OpenOffice.Org Now Under LGPLv3

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Sun has moved OpenOffice.org to the LGPLv3 license. In his blog Sun's Simon Phipps cites worry over software patents as being one of their main reasons for this move: 'Upgrading to the LGPLv3 brings important new protections to the OpenOffice.org community, most notably through the new language concerning software patents. You may know that I am personally an opponent of software patents, and that Sun has already taken steps in this area with a patent non-assert covenant for ODF. But the most important protection for developers comes from creating mutual patent grants between developers. LGPLv3 does this.'"

Software

You may know that I am personally an opponent of software patents

Software is the only thing you can have both a patent AND a copyright on.

Re:

Don't patents apply to the method and copyright to the implementation?

Re:

Is that true? If so it defeats the argument that patents are good because they put information into the public domain after a certain time. I rather thought that patenting something removed your right to have copyright protection.

Re:

The idea is patented. The very specific implementation (the code) is copyrighted.
The patent on the idea will eventually expire. The exact specific code used in their specific implementation will remain copyrighted longer.

Imagine someone long ago patented

Re:Software

Unfortunately, plots of books and movies are also being patented by people like this. [plotpatents.com]

Re:Software

Those people belong in prison.

Ah, the LGPL, the "sane" GPL

The LGPL is in no way "lesser" than its hideously deformed cousin the GPL. Where the second one takes and takes, the first one gives and gives. It promotes community through sharing rather than through vigorously tilting at windmills.

If the LGPL were a presidential candidate, it would be Barack Obama -- "Yes we can." The GPL would be Ron Paul -- "We need the gold standard and protectionist trade."

Re:

I guess there is a reason you are "BadAnalogyGuy"

Re:Ah, the LGPL, the "sane" GPL

Never before in Slashdot history have you so completely earned your screenname. I salute you, sir.

Re:

How can someone "take and take" by publishing free software?

Re:

Because it takes as payment the entire work of someone who relies on the supposedly "free" software.

The LGPL only requires such payment if changes are made directly to the LGPL'd work itself.

Re:Ah, the LGPL, the "sane" GPL

So wait... How does that work? Chances are if someone relies on free software outside of free software projects (such as Debian, Mozilla, Ubuntu, Open Office, etc.) they work as a business and use free software to get the job done. Most of the time that software never leaves the company so the company could say that it will provide the source to anyone who requests it (being nobody) the company is in no way obligated to publish the modifications they made. They just can't prevent someone who has the source from uploading it to a server and having people download it.

Re:

Because it takes as payment the entire work of someone who relies on the supposedly "free" software.

How so?

Entire work: you mean that, e.g., the entire product portfolio of IBM becomes copylefted as soon as they use GPl'ed software in one of their products

Re:

It depends on how you look at it :

In GPL , anything that is derived from that code , must also be published under GPL .
So all code use must be GPL .

Lesser GPL changes this , in that it allows the LGPL'ed software to be linked with non GPL'ed software ( ie

Sun's lawyers "get it"

I've always claimed that whenever Sun wrote a strange license, it was because their lawyers told them to.

You may recollect a small war between Sun and MS over the MS effort to "embrace and extend" Java.

I suspect we'll see more GPL3 and LGPS3 as it is shown in practice to provide the same patent potection as CDDL.

--dave

Market Fragmentation

... Now, I don't know MUCH about GPL, etc. But the fragmentation of licensing agreements (LGPL, GPL, CC, CC2.5, ETC) is just going to confuse people

It is the SAME problem that most people have with linux - Linux is GREAT ... but most people don't care. I

Re:Market Fragmentation

But the fragmentation of licensing agreements (LGPL, GPL, CC, CC2.5, ETC) is just going to confuse people

Different licences for different purposes. And remember that before these licences came along, individuals would often release software under their own (often poorly worded) licences, or sometimes not at all. Sometimes the licences are ambiguous, or the authors feel compelled to add in all sorts of arbitrary restrictions (I guess that's their right, but it's annoying when there's no logical reason). Indeed some people still do that. When I see something that's licenced under "GPL" or "CC", I know exactly what I'm getting, and don't have to worry if I can or can't do something, or if even though it's advertised supposedly "free" I'm going to download it and find it's crippleware, trialware, or has all sorts of licence restrictions.

Recently I was looking for free graphics to use for writing games, and I came across one from years ago that had some licence saying it was free, but only for Windows because he wanted to be the one to "port" it to another platform. Huh? I thought, why should the graphics need to be changed for a different platform? Thankfully I then found a later version of the graphics which he'd sensibly released under CC.

