3.1 has awkward wording. I had to read it twice to understand it. It's saying *with respect the licensed work*, you are given permission to do whatever you want, to do anything that is protected by copyright on the work.
It would probably be better written as:
--
Licensor grants You the world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive permission to:
Copy the work
Distribute copies
Distribute derived works
Any other action protected by copyright on the work
The above permissions include a patent license under any patent controlled by the Licensor, to the extent such patent license applies to the Work as distributed by the Licensor.
--
I don't see a problem with 3.1 legally. It's just not written as clearly as it could be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Unenforceable (Score:2)
Bad wording again - it refers to 4.4 (Score:3)
The first phrase in 4.1 refers to 4.4.
4.4 says this only applies to people you distribute the work to.
4.2 says source can be provided by a third party.
Taken together, they say:
For one year after you stop distributing it to your customers, one of two things must be available:
A) Have source code available to customers (on your web or ftp site)
B) The source code exists publicly, such as on GitHub
The problem I see is that distributing the source itself triggers 4.1, so you have to make the source code available
Context (Score:5, Insightful)
The context of the resignation seems to be in response to being called out:
And the "FUD" in question was this (further down, in response to Bradley Kuhn siding with Bruce):
I'm inclined to say I agree with the call-out.
Re:Context (Score:5, Insightful)
The license itself goes against the OSI standard [opensource.org] (as I see it), because it restricts the way the software can be used. That is, certain products cannot be built using source code with this license.
Re: (Score:2)
You will never really have the context when it comes to political in0fighting. Best you leave aside opinions of that stuff. The interesting question is: why is the new license not just bad, but intolerably bad in his opinion. Or is it just the perceived perversion of process?
I'd love it Bruce were to pop in and enlighten us on that.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what Bruce Peren's opinion is, but after reading the license, I think it is well intentioned but badly written, probably because the author is a lawyer and decided to write it from scratch rather than improving on an already existing license. A better approach would have been to start from the AGPL, and add the conditions protecting users' data from being hijacked by withholding of encryption keys, which seems to be the key problem this license sets out to solve.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You echo exactly what I thought.
I'm with Perens. The "Open" in open source methodology has been subverted. The OSI needs to be forthcoming about addressing the conundrum, lest its fate be certain and very finite.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Open" in open source methodology has been subverted.
Hint: The co-founder of the OSI had something to do with that.
Licenses are delusions. Always. (Score:3, Interesting)
Open source and licenses are incompatible concepts.
Because open source acknowledges the uncontrollable freedom of information that is an inherent result of the laws of physics. But licenses try to put rules on that freedom. Something that cannot possibly ever work.
But how do we prevent TiVoization and people leeching on us then?
Simple: Do not give anyone a license AT ALL. Simply release a document, stating that you will not prosecute anyone who uses your software in any way, unless they themselves ever try to enforce imaginary property schemes onto the world. And you *expect* people to openly break the "law" by copying your software without a license.
So it is not a license, but merely a public statement, with no legal normativity.
Then, nobody who backs imaginary property, can ever use your software.
And if they try anyway, you of course sue them, using their own weapons against them. And the only legal way out you offer them, is a contract where they give up all their imaginary property shemes for all eternity, and all their works go to the public domain forever. Retroactively too.
They can of course refuse to settle, and go to court. You'll be using Content Mafia math(TM), to calculate the damages they owe you. Bwahahahahaa!
(Payable in transferral of all their imaginary property to you, too, of course. rofl)
Re:Licenses are delusions. Always. (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source and licenses are incompatible concepts.
On the contrary, open source is very much dependent upon licenses, and depend on copyright (yes, copyright).
When you write something sufficiently unique it is convered by copyright. By licensing your work you give away some of the right given to you under copyright laws, if your will, specified in the license, is followed. In open source it is about derivative work being shared under the same license so we can continue to build on something even though copyright normally would prevent that. So the license is needed.
You might have strong (negative) feelings about copyright, but as long as you live in a society where there are copyright laws you are affected by them.
