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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
>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.
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.
Although the OSI definition of "open source software" is
widely accepted, a small number of people and organizations
use the term to refer to software where the source is
available for viewing, but which may not legally be
modified or redistributed.
Which is exactly the point I wanted to make: that there is no one true definition of open source and that, although most technically inclined people agree, there is room for confusion/disagreement.
If these sorts of contributions are worthy of downvotes these days then I really don't know what I'm doing here anymore :S
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.