I'm not sure that comparing to Linux distributions makes sense. You might as well complain that having thousands of pieces of software available is "confusing", and this is comparable to Linux distributions. If people just choose the first licence they come across because the rest are too confusing, that's fine.

Re:Market Fragmentation

remember that before these licences came along, individuals would often release software under their own (often poorly worded) licences ... When I see something that's licenced under "GPL" or "CC", I know exactly what I'm getting, and don't have to worry if I can or can't do something

Furthermore, it's worth noting that when it comes to proprietary software, the licensing landscape is very confused and inhomogeneous. Each software package has its own custom EULA. Though they often share similar features (e.g. "no liability"), there are often all kinds of ridiculous clauses buried among the boilerplate legalese. Volume license agreements are no better: you have to be very careful when selecting them (are we talking per-user? per-installation? per-processor? per-active-instance?).

As you point out, at least with open-source licenses, there are only a handful of major ones that cover the vast majority of software. Once you know about them, you can very quickly know how much control you'll have over the code, and can confidently download/install/use/modify as required.

There is no proprietary equivalent to this kind of well-organized and relatively homogeneous licensing landscape. (Of course not! Having "named" proprietary licenses would make it too easy for a customer to compare different product licenses and select the less onerous ones.)

Right, because MS has a single EULA

Oh wait, no MS has several, off the top of my head, the OS, directX, media player. Office offcourse as well, but that is a seperate product. Does IE still come with one? Silverlight?

In fact most windows software comes with a EULA all written differently.

So you claim that people have no problem understanding all these different EULA's but would be confused by the far simpler opensources licences of which only about a dozen are in actuall use?

Bad troll, no cookie for you! This is 2008, we expect more nowadays. Go on, mention soundcard drivers, why don't you.

About that patent non-assert covenant

That patent non-assert covenant is almost identical (and the differences are in the parts that aren't important) to Microsoft's patent no- assert covenant for its XML formats. Many have said that the latter is unacceptable for use with free software. It's also interesting to compare those two non-assert covenants against the one IBM provides for their patents that cover OpenOffice, and for Microsoft's OSP. I've made a little page that lists all four of these non-assertion covenants [nyud.net], side-by-side, with corresponding sections highlighted in matching colors.

Re:

I rarely read MS EULAs, because I never use MS products. But I've read one of the patent non-assert agreements on a proposed OOXML standard. ("A", because they've continued to shift the proposal, and because they reserve the right to continue to change i

Re:About that patent non-assert covenant

That patent non-assert covenant is almost identical ... to Microsoft's patent no- assert covenant

That's because Microsoft based their document on Sun's. I know that because the author of the Sun covenant is a colleague, because it was released at least a year before Microsoft copied it and because, after I pointed this out, Microsoft credited Sun for the original document.

(and the differences are in the parts that aren't important)

I disagree, and I have explained why before on my blog [sun.com]. Sun's covenant is intended to empower open source developers, and Microsoft has altered the parts that make that happen. Most notably, Sun's covenant grants all patents, Microsoft's is limited to "necessary claims". That is a very major difference since it means open source developers cannot be sure they have actually been given cover by Microsoft's covenant whereas they can be certain they have by Sun's. It is deeply regerttable that Microsoft added essential claims language in this way. For those who don't follow links, I also find the conformance requirements and the patent peace asymmetry poor in Microsoft's document.

Many have said that the latter is unacceptable for use with free software.

Indeed, and I am among them. However, your implication that the same applies to Sun's covenant is incorrect.

Re:Great ... now what about ZFS?

Let it go... Sun released ZFS on open source license. It already got integrated in few systems. Open source != GPL. Free software != GPL.
We, linux guys, want ZFS features. But we are not center of the universe. Let's just wait for btrfs to mature and Daniel Phillip's ddlink to take off.

Linus needs to reconsider GPL V3

No, but Linux==GPL. Sun could release ZFS under a Linux-compatible license without affecting anything else (they could triple-license it).

The only reason Sun isn't releasing ZFS under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license is to prevent Linux from using it. A

Re:I'm happy but...

Yawn, Solaris is probably the most capable server OS on the planet and it contains a number of technologies that even the most passionate Linux advocate would give their eye teeth to have in Linux. dtrace, ZFS, SMF etc etc.

Sun also developed Java still the most widely used application development and deployment platform for enterprise applications. It is also the largest single platform for Mobile Phones, way ahead of Symbian, Windows Mobile etc.

They have also developed the only credible alternative to MS's cash cow Office.

Not bad for a company apparently rubbish at Software development.