Slashdot Log In
Can You Be Denied the Right To Support OSS?
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Nov 22, 2008 01:21 PM
from the oss-enterprise dept.
from the oss-enterprise dept.
jerico.dev writes "I am currently selecting a CM tool for a project. Important condition: the software must be OSI compliant. I considered Alfresco, since they call themselves 'open source.' Then I heard from several of Alfresco's partners that they are not allowed to do projects based on Alfresco's GPL edition because their partnership contract denied them the right to do so. They only can support Alfresco's enterprise edition. But Alfresco's VP of business development Matt Asay told me that their enterprise edition is not OSI compliant. Does anyone in the Slashdot crowd have experience with partner contracts of other OSS vendors? Is it normal that Sun, Red Hat, etc. force their partners to decline projects based on their open source editions? It's probably legal to do so, but do you think it is legitimate and fair?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Quick note... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Quick note... (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice where the OP makes exactly this distinction in the last setntence?
Parent
Yep. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you want an open source customer management system anyway? You clearly want to make money using it, so why are you surprised that the people who are going to help you do so want money too?
It's simple... the writers of the open source system wanted to make money so they made a commerical enterprise varient, then told all of the consultants hanging off of them that if they still wanted access to official support, they'd have to agree to only support the enterprise edition. No law violated for that. Either learn how to run the open version yourself, or pay for enterpise. Your choice.
Re:Yep. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Yep. (Score:5, Insightful)
It kinda sounds like the OP is willing to pay for project work, which is therefore not free. The OP appears to simply want work done with, or rather on, software that's OSI compliant.
In this case the open source software is free, but the work is not. And isn't that how open source software is supposed to be profitable?
Parent
Re:Yep. (Score:4, Insightful)
Having multiple vendors for business critical goods and services is a basic principle of good business. Custom modified OSI compliant software ensures that *any* software development contracting firm can act as a vendor for software maintenance. Proprietary software ensures that a single vendor has a monopoly on that service.
Parent
Re:Yep. (Score:5, Insightful)
To answer another question of yours...
Sun has open sourced just about everything they have right now including Cluster and SAMFS. They just charge for support using the old pricing model. You can use it, but if you have a question or a problem then you need to pay.
It's a fair trade. Open Source is not free of charge. Cluster and SAMFS are damn complex software and you had better not go it alone unless you really know your stuff. And experts always pay for backline help.
Sun's goal is to get lots of people interested in using their good code (a lot of it really is great). If you use it for your own purposes and go it alone, fine. But when you have a paying customer requiring enterprise support...you'll use the code you know and funnel the support dollars back. None of our clients would ever consider not paying.
This is not evil. If you ask me, it's fair trade and probably the only model that will keep OSS going into the enterprise.
My advice: you get what you pay for. Don't get fooled by the GPL tag...people gotta pay the bills.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the software you're licensed to use from this company is not OSI compliant and you must have OSI compliancy, and if the GPL version IS compliant, then your course of action is clear:
Dump the license and use the GPL stuff to your heart's content. Where's the issue?
Re: (Score:2)
"Sun's goal is to get lots of people interested in using their good code (a lot of it really is great). If you use it for your own purposes and go it alone, fine. But when you have a paying customer requiring enterprise support...you'll use the code you know and funnel the support dollars back. None of our clients would ever consider not paying."
So long as the code is the same and you can choose to support people who don't pay upstream and you don't have to kick back upstream when you don't get help from up
Re:Yep. (Score:5, Informative)
disclaimer: I work for Sun.
Sun does not have 'free' versions and 'for fee' versions of software. Most of Sun's software is offered free for download & commercial use, you just pay if you want support. Our CEO has stated publicly that it is his goal to eventually have ALL of our software open sourced and free for use, but some of our software has licensing (between Sun and other companies) keep that from happening right now.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> disclaimer: I work for Sun.
Then, ask you CEO about open sourcing the applications that were made at his previous company, Lighthouse Design, bought and buried by Sun.
Yes, Diagram!, Quantrix and WetPaint, I am looking at you. If such apps would have been open sourced 10 years ago, the computing landscape would be very different today...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably still has more documentation than most open source software not produced by a company.
Conflict of interest? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can use it, but if you have a question or a problem then you need to pay.
This would seem to suggest that all efforts to make software easier to use will hurt the company's bottom line. I know it's more complex than that--since simpler software then becomes, essentially, less expensive and therefore more popular--but there is still a feedback loop in a direction with which I'm not entirely happy. In a sense it's still an "opposite" of the more traditional (but waning) model of an up-front cost for "the software" with some "free support", in which the incentives are clearer. I'll be curious to see where this goes.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This would seem to suggest that all efforts to make software easier to use will hurt the company's bottom line.
