451 CAOS Theory 
A blog for the enterprise open source community
How do you define ‘commercial open source’?
Matthew Aslett, February 26, 2008 @ 10:14 am ETAdobe has announced that it is sponsoring the SQLite public domain database engine project by joining Mozilla and Symbian on the SQLite consortium. The news is interesting in that it balances Google’s recent sponsorship of efforts to support Photoshop on Linux, while it also raises an interesting question about Microsoft’s attempt to define commercial open source.
SQLite has seen some success recently as the chosen database for Google’s Android project. It also replaced MySQL as the default database for the Ruby on Rails project. Adobe, meanwhile, uses SQLite as part of its new AIR runtime software, amongst other things.
The sponsorship of open source projects such as these is a timely reminder that in th open source world there is a blurred line between commercial and non-commercial. Microsoft’s recent announcement that it will offer free access to the APIs and protocols for its core products was accompanied by a “covenant not to sue open source developers for development or non-commercial distribution of implementations of these protocols”.
The same covenant is not available to commercial open source vendors (they can license the software on RAND terms juts like any other vendor). Explaining the distinction, Microsoft stated that “companies that engage in commercial distribution of these protocol implementations will be able to obtain a patent license from Microsoft”.
Where do the Google and Adobe sponsorships fit in to this picture?
Clearly Adobe is a commercial entity, but it does not earn revenue directly from SQLite (although it does have commercial products that make use of it). In so far as Adobe has developers contributing to SQLite, would they be entitled to Microsoft’s covenant? If not, who would need to take out a license, Adobe, or the SQLite Consortium?
Google’s case is a little different. Both it and Codeweavers are commercial entities and Google has hired Codeweavers to improve Win’s support for Photoshop on Linux, so presumably Codeweavers would need a RAND license. But while Google uses Wine, it is not engaged in the commercial distribution of Wine or Photoshop. Are its actions commercial or not? Is it entitled to that covenant in this case?
These are questions that only Microsoft can answer, and it will be interesting to see the response. No doubt there is a line that can be drawn somewhere, but these are two examples of how open source software will not be easily shoe-horned into a Microsoft-centric view of the world.
Categories: Licensing, Software
Comments RSS feed | Trackback URI
[...] 451 CAOS Theory - A blog for the enterprise open source community wrote an interesting post today on How do you define ‘commercial open source’?Here’s a quick excerpt Adobe has announced that it is sponsoring the SQLite public domain database engine project by joining Mozilla and Symbian on the SQLite consortium. The news is interesting in that it balances Google’s recent sponsorship of efforts to support Photoshop on Linux, while it also raises an interesting question about Microsoft’s attempt to define commercial open source. SQLite has seen some success recently as the chosen database for Google’s Android project. It also replaced MySQL as the default da [...]
[...] Sweetness & Light wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt Adobe has announced that it is sponsoring the SQLite public domain database engine project by joining Mozilla and Symbian on the SQLite consortium. The news is interesting in that it balances Google’s recent sponsorship of efforts to support Photoshop on Linux, while it also raises an interesting question about Microsoft’s attempt to define commercial open source. SQLite has seen some success recently as the chosen database for Google’s Android project. It also replaced MySQL as the default da [...]
[...] 451 CAOS Theory wrote an interesting post today on How do you define ‘commercial open source’?Here’s a quick excerptSQLite has seen some success recently as the chosen database for Google’s Android project…. [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] Let me say that this could be the beginning of a fairly major shift for Microsoft, a change that most feel is long overdue. As usual though, the devil is in the details. Is this announcement fluff or substance? The first major hole I see is that the “covenant not to sue open source developers”, along with some other pieces, only pertain to “non-commercial” distribution/implementation. This makes room for a lot of gray area on how you define commercial use. Also, from what I can tell, the patent provision terms discussed in the announcement are not compatible with most Open Source licenses. That being said, it’s also a far cry from Microsoft calling Linux a cancer, so it’s certainly a step in the right direction. The real driver here, however, is almost certainly customer demand and a landscape that is shifting underneath the feet of Microsoft. I think the 451 group puts it well: [...]
[...] How do you define ‘commercial open source’? [...]
[...] Forse è l’ora di definire l’open source commerciale? Ed è proprio vero che ora tocca all’industria delle Telecomunicazioni passare all’Open Source? Segnala presso: Etichette: Adobe, alfresco, Business, CRM, DBMS, ERP, Google, licenze, Microsoft, Mono, MySQL, Novell, open source, Red Hat, SCO, SQLite, SUN, SUSE, Yahoo [...]