Software isn't sentient... [LWN.net]

Software isn't sentient...

Posted Jun 4, 2008 8:06 UTC (Wed) by macc (subscriber, #510)
In reply to: Software isn't sentient... by orospakr
Parent article: Open Source Software Shows Its Muscle (Law.com)

The whole article is a slanted opinion piece
disguised as a "scholarly disection".

The interesting thing is that the cultural 
background he exposes ( i.e. the backtrack
of his viewpoint) is that of an association
of thieves.

"If I can't steal indiscriminately from others
due to the GPLn this is a bad thing."


MACC

(Log in to post comments)

Software isn't sentient...

Posted Jun 6, 2008 14:03 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

I think lutchann's characterization is more accurate. The piece is just viewing things from a
different perspective - the perspective of a lawyer providing advice to companies that might
intend to use OSS. He's saying pretty much what OSS people say: "You need to be aware, in
detail, of what the license requires before you use OSS."

Is that FUD? Only if you assume that everyone is prepared to share their value-add code
openly, as people coming from the OSS side typically do. If you're someone, or a company,
concerned about being able to keep your proprietary code proprietary, you DO need to be
completely clear about the licenses on the software you use and to have a healthy respect for
what courts might decide if a developer claims that you have violated a license.

The article points at issues that were the core of discussion in the GPLv3 drafting,
identifying exactly the barriers that the drafters meant to erect. How can pointing out those
issues be FUD? 

Nothing in the article says "Oh my God, avoid the use of OSS or you could be risking
everything." It says to be aware of potential issues and "make sure that [your] use of open
source software is ready for the challenge", which seems like a pretty reasonable warning.