I'm not convinced. They might be able to count on the existing customer base to be stuck with their crapware, but they always have to compete for NEW customers and that means making the product better/easier.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You missed the point entirely; he has nothing against paying for support, its the fact that the supported version of the software ISN'T under the GPL and not OSI compliant. He wants to use OSI certified software AND pay for support for it.
Re:Yep. (Score:5, Informative)
LostCluster, you are right, if you want to make money with it, it's ok to pay for it. Open source != free. Agreed!
Why do you want an OSI compliant product: In our case principally to avoid vendor lock-in. No company is forced put the "open source" label to their product.
So if you get an OSI compliant product that you have to pay for and that's supported, then as a customer, you're happy to pay for it. (I think that's Red Hats case.)
In this case you're forced to buy a proprietary product from an "open source" company if you want support...
Parent
Re:Yep. (Score:4, Insightful)
Poster is willing to pay for consulting, but he wants them to consult on the Open source version. I'd have thought that's how this was supposed to work. The consultants are telling him they can ONLY consult on the enterprise version, which is not OSI approved. I'd agree it's fully legal, but it really does seem to go against the spirit of open source, essentially treating the free version as trialware but contracting all the consultants to do the work on the proprietary not-free version so you can doll out what gets to be free and not free.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Still a stink game if that is the one being played.
Just another reason why I am leery of any game that has a different code base for the non-Free licensed version and the Free licensed version.
all the best,
drew
Re:Yep. Nope. (Score:2)
CM != Customer Management. Next time find out what the article is about before posting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't say it was impossible to make money off of open source. My point is you can't cry to Slashdot when users of open source software find that they have to pay up and go "enterprise" to get business-class features.
Fair? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's business. Business is war. Everything is legal, until and unless of course it isn't. They only ethical considerations businesses have is to their shareholders and owners to keep profit coming in. And in this case, denying "shelter and comfort" from their enemies, those other evil open source projects, they're protecting those profits.
The better question is; Why are you working for them if you have an ethical objection to this?
This leads to the old rhetoric of -- well, if enough people turned down the job offer they'd be forced to raise the going price to find a software engineer who'd be willing to "sell out", and if there were enough people this price would be so high that it wouldn't be practical to engage in this business practice. Of course, in truth... Most free agents in the system also subscribe to the theory of "I need to eat." A pity... If only ideals were edible we wouldn't have this problem.
Re:Fair? (Score:5, Insightful)
These days, with official unemployment figures pushing 7%, and real figures (including people who are ineligible for or have exhausted their unemployment benefits) probably twice that, I'm quite sure that many people are thankful just to have a job, without the luxury of being able to resign for idealistic reasons.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> These days, with official unemployment figures pushing 7%, and real figures (including people who are ineligible for or have exhausted their unemployment benefits) probably twice that, I'm quite sure that many people are thankful just to have a job, without the luxury of being able to resign for idealistic reasons.
Bingo. :) Idealism is a luxury for the rich. We don't have the privilege of questioning our 'superiors' on their ethics.
Re:Fair? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Idealism is a luxury for the rich" = Slave Logic
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you shouldn't only be looking to market economics for your ideals.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you have a horrible personality, and the "we don't work on OSS" thing was a lie to make you feel better, instead of them saying, "you've had terrible B.O. and spinach in your teeth for the entire duration of this 4-hour long OpenOffice slideshow replete with DragonBall Z drawings."
Unusual (Score:2)
That seems to be an unusual arrangement, but it seems to be legitimate too. Partnership arrangements often have various covenants and restrictions.
Maybe you can go with the open version and find/groom a non-partner developer instead?
Re:Unusual (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, it seem as if it would be legal. It also seems like a good reason to look for someone else to work with.
I have nothing against paid support plans (as long as they actually support you). That's a cost, and needs to be paid. I wouldn't even mind a company that just ran a bulletin board for customers as their support center, and charged for accounts (included, perhaps, as a part of the cost of the software). Though if that's their support, they'd better not charge as much.
Back awhile I used to purcha
Not legal advice; but yes (Score:3, Informative)
Thing one; Don't ask for legal advice on slashdot, ask a laywer. I don't really think this should be worth saying, but I think it can even be illegal to give legal advice; which this is not.
Now on with the rampant speculation.
a) If you have your own software you can distribute it under any terms you want. Including "like the GPL but you can't provide commercial support"
b) The partner agreement is probably not related to GPL software distribution so the GPL isn't relevant.
c) they can probably stop doing business with anyone giving support if they want.
d) details likely vary from country to country and so on so a lawyer would need much more detail to help you
Open Road (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow. This is coming from Matt Asay ( http://news.cnet.com/openroad/ [cnet.com] ) who writes the OSS blog for Cnet, routinely blasting people for not being open enough, and routinely praising Alfresco for their OSS efforts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've mad several comments about that very thing on his blog, but he never responds.
