Jul 29: OTN and Development Licenses
First of all I noticed Kevin Closson's blog and the associated thread on Oracle-L. (It's a long thread, but here's where I suggest you pick it up.) I was stunned to realise that people might think it reasonable to use as many Oracle development systems for their company's work as they like without paying any licence fees! It concerns me that people would build a company on such activity, but it seems I'm wrong. Then again, Oracle's licenses are never the most readable documents, so maybe it's a simple misunderstanding? Then again, maybe they're so long-winded because business users can't be trusted to pay for the software that they use? That's probably unfair, but that's how it looks to me.
Next was Niall's particular reading of the licence which struck me as particularly depressing and not the way I'd always read OTN's intentions.
Then was Howard's follow-up which was the closest to my own understanding.
I don't really want to focus on the online debate, however. What's absolutely crucial about this discussion is that one of the key points of just about every course I taught (40+, I reckon) was that the best way to learn was to download a copy of the software from OTN so that you could play around with it in your own time. That's an immensely valuable resource and one that I keep encouraging people to use.
I remember a time when getting hold of a legal copy of Oracle was beyond the reach of most dedicated IT professionals. Not everyone has the time or the server resources available at work for experimentation, so when Oracle started making downloads available on OTN, I was very pleased indeed. I was also delighted to see that the people at OTN have clarified the self-education issue. As someone who's always happy to offer a negative perspective, I see it as an entirely positive and welcome step. Good for them!
So nothing's really changed. You can use whatever software you want for your personal experimentation and companies who are in the process of developing applications for themselves or others for a profit have to pay for licences, with the Oracle Partner Network being a useful option for smaller organisations. As Mark Rittman points out on his comment to Niall's Blog, that can be as low as about a thousand quid. Knowing how significant Learning Tree's license payments to Oracle were for classroom software, that seems like an exceptional deal.
P.S. Not to put a cat amongst the pigeons, but does this mean that any live demos I do at Oracle conferences need to use a licenced copy? If so, maybe I'll need to reconsider demos.
#1 - Chris Muir said:
2007-07-29 13:55 - (Reply)
Hi Doug
Regards your P.S. comment, while I can't comment on "Oracle" events run by Oracle, my understanding is that independent Oracle User Group functions running Oracle licensed software fall into a gray area that Oracle has yet to contest, and has decided to turn a blind eye towards. Maybe this is for the obvious bad publicity and counter productive efforts if they did contest this in court, or maybe because their licenses restrict 3rd party training in many areas, but "conferences" are on the border of training and advocacy and would be a hard argue in court -- I dunno, hard to tell what Oracle big-wigs think without a clear statement.
I was privy indirectly (read: word-of-mouth) to a conversation where a high level (how high?) Oracle representative said they will let user groups continue to use the software at conferences or events and would never contest it.
It would be great to have a "public" clarification from Oracle on this at some stage.
Regards,
CM.
#1.1 - Doug Burns said:
2007-07-29 16:48 - (Reply)
Interesting comments, Chris.
For my own part, I'll keep the demos up for now and I'm sure Oracle will be along to tell me if I'm breaking any laws!
I've reconsidered what I do with Oracle and the bulk of my work is on site using my client's licences, then there's some self-learning at home and some experiments which I blog about or present on.
None of that seems to be breaking the spirit of the licence to me although if I started selling software that I'd written or running training courses with OTN downloads, that would be a different matter.
#1.1.1 - Chris Muir said:
2007-07-30 01:11 - (Reply)
I was thinking about the broader licensing questions that seem to have come up this morning again.
The problem with Oracle's licensing is that it is a) written in lawyer speak, and b) even when the conditions give a positive (you may do this) they seem to open up more negatives (but does this mean?).
There's also a c) that there are discrepancies between the licenses. For example Apex's conditions are less restrictive than JDev's, though JDev is a free product (that's not 100% true but close enough for this discussion).
So how could Oracle help the situation? As a brainstorm:
1) Write a plain English FAQ that has the Q&A type approach to what you can and can't do, written for technical people, not lawyers. This could also address the discrepancies where Oracle has deliberately made them different to explain the "why?"
2) Promote a contact point where licensing clarifications issues could be raised without fear of retribution.
I guess the 2nd point is covered by your friendly Oracle rep, but I'd guess not all local Oracle reps are friendly because potentially you're impinging on their market/profits/own bonuses. As such an independent contactable Oracle body would be useful.
Hmmm, this is far too much thinking for a Monday morning. Thanks for your thoughts.
Cheers,
CM.
#1.1.1.1 - Justin Kestelyn 2007-07-30 16:03 - (Reply)
We are in fact working on a plain-English Developer Licensing FAQ.
#1.1.1.1.1 - Doug Burns said:
2007-07-31 03:55 - (Reply)
Justin,
Excellent idea.
