Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Plugging the Knowledge Gaps on FOSS Licenses (Groklaw)
Groklaw answers some recent attacks on free software licenses.
"The bottom line is always the same: If you steal someone's code, there will be consequences. That's true for the GPL (if you distribute the code -- you are free always to use any GPL code in-house without any consequences at all), but it's not unique to it. If you steal Microsoft's code, there are consequences also. You do have to respect other people's intellectual property rights, as lawyers call them. That's true for all licensed code, including the GPL."
(Log in to post comments)
Some thoughts Posted Dec 29, 2004 18:37 UTC (Wed) by freethinker (guest, #4397) [Link] I think the reason businesses fear this so much is because it's so easy to get open source code. No one is going to find Microsoft's or Oracle's source code out on the internet and incorporate it into a product. With one notable exception, it isn't there. The exception, of course, is the old MS Windows code that was leaked. That is there; but it's a lot harder to find than all the open source code out there.
It's easy for programmers to grab some free source code and use it. I'm sure it happens all the time; programmers are always under pressure to crank out more code faster. Some of the licenses out there, such as the BSD license, impose few restrictions on reuse; no doubt some programmers have gotten careless and don't bother to read open source licenses. Sometimes the code they're writing is originally intended only for in-house use, so the GPL's redistribution clause doesn't apply. Then someone decides that they're developed a saleable product, and suddenly it does apply. But by then the programmer who incorporated the code has moved on.
GPL licensors are seldom very litigious; they usually start with a polite notice. But lawyers have to think in terms of potential. Using GPLed code could potentially cost a company lots and lots of money. It's not surprising so many companies are worried.
Some thoughts Posted Dec 29, 2004 19:10 UTC (Wed) by jtc (subscriber, #6246) [Link] That's a good point. However, instead of being worried they would be better off just educating themselves as to the relevant laws and applying some common sense - having some discipline about the use of code from outside, just as a song writer needs to do before he decides to "borrow" a section of someone else's song. Like free/open-source software, the source code (notes, rythms, meter, and words) of a song cannot be hidden (unless the song is never used - never sung), so there is some similarity between these two cases.
Some thoughts Posted Dec 30, 2004 6:47 UTC (Thu) by chohman (guest, #5519) [Link] Although your point seems valid, it is also misleading.A company (or person) always needs to worry about not misapropriating other peoples code - the license involved is completely irrelevant to that concern. The argument that it's easier to "steal" open source because it is more available IS NOT a point against open source, even though many seem to feel it is. It's easier to rob a convenience store than it is to rob a bank; does that mean there's something wrong with convenience stores?
"Using GPLed code could potentially cost a company lots and lots of money." Yes, they may actually have to write the code they wish to sell - pardon my lack of concern. A company that puts so much pressure on their staff that they feel the need to "rip off" others to meet deadlines, IMHO, merely gets what they deserve. If businesses fear all this freely-available software, it's their responsibility to keep their house in order.
I guess parents should fear their neighbours unfenced back yard vegetable garden since it makes parenting so much harder since vegetables are readily available to be stolen by their children.
Some thoughts Posted Dec 30, 2004 8:08 UTC (Thu) by freethinker (guest, #4397) [Link] My point is that companies don't have to worry much about their employees putting proprietary code into their products, because it is not generally available. They do have to worry about them putting open source code in, because that IS generally available.
This is not in any sense an argument against the existence of open source code, or its legitimate use, or its development. It is simply an acknowledgement that its existence creates a situation where proprietary software companies feel they have to be more vigilant to prevent misuse.
The reason misuse could cost the offender money is not that they would have to write their own code to replace the open source code, but that they could be sued for copyright infringement.
To pursue your analogies: suppose a family has several children, one of whom happens to be a kleptomaniac. This isn't a problem, though, because they happen to live in a town where everyone is very paranoid and always locks their doors and watches their personal belongings like a hawk. This was the software world before FOSS became common.
Then the family moves to another town where many people don't lock their doors or watch their property. Suddenly things start getting stolen. Not the fault of the owners, and not an argument against their laid-back attitude. But it is a problem for that family when the stolen items are found in their home.
