5 ms·

Unfortunately, the author of the Metaphone code (lphillips) keeps talking about public domain as if that is what is the point of contention. When you license so

Unfortunately, the author of the Metaphone code (lphillips) keeps talking about public domain as if that is what is the point of contention. When you license something as BSD you aren't putting the work into the "public domain" (as in the legal meaning) but you are giving a very permissive license to the subject of the license. My guess is that Google requested use of the Metaphone 3 package, Lawrence perhaps didn't understand the what BSD meant, but was willing for Google to use it in their Google-Refine (now Open Refine) codebase so willfully let them pick the most permissive license. I'm having a real difficult understanding him from his GitHub comments. It's clear that he never intended his algorithm to be re-useable or modifiable in any way, but if he intends to restrict the future use of his Metaphone 3 code or even prevent a port, he's going to find it impossible.... Lesson learnt... it's clear that a work of this magnitude would have taken thousand plus hours... if you don't intend it to be re-usable, then you shouldn't pick a permissive, open source license such as BSD.

HackinOut 12y ago
It seems to me that lphilips54 is trying to achieve with a license what we would need a patent for. (He speaks of his algorithm)
- RexRollman 12y ago
  Exactly. Copyright doesn't do what he thinks it does.
- masklinn 12y ago
  Note that he has a patent on metaphone3.
  - bchociej 12y ago
    Can you link to that? I've only been able to find rejected applications so far.
  - mikhailt 12y ago
    As far as anybody can tell and based on his comments, no he doesn't have any patents. He mistakenly thought his algorithm was copyrighted and algorithms are not copyrightable in US and generally in many countries around the globe.
- code_duck 12y ago
  It's surprising how little understanding the average person has of the 3 major types of IP registration. Most people I know working in creative and artistic fields could not tell you the difference between a copyright, patent and trademark.
  - vacri 12y ago
    Why surprising? They're all very abstract concepts, and most artists outside the tech field don't have a use for patents or trademarks.
    - code_duck 12y ago
      I often have observed issues involving people who believe they or others own processes, algorithms and names, or that others have exclusive right to such in the visual and tangible art fields. It's quite important to understand what rights people have when they start asserting rights. For instance, a bead maker claiming that they have a 'copyright' on a certain style of glass bead which they seem to think involves a combination of the name, process and result. People use (mis) understandings of IP to intimidate others into not competing with them, despite not understanding what rights they actually have or don't have. The intended audience, other artists, don't understand what rights they or the claimant actually have, either. The main lack of understanding I see is a) that processes cannot be covered by copyright and b) names are not covered by copyright.
rwmj 12y ago
The lesson that I'm taking from this is he should have talked to a lawyer.
- charlesdm 12y ago
  Indeed. It also strikes me as odd that someone who creates intellectual rights for a living (i.e. a software developer), as an independent, does not have a basic understanding of copyright law. I'm not a lawyer, but some basic understanding is at least to be expected. Still, sucks for him though.
  - pyre 12y ago
    > does not have a basic understanding of copyright law I think that this is more a case of the "unknown unknowns." He probably thought that he did have a good grasp of copyright law and that was why he didn't need to talk to a lawyer.
andreasvc 12y ago
It's an interesting question whether the license is even valid if it is true what you say that he never understood its consequences as you suggest.
imanaccount247 12y ago
>if you don't intend it to be re-usable, then you shouldn't pick a permissive, open source license such as BSD. Any open source license is going to pose the same "problem". If you don't want it to be open source, don't make it open source. Permissive license doesn't even enter into it.
- mtrimpe 12y ago
  Not really. Most Atlassian products are "Open Source" in that after purchase you can download their source code. You are still not allowed to repackage it / modify it and sell derivative products / run multiple instances of it though.
  - njharman 12y ago
    Open source has well accepted definition and its not the one you are using.
    - mtrimpe 12y ago
      Hence the 'quotes.' Seems pretty relevant as this article is all about the author understanding open source in the way Atlassian e.a. do it.
      - parasubvert 12y ago
        The open source initiative (OSI) was the organization that originally promoted open source (as an alternative to the FSF and "free software"), along with certifying licenses as being "open source". Perhaps it's a generational thing for those that weren't old enough or weren't paying attention in 1998 - they even tried unsuccessfully to trademark "open source" to avoid the sorts of confusions with what Atlassian (or even Splunk) have. That said I'd say the problem with the OP thread isn't even about "open source", it's about misunderstanding copyright vs. patents.
      - scrollaway 12y ago
        The term you are looking for is "Source-available". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-source_vs._source-available https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-sour...

