Discussions

News: Opinion: Open Source Branding and Copyright

  1. Opinion: Open Source Branding and Copyright (4 messages)

    N. Alex Rupp has written some thoughts on the brave new open source world for entrepeneurs: "There are two subtle but unique resources in open source which, if acquired and carefully leveraged, can give your business a leg up over some of the big players in the market. One of these resources is control over the copyright of the software. The other is control over the brand."

    In the article he talks about some of the issues that come up due to your choice in copyright. He cites GPL, LGPL, and the Apache licenses.

    Read: On Branding and Copyright--Open Source For Entrepeneurs
  2. Opinion: Open Source Branding and Copyright[ Go to top ]

    Every open-source volunteer and entrepeneur should read this. This probably is a good lesson for those who care what they write.

    If you are committing to a known group like Apache, you know you are good. If you are contributing to a new group, ask for trademark and copyright issues, allocate some time for discusions on this.

    I think most of the contributors don't know about these issues, really need education on them. And some don't care, as they like to volunteer and find this as a way to improve their skillset.

    -------------------------------------------------------
    http://JavaRSS.com
    Just one bookmark - for all Java news, articles and blogs.
    -------------------------------------------------------
  3. This is a very interesting topic which has not been discussed enough.

    I remember that mysql brought a boston company to court. The result was:
    1. The Boston company can not use mysql's tradmark.
    2. Mysql can not show any damage, because the orignal is free of charge, so the Boston company do not pay anything.

    If some company "violates" mysql's copyright (not the trademark), will mysql spend money and time to bring it to court again?
  4. For Open Source to be truly open, the source should be usable by anybody for any reason. If the user changes or extends the source the user should not be forced to open their source as well.

    Otherwise, many businesses will demur in using open source.

    To me it seems that many open source contributors are neurotic about how their code can be used. So what if someone takes the code and profits from it?
  5. Well, this is the fundamental difference between people releasing in BSD/Apache style licenses, and those releasing under GPL or LGPL. BSD/Apache people generally only want credit and place no other restrictions on the user; GPL/LGPL want credit and control over how the source is used/modified if the end user is going to distribute his changes. Personally, I'm with you on my preference - I don't understand on an emotional level why someone wants to release something open source and simultaneously put restrictions on changes and distribution.

        -Mike