Because open source acknowledges the uncontrollable freedom of information that is an inherent result of the laws of physics.
There is no such thing. That is the ramblings of an idealistic fanboy without grasp of how society works.
But how do we prevent TiVoization and people leeching on us then?
Simple: Do not give anyone a license AT ALL. Simply release a document, stating that you will not prosecute anyone who uses your software in any way, unless they themselves ever try to enforce imaginary property schemes onto the world. And you *expect* people to openly break the "law" by copying your software without a license. So it is not a license, but merely a public statement, with no legal normativity.
What you are proposing IS a license, even if you choose to call it "a public statement". But brewing your own license might be worse if those trying to exploit your work can find a loophole in it. Stick to the already existing licenses that have been vetted instead of trying to be a smart-ass and reinventing the wheel (poorly).
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you don't understand. Information is free as an unavoidable *consequence of the laws of physics*. It doesn't need your copyright, OR your licenses!
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, you don't understand. Information is free as an unavoidable *consequence of the laws of physics*. It doesn't need your copyright, OR your licenses!
Dude, you don't understand. "Information is free as an unavoidable *consequence of the laws of physics*" is not a thing. You might wish it was, but it isn't. As best it is an internet meme. Just repeating the same bullshit over and over again doesn't make it true. What laws of physics are you referring to?
If you want to get really philosophical about stuff and ramble about the laws of physics, nothing is free. Ever. There is always a cost, even to information.
Re: (Score:2)
Whooosh.... ;)
If you really want to argue this ridiculous point, you should do it with the OP, Barefoot. I wouldn't recommend it though.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom (as in speech) is a human legal concept that has nothing to do with the laws of physics except insofar as humans are ultimately collections of objects that obey the laws of physics.
All property is imaginary in the sense you mean. The only thing stopping you from taking my keys and driving my car away is a human legal framework backed by a strong organisation that can have you thrown into jail.
Furthermore, your position is incoherent. You say tell people to ignore the law but then you advocate prosec
Re: (Score:3)
Oh dear. I really should have included sarcasm tags.
Re: (Score:3)
You're a piece of work, saying you have a scheme for open source that will be enforced by...drumroll... copyright law if anyone violates your wishes.
Contradiction.
Open source relies on copyright; even your imagined "solution" does.
Re: (Score:1)
While I like your solution, I think the premise of the question is wrong here.
People aren't leeching. This still seems to be based on the idea that information has an owner. An idea that I think goes counter to the ideals of open source.
If someone uses my code in a closed source project, what have I lost? I still have the code. Other people can still use my code and modify it as they see fit. Had the other party not used my code we would
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Wrong. The newest version of GPL is designed to prevent TiVoization. People just don't listen.
Not sure I 100% understand the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words. (Score:2)
claimed Lindberg lobbied OSI directors privately to green-light the license
Lindberg bribed the OSI to do accept the license that's favorable to him and/or his clients. OSI appears to be just another corrupt organization open to taking cash to influence their "decisions" in matters of all sorts. Too bad those of us using free and open source software aren't the ones deciding who on that board making the decisions for that effect us.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
100% Agree. OSI is not our ("Free Software") friend and it never has been. ESR is not our friend either. They are interested in making money. I am glad OSI is being exposed.
I keep wondering about an AI lawyer. (Score:1)
Point a software app at the contract and let it answer in plain language what the details of the contract are. Examples of typical situations and their resolutions, etc. I mean even today we are blindly accepting EULAs, and it seems like this could be a good way to put a dent in a high cost field offering a great service to poor people who can't afford a lawyer to read through contracts, or laws, or whatever might have legalese embedded in them.
Re: (Score:2)
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
I have great respect for Bruce Perens (Score:1)
AGPL (Score:1)
Legal gibberish (Score:1)
MIT License or Bust. (Score:2)
I haven't released software under the GPL since RMS's insane rant at the LinuxWorld GNOME press conference about 20 years ago. Sorry, Bruce, I'm not on your side this time.