...making Linux just a little more fun!

### InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)

Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:47:05 -0800

I should explain two references: (1) "Larry L." refers to noted attorney, author, and open source luminary Larry Lessig, whom Matt Asay (of the OSI Board, but also a "business development" flack for badgeware firm Alfresco) turns out to have studied under at Stanford Law School. (2) Mark Radcliffe is OSI's General Counsel, and is also reported (by ZDnet columnist David Berlind) to have had a disturbing lead role, on the side, in drafting on a consulting basis these non-OSD-compliant licences and advising the firms who then use them and claim (falsely) to be publishing "open source". See: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4124 and http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=3430

It's also becoming quite apparent that the key aim of these "Exhibit B" licences is to substantively reserve commecial-usage rights to the copyright holder, while still claiming to be open source, and some of them even admit it outright: http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2006/12/22/badgeware-ceo-to-community-buy-a-commercial-license/ Personally, I think it's always been understood that if you can't stand competitors using your code in commerce, and aren't prepared to out-compete them on an equal footing, that you aren't yet ready for open source. OSI President Michael Tiemann has said more or less the same thing: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Fwd%3A-FW%3A-For-Approval%3A-Generic-Attribution-Provision--tf2757445.html#a7900005 ...and he and I see eye-to-eye generally: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Fwd%3A-FW%3A-For-Approval%3A-Generic-Attribution-Provision--tf2757445.html#a7900005

Here's the position paper that I and others have prepared against the Generic Attribution Provision proposal -- and I consider it damning: http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against

What remains still hanging is whether OSI will seriously consider other "Exhibit B"-like licences that aim to withhold some commercial rights in some clever fashion that advocates can claim is something else.

(Socialtext seems to have unofficially thrown in the towel on the GAP proposal, but says it wishes to submit a new "attribution" (badgeware) licence -- maybe one in complete English sentences, this time. http://www.nabble.com/SocialText-license-discussion--call-for-closure-of-arguments-tf3042834.html#a8571245 )

    From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
    To: license-discuss at opensource.org
    Subject: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)
    Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:54:29 -0800
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403
    X-Mas: Bah humbug.

Matt Asay has good news in his InfoWorld blog (http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/pentaho_opens_u.html):

      January 26, 2007

      Pentaho opens up further
      Filed under: Open Source

      I'm not sure if anyone else noticed, but Pentaho has gone 100% open
      source. [link]

Matt's link is to http://www.pentaho.com/subscriptions/ :

      The Pentaho BI Suite Subscription extends Pentaho's best-in-class open
      source BI capabilities with professional technical support, Management
      Services features, and intellectual property indemnification. A Pentaho
      BI Suite Subscription allows you to deploy the world's most popular open
      source BI suite in production with confidence, security, and far lower
      total cost of ownership compared to proprietary alternatives. [...]

http://www.pentaho.org/download/ proclaims the new licensing:

      A complete business intelligence platform that includes reporting,
      analysis (OLAP), dashboards, data mining and data integration (ETL). Use
      it as a full suite or as individual components that are accessible via
      web services. Ranked #1 in open source BI. Released under the Mozilla
      Public License version 1.1 [link to http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt]

The linked SourceForge project pages (http://sourceforge.net/projects/pentaho/) indeed say "License: Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL 1.1)". (I've recently been careful to... well... trust but verify, whenever claims of MPL 1.1 licensing for Web apps are concerned.)

What was the nature of that change? http://swik.net/Mondrian?page=2 describes it:

      ==============================================================
      Pentaho Changes Platform License to Mozilla Public License, Version 1.1
      ==============================================================

      As of our 1.1.5 Milestone release of the Pentaho BI Suite, we have
      officially switched our licensing from the Pentaho Public License to the
      Mozilla Public License, version 1.1. The decision to change the
      licensing was driven by input from the development community along with
      our strong belief in being true open source contributors.

(Downloading Pentaho BI v. 1.2's tarball and checking source verifies this.)

