Commentary

Serdar Yegulalp
 

OpenOffice: Free As In ... Unencumbered

Sun's decision to move OpenOffice's licensing to the LGPLv3 sounds like a way to make sure that one of its bigger software products doesn't fall victim to software patent issues.  After all, Sun went through a great deal of hassle to try and liberate Java from its legacy restrictions, so maybe it's just trying to make sure history doesn't repeat itself.  A wise measure.

Sun's decision to move OpenOffice's licensing to the LGPLv3 sounds like a way to make sure that one of its bigger software products doesn't fall victim to software patent issues.  After all, Sun went through a great deal of hassle to try and liberate Java from its legacy restrictions, so maybe it's just trying to make sure history doesn't repeat itself.  A wise measure.


More Software Insights

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Webcasts

More >>

The LGPLv3 license allows the source code for OpenOffice to be reused in other products, even commercial ones (like IBM's revamp of Lotus, which I looked at a while back in a preliminary form), without similar licensing restrictions being imposed on the other products.  However, the v3 license explicitly forbids any of the code released under its aegis from being protected by software patents.

Why do this?  Well, for one, it's a pre-emptive way to avoid having people contribute code to OpenOffice and then turn around and claim ownership over either their contributions or the code as a whole.  IBM, for one, as per the above example: if memory serves, it has been pretty friendly to open source -- certainly friendlier than Microsoft.  Still, moving to LGPLv3 means any contributions IBM might make to the OO codebase through Lotus will be by definition unencumbered by patent trouble.

This issue might not mean much to the average user, at least not at first glance.  But one of the ways this issue affects regular users is if a given software product that they've grown attached to is suddenly found to be infringing on a software patent.  Whether or not the offending product is open source is a separate issue, although I'd wager an open source product is easier by far to liberate from accusations of patent infringement than a proprietary one.

Now for a little devil's-advocacy paranoia.  I wonder, for instance, if someone might try to assert patent rights over a v3 contribution as a way of testing the validity of that license in court.  Farfetched, maybe, but after the SCO debacle I'm learning not to assume anything is too farfetched.  Another thing I do wonder about is whether or not this will inhibit third-party development and re-use of OpenOffice, at least until the real-world consequences of LGPLv3 are a little clearer.

That said, moving a product of OO's stature under the umbrella of LGPLv3 ought to provide exactly the kind of real-world shakedown testing that's needed here.  And I doubt Sun would do something like this if it didn't have a fair idea of what was at stake.


Related Reading




Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
T-Shirt Giveaway T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting!
Subscribe to RSS

Resource Links