As linux and free and open source software becomes more and more mainstream, I can't help but remember what the Internet was like before Al Gore "invented" it.  Little to no spam, no penis enlargement adds, no Viagra pitches, searches turned up relevant results, newsgroups were the place to meet and discuss, no pop ups, a decidedly different feel.  The Internet felt like an academic/scientific community (an porn).

After Al Gore "invented" the Internet, meaning commercialized it, the Internet became something that only slightly resembles what I used to surf (porn still thrives).

Not that I am complaining, I make a good living providing commercial services over the Internet today.

Now I see the commercialization of free and open source software.  Slowly but surely, free/open source software and the culture that invented it is disappearing.

I forsee the day coming that people like me cannot post simple GPL'ed apps like yasuck or yaview, because the lawyers will put up too many barriers.  Some day it will just be too expensive a proposition to release a simple GPL'ed app.  Their will be too many barriers - I might step on some patent, I might not be able to afford to indemnify people from patent claims since I cannot afford indemnification.  Only large players like IBM, Novell, Red Hat, and Sun will be able to "afford" to release software under a free/open source license.

This is what I believe to be the most effective attack upon free/open source software.  The SCOs and Microsofts of the world don't really need to attack free/open source with IP lawsuits, the threat will suffice.  Motivating lawyers to get involved will suffice.  All the SCOs and Microsofts have to do is remove the ability/motivation of individual developers by making it too expensive in legal costs to force the price of free/open source up.  Microsoft does not have to attack free/open source directly, all they have to do is make it cost the same financially and cost more in legal expenses.

What is unbelievable to me is the fact that free/open source software is not any more vulnerable to outrageous legal costs as any software.  Just think of all of the small/medium software shops that might develop VB  apps for their own clients.  These developers and their clients are no less vulnerable to excessive litigation expense as any free/open source software distributor.  Contact any local small/medium developer in your locale and ask them if they provide indemnification for their products.  For example, if they write you a custom shopping cart application and the backend processing to handle it - how many patents might be held by others to sql triggers they use in your customized app?  It is not just the free/open source community that is at risk.

Which brings me to the topic of the current article.  Frankly, when lawyers are involved I am deeply skeptical.  The first time I visited the grokline web site, I was struck by how slick it was worded.  The text reads more like language you would see in a contract than a F/OSS project.  I have never seen anything like it in any other F/OSS related project.  The heavy legalese context immediately set off alarm bells for me.

Now add a few more anomalies to the mix.  One minute the project is owned by one person, the next minute it appears to be owned by OSRM, there has been no explanation other than it is in the business interest of OSRM to host it.  Each project seems to tie into the other, yet one is supposed to be owned by PJ, the other by OSRM.  They state they are writing for the "policy makers", well, what exactly are they going to tell the "policy makers"?  Will they be encouraging policy that benefits their insurance business, or free/open source?  What are they encouraging policy makers in Europe, no software patents or "sane" software patents?  How exactly will the free/open source community benefit from what they are doing?  The software archive appears to be a product developed by lawyers, for lawyers.  Well, who has access to the data, and what if the data itself is damning to free/open source?  Will IP law firms who are hostile to free/open source be sold access to data and learn exactly which 286 patents threaten the linux kernel?

These are all questions I can't find answers to.  I guess I am supposed to just trust that these relatively unknown VC/Lawyers know what is best for free/open source and are acting in the best interest of free/open source.  I am just supposed to take the contradictory words of paralegal who worked for them and a lone crapflooder on ip-wars.  I have read many interviews with Eggers where he implies that prominent free/open source leaders endorse OSRM's insurance product, yet I have not read any direct quotes from any of them who are not financially tied to OSRM.

What I would like to see is the OSI come up with some sort of "seal of approval" for companies like OSRM.  I assume OSI has a trademark on the words "open source", it would be nice to see them hold companies to a code of ethics before being allowed to commercially use that trademark.  OSI does it for licenses, it would be great to see them come up with a way to do it for companies.  Something like this would help relieve a lot of my skepticism.  An open source Better Business Bureau.

There are quite a few companies that I already feel "get it" when it comes to free/open source.  IBM is at the top of the list.  I trust pretty much any member of OSDL, for that matter.