But what was Pentaho Public License? It was -- you got it -- yet another MPL 1.1 + "Exhibit B" badgeware licence, still viewable at http://www.pentaho.org/license/ :

      [...] in addition to any other notice obligations required under the
      PPL, all copies of the Covered Code in Executable and Source Code form
      distributed must, as a form of attribution of the original author,
      include on each user interface screen the copyright notices in the same
      form as contained in the latest version of the Covered Code distributed
      by Pentaho Corporation at the time of distribution of such copy. In
      addition, any and all hyperlinks embedded in such copyright notices must
      be maintained in any distribution of the Covered Code.

So, "going 100% open source" means moving away from "Exhibit B" badgeware. OK, cool. I'm certainly not criticising, just noting what Matt's saying in his most recent articles, which I found refreshing.

    --
    "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and
    make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window
    and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to
    the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org

    From: Matt Asay <mjasay at mac.com>
    To: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>, <license-discuss at opensource.org>
    Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)
    Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 07:00:56 -0700
    User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214

Thanks for calling this out. I wasn't aware that they hadn't gone 'all the way' to the MPL. I tried looking on their site, and didn't see it. I just took The 451 Group's analysis of the move.

Sorry for the (somewhat) false alarm. I'll make a note of it on the InfoWorld blog.

[snip Matt copying my entire message]

    From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
    To: license-discuss at opensource.org
    Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)
    Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:46:41 -0800
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403
    X-Mas: Bah humbug.

Quoting Matt Asay (mjasay at mac.com):

    > Thanks for calling this out.  I wasn't aware that they hadn't gone 'all the
    > way' to the MPL.  I tried looking on their site, and didn't see it.  I just
    > took The 451 Group's analysis of the move.

Didn't Larry L. teach you to read the fine print? ;->

    > Sorry for the (somewhat) false alarm.  I'll make a note of it on the
    > InfoWorld blog.

Unfortunately, your update (today) on your blog (http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/pentaho_opens_u.html) appears to state the facts backwards.

       UPDATE: I just found out that Pentaho went to an MPL+attribution
       model.

Au contraire, sir! They were on an MPL + Exhibit B "badgeware" licence, but recently corrected that to actual MPL -- removing their Exhibit B on the Pentalo BI Suite product -- citing as their reason "input from the development community along with our strong belief in being true open source contributors". Which is of course exactly congruent with what badgeware critic Nicholas Goodman (of Pentalo) has been saying, you may recall (http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/).

Don't take my word for it. Download tarballs and check for yourself (that it's now not MPL + "Exhibit B", but rather real MPL). That's after all the best way, these days, of making sure someone isn't misrepresenting a licence, isn't it?

And after you do, will you kindly correct today's misstatement of fact, and cease (in effect) maligning Pentaho by lumping them with the companies (like, well,... yours) whose licensing model they have stopped using?

Thank you.

    --
    "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and
    make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window
    and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to
    the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org

    From: Matt Asay <mjasay@gmail.com>
    To: TAG <tag@lists.linuxgazette.net>
    To: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>, <license-discuss at opensource.org>
    Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)
    Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:03:43 -0700
    User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214

Sorry, Rick. I misread your original message.

As for my company's use of attribution, two responses:

1. I don't think anyone on this list gives these companies the benefit of a doubt. I've been pushing the company toward the GPL since the day I started. Given where we started, I'd say we've made tremendous progress. And much as I personally dislike attribution, I still hold that it's open source. Not the open source I personally prefer, but open source. (That said, I see the #10 argument and we are reviewing how to meet the community's concerns on that issue. Stay tuned.

2. It's OSI that is being slow on the attribution debate, not the companies. A license has been submitted. The ball is in OSI's court. As such, it doesn't do much good to further hector the companies. They've done what has been asked of them by OSI. We just have to wait and see at this point.

Matt

P.S. I'll update the blog again.

[snip Matt copying my entire message]

    From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
    To: license-discuss at opensource.org
    Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)
    Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:27:56 -0800
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403
    X-Mas: Bah humbug.

Quoting Matt Asay (mjasay at gmail.com):

    > I don't think anyone on this list gives these companies the benefit of
    > a doubt.  I've been pushing the company toward the GPL since the day I
    > started.

Fair enough.

    > It's OSI that is being slow on the attribution debate, not the
    > companies.  A license has been submitted.

    1.  As noted, it's not actually a licence (nor written in syntactically
        coherent English sentences).

    2.  As also noted, it's not actually the licence anyone is using, all
        of which their sponsoring companies have carefully avoided
        submitting.  Because they can predict the outcome -- and I figure
        Mark Radcliffe might have told them that as part of his consulting.

