I will be speaking via this webinar hosted by Strafford. Tuesday, May 14, 2019, 1:00pm-2:30pm EDT, 10:00am-11:30am PDT
I will be speaking via this webinar hosted by Strafford. Tuesday, May 14, 2019, 1:00pm-2:30pm EDT, 10:00am-11:30am PDT
My colleagues Melody Drummond Hansen, Jason Orr, and I wrote this recent update on Law 360 about the legal challenges facing autonomous vehicles. Melody is the chair of O’Melveny’s Automated & Connected Vehicles Industry Group.
Update: pdf is now in the link
Here is my list of the top developments in open source licensing in 2018.
Thanks to everyone who read, reposted, re-tweeted and commented on my blog this year. Have a happy (and free and open) new year!
I have finally published the new edition of my tech licensing book. It’s a great stocking stuffer…well, maybe not. But this old favorite has been updated and revised and is available on Amazon.com. The Kindle version will also be available soon. Both now have a much more reasonable price point than the one set by my prior publisher.
The OpenSSL/SSLeay license was a non-standard permissive license, which included attribution clauses of the kind deprecated in Apache 1.0, such as:
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)"
and the mysterious statement:
The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be copied and put under another distribution licence * [including the GNU Public Licence.]
This caused many to wonder whether the license was truly permissive. Over the years, users (and reluctantly, their lawyers) accepted it as permissive, but not without some angst.
Kudos to the project for clarifying and harmonizing the license for this ubiquitous bit of software.
Interesting article by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols in Computerworld about the state of the Linux desktop. Certainly this is the next frontier for open source. Improving UI is the computing challenge of the next decade.
Recently, a popular open source database project, SQLite, adopted a code of conduct for its participants. Codes of conduct are not news — they have become increasingly common in open source communities in recent years. But this one was different: the project adopted Rule IV of the Rule of Saint Benedict, written in the 6th century by Saint Benedict of Nursia, and still used as ethical precepts for the Benedictine order of monks. Rule IV, Instruments of Good Works, contains such elements as “To do as one would be done by” — which is hard to argue with. But it also contains elements like “To deny oneself that one may follow Christ” and “To be frequently occupied in prayer” — which were more controversial, and probably not applicable to code development. Well, maybe prayer helps to find some of the more elusive bugs.
The actual reach of the code of conduct was limited. The project consisted of only a few developers who all agreed on it, and it was in place for months before anyone objected. The SQLite project said of the Rule:
This code of ethics has proven its mettle in thousands of diverse communities for over 1,500 years, and has served as a baseline for many civil law codes since the time of Charlemagne.
When the adoption of the Rule was publicized, the open source world wondered whether it was a prank, or perhaps merely a performance-art commentary on the recent spate of codes of conduct adopted in open source world. After community complaints, the Rule was retracted and replaced with the more conventional Mozilla Community Guidelines. Although the SQLite developers’ hearts were probably in the right place, the Christian underpinnings of the code, and its original formulation for an exclusively male community, were a bridge too far. The project now styles it as a voluntary code of ethics for the founder only.
How did this happen?
#METOO and Volunteer Communities
In the United States, the #METOO movement recently shined a spotlight on tacit approval of sexual harassment across many sectors. Private businesses have long employed codes of conduct to avoid harassment claims, but now the spotlight is on all organizations. The open source development community, self-organized and ideologically resistant to central control, has slowly begun to adopt similar codes of conduct — but the road has been a zigzag path. If managing an open source community is like herding cats, applying a code of conduct is like making cats take a loyalty oath.
Adopting codes of conduct has two related goals: elimination of bias and inclusiveness. Elimination of bias is remediative — it seeks to give participants the opportunity to participate on a level playing field, by avoiding conduct that discourages participation. Codes of conduct prohibit racist, sexist, or otherwise hateful speech or actions. Inclusiveness is proactive — it seeks to attract new participation in the community by persons in underrepresented groups. The tools to achieve inclusiveness are, at this time, less consistently used.
In tackling these goals, the open source community slipstreams on best practices in private employment, which have been developing for quite some time. Most private businesses today, for example, have express anti-harassment and policies and a process for reporting and assessing harassment claims. These policies were developed mostly as a response to employment-related legal claims under state and federal law arising from the existence of a “hostile work environment.” Written policies are helpful to avoid liability and communicate business culture.
Some businesses have taken proactive steps to promote inclusiveness. An example is the “Rooney Rule” adopted by the NFL. Businesses that seek to promote hiring or advancement of minorities or women tread a fine line, though — establishing quotas or preferences can expose them to claims of reverse discrimination. See, for example, City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989). Thus, most tools for inclusiveness avoid strict quotas or preferences.
Settling the Wild West
Those trying to civilize behavior in open source communities probably feel like Ransom Stoddard in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance — an optimistic and naive lawyer treated with derision by the outlaws and heroes alike. Behavior in an open source community is often analogized to the “wild west.” But in a sense, this wildness is the quintessence of open source: a private business is a cathedral and the open source community is a bazaar. Open source communities usually develop without central control, and many participants chafe under even the most lightweight management. Moreover, while private businesses can enforce their anti-harassment policies with the economic hammer of the threat of termination of employment, kicking participants out of voluntary communities is both rare and tricky to accomplish.
