Okay, I'll take the bait.
First, their license cannot supercede existing licenses of other products, nor do I think that was the intent. Somebody is mistaken if they believe that is possible.
What they are trying to say is that the version of THEIR license posted on the Internet supercedes any other copy of THEIR license that might exist. In other words, if you have a copy from a few months ago, and they've changed the wording on the web site, it is the web site version that is official. I don't know that they've properly worded their license to provide for this, but it is a pretty common practice. Read almost any "agreement", be it software or credit card or whatever, and you'll find a clause that reserves the right of the provider to change the agreement, unilaterally, at any time. Usually there is some notification that accompanies the change, but that is a courtesy moreso than a requirement I believe. Anyway, all they are saying is that the current and effective agreement is the one posted on their site. All others are facsimilies.
Since they cannot override the licenses of Mitel, Red Hat, nor anyone else, all they can license is any original work they may have done. Most likely this would be any installation and/or configuration and/or management interface. They can also license the use of their name and media products and services. As such, this puts them in the same boat as Mitel. Mitel could (and does in some cases) place a non-open license on their bits -- the template system, the web manager, etc. They also own the product name, they various documents and manuals, the logo, and so forth. This original work, unless it is largely derivative of another work or is subjected to a license/royalty agreement of a product used in their creation, can be copyrighted and licensed however the owner chooses.
For example, I could take Red Hat Linux 9 and create a configuration management system that would use a modified anaconda configuration to load only the packages I want loaded, and use a MySQL database to store configuration options, and use python to read the database and expand config file prototypes by merging in the config data from the database, and write a web-based manager to control it all -- I could even establish an Internet service that would provide automatic updates, security and performance monitoring, email and dns services, and maybe even simplified VPN management (sound somewhat familiar?) I could then place a restrictive license on my configurator and services and the code that makes the services work and charge for it and refuse to make the source available. I can't stop anyone from getting Red Hat, MySQL, python, or anything else, but I can stop you from using my protected property. Or, I can make it all GPL, and hope to make money from providing services.
The biggest problem I see with "YES" is that they are not clear in what they do (vis-a-vis the technical aspects of the system) and what they provide (in terms of proprietary code and functionality) and what they license. However, in general, there is nothing to prevent them from using SME as the basis for their product, so long as the respect the SME license.
By the way, just because someone distributes software protected under the GPL, that does not require them to also distrubute the source. Nor does it require them to make the source freely available. They GPL only requires that the source be available UPON REQUEST and allows a reasonable media fee to be charged. The ubiquity of the Internet has provided a convenient means for GPL source to be made freely (as in beer) available; however, it is not mandated by the GPL itself. Arguments of good open source citizenship aside, anyone authoring and/or distributing GPL software is within their rights to not publicly distribute the source and to demand you pony up some cash in order to get a copy. Most people don't want the source, however -- so I suspect the cost of managing a fee for source policy, when most people won't be asking for the source anyway and therefore the revenue would be comparatively small, makes it more effective to simply post source publically.
Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so don't take my word for it. However, that is how it has been explained to me by someone who cannot say IANAL.
12 Replies
1621 Views