HackinOut 12y ago

It seems to me that lphilips54 is trying to achieve with a license what we would need a patent for. (He speaks of his algorithm)

RexRollman 12y ago
Exactly. Copyright doesn't do what he thinks it does.
masklinn 12y ago
Note that he has a patent on metaphone3.
- bchociej 12y ago
  Can you link to that? I've only been able to find rejected applications so far.
- mikhailt 12y ago
  As far as anybody can tell and based on his comments, no he doesn't have any patents. He mistakenly thought his algorithm was copyrighted and algorithms are not copyrightable in US and generally in many countries around the globe.
code_duck 12y ago
It's surprising how little understanding the average person has of the 3 major types of IP registration. Most people I know working in creative and artistic fields could not tell you the difference between a copyright, patent and trademark.
- vacri 12y ago
  Why surprising? They're all very abstract concepts, and most artists outside the tech field don't have a use for patents or trademarks.
  - code_duck 12y ago
    I often have observed issues involving people who believe they or others own processes, algorithms and names, or that others have exclusive right to such in the visual and tangible art fields. It's quite important to understand what rights people have when they start asserting rights. For instance, a bead maker claiming that they have a 'copyright' on a certain style of glass bead which they seem to think involves a combination of the name, process and result. People use (mis) understandings of IP to intimidate others into not competing with them, despite not understanding what rights they actually have or don't have. The intended audience, other artists, don't understand what rights they or the claimant actually have, either. The main lack of understanding I see is a) that processes cannot be covered by copyright and b) names are not covered by copyright.

rwmj 12y ago

The lesson that I'm taking from this is he should have talked to a lawyer.

charlesdm 12y ago
Indeed. It also strikes me as odd that someone who creates intellectual rights for a living (i.e. a software developer), as an independent, does not have a basic understanding of copyright law. I'm not a lawyer, but some basic understanding is at least to be expected. Still, sucks for him though.
- pyre 12y ago
  > does not have a basic understanding of copyright law I think that this is more a case of the "unknown unknowns." He probably thought that he did have a good grasp of copyright law and that was why he didn't need to talk to a lawyer.

andreasvc 12y ago

It's an interesting question whether the license is even valid if it is true what you say that he never understood its consequences as you suggest.

imanaccount247 12y ago

>if you don't intend it to be re-usable, then you shouldn't pick a permissive, open source license such as BSD. Any open source license is going to pose the same "problem". If you don't want it to be open source, don't make it open source. Permissive license doesn't even enter into it.

mtrimpe 12y ago
Not really. Most Atlassian products are "Open Source" in that after purchase you can download their source code. You are still not allowed to repackage it / modify it and sell derivative products / run multiple instances of it though.
- njharman 12y ago
  Open source has well accepted definition and its not the one you are using.
  - mtrimpe 12y ago
    Hence the 'quotes.' Seems pretty relevant as this article is all about the author understanding open source in the way Atlassian e.a. do it.
    - parasubvert 12y ago
      The open source initiative (OSI) was the organization that originally promoted open source (as an alternative to the FSF and "free software"), along with certifying licenses as being "open source". Perhaps it's a generational thing for those that weren't old enough or weren't paying attention in 1998 - they even tried unsuccessfully to trademark "open source" to avoid the sorts of confusions with what Atlassian (or even Splunk) have. That said I'd say the problem with the OP thread isn't even about "open source", it's about misunderstanding copyright vs. patents.
    - scrollaway 12y ago
      The term you are looking for is "Source-available". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-source_vs._source-available https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-sour...