Just because it's open source software doesn't necessarily mean your business can use it as you wish.
That was a theme from the Harvard Business School-sponsored Cyberposium 2004 panel looking at proprietary vs. free open source software business models and legal implications.
Enterprises that have traditionally used proprietary software such as Microsoft NT are experienced with the detailed license agreements they sign off on before deploying the technology. But for companies moving to an open source environment such as Linux, where source code can be modified to fit the needs of a particular business, license language is often not as clear as it should be, said Douglas Levin, CEO of Black Duck Software, which sells license management software and services.
| There is money to be made out there. |
| — Chris Stone, Novell |
With some 80,000 open source-based projects in existence, Levin said, it's important for companies to stay on top of third-party code that might be used intentionally or unintentionally in your own open source products.
The licensing issue has become more muddied by the SCO Group, which claims control of key parts of the UNIX operating system. In lawsuits against Linux purveyors IBM and Novell and some users, SCO claims Linux contains unauthorized UNIX code. Both IBM and Novell indemnify their users against SCO's legal actions.
Confusion over open source licensing "has been blown way out of proportion," argued Chris Stone, a vice chairman for Novell, which has become a major player in the Linux distribution market. Microsoft's license language for shrink-wrapped software "is much more onerous," Stone said.
In a sense, the rules to using proprietary software are more clear-cut, said Jonathan Zittrain, co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society and professor at Harvard Law School. Basically, Microsoft says "you can use the software and that's it," Zittrain said. In the open source world, where source code can be modified and republished, the issues are more complex.
The key question for open source users to ask, said Zittrain, is whether the code you use will be modified and re-released back into the open source community. If the code is kept strictly in-house, restrictions are few, he said. If published, the licenses specify how the code must be credited and identified for future users.
Who makes money with open source?
Novell spent some $250 million to purchase SuSE Linux and Ximian, and now sells a Linux distribution backed with maintenance and support services and upgrades. "There is money to be made out there," Stone said.
In addition, Novell builds commercial products on top of open source software. "It's a great model," Stone said. In essence, he has 400,000 volunteer developers helping him improve his product.
| The open source community is experiencing a cultural divide over standards questions. |
Given its reliance on free development by volunteer programmers, an audience member questioned whether quality open source could continue to develop. Stone predicted more and more opportunities for those developers to create commercial software in the future, although Levin questioned whether the 50 to 60 percent margins for open source commercial products provide a compelling business model to attract developers and venture capitalists.
And Zittrain wondered whether the arrival of more big players would make open source a less tantalizing place to be for free-spirited developers, sort of like what happens when your parents show up at the rave.
The open source community is also experiencing a "cultural divide" over standards questions, Zittrain added, as technologies that traditionally have been developed and agreed upon from the ground up are now being challenged by variants developed by consortia and companies from the top down.
The Cyberposium panel was held January 17. 