Posts Tagged ‘Licensing’

I’ve recently been pushing for greater support for Catalyst and MojoMojo on Debian. For the uninitiated, Catalyst is a Model-View-Controller Framework designed for writing web applications. MojoMojo is a Wiki application based on Catalyst that provides a lot of neat features; while it seems less popular than Wikimedia’s MediaWiki software, it’s still got plenty of features other wikis don’t.

Here’s a blurb about it from their homepage:

We also have a bunch of features you won’t find in every wiki, like an attachment system that automatically makes a web gallery of your photos, live AJAX previews as you are editing your text, and a proper full text search engine built straight into the software.

Unfortunately, such a rich feature set comes at a price — this shiny piece of software has a rather large dependency chain. As a result, building the module (after building its prerequisites) from CPAN is both slow and prone to failure, since each module must be individually retrieved, extracted, built, tested and then installed.

To make matters worse, any failure anywhere in the chain (perhaps a new version of a module breaks things) will cause a complete failure to build the module — either Catalyst or MojoMojo — which has some serious implications for production applications.

In Debian, we mitigate this risk by having separate unstable and testing distributions, so if a newer version breaks things in unstable, we will catch it and have a chance to fix it before the package makes it into testing. By packaging these modules for Debian, we get the advantages of a faster installation process (since we’re installing pre-built binaries) combined with better Quality Assurance.

One of the big issues blocking both of these has been missing copyright information for a lot of modules. I’ve worked a lot with Matt S. Trout, one of the primary people behind coordinating the efforts of the Catalyst project, and gathered the necessary information for an upgrade and upload into Debian.

Recently, libcatalyst-modules-perl (version 35) and libcatalyst-modules-extra-perl (version 4) were uploaded to Debian, containing many necessary updates and fixes to improve the Catalyst experience on Debian. The next big push is to get MojoMojo’s dependencies packaged (currently only String::Diff is blocking it, due to missing copyright information).

A bounty of $150 is being offered by one of the MojoMojo developers to the first person who can re-implement the String::Diff functionality in a free/open source way.

Read Full Post »

One of the most often overlooked–yet arguably most important–issues in software development is copyright and licensing of works. In particular, I will discuss how this affects the open source software community with relevance to the Debian project.

As with any artistic or creative works, software is protected by copyright and its use is often governed by some sort of license. Please note that I am not a lawyer and I am not qualified to give legal advice, so take my suggestions with a grain of salt and please do leave a comment if you know something that I don’t.

A license is a legal contract that permits end users use of software under agreed-upon guidelines. In the open source community, licenses protect the integrity of free software by ensuring that they continue to remain freely available. For example, the GNU General Public License (GPL) stipulates that any derivative works of GPL-licensed code must distribute source code back to the community, which enables a two-way sharing of information between the originating software developers and the others who benefit from their work. Other licenses, such as the BSD License, are more liberal and do not have this restriction, but do have a disclaimer of warranties which shields authors from unintended legal consequences of their work.

Though licensing is probably the most important document detailing the relationship of the supplier (software developer or team) and other users, it cannot mean anything without copyright. In general, it is most useful to provide a copyright statement somewhere in resulting packages. A copyright statement is what allows authors to assert a particular license in the first place.

Moreover, license terms can only be changed when all copyright holders agree to the change. Unless you are explicit in your copyright conditions in the beginning, this can lock your project in to an undesirable license.

To make matters even more complicated, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (or simply Berne Convention as it’s most often called) describes a mechanism by which copyright is automatically in force upon creation of a work, even if the author does not explicitly assert it. For software, this effectively means that anyone who contributes any code is automatically the copyright holder on their contribution, which means that things quickly get complicated when there are many authors and contributors involved.

In Debian, we cannot and do not distribute software without knowing copyright information (including years of copyright, names, e-mail addresses where people can be reached, or a web site in the case of an incorporated entity). This is pursuant to the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), which require that we distribute only “free” software in our main repository–it’s part of our Social Contract.

In this regard, I would make the following recommendations:

  1. When beginning any project (open source or not), include a copyright statement immediately. It will eventually become a force of habit; this is a very good thing, and will pay dividends in the future.
  2. Establish a policy whereby contributors are asked to assign you copyright of their work; make a note of this somewhere in your documentation. Better yet, if you are part of an incorporated entity, assign copyright to that entity.
  3. Be explicit about your licensing terms and make sure to include copies of the license with your software. This helps to resolve ambiguities where there are several derivatives of a license (occasionally, developers license software under the BSD License without specifying which version they mean)
  4. Be wary of the “Public Domain” — this is an even more contentious issue than choosing an appropriate license. It is probably preferable to use a non-restrictive license such as the aforementioned BSD License (and its variants) or the MIT/X11 license, which is even more permissive.

Read Full Post »