It's disingenuous to say OSI is "being slow", when twenty-plus companies including yours have deliberately eschewed the certification process for years, _and are still doing so_.

    > The ball is in OSI's court.

A ball is in OSI's court. It's deflated and the wrong shape for the game actually being played, but assuredly it partakes of the ball nature.

    > As such, it doesn't do much good to further hector the companies.

I do zero hectoring of all companies that aren't deceptively promoting obviously-proprietary modified licences as "open source". I give prompt recognition of firms that do the right thing.

    > They've done what has been asked of them by OSI.

Really? They've submitted the modified licences they're using per http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval ? When did that happen?

    --
    Cheers,            "Orthodoxy is my doxy.  Heterodoxy is someone else's doxy."
    Rick Moen               -- William Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester (1698-1779)
    rick at linuxmafia.com

Top Back

Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:31:58 -0800

I wrote:

    > OSI President Michael Tiemann has said more or less the same thing:
    > http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Fwd%3A-FW%3A-For-Approval%3A-Generic-Attribution-Provision--tf2757445.html#a7900005
    > ...and he and I see eye-to-eye generally:
    > http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Fwd%3A-FW%3A-For-Approval%3A-Generic-Attribution-Provision--tf2757445.html#a7900005

Corrected URLs:

http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Fwd%3A-FW%3A-For-Approval%3A-Generic-Attribution-Provision--p7893415.html http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Fwd%3A-FW%3A-For-Approval%3A-Generic-Attribution-Provision--p7900005.html

Top Back

Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:08:31 -0800

And the other shoe drops. (Would someone please teach Mark the difference between "effect" and "affect"?)

I had carefully made no assertion about his role in any of the "badgeware" licences (as I had no knowledge of that), and took great care to go only so far as a speculative question -- which you'll note that he doesn't address, here (as I spoke of Socialtext, not SugarCRM).

Notice that he also has nothing at all to say about the timing or nature of his consulting role at any of the -other- 19-odd badgeware firms, other than SugarCRM. (Berlind's articles asserted that "Radcliffe has also authored some of these licenses" and "has also served as legal counsel to the companies coming up with these hybrid licenses." So, if those things are true, one wonders which companies? When? Doing what?)

----- Forwarded message from "Radcliffe, Mark" <Mark.Radcliffe at dlapiper.com> -----

    Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:52:59 -0800
    From: "Radcliffe, Mark" <Mark.Radcliffe@dlapiper.com>
    To: TAG <tag@lists.linuxgazette.net>
    To: David Woolley <david at djwhome.demon.co.uk>,

license-discuss at opensource.org

    Subject: RE: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)

Since I assisted Ross with the submission to OSI, I think the list should be aware that the submission was meant to get an attribution provision approved that would work in a variety of circumstances to avoid numerous licenses with slightly different "attribution" provisions. Our goal was to get a standard approach rather than having each company submit a different version of attribution (please note that the SugarCRM attribution provision varies from Zimbra attribution provision). Since virtually all OSI approved licenses do not permit modifications, we thought that the number of licenses that would be effected would be small and this approach was the best for the industry. Clearly based on the comments, this approach does not have support. We are revising the attribution provision and Socialtext will be submitting it as part of the MPL.

The submission will include significant additional changes to attribution provision to reflect the other concerns expressed on the list. The summary on buni.org was particularly helpful in focusing us on the problems with GAP and we want to thank those who contributed to it.

The reason that neither Socialtext nor the other companies have adopted the draft attribution provision is that they do not want to repeatedly change their license. It creates both legal and practical problems if you only use a license for a couple of months. If the license is approved by OSI, they will have a strong incentive to adopt it. It will also avoid increasing the problem of license proliferation.

We expect to submit the new version next week. I have asked the OSI Board to delay a review of the GAP since it is no longer being considered by Socialtext.

I think that it might be useful to correct some mistakes about my role in OSI and attribution:

1. I advised SugarCRM on its attribution provision which was released in October 2004. This date was prior to my consideration to be General Counsel of the OSI. I first applied to be General Counsel in December, 2004 and was appointed in January 2005.

