FSFE position on "open core"

[Florian Weimer]

Kern Sibbald recently wrote this:

| While I was consulting with the Free Software Foundation Europe
| (FSFE) on the Bareos copyright violations, Bacula Systems and I
| began discussions with the FSFE on how to guarantee the long term
| survival of Bacula. These discussions, extremely positive on both
| sides and all points, recently lead to a formal written agreement
| between myself, Bacula Systems, and the FSFE. There are a number of
| points in the agreement, but probably the most important of all is
| that Bacula Systems has now put in writing that it is an Open Source
| company (at its heart), as it has always proclaimed, and will
| contribute all the Enterprise code it creates to the Bacula
| Community code base within at most a 5 year period. One exception
| is that Bacula Systems is legally unable to contribute certain code
| encumbered by third party proprietary license. The 5 year delay
| gives Bacula Systems the chance to develop Enterprise features that
| differentiate it, but ensures the continual growth of the Bacula
| Community code. This model can possibly be used across the industry
| to ensure the future of open source software in an environment where
| development costs, particularly for hardware to do testing, are
| prohibitive to the standard models of today.

(It's currently available at <http://bacula.org/en/?page=news>, but
this doesn't look like a stable URL.)

I find this quite surprising. Does FSF Europe really think that this
model is a good way to fund free software development, absorbing the
leftovers from proprietary software?

[Torsten Grote]

Does FSF Europe really think that this model is a good way to fund free
software development, absorbing the leftovers from proprietary software?

No it absolutely does not! There's real Free Software companies and they show
that it is possible to earn money without going Open Core.

This is a special and complicated case and no general position should be
derived from that, especially not from a third party statement.

Here's an original source:

https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/bacula-agreement.en.html

Kind Regards,
Torsten
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140106/245c0c92/attachment.pgp>

[Mirko Boehm]

Hi,

I agree that Open Core approaches can damage Free Software. They use the
Free Software core as a bait to again create artificial lock-in to a
proprietary solution on top.

But...

Post by Torsten Grote

Does FSF Europe really think that this model is a good way to fund free
software development, absorbing the leftovers from proprietary software?

No it absolutely does not! There's real Free Software companies and they show
that it is possible to earn money without going Open Core.

We should not argue like that. There is no definition of what a "Free
Software company" is. Companies do not produce software per se, they
produce products and services, trying to offer a value that customers
recognize and are willing to pay for. There is no special "Free Software
economy" either, so I suggest we avoid inventing new terms and
categories that are blurry or undefined.

Cheers,

Mirko.

[Torsten Grote]

Post by Mirko Boehm
We should not argue like that. There is no definition of what a "Free
Software company" is.

Did you see this?

https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/enterprise/freesoftwarecompany.en.html

Kind Regards,
Torsten
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140107/7586d8df/attachment.pgp>

[Mirko Boehm]

Post by Torsten Grote

Post by Mirko Boehm
We should not argue like that. There is no definition of what a "Free
Software company" is.

Did you see this?
https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/enterprise/freesoftwarecompany.en.html

Yes. It does not contain a tangible definition. "Free Software companies
are companies that have adopted business models in which the revenue
streams are not tied to proprietary software model licensing
conditions." Does that mean a bakery is a free software company? Is
Slideshare a Free Software company, because it is not licensing
proprietary software? And once a business is labeled a "Free Software
company", what does that really mean? It is still not an entity
operating with the common good in mind.

And please don't get me started on the economics aspects of it :-)

Mirko.

[Carsten Agger]

Post by Mirko Boehm

Post by Torsten Grote

Post by Mirko Boehm
We should not argue like that. There is no definition of what a "Free
Software company" is.

Did you see this?
https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/enterprise/freesoftwarecompany.en.html

Yes. It does not contain a tangible definition. "Free Software

companies are companies that have adopted business models in which the
revenue streams are not tied to proprietary software model licensing
conditions." Does that mean a bakery is a free software company? Is
Slideshare a Free Software company, because it is not licensing
proprietary software? And once a business is labeled a "Free Software
company", what does that really mean? It is still not an entity
operating with the common good in mind.
I think it might be fair to say that a free software company is a
company that delivers software to customers and *never* supply software
downstream under a proprietary license.

This excludes all companies that sell a non-free "enterprise solution",
such as Alfresco and (case in point) Bacula.

[Hugo Roy]

Post by Mirko Boehm

Post by Torsten Grote

Post by Mirko Boehm
We should not argue like that. There is no definition of what a "Free
Software company" is.

Did you see this?
https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/enterprise/freesoftwarecompany.en.html

Yes. It does not contain a tangible definition. "Free Software
companies are companies that have adopted business models in which
the revenue streams are not tied to proprietary software model
licensing conditions." Does that mean a bakery is a free software
company? Is Slideshare a Free Software company, because it is not
licensing proprietary software? And once a business is labeled a
"Free Software company", what does that really mean? It is still not
an entity operating with the common good in mind.

Well, no because they are not software companies to begin with.

http://hroy.eu/posts/facebook_open-source_company/
--
Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org>
Deputy Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal>
Coordinator, FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr>

Support Free Software, sign up! <https://fsfe.org/support>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140107/8f4ef2a5/attachment.pgp>

[Mirko Boehm]

Post by Hugo Roy

Post by Mirko Boehm
Is Slideshare a Free Software company, because it is not

Post by Mirko Boehm
licensing proprietary software? And once a business is labeled a
"Free Software company", what does that really mean? It is still not
an entity operating with the common good in mind.