I was denied from even using OSS (Score:4, Interesting)
I was at a studio on a support call. Had to work on a Blue-Red stereo image, so I started using GIMP functions to edit the layers when their attorney came out of his office and said I could only use such-and-such studio-licensed custom program or risk contanimating their intellectual property. Apparently they had software made specifically for them to use, from a small PC-repai expert out of his southern CA office. Needless to say, it couldn't accomplish what the GIMP could do, yet wouldn't let me explain. They cut me a check and kicked me out within 30 minutes despite assuring them that GPL licensing doesn't extend to their content and property. They looked at me like I was a liar the whole time. Meanwhile, I think I should just go back to my old gig. Anyone have any similar anti-OSS establishments railroad you like a municipal court?
Common Misunderstanding (Score:5, Insightful)
All the talk out there regarding the "viral" nature of GPL code has confused a lot of otherwise very smart people. What happens is that they miss the dividing line between "the development" and "the use" of the programs.
This seems to be, in my experience, more likely among lawyers than in other groups.
It just proves the old saying the stupidity and hydrogen are the universal elements of the universe.
And, professionally, I'd run from a client like that. They strike me as paranoid enough to end up suing for a trivial reason down the road or cherry-pick advice in a manner that ensures failure of any project you would engage in for them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Huh? Please elaborate on that. I thought the whole point of the GPL was that there is no such dividing line: if you're a user, you have the right to hack it too.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Don't be daft.
If you develop and distribute a GPL program, you run into various requirements that do not apply if you just use it.
Re:Common Misunderstanding (Score:4, Informative)
Huh? Please elaborate on that. I thought the whole point of the GPL was that there is no such dividing line: if you're a user, you have the right to hack it too.
Elementary: As a user, you are free to use the software as much as you please. As a developer, you are free to hack it for your own use with no restrictions. But if you distribute it, you are bound to distribute it under the GPL, which includes distributing the source too.
Parent
Re:I was denied from even using OSS (Score:5, Interesting)
"railroad you like a municipal court?" Heh. I like that. Very astute!
But yes, I recently lost a job due to OSS. I feel sad that I'm happy about losing that job. (Surely the Germans must have a word for that.)
Anyways, this was a new job. These folks talked a good game. They knew all the right things to say during the interviews. It sounded promising...
They hired me to develop C++ applications under Linux. I showed up for work only to discover I'd be restricted to using Outlook/IE. Installing, let alone using, Firefox was forbidden. I asked the obvious question. (How to use Outlook/IE under Linux?) Turns out their programmers get a Windows box on their desktop with Hummingbird X-Windows software installed, and need to share a common Linux machine with other developers. We were cautioned against using too many resources on that machine, because after all it is SHARED...
Moving on to the NDA. It's a little overly broad, perhaps unintentionally giving them rights to whatever I develop during my off-hours. Without compensation, of course. I dabble in open-source, so this is a small matter of concern. I tried to negotiate more reasonable terms. (I'm happy to give them rights to anything they pay for.) They seemed to feel that, since they use [purchase] open-source software, my developing open-source software in my off-hours constituted a conflict of interest and promptly rescinded their offer of employment.
I'm a lucky man. Somebody up above was watching out for me that day!
I've since learned that they're on a death-march. I'm now hearing rumors that their coding standards, which I did not get to see, prohibit casting between base and derived classes, amongst other atrocities. But thankfully I can't confirm that.
Parent
Hey Larry Flynt....... (Score:2)
Welcome to contract law (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to contract law. If you sign a contract that says you are not going to do something, you better not do it unless you just want an ass raping.
They hold the copyright (Score:4, Informative)
And can set the terms for use of their software, and provision of their support, as they see fit. They can set terms in their partnership contracts restricting what those partners can do with the software, that would take precedence over the license of the software itself. This does, of course, assume that they themselves hold copyright on all code covered by their commercial license and partnership contracts, or have secured permission from the copyright holders for distribution under these terms.
That said, if you simply download the GPL version and then have nothing to do with them or their partners, you are still free to do anything with it that the GPL normally permits, provided their GPL version does not use an altered GPL.
Wrong question (Score:2, Insightful)
Can you be denied the right to support OSS? No.
Can you sign away your right to work on a particular project, in a contract where you get something in return? Of course. Why would you expect otherwise?
Sure (Score:5, Interesting)
In addition to that you can always sign your rights away in a contract. If you sign an agreement that you won't compete with a company's commercial product, expect to get sued if you work on an open source project that competes with theirs and they find out about it.
I should point out at this point that I am not a lawyer, but I have had this discussion with a number of them.
