| |||||||||||||
What about closed softwareWhat about closed softwarePosted Jun 2, 2005 17:48 UTC (Thu) by spitzak (guest, #4593)Parent article: IP Software Compliance Tools -- Who Needs Them and Why?
Claiming GPL code is "dangerous" is FUD. *Far* more dangerous for companies is their employees stealing *closed* code, from former employers, from the companies their friends or family work for, from documentation they happened to aquire, and most importantly from ignoring the NDA's they signed.
I would like to see this technology applied to closed code. Maybe a company that wants to protect it's code can contribute it to the database maintained by this service. Other companies can send their code to check against the database. Matching GPL code is a demonstration that their matching code works, so that it may be admissable as legal evidence without the need to reveal the code from either party.
(Log in to post comments)
What about closed software Posted Jun 2, 2005 21:02 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I believe the point of calling GPL code dangerous is that developers mistakenly believe that it is freely copiable, since it almost is. There's little danger of that misbelief with source code that one got from a former employer's internal code library. I don't know if it's true that developers are misled by GPL in that way, but I've heard stories. When FSF describes GPL, it usually stresses that the code is is copyrighted, and is not public domain, which leads me to believe they've encountered such confusion.
|
|||||||||||||