Over at Computerworld there is this piece — How Open-Source Software Can Affect A Company’s Value This is like the second or third piece I have seen by these authors on the issue. I know they are probably trying to drum up business, but the consistency almost sounds like Jihad, and at a minimum is alarmist for no reason. I would direct the reader, go through the posting then come back here for the fisk.

My main argument to the whole article is — compared to what? Well as compared to commercial proprietary software is what. So lets take it on.

Open source has complex legal restrictions that can create copyright and patent compliance issues and corporate transaction challenges for companies that rely heavily on customized software or that distribute software to partners or customers.

Uh, so does using Microsoft code. Your company buys 500 copies of Project but a BSA audit finds you have 1100 copies in use, don’t think that free passes are in the offering. You’ll shovel out for the 600 additional licenses, the fine, the audit, and the legal fees. Last I checked I am not aware of a BSA audit for Open Office has ever occurred.

The Open Source Initiative standards group has approved nearly 70 open-source licenses, each with different terms. These licenses typically fall into one of two categories. The first is described as an attribution-type license, and it generally imposes few obligations beyond requiring that an acknowledgement of the authorship of the software be included in some manner, such as in source code comments and help files.

There are well over 4000 mainline products one can buy from personal computer single user use all the way up to mainframe multiuser OS’s. And those are just the popular ones. There are probably 5x that many that are used every day. And what’s important about that? Everyone of them has a EULA and not a one of them is ’standard’. They all have the stamp of the legal team that was hired to do the writing. It gets even worse when a major corporation is using 8 variants of a single class of product whose licenses have morphed over time. Each stands as its own use and restriction rules.

Now a company if they are smart would negotiate a comprehensive use agreement for all the products from a single vendor. The Fortune 10k do this all the time with companies like Microsoft, Apple, and IBM. It simplifies their work. But even so, there are can be outliers even in a comprehensive agreement that just did not hit the radar screen. Bottom line: It is not simpler staying with closed source either.

The second, more common and more demanding type of open-source license is the reciprocal-type license, also known as a “viral” or “copyleft” license. Reciprocal-type open-source license terms can be complex and ambiguous. Generally, any company that uses open source and either modifies or distributes it will need to have a thorough program in place to ensure compliance with the applicable licensing requirements.

More on What is Unsaid is Important Sometimes