As part of this discussion I was going to mention a couple of examples of the type of documents that I've always found useful such as the Software Investment Guide and the recent document on the cost implications of 9.2 going out of extended support.
These aren't just useful for developers or home users, but those who have to work out what on earth Oracle's licences mean to their business and don't have easy access to legal departments in their workplace.
I'm sure that the legal licence would take precedence, but such documents show Oracle as a business partner rather than an aggressor.
Most businesses I work with are very keen to meet licence requirements in full - when they can understand them!
#1.1.1.2 - Doug Burns said:
2007-07-31 03:59 - (Reply)
I guess the 2nd point is covered by your friendly Oracle rep, but I'd guess not all local Oracle reps are friendly because potentially you're impinging on their market/profits/own bonuses.
... and even when that isn't true, I've found that if you ask two different reps, you'll get two different answers! I suspect that's one of the reasons for all of the commentary documents that are floating around - plenty of Oracle employees don't understand this stuff either!
#2 - Howard Rogers said:
2007-07-30 05:55 - (Reply)
Regarding Chris' point (A). Licenses have, by definition, to be legal documents, capable of being arbitrated in a court of law. Any 'plain English' commentary on a license (a list of what you can and can't do, for example) would only ever be of persuasive effect.
But yes: just as one can write good or bad code, so one can right complete legal crapola or something that's amenable to the non-legal layman. I'd actually say that Oracle's OTN license is one of the more readable licenses out there: it does, after all, only consist of a handful of operative clauses.
I'll make a more general point: technical people who deal with software installations should really be rather more 'clued up' on basic legalese than many have appeared to be in this debate.
I am not, of course, suggesting law degrees all round. A lot of companies would have a legal department for that sort of thing.
But understanding one's contractual and licensing obligations is an important part of the DBA's job and can't (shouldn't) be fobbed off onto 'the legal guys'.
#2.1 - Chris Muir said:
2007-07-30 07:12 - (Reply)
Hi Howard
Firstly I agree that DBAs need to have their heads around the issue as it's important to not expose their organisations to risk. I also think Oracle developers need this knowledge too -- I see a number of inconsistencies in the licenses for Apex and JDeveloper that might catch people out if they don't check.
But the fact that DBAs, developers etc are not lawyers, and do not necessarily have training in such areas will always make them (or some) question "what does it mean in English?" because they're afraid of the lawyer speak (as we all are -- who wants to be sued?). I'm betting those who have English as a second language find it tough too.... and I do often see people seeking clarification of license terms on OTN forums (well, in particular for JDeveloper). This is why I think a FAQ would be useful .... and to be blunt I couldn't care if it made life difficult for the lawyers, as that's their job.
I'm also aware that regardless of the license conditions that exist when you download from OTN, depending on your country and its international agreements with the USA, and its copyright laws, and the acknowledgment that contract conditions (as listed in the license) are binding (they're not necessarily in Australia -- though may apply in this case -- I'm no lawyer ;), this leaves us in a position of questioning if the conditions actually apply.
As you also posted this means talking to your local Oracle representative for a clarification. Mind you, Oracle's reps aren't laywers too.
Thanks for the follow up -- interested in your thoughts.
Regards,
CM.
PS. I hope everything is well in Sydney.
PPS. For those interested Howard and I are chatting on his website at this address:
http://www.dizwell.com/prod/node/906
#2.1.1 - Howard Rogers said:
2007-08-01 00:03 - (Reply)
Actually, Chris, the license explicitly states:
You and Oracle agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of, and venue in, the courts of San Francisco, San Mateo, or Santa Clara counties in California in any dispute arising out of or relating to this agreement.
So yes, the terms do apply in Sydney, Melbourne, Afghanistan and, indeed, Timbuctu, and you (and everyone else) should be in no doubt that the terms apply.
And no, Oracle Reps aren't lawyers -but they are agents for the company, and in a court of law the company would be bound by their actions (unless specifically disclaimed by, for example, sacking the worker). Therefore, you may take their word at face value: they may not be lawyers, but their decisions bind the company.
And as I've just posted on your own blog (I wish these things could stay in one place!), the production of a FAQ is no doubt to be welcomed... but it will be largely worthless. What it allows will of course be allowed (essentially because of the same 'agency rule' as above). But it cannot (by definition) deal with all circumstances and all variations, and what it doesn't explicitly allow is still open to interpretation and argument in a court of law. Moreover, at the end of the day, it is the license itself which is justiciable, and no amount of FAQ writing will change that. Therefore, the need for us all to understand the actual 'operative document' still stands.
The New South Wales tenancy tribunal produce a very nice, plain English guide to renting -but that's not a substitute for reading the actual tenancy agreement when you're asked to sign it!
