Software developers are from Mars, and lawyers are from Venus. To the extent the two must interact – and the current state of intellectual property law dictates they must – someone has to help with the translation. Dan Bricklin believes he is just the guy IT executives should turn to for that job.
Software developers are from Mars, and lawyers are from Venus. To the extent the two must interact – and the current state of intellectual property law dictates they must – someone has to help with the translation.
Dan Bricklin believes he is just the guy IT executives should turn to for that job.
A software sage best known for co-authoring the first spreadsheet, VisiCalc, Bricklin has a new project involving tools unfamiliar to the typical developer: pancake makeup, klieg lights and a video camera. He’s producing a training video that aims to bridge what can often be a chasm between the needs and desires of corporate software developers to use open source code, and the fears of company lawyers who see nothing but liability lurking in every line. The 50-minute tape is being polished and could be available through Bricklin’s www.softwaregarden.com as soon as next month.
“There really is a need for this because a lot of people don’t know why they should be paying attention to the legal aspects,” says Bricklin, who founded Trellix in 1996 and sold the company to Interland two years ago. “In the last year or so it’s gotten very critical. One reason is that people care more in many ways about the legal issues that were always there but sort of got swept under the rug. With the SCO lawsuit, IBM and Linux have been doing a really good job of defending themselves so far. If you look at that, you go, ‘Wait, if I was sued could I defend myself that way as a corporation?'”
Companies also need to know what’s what within their homegrown software when it comes time for mergers and acquisitions, Bricklin says. “When companies are purchasing other companies, they’re starting to ask for much more due diligence when it comes to any use of open source – or any licenses period,” he says.
As a longtime developer, Bricklin hopes that his ability to speak that language – coupled with years of first-hand experience in the trenches of software-related intellectual property law – will imbue his tape with the necessary authority and the voice of a kindred soul. One aspect of that connection with developers will be to get them to appreciate that corporate concerns about open source are not merely based on bias or ignorance.
“There are companies that say, ‘Look, we understand what’s going on here [with open source], but due to the nature of our business we can’t use GPL code,'” Bricklin says. “How do I explain that to developers? That’s one of the things I cover in the tape, that there are cases where that’s just the way it is. It’s not that your company is being evil or dumb.”
Make no mistake, however; Bricklin is an open source advocate.
“You shouldn’t go overboard in pushing ‘no open source,'” he says. “That would be a very dumb move from a corporate viewpoint to ignore what’s available.”
A “just say no” policy is ill-advised for at least two reasons, he says.
“First of all, a lot of developers will not be happy with that because it closes off a large venue of stuff that can help them get their job done,” he says.
The second reason: Well, “just say no” doesn’t work any better with software developers than with children; some are going to go ahead and play with fire no matter what the grown-ups are saying.
“I don’t tell you exactly that you’re allowed to do this and you’re not allowed to do that; I can’t do that because different companies make different decisions,” Bricklin says. “But I sort of put it all in context so that when you discuss it with your corporate lawyers or you’re trying to determine what your policy is at least you understand the whole landscape.”
Any thoughts to share? The address is buzz@nww.com.