Well, no because they are not software companies to begin with.
http://hroy.eu/posts/facebook_open-source_company/

Slideshare certainly is. However I am arguing that labeling a company a
"Free Software company" is of no use, and does not even help promote
freedom through Free Software.

What if a company that solely produces a Free Software product and a
hardware manufacturer that uses proprietary firmware merge? The first
will loose the label of being a "Free Software company". Now does that
change the value of the contributions this company made to Free
Software? The same goes for companies that have mixed proprietary and
Free Software strategies. Are IBM's contributions to the Linux kernel
less valuable because IBM also sells Lotus Notes?

We need to promote the benefits of the freedoms provided by our
licenses, not condemn people for not agreeing with us. I see the
labeling as a "Free Software company" only used for the latter, and
never for the first. That is why I suggest we drop it, and promote our
idea of freedom, but respect the decisions that people make for themselves.

...Open Core hurts Free Software... to go back to the original topic.

Cheers,

Mirko.

[Georg C. F. Greve]

Post by Mirko Boehm
What if a company that solely produces a Free Software product and a
hardware manufacturer that uses proprietary firmware merge? The first
will loose the label of being a "Free Software company". Now does that
change the value of the contributions this company made to Free
Software? The same goes for companies that have mixed proprietary and
Free Software strategies. Are IBM's contributions to the Linux kernel
less valuable because IBM also sells Lotus Notes?

All of this has actually been discussed a long time ago, in some depth.

See http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/gnubiz-disc/2000-December/000014.html

Post by Mirko Boehm
We need to promote the benefits of the freedoms provided by our
licenses, not condemn people for not agreeing with us.

Software freedom is not just about licenses, and it is not about condemnation,
but information. Labels are about giving users a chance to make an informed
decision based on their own set of values and what they want to promote.

This is an old and proven concept, and something we have yet to establish.

But there is a strong need given the amount of misinformation by third parties
and companies that claim to be doing "Open Source" when they are in fact
locking their users in perfectly is a problem on several levels.

Firstly, it muddies the water enough that companies which do not use the same
tactics find it much harder to communicate their USP and value proposition.

Secondly it damages the overall value proposition of the community, as people
no longer know what we stand for or what differentiates us when they experience
the same behaviour from these self-proclaimed "Free Software" companies and
thus conclude for themselves that software freedom is essentially fraudulent
marketing they want nothing to do with in the future.

That kind of business behaviour is actively harmful to the technical,
policial, social and economic principles and aims of software freedom.

Best regards,
Georg

[Elmar Geese]

Hi Mirko, *,

Post by Mirko Boehm
We should not argue like that. There is no definition of what a "Free
Software company" is. Companies do not produce software per se, they
produce products and services, trying to offer a value that customers
recognize and are willing to pay for. There is no special "Free Software
economy" either, so I suggest we avoid inventing new terms and
categories that are blurry or undefined.

100% agreed, lets not start a new battle on words or definitions without any
need,

Elmar

[Florian Weimer]

Post by Torsten Grote

Does FSF Europe really think that this model is a good way to fund free
software development, absorbing the leftovers from proprietary software?

No it absolutely does not! There's real Free Software companies and
they show that it is possible to earn money without going Open Core.

Thanks for your clarification.

Post by Torsten Grote
This is a special and complicated case and no general position should be
derived from that, especially not from a third party statement.

The background appears to be this: Some contributors entered
contradictory contracts with both FSFE and the Bacula maintainer, and
in order avoid placing them in legal jeopardy, FSFE and the Bacula
maintainer reached an agreement that attempts to resolve this
conflict.

Post by Torsten Grote
https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/bacula-agreement.en.html

This web page does not reflect well what's actually in the agreement,
but that's probably unavoidable due to its complexity. But I think
you should really qualify "This includes the possibility to create a
non-free version of their project to stand beside the free version, if
they choose." with "providing that all previous contributors agree to
such a relicensing of the project".

What I find most surprising is this: The agreement gives the Bacula
maintainer permission to use "under other licenses" (i.e. proprietary
ones) contributions that were previously covered by the FSFE FLA (item
B.1), even if they were *not* covered by a FLA with the Bacula
maintainer. The agreement is also extremely broad: interpreted
literally, it applies to *all* copyrights transferred to FSFE under
*any* FLA, not just the one for Bacula; section B.1 talks about
"software" in general, not "Software" (the Bacula code base), and the
term "Beneficiary" is not restricted to Bacula project contributors.

So while I believe that you had the goal of resolving this conflict in
the best possible way, the effect is rather disastrous as far as your
role as fiduciary is concerned.

[Torsten Grote]

Post by Florian Weimer
So while I believe that you had the goal of resolving this conflict in
the best possible way, the effect is rather disastrous as far as your
role as fiduciary is concerned.

Please note that I was not personally involved with this. I'd suggest you
contact FSFE's legal team [1] and share your concerns with them, because I
don't know how many of them are following this list.

Kind Regards,
Torsten

[1] https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/ftf.en.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140108/e15ccd43/attachment.pgp>