2. I am not an officer of OSI and OSI has never taken a position on attribution so it is incorrect to suggest that my advice on attribution is inconsistent with OSI's position. In particular, the AAL had already been adopted before I became the General Counsel so OSI had already approved an attribution based license. I have been very open with the Board from the beginning about my role in developing attribution and my belief that it is consistent with the OSD.

3. The services I provide to OSI and my work as Chair of Committee C reviewing the GPLv3 are provided pro bono. In other words, for free. In fact, my law firm has provided over $100,000 in legal services at no charge to the open source community through our work with the OSI and the FSF.

-----Original Message-----

    From: David Woolley [mailto:david@djwhome.demon.co.uk]
    To: TAG <tag@lists.linuxgazette.net>

Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:18 PM

    To: license-discuss at opensource.org
    Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)

    > 2.  It's OSI that is being slow on the attribution debate, not the
    > companies.  A license has been submitted.  The ball is in OSI's court.

As

No licence has been validly submitted. Either it wasn't announced on this mailing list, or you are referring to the out of context clauses

<font face="Arial" size="2" color="#008000"> This is Global Environment Week at DLA Piper.<br> For information, please visit <a href="http://www.dlapiper.com/sustainability"> <font color="#008000">www.dlapiper.com/sustainability</font></a><br> Please consider the environment before printing this email.</font>

___________________________________________________________________________________

----- End forwarded message -----

Top Back

Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:29:17 -0800

Believe me, I'm trying to be ultra-cautious.

----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> -----

    Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:26:08 -0800
    To: license-discuss at opensource.org
    From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
    To: TAG <tag@lists.linuxgazette.net>
    Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)

Mr. Radcliffe, thank you for contributing.

Quoting Radcliffe, Mark (Mark.Radcliffe at dlapiper.com):

    > The submission will include significant additional changes to
    > attribution provision to reflect the other concerns expressed on the
    > list. The summary on buni.org was particularly helpful in focusing us on
    > the problems with GAP and we want to thank those who contributed to it.

OSI President Michael Tiemann also had some contructive suggestions, which I commend to your attention:

http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Fwd%3A-FW%3A-For-Approval%3A-Generic-Attribution-Provision--p7893415.html http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Fwd%3A-FW%3A-For-Approval%3A-Generic-Attribution-Provision--p7900005.html

    > The reason that neither Socialtext nor the other companies have adopted
    > the draft attribution provision is that they do not want to repeatedly
    > change their license.

Since you're talking to Ross and the other people at Socialtext, you might remind them of Ross's promise to change the erroneous claim on their wiki (http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi?why_the_appendix) asserting that they've submitted Socialtext Public License's attribution clause to OSI for approval, when obviously they never have.

Eight days ago, Ross said he'd fix that: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-SocialText-license-discussion--call-for-closure-of-arguments-p8515354.html However, he hasn't yet.

    > I think that it might be useful to correct some mistakes about my role
    > in OSI and attribution:
    >
    > 1. I advised SugarCRM on its attribution provision which was released in
    > October 2004. This date was prior to my consideration to be General
    > Counsel of the OSI. I first applied to be General Counsel in December,
    > 2004 and was appointed in January 2005.
    >
    > 2. I am not an officer of OSI and OSI has never taken a position on
    > attribution so it is incorrect to suggest that my advice on attribution
    > is inconsistent with OSI's position. In particular, the AAL had already
    > been adopted before I became the General Counsel so OSI had already
    > approved an attribution based license. I have been very open with the
    > Board from the beginning about my role in developing attribution and my
    > belief that it is consistent with the OSD.
    >
    > 3. The services I provide to OSI and my work as Chair of Committee C
    > reviewing the GPLv3 are provided pro bono. In other words, for free. In
    > fact, my law firm has provided over $100,000 in legal services at no
    > charge  to the open source community through our work with the OSI and
    > the FSF.

Speaking for myself, I never made the above assertions about you -- but I do have two questions on related matters, since you're here:

In http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4124 and http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=3430, reporter David Berlind says "Radcliffe has also authored some of these [Exhibit B] licenses", and "has also served as legal counsel to the companies coming up with these hybrid licenses." Is that correct?

Would you mind letting the mailing list know which MPL 1.1 + Exhibit B licences (if any) you've had a part in drafting, and which (if any) of those firms you've had business dealings with since becoming General Counsel for OSI?

