Open Source Initiative

Pamela Jones, of Groklaw, thinks that OSI has a problem in Open Core. I think she has it backwards. The Open Core (most notably SugarCRM) folks have a problem. They'd like to convince people that they can achieve the open source effect by having two versions of their code: an open source version, and a proprietary version. They'd like to convince people that their proprietary code is going to benefit from the open source effect. Good luck with that!

I'm running a BOF at OSCON on Wednesday night July 21st at 7PM, with the declared purpose of adopting an Open Source Definition for Open Data. Safe enough to say that the OSD has been quite successful in laying out a set of criteria for what is, and what is not, Open Source. We should adopt a definition Open Data, even if it means merely endorsing an existing one.

Will you join me there?

Some friends of Open Source are banging out an OSHW definition. They're doing a good job so far. If you're making open source hardware, make sure that you comply with the definition, and then tell people that you do. I'm going to do that for my "Environmental Sensing with Arduino" talk at OSCON this summer.

If you distribute Open Source software containing encryption from the United States, you are subject to US export controls, yes. But are there any real restrictions? The only thing that the law requires you to do (for Open Source) is send an email to crypt@bxa.doc.gov with the URL. So why do SourceForge and Google impose greater restrictions than the law requires? Anybody know?

UPDATE 8-Feb-2010: Good news! SourceForge has turned off blanket restrictions, and made it a per-project choice. Unfortunately, they default to blocking, so everyone login to SF and declare your project to be freely redistributable to all! If you think your software might be subject to export control, then send your SF.net URL to the email address listed above. CC a copy to export@ our domain name and I'll keep a copy forever, as evidence that you complied with the law.

Greg Stein (Apache developer and all-around nice guy) made an off-hand comment about open source trademarks in an article(How to Screw Your (Open Source Software) Customers). He was talking about how many users of MySQL have actually using a purchased proprietary licensed copy of the software, and not the open source licensed copy. MySQL's business model uses dual licensing: the GPL, and for the folks whom its strictures are unacceptable, a standard proprietary license.

An Open Source company, Red Hat (RHAT), is now listed on the S&P 500! Congratulations Red Hat!

Michele Boldrin of Washington University in St. Louis talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about intellectual property and Boldrin's book, co-written with David Levine, Against Intellectual Property. Boldrin argues that copyright and patent are used by the politically powerful to maintain monopoly profits. He argues that the incentive effects that have been used to justify copyright and patents are exaggerated--few examples from history suggest that the temporary and not-so-temporary monopoly power from copyright and patents were necessary to induce innovation. Boldrin reviews some of that evidence and talks about the nature of competition. Listen to the interview.

If you think open data is as important as open source, then please take a look at a release candidate of the Open Database License (ODbL). It uses a combination of EU database rights, contract, and copyright to create a reciprocal license specifically designed for databases.

Okay, so Doc Searls has been blogging for a long time about how you don't want to get involved in a silo (context: a silo is a proprietary user interface built on top of proprietary APIs built on top of a proprietary operating system running on proprietary hardware. If you can't think of any examples, pull your cellphone out of your pocket and think about it for two seconds).

The Freeman, in December of last year, published an excellent study of a natural experiment in patents: the Steam Engine. The power of a steam engine is rated in "duty": the amount of weight it can lift. During the 42 years from 1772 to 1813 duty rose 3.8 percent per year; during the 38 years from 1814 to 1852 duty rose more than twice as fast-8.5 percent per year. The difference?