Black Duck announced that a patent issued on its license compliance methodology. This move is likely to be unpopular with the open source community, given its opposition to software patents generally. The patent application was filed seven years ago, which is a long lead time even in the glacial pace of US patent prosecution. Black Duck’s Tim Yeaton blogged about the patent, floating a trial balloon about an IBM-style patent pledge.
The Kenai site announced that it is closing its doors, triggered by the completion of the acquisition of Sun by Oracle, saying “the infrastructure (which is already used under NetBeans.org) will live on to support other domains in the future.”
Symbian announced its source code release today — ahead of schedule.
After a long road, Oracle completed its purchase of Sun, resulting in speculation about the fate of Java, Solaris, and MySQL — though the latter was the subject of a public commitment by Sun, reported earlier in this blog.
The UK released a new policy statement on the procurement of open source software.
A news flurry has erupted over SourceForge’s policy denying access to users in nations sanctioned by US export law. A blog states that The Obama administration insisted that Sourceforge adopt this policy — though the restriction in Sourceforge’s terms of service has already been in place for many years. Sourceforge, of course, is caught in the cross-fire between US export regulation and the open source definition. But statements that such a policy contravenes open source licenses are misguided — there are plenty of reasons why the rights granted under open source licenses may not be freely exerciseable: regulatory law, trademark law, patent law to name a few. Those who are complaining about Sourceforge’s actions are probably unaware of the regulations that apply to software, and that they used to be far more egregious before they were revised in the early 1990s. But the kerfuffle points up that the regulatory policy of the US is counterintuitive and awkward to apply to software. It strains belief that any nefarious actor would be truly thwarted by a technical limitation on downloading code to a certain location.
Bruce Perens, the original author of BusyBox, commented in his blog about the recent wave of enforcement cases from SFLC. Perens was the original author of Busybox. The utility has morphed over the years, and the current authors claim Perens no longer has any copyright interest in it because none of his original code is in the code base — which Perens disputes. Perens is not party to the recent suits.
This points up a significant legal issue lurking in open source enforcement — the question of whether open source programs are joint works or multiple works of authorship. Rights in joint works can be enforced only with all the authors’ participation, whereas a quilt of individual works can be enforced by individual authors separately. This means serious potential problems for a defendant who must settle with a series of claimants rather than a single joint author group.
Also, even if no original code exists in a modified work, it can still be a derivative work, as every copyright lawyer knows. (Consider, for instance, a port into another language, or a rewrite using the identical structure, sequence, and organization.)
FSF generally takes the position that GPL covers an entire program as a single copyrightable work — if not, then its position on linking creating a single executable work would fall into question. But this position may contradict the idea that a program is a combination of multiple works, each of whose author has a separate right of action. This issue will likely become crucial one day in a GPL suit.
Please see my previous entry for the facts concerning the suits that were filed.