Some features (or, depending on your point of view, bugs) of the open source community tend to discourage newcomers. For example, the anonymity and asynchronous nature of online communication can lead to aggressive behavior that participants might not undertake in face-to-face or real-time interactions. Lack of inclusion can also arise from the mechanics of open source development. In open source projects, one or a few committers control what contributions are approved for inclusion in the software, and becoming one of these committers is both a matter of high prestige, and dependent on personal reputation. New participants can have a hard time breaking in to a community that can seem cliquish and insular. Much open source work is voluntary and unpaid, and this introduces a Room of One’s Own factor — women and minorities with heavy workloads and child-rearing commitments may not have the resources or time to participate without pay in order to earn their stripes as contributors.
Sometimes, successful projects are unprepared for the need to manage the behavior of a large and disparate community. One of the key functions of open source project management is to coordinate user and developer conferences. In geographically dispersed open source projects, participation in developer conferences, presentations and meetings is essential, not optional. As with any conference that brings many people together, open source conferences can become a venue for harassment and hostile behavior.
Bias in the Open Source Community
Reported incidents of overt bias in the open source community have mostly focused on bias against women: Geekfeminism maintains a list of incidents.
Blue Content. Male open source developers have used sexualized or nude images of women in presentations, or even code or sample content. While these incidents are not directed at a particular individual, they can create a culture that discourages participation by women, LBGT — or others who simply find it inappropriate.
Harassment. These incidents are directed at particular individuals. They take place not only at in-person official community group meetings, but at associated social activities, or online.
I’m Taking my Ball and Going Home.
In one of the more unusual developments arising from negative reaction to a Code of Conduct, a Linux kernel developer who claimed to be a lawyer said that those objecting to the new CoC could rescind the license to their contributions in protest. Which was, actually, not correct as a matter of law.
A Culture of Brutal Honesty, and Great Code
Codes of conduct sometimes seek to address baseline notions of civility, rather than overt bias. Linus Torvalds is the original developer of the Linux kernel, and he remains the gatekeeper for the Linux kernel (making him arguably one of the most powerful human beings in the world, in practical terms). But Torvalds is notoriously and cuttingly honest. He is well known for his profanity-laced posts to discussion groups and withering reactions to pull requests, but to be fair, most are in service of code quality and he is not known for sex or race bias. Recently Torvalds took a hiatus and promised to get counseling. He wrote:
I am not an emotionally empathetic kind of person and that probably doesn’t come as a big surprise to anybody. Least of all me. The fact that I then misread people and don’t realize (for years) how badly I’ve judged a situation and contributed to an unprofessional environment is not good. This week people in our community confronted me about my lifetime of not understanding emotions. My flippant attacks in emails have been both unprofessional and uncalled for. …I know now this was not OK and I am truly sorry….I want to apologize to the people that my personal behavior hurt and possibly drove away from kernel development entirely….I am going to take time off and get some assistance on how to understand people’s emotions and respond appropriately.
But Torvalds is not alone. At the risk of engaging in a cultural stereotype, coding can attract those for whom emotional intelligence is not a strong suit, at the least, or even those on the Autism spectrum. For some, this is not a bug but a feature — those who struggle with interpersonal skills can find a haven in the pseudonymous, technical world of open source. (This author included.) But having poor social skills causes problems in a model of development that needs a robust community to thrive.
There is extensive legal writing on best practices to implement codes of conduct in private business: Have a written policy that is as concrete as possible, enforce it consistently, establish protocols for confidential reporting and assessment of claims, and try to do all this without stifling First Amendment protected expression. Here are a few best practices that are more specific to open source communities.
As the open source world struggles to get along — as the larger world does — codes of conduct will inevitably become more common. But they will continue to be more difficult to enforce in open source communities than in private enterprise.
Below are some resources for additional reading on bias, codes of conduct, and related topics.
Some Codes of Conduct:
Thanks to Luis Villa of Tidelift and Katie Gosewehr of O’Melveny for their work preparing the analysis and research that formed the basis for this article. Credit only to them; any errors are mine alone.
A presentation on this topic will be given at the PLI conference in San Francisco, Open Source Software 2018 — from Compliance to Cooperation, November 28, 2018, and will be eligible for MCLE credit on Elimination of Bias.
Open source companies have enjoyed some pretty spectacular exits lately:
Preparing for M&A, Open Source Software (OSS) Due Diligence Leading Practices, Sponsored by KPMG, December 5, 2018, San Francisco, CA. 3:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. Register here.
Panelist, Mergers & Acquisitions, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law’s annual Securities Regulation Institute, January 29, 2019, 1:30 pm, Coronado, CA.
Microsoft had previously taken a few steps to align itself more with open source communities, including joining the Linux Foundation, joining the License on Transfer Network, and joining the Red Hat-led GPL pledge (“We doubled down on this new approach when we stood with Red Hat and others to apply GPL v. 3 “cure” principles to GPL v. 2 code.”)
OIN is a patent pool relating to Linux — broadly defined to include many elements in the Linux stack.
Microsoft has historically been one of the few non-NPEs to exact patent royalties for Linux, and famously licenses patents for Android devices (which use the Linux kernel). The prior linked article explains some of the history of Microsoft’s enforcement efforts, which were focused in part on the FAT (File Allocation Table) patents. However, news reports have been unclear on the exact effect that joining OIN will have on Microsoft’s Android patent license program.