#2.1.1.1 - Chris Muir said:
2007-08-01 04:26 - (Reply)
Yeah, sorry about the cross blog posting, this seems to happen doesn't it? I've placed a comment on my blog's comments regards your 2 posts.
Anybody interested just follow the hyperlink on my name above.
Regards,
CM.
#2.2 - Doug Burns said:
2007-07-31 04:09 - (Reply)
But understanding one's contractual and licensing obligations is an important part of the DBA's job and can't (shouldn't) be fobbed off onto 'the legal guys'.
I agree that licensing is an absolutely crucial part of the job. However, the fact that I have been in so many extended conversations with Oracle employees over the years over what their license terms mean to me at any particular site doesn't help.
If the suppliers don't understand their own terms consistently, how on earth is the customer supposed to? I suspect that's why Oracle have felt the need to publish supporting FAQs and the like - as much for their own people as customers.
I feel lucky that my current site has an architect who investigates issues like licensing, support etc. on an almost full time basis because it's been the bane of my working life.
#2.3 - Niall Litchfield said:
2007-07-31 08:46 - (Reply)
I'll make a more general point: technical people who deal with software installations should really be rather more 'clued up' on basic legalese than many have appeared to be in this debate.
I am not, of course, suggesting law degrees all round. A lot of companies would have a legal department for that sort of thing.
I don't know whether you had me in mind specifically, but certainly my original re-reading of the licence would appear to qualify me as 'not clued up on basic legalese'- there was a 'fog of ignorance' comment elsewhere as well. As it happens I do have an understanding of basic legalese, at least English basic legalese as it was in the late eighties early nineties when I was doing my accounting training. Back then I was taught (and certainly Hans F from Canada seemed to have a similar understanding) that a license/contract that says
You may only do X.
You may specifically not do Y.
didn't mean that doing Z was perfectly fine because in some way the second clause negated the first. I know that we disagree, but we don't disagree out of ignorance.
#2.3.1 - Howard Rogers said:
2007-07-31 23:40 - (Reply)
No, I didn't have you in mind regarding 'ignorance' or 'not being clued up', Niall.
I consider what you wrote (an aberrant piece of) irresponsible alarmism, not ignorance.
The fallacy you keep falling into is that license consists of more than 2 sentences! As I have kept saying, read the license as a whole and the INTENT of the license is apparent (no commercial use). When an apparent contradiction between two points of the license then arises, you interpret it according to the overall thrust and intent of the license.
The other fallacy you keep falling into is to say the license says 'you may only do X', as if X was clear-cut, black and white and incapable of further elaboration. But it isn't: X is 'produce a single prototype'.
Nowhere is the process of producing a prototype defined, however. And it is entirely reasonable to assert that before it is possible to build a prototype, you have first to understand the product... which opens the door to home learning.
It is not, in other words, as you put it above. It is more a case of saying
You may only do X... but I'm not going to define what X actually includes or excludes;
You may specifically not do Y;
Z certainly isn't the same thing as Y, so I am not explicitly prohibited from doing it, but does it fall within the scope of X which would permit it; and would doing it conform to the general intent of the license?
Yes it does, therefore I can do it.
It's got nothing to do with what you or Hans were taught or not, in other words. It's a question of whether what you were taught actually applies in this situation.
#3 - Doug Burns said:
2007-08-01 05:46 - (Reply)
I'm not a lawyer, but ... (OK, that bit was a joke.)
I don't doubt that the license agreement will always carry the heaviest weight and will be deciphered and enforced by legal folk as always.
What I hope an advisory document will give is an indication of Oracle's intentions. If they then prosecute some poor, under-financed and under-represented unfortunate like myself then I might still get strung up in court, but it will be apparent that I acted in good faith.
There *are* too many blogs about this now and too many comments and apologies for contributing to that.
Not least because I'm commenting here before dashing into the office, rather than taking care of Housemate of the Month!
#4 - Chris Muir said:
2007-08-01 07:17 - (Reply)
Of course you really meant "I'm not a lawyer.... but I consider myself an expert of sorts because I watched 7 seasons of Law and Order and in the case of Hermans vs Johnston......" 
I think that's yes, yes, yes on 3 accounts in response to your post above.
Here's to hoping the FAQ has explicit exemptions for under-financed and under-represented unfortunates like us all.
Cheers,
CM.
#5 - Kevin Closson said:
2007-08-04 17:45 - (Reply)
You folks have still not speculated on why there is such a program as the Oracle Partner Network which offers provisions for using the software beyond what is explicitly granted in the OTN download license (single prototype development).
EnterpriseDB has not come forth and said whether :
A) We have no Oracle instances running in our labs
or
B) We do have Oracle instance running in our labs and we have license to do so
These are the topics I blogged about.