Thank you for your time.

Best Regards, Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com

----- End forwarded message -----

Top Back

Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Wed, 31 Jan 2007 02:08:17 -0800

Reply from attorney Radcliffe. Since he bollixed the quoting format (making no distinction between quoted and responding text), I've assisted by indenting his (three) responses.

----- Forwarded message from "Radcliffe, Mark" <Mark.Radcliffe at dlapiper.com> -----

    Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:24:09 -0800
    From: "Radcliffe, Mark" <Mark.Radcliffe@dlapiper.com>
    To: TAG <tag@lists.linuxgazette.net>
    To: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>, license-discuss at opensource.org
    Subject: RE: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)

-----Original Message-----

    From: Rick Moen [mailto:rick@linuxmafia.com]
    To: TAG <tag@lists.linuxgazette.net>

Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:26 PM

    To: license-discuss at opensource.org
    Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)

Mr. Radcliffe, thank you for contributing.

Quoting Radcliffe, Mark (Mark.Radcliffe at dlapiper.com):

    > The submission will include significant additional changes to
    > attribution provision to reflect the other concerns expressed on the
    > list. The summary on buni.org was particularly helpful in focusing us on
    > the problems with GAP and we want to thank those who contributed to it.

OSI President Michael Tiemann also had some contructive suggestions, which I commend to your attention:

http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Fwd%3A-FW%3A-For-Approval%3A-Generic-Attribution-Provision--p7893415.html http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Fwd%3A-FW%3A-For-Approval%3A-Generic-Attribution-Provision--p7900005.html

         We will also ensure that these issues are addressed.

    > The reason that neither Socialtext nor the other companies have adopted
    > the draft attribution provision is that they do not want to repeatedly
    > change their license.

Since you're talking to Ross and the other people at Socialtext, you might remind them of Ross's promise to change the erroneous claim on their wiki (http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi?why_the_appendix) asserting that they've submitted Socialtext Public License's attribution clause to OSI for approval, when obviously they never have.

Eight days ago, Ross said he'd fix that: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-SocialText-license-discussion--call-for-closure-of-arguments-p8515354.html However, he hasn't yet.

         I have reminded Ross about this commitment

    > I think that it might be useful to correct some mistakes about my role
    > in OSI and attribution:
    >
    > 1. I advised SugarCRM on its attribution provision which was released in
    > October 2004. This date was prior to my consideration to be General
    > Counsel of the OSI. I first applied to be General Counsel in December,
    > 2004 and was appointed in January 2005.
    >
    > 2. I am not an officer of OSI and OSI has never taken a position on
    > attribution so it is incorrect to suggest that my advice on attribution
    > is inconsistent with OSI's position. In particular, the AAL had already
    > been adopted before I became the General Counsel so OSI had already
    > approved an attribution based license. I have been very open with the
    > Board from the beginning about my role in developing attribution and my
    > belief that it is consistent with the OSD.
    >
    > 3. The services I provide to OSI and my work as Chair of Committee C
    > reviewing the GPLv3 are provided pro bono. In other words, for free.  In
    > fact, my law firm has provided over $100,000 in legal services at no
    > charge  to the open source community through our work with the OSI and
    > the FSF.

Speaking for myself, I never made the above assertions about you -- but I do have two questions on related matters, since you're here:

In http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4124 and http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=3430, reporter David Berlind says

"Radcliffe has also authored some of these [Exhibit B] licenses", and "has also served as legal counsel to the companies coming up with these hybrid licenses." Is that correct?

          As I mentioned above, I served as counsel for SugarCRM in
          developing the attribution provision prior to becoming GC of OSI.
          After becoming GC, I provide essentially the same advice to the
          following companies: Zimbra, Qlusters, Terracotta, Mulesource and
          Jitterbit. I don't represent Scalix or Alfresco. I also represent
          open source companies such as Hyperic and Compiere which use the
          GPL.

Would you mind letting the mailing list know which MPL 1.1 + Exhibit B licences (if any) you've had a part in drafting, and which (if any) of those firms you've had business dealings with since becoming General Counsel for OSI?

Thank you for your time.

Best Regards, Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com

----- End forwarded message -----

Top Back