Grasshoppa, listen up (Score:2, Interesting)
what they do depends on their philosophy (Score:4, Interesting)
Restrictive contracts and policies are examples of a masculine philosophy that many business leaders erroneourly believe in, the idea that business is a kind of war. Essentially what a company does depends on the philosophy of its leaders, but if the philosophy is wrong then their actions will come to bite them in the end. You can only succeed in business, and life in general, if you have a philosophy which is right. But what's wrong with the philosophy that business is war?
Business is what a person wants it to be, and what they want it to be depends on their personality, which is in turn dependent on their DNA and their life experiences. If they are high on the social dominance orientation then business, for them, is war. If they are low on the social dominance orientation then business, for them, is cooperation or servicing the free market. But whatever they think about business, this does not affect what business actually is. Business is business. Whether people frame it as war or cooperation depends on a person's personality.
A person who is high on the social dominance orientation metric is likely to see business as war, and will seek to use any available means to achieve their purposes. They may believe that the economy is a zero-sum game (ie that no new wealth can ever be created), therefore they will seek to exclude others from gaining any advantage over them. Such people are also likely to be high on Machiavelian intelligence (and mayble also in selfishness and greed). They think that rugged individualism is a better strategy because they perceive the economy as a zero-sum game in which only the most competitive individuals survive.
A person who is low on the social dominance orientation metric is likely to see business as cooperation or collaboration, and will only use means that are acceptable by the business and greater social community. They may believe that the economy is not a zero-sum game (ie that new wealth can be created at any time), therefore they will seek to cooperate with others in a collaborative effort to produce more new wealth by joining forces together. Such people are also likely to be high in agreeableness (and mayble also in empathy and altruism). They think that a communitarian spirit is a better strategy because they perceive the economy as a non-zero-sum game in which only the most creative individuals survive (and, as free and open-source software demonstrates, creativity and wealth-creation is much more easier when people collaborate together).
Thus, what business is, to a person, depends on who a person is, but they should not let their own (mis-)conceptions draw them into making claims about what business is in reality, because this is the line of thinking that destroys science and reason, and the first step in science is to not let one's intellect affect their image about the reality (albeit there are, of course, philosophical objections to the feasibility of this endeavour). Just as a colour is not a colour unless perceived by an eye, but different eyes may perceive the same natural phenomenon as a different colour (eg under conditions as colour blindness), business cannot be something other than business unless people perceive it as such, but what people perceive depends on who they are and how they contextualise and frame the reality.
If you ask me, I have never perceived economy as a zero-sum game, and thus I have never seen business as war. What I see, however, is lots of people who have the wrong ideas about the economy and business and try to make war against other people, including against people who have the correct ideas, and in the process they drive into their war people who never had any intention to participate in their war. It is for this purpose that everyone, no matter how they see business, should be ready to defend themselves during an attack (ie walk calmly while carrying a big stick, doing your own thing and never attacking anyone, but be ready to effectively defend yourself when attacked). But other than that
Legitimate and Fair? (Score:2)
I'm always curious (Score:2)
I am currently selecting a CM tool for a project. Important condition: the software must be OSI compliant.
When these questions get posted to Slashdot, I often end up thinking we don't have enough information to respond. Are you the director of this project, or are you a grunt who's been given a task by the boss? Is being "OSI compliant" a condition placed by your employer, or is this just your own little addition based on your personal philosophy?
I know these aren't the questions the poster asked; but having occasionally worked alongside guys who's personal predilections tended to override project directives (a
Denied vs. give up (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem here is that there's 3 parties, not two: the person wanting support, the Alfresco partner potentially providing support, and the Alfresco owner. The question is whether the Alfresco partner can be denied the right to provide support to the person wanting it. The answer there is, there isn't an answer. The question is incomplete, it's missing information about what the partner has agreed to. In this case, the partner as part of their partnership agreement signed away their right to support the GPL'd version in return for rights to support the enterprise version they wouldn't have had otherwise. It's not just legal for them to do that, it's entirely reasonable and right for them to be able to do that. It's their business, it's their right to decide that the income from enterprise support is greater than the potential loss from not being able to provide support for the GPL'd version. Someone else may think their decision is dumb, but it's their decision to make.
From the standpoint of the person wanting support, legitimate and fair don't enter into it. They're not a party to the partnership agreement, they're not qualified to decide whether Alfresco is treating it's partners fairly or not. It is, however, rather unusual for open-source companies to deny their partners the right to work on the GPL'd version. RedHat, Sourceforge and the like don't impose any such restrictions that I know of. The most they may do is prohibit partners from making use of any non-GPL'd stuff they have access to in the GPL'd projects. I suspect Alfresco is doing this to try and induce people to use the enterprise version instead of the GPL'd version (if you use the GPL'd version, you lose access to the best sources of support). That'd make me twitchy about using their software.
hmnn? (Score:3)