Incorrect: "before FOSS became common" Posted Dec 30, 2004 11:25 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Your analogy is quite interesting and fairly accurate, as analogies go,even to the point of the family/company ending up responsible for what the individual did. However, there's one error: WRONG> This was the software world before FOSS became common. That's wrong, because free source software has always been around. (Of course, the reason for that originally was that the hardware cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and the software wasn't of use without it anyway, so the hardware makers pretty much bundled the software, which was at that point open, so individual sites could customize it, because pretty much /every/ instance of the hardware was customized to some extent and further user customization of the software was assumed.) It was closed source software that changed things, and the modern FLOSS movement is only returning things to the way the were, before. Do yourself a favor and read up on the history of the Free Software Foundation. The roots are in an event in Richard Stallman's life where he first encountered a closed source printer driver. He wanted the code to fix a bug, but the company refused it. Thus originated his drive for free software. Previous to that virtually everything was open. That said, your analogy still stands, and I was about to make the same point, that it's not the fault of the FLOSS movement, but never-the-less, a problem that must be realistically dealt with, for those software companies still stuck in the closed source era, until I saw you already made it. Duncan
Some thoughts Posted Dec 30, 2004 15:58 UTC (Thu) by chohman (guest, #5519) [Link] I understand your point (nice analogy, too), and, actually, don't really disagree with it.
My issue is that too often, the discussion chops off after the "companies should fear FOSS" part. While they are free to be fearful, their failure to manage code acquisition is not the fault of FOSS, as the truncated discussion pretty invariably implies - sort of a non sequitur by implication.
In the context of your analogy: the headline reads "New Arrival in Town Afraid of the Neighbours" with the kleptomania explanation only found in the fine print of the article. Think of the effect this has on other peoples opinions if they never read the fine print while looking for a town to move to. I would be much happier if the headline read "Child Burglarizes Neighborhood" and they discussed the unlocked doors in the body of the article.
Some thoughts Posted Jan 1, 2005 5:05 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] Microsoft's code is not widely available? Anybody heard of SharedSource?
IIRC, SharedSource's license is even more dangerous than the GPL, as it conterminates people.
Some thoughts Posted Jan 1, 2005 15:35 UTC (Sat) by freethinker (guest, #4397) [Link] I'm sure Shared Source comes with plenty of dire warnings about misuse. And everyone knows Microsoft's software is proprietary. No programmer who values their career would even think about misusing it, and no company that wants to stay in business would get a shared source license without taking precautions against misuse.
Plugging the Knowledge Gaps on FOSS Licenses (Groklaw) Posted Dec 29, 2004 19:19 UTC (Wed) by jtc (subscriber, #6246) [Link] From the article:
"SCO does not own GNU/Linux. If companies wish to look for code SCO claims to control, they need to look for Unix, not GPL, code. And you can narrow it down still further, by looking for Unix code that IBM allegedly took as a first rung on a ladder of methods and concepts and derivative code. . . well, you need to ask SCO to explain their ladder-to-riches theory. I surely can't. Nobody gets it but SCO. While you are at it, ask them what code they are talking about, will you, so you can hunt for it?"
I have to disagree with the phrase: "Nobody gets it but SCO." From what I've read of the case and of SCO's arguments, they don't really know what the hell they're doing - they don't get it. They argue with confidence to make it appear they know what they're talking about, but the logic of some of their arguments sound, to me, almost like they're bordering on psychosis (e.g., having a distored perception of reality). If I were to listen to an argument that was full of nonsense logic from a psychotic, I would not tend to think that he "gets it".
Plugging the Knowledge Gaps on FOSS Licenses (Groklaw) Posted Dec 29, 2004 19:55 UTC (Wed) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] No, I think they're arguing from the perspective of the typical American con-artist, as portrayed in one early movie after another. They're engaging in as much fast talk and claptrap as possible, hoping they can bamboozle people long enough to *get the trial in front of a jury of their peers.*
Plugging the Knowledge Gaps on FOSS Licenses (Groklaw) Posted Dec 29, 2004 20:13 UTC (Wed) by freethinker (guest, #4397) [Link] Their peers? If there are twelve people in this entire country who are as dishonest, sleazy and incompetent as SCO management, I can only hope someone plants a bomb in that jury room :)
Plugging the Knowledge Gaps on FOSS Licenses (Groklaw) Posted Dec 30, 2004 5:11 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] If there were that many people like that, they'd probably be disallowed from being on the jury what with being elected and/or appointed officials already....
-Rob
Plugging the Knowledge Gaps on FOSS Licenses (Groklaw) Posted Dec 29, 2004 23:29 UTC (Wed) by jtc (subscriber, #6246) [Link] That could be true - though if so, they're third-rate con artists (AKA confidence men) - certainly not good enough to be portrayed in a David Mamet movie, though possibly good enough (though hopefully not) to fool the American legal system.
Plugging the Knowledge Gaps on FOSS Licenses (Groklaw) Posted Dec 31, 2004 10:54 UTC (Fri) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] The one major problem with this is the fact that most of the code M$ Corp use is in all probability stolen to start with they are not the Mr Cleans of the computing world and the same could be quite safley said about most of the big three M$ Corp SCO Sun ,,
|
|
||||||||||||