decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
New Zealand SSC Releases Revised Guidance on Open Source
Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 11:19 PM EDT

This is very welcome news. You'll remember in March when New Zealand's State Services Commission posted a paper providing "guidance" to departments regarding Open Source. The paper, prepared by a law firm that lists Microsoft as a client, used such controversial terms as "infectious" when discussing the GPL.

A revised document is now available, which has been improved markedly.

From their press release:

The State Services Commission (SSC) today released an updated version of their briefing paper, A Guide to Legal Issues in using Open Source Software.

Laurence Millar, Deputy Commissioner Information and Communications Technologies, said the SSC received over 100 emails from the open source community about the first version of the paper, and traffic to the e-government website, www.e.govt.nz, saw a fivefold increase in the days following its release.

"After we had reviewed the feedback, some of which was quite comprehensive, we recognized the need to develop a new version that more accurately represented SSC's position on open source," Mr Millar said.

"We believe the updated paper is an improvement and takes into account the views we received. We would like to thank the New Zealand Open Source Society for their assistance during the revision process. Their members provided valuable feedback on the initial document.

"The whole process has led to an improved document and one that more accurately reflects SSC's support for the use of open source in New Zealand government," Mr Millar said.

For one example of improvement, in the original paper, one segment read like this: "It is the infectiousness of open source licences that leads to many of these risks. Unfortunately it is not always clear-cut when any piece of open source software will be infectious. In addition, the practical significance of these risks for any particular piece of software will depend on the intended use of the software and whether anyone is likely to seek to enforce the terms of the open source licence... Managing open source software risks can be complicated."

That segment is simply gone. Now it reads, "Software is generally considered to be 'open source' when it is made available in source code (i.e. human readable) form, under a licence that allows it to be modified and redistributed. Some open source licences are said to 'propagate'." It then goes on to describe how the GPL and LGPL work in a straightforward manner, essentially making sure departments use it appropriately.

It is very commendable that the SCC made this effort to be more even-handed and more accurate, pointing out clearly that there are no restrictions on internal use and modification at all, for example (try doing that with Microsoft's code), and I thank them for listening to thoughtful and polite input and being willing to respond.


  


New Zealand SSC Releases Revised Guidance on Open Source | 65 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections - if any
Authored by: mrcreosote on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 11:37 PM EDT
This thread has become an institution.

---
----------
mrcreosote

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: BC on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 11:37 PM EDT
If any are needed

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 11:46 PM EDT
  • SCC -> SSC - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 08:13 AM EDT
Off Topic here.
Authored by: mrcreosote on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 11:38 PM EDT
If you post on-topic in the off-topic thread, is it off-off-topic?

---
----------
mrcreosote

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Zealand SSC Releases Revised Guidance on Open Source
Authored by: bigbert on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 12:28 AM EDT
I am pleased. As a Kiwi-Penguin (if you get my drift!) I also sent emails to the
SCC and pointed out the obvious problems. The current document is fair and
reasonable.



---
LnxRlz!

[ Reply to This | # ]

A good document, let's try to free it
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 12:50 AM EDT
It seems a quite sensible and comprehensive document. There is one problem
however, it is distributed under a license which prohibits commercial use
without permission. Seems to me that if I was an FOSS vendor and wanted to do
business with some portion of the New Zealand government, asking for permission
to distribute this information back to the New Zealand goverenment, or for that
matter to use it as part of a presentation to any prospective client or as a
model for an internal policy or in any other way, asking for permission would be
annoying at best. At worst it could be so burdensome that the pain outweighs
the gain.

I propose we all write and ask the NZ government to either:

a) Free the document for commercial use, in it's entirety including any
necessary disclamers.

or

b) At least allow commercial use by vendors in their course of business with the
NZ government.

Regards,

Karl O. Pinc kopnospamatmeme.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

It still seems to have a subtle bias
Authored by: kh on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 01:22 AM EDT
Although it is much better.
Features of Open Source Licences
  • 6 Software is generally considered to be "open source" when it is made available in source code (i.e. human readable) form, under a licence that allows it to be modified and redistributed.
and in general copied and used without restriction
  • 7 Some open source licences are said to "propagate". This means that the original open source licence must be applied when:
    • 7.1 redistributing the original open source code
    • 7.2 distributing modifications of the original open source code
    • 7.3 distributing software that incorporates, or is derived from, the original open source code.
Like proprietary software the authors of many open source licenses retain ownership of the software and have restrictions on how the software is redistributed but in general not how it is copied or used.
  • 8 Software affected by a propagating licence is said to be "encumbered" by that licence. But it is important to note that propagation generally has effect only on distribution.
As opposed to most proprietary software which usually has a license that allows no copying and distribution at all.
  • 9 As with many commercial software products, open source software is generally provided "as is", without any:
    • 9.1 warranties as to its fitness for a purpose, its performance, or the licensor's title to the software
    • 9.2 indemnities against third party claims of intellectual property infringement.
I do like point 9

[ Reply to This | # ]

NZOSS Approves
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 07:19 AM EDT
It should be noted that the New Zealand Open Source Society had a great deal to
do with reviewing the original document and meeting with the SSC to cooperate in
developing a revided document. In addition we also reviewed the new document
before release. It is certainly a much improved document, one we are very happy
with.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about closed Source?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 16 2006 @ 08:20 AM EDT
I wonder if they have a document, titled
"A Guide to Legal Issues in using Closed Source Software"

My feeling is that you run a *lot* more risk with those kind of licenses:
- What about the legal issues of software modifying your OS to implement some
sneaky DRM?
- What about accidentially invalidating a license by just installing some
software on another machine?
- What about clauses, that allow vendors through their update mechanism to
basically change everything on your machine that they like, including making
some other software unusable?

Seems to me there are a lot more risks in the typical Closed Source license,
than in GPL & Co.

TToni

[ Reply to This | # ]

It would have been fair enough if they'd said Free
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 16 2006 @ 09:30 AM EDT
Free Software is *meant* to be infectious. Ask RMS.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )