Open Source: Paper Tiger, Hidden Problems? (TechNewsWorld) [LWN.net]

As licensing FUD goes, this TechNewsWorld article is at the bizarre end of the scale. "Accordingly, if a programmer simply clicks on a button to download even the smallest packet of code and thereby agrees to the GPL, then the GPL may require the entire software program, which incorporates the GPL-code, to be made available as open source under the GPL. This is true regardless of whether the programmer or employer ever intended others to be able to see, read, view and modify their software. Thus, a single click of the mouse may render otherwise proprietary software available to all."

Update: this article appears to have been pulled.

to post comments

Open Source: Paper Tiger, Hidden Problems?

Posted May 19, 2005 15:08 UTC (Thu) by rriggs (guest, #11598) [Link] (1 responses)

Well, he's right you know. It's also true that using proprietary software with insane licensing costs can drive a business into bankruptcy. Anyone who includes external software into a product meant for external distribution better know all of the licensing implications up front, before development begins in earnest. Anything less is negligent.

Open Source: Paper Tiger, Hidden Problems?

Posted May 19, 2005 15:45 UTC (Thu) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link]

He isn't. IANAL (and I bet he isn't either...), but the most that would hold up in any reasonable court would probably be damages and an order to discontinue distributing the GPL'd code. Restitution for violating a license is not the same thing as forcing compliance retroactively.

Open Source: Paper Tiger, Hidden Problems? (TechNewsWorld)

Posted May 19, 2005 15:50 UTC (Thu) by scijammer (guest, #19907) [Link]

I think it worth noting that there exists GPL software will not convert a project to GPL. I believe the lesser GPL license (LGPL) allows it's code to be linked to proprietary software without affecting the parent software's proprietry nature. There are, after all, many pieces of proprietary software that coexist peacefully with linux.

Paper Tiger, Missing problem!

Posted May 19, 2005 16:00 UTC (Thu) by pdundas (guest, #15203) [Link] (2 responses)

I think they missed out a key step or two!

If the user... downloads... code...
AND INCORPORATES IT IN HIS SOFTWARE
AND RELEASES THE SOFTWARE
then the GPL may require the software to be released under the GPL.

A "clicking to download" is not quite the same as "downloading, then incorporating, then releasing"! You won't lose your code just by DOWNLOADING other GPL code.

--
Paul

Paper Tiger, Missing problem!

Posted May 19, 2005 16:12 UTC (Thu) by hconnellan (subscriber, #231) [Link]

The important thing to keep telling poeple is that violating copywrite on GPL code does not require you to release your code under GPL. That is one of the possible remedies but no one is ever forced to released code.

Paper Tiger, Missing problem!

Posted May 19, 2005 20:26 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

If the user... downloads... code...

then he's downloading COMMUNISM.

(Parallel? I see no parallel involving ludicrous overenforcement and/or threats therof here.)

Open Source: Paper Tiger, Hidden Problems? (TechNewsWorld)

Posted May 19, 2005 16:03 UTC (Thu) by dlapine (guest, #7358) [Link]

At least the author has good sense to quote the judge as to the amount of evidence SCO has produced in the case. I thought the the portion of the title "Paper tiger" referred to the amount of threat SCO poses...

Otherwise, this is standard, same old "GPL is evil and will steal your soul" FUD. You'd think the PR department at MS could come up something new once in a while.

Open Source: Paper Tiger, Hidden Problems? (TechNewsWorld)

Posted May 19, 2005 16:04 UTC (Thu) by pjs (guest, #10927) [Link] (2 responses)

Accordingly, if a programmer simply clicks on a button to download even the smallest packet of proprietary code and thereby agrees to its license, then that license may require the entire software program, which incorporates the proprietary code, to be made available to the vendor who supplied the proprietary snippet. This is true regardless of whether the programmer or employer ever intended others to be able to see, read, view and modify their software. Thus, a single click of the mouse may render an entire project otherwise confidential to be used for commercial gain by partners or competitors.

Open Source: Paper Tiger, Hidden Problems? (TechNewsWorld)

Posted May 19, 2005 17:56 UTC (Thu) by proski (guest, #104) [Link] (1 responses)

IANAL, but I think it's only true if the programmer can enter binding contacts on behalf of his/her employer, which is normally not the case.

Open Source: Paper Tiger, Hidden Problems? (TechNewsWorld)

Posted May 19, 2005 20:11 UTC (Thu) by tcabot (subscriber, #6656) [Link]

I think it's only true if...

It's never true. Copyright law prevents you from distributing other people's code unless they grant you the right to do it. The GPL grants you the right to distribute code as long as you follow its terms. If you violate the terms then you must stop distributing the GPL code. No more, no less. The GPL does not, and cannot, force you to do anything, but if you violate its terms then copyright law, not the GPL, forces you to stop doing something (e.g. distributing the code).

I cannot believe how dumb some industry leaders and journos are

Posted May 19, 2005 16:42 UTC (Thu) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] (1 responses)

It’s much worse than “I don’t get it”; they get something completely, utterly wrong and run with it as if it were gospel. Some of the proclamations in the last few days – e.g. Mr Joy’s sterling effort – have been utterly, jaw-droppingly dumb!

Wrong at the top of his voice? Hand that man a megaphone, I’m sure he can do even worse than that!

I cannot believe how dumb some industry leaders and journos are

Posted May 20, 2005 3:58 UTC (Fri) by jtc (guest, #6246) [Link]

" Its much worse than 'I dont get it'; they get something completely, utterly wrong and run with it as if it were gospel."

<sarcasm>
Yep, download that piece of code there and put it on your hard drive and every piece of software on your system is immediately licensed under the GPL and you must give it away.

And, by the way, don't drink out of that drinking fountain over there. People with AIDS have surely drunk out of it in the past, so there's a very good chance you'll catch AIDS if you drink out of that fountain.

Aren't you glad you read this? It could save your bank account and your life!
</sarcasm>

Now I get Black Duck

Posted May 19, 2005 16:46 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] (2 responses)

This article actually gets closest of any of the "GPL risks" articles to the actual "risk", which is if you hire someone to develop a proprietary product, how do you know that the person you hire doesn't just download some reciprocally-licensed software and change the variable names and comments? You don't, unless you check his or her work against huge quantities of code.

"You need to consider company policies concerning the use of open-source code" is kind of weak, though. Someone who is relabeling GPL code as original work isn't going to worry about some company policy.

The easy availability of reciprocally-licensed software does create a legal risk and QA expense for proprietary software companies. I bet RMS thought of this in the 80s.

Now I get Black Duck

Posted May 20, 2005 12:27 UTC (Fri) by in-spec-inc (guest, #4438) [Link]

dmarti writes, "...if you hire someone to develop a
proprietary product, how do you know that the person you
hire doesn't just download some reciprocally-licensed
software and change the variable names and comments?"

Which might be legitimately extended, "If you hire someone
to develop any product whatsoever, how do you know that the
person you hire doesn't incorporate source code he [brought
from a previous job] and change the variable names and
comments?" [Substitute any illegal act.]

The risk of dishonesty is real. GPL make make it EASIER
to detect, but "how do you know?" It's a tough question,
but it's a question about people, not the GPL.

Which nevertheless provides a starting point for FUDmongers.

Now I get Black Duck

Posted May 20, 2005 12:27 UTC (Fri) by geripi (guest, #29822) [Link]

It is entirely in the hands of the boss of the company to make it clear to their employees that copying from an open-source program is only allowed for software under BSD - style licenses. The boss has to make sure the employees are educated. And the boss has to make sure, that in the employment contract a clause is incorporated which makes the employer personally liable for any costs arising from illegal code incorporation he performes.

IBM does that, and had they not done that with all employees working on Linux, SOME code from SCO maybe WOULD have found it's way into linux. As it is now, there is no code from SCO UNIX in Linux. What IBM can do, every company can do.

"The easy availability of reciprocally-licensed software does create a legal risk and QA expense for proprietary software companies. I bet RMS thought of this in the 80s."

Maybe he did, but as the only option would have been BSD - style licenses he had no choice. He wanted to ensure that everyone who takes also has to give, thus minimizing the possibility of forks. A fair license, if you ask me.

Geri

Open Source: Paper Tiger, Hidden Problems? (TechNewsWorld)

Posted May 19, 2005 23:53 UTC (Thu) by British (guest, #19768) [Link]

Article is gone

We're sorry...

The requested document: /story/43188.html is no longer archived or does not exist. You may wish to use the search box below to locate articles on a particular topic.

Point by point

Posted May 20, 2005 19:11 UTC (Fri) by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366) [Link] (1 responses)

Here's a point by point summary of chunks of analysis of the implications of the GPL, in easy to chew bits. NOTE: IANAL, I've just seen these arguments a lot.

* The GPL does not change who holds the copyright to any piece of code (this goes for all OSI licenses)
** You still own your code if you wrote it
** You may have to release your code under GPL
* The GPL doesn't demand any kind of release of code for internal use
** If your code incorporates someone else's GPL code, you must release your code under GPL if and only if you release your product to the public (intentionally)
** Using a hacked version of Evolution or Apache in your business without releasing the code is OK
** If your employees distribute your ver of your hacked up apps, you're not responsible for sharing the source
* GPL and non-GPL code can be distributed together (this goes for all OSI licenses)
** Your program may use a GPL library (dll, so) without being GPL
** Any source files you modify in the GPL library must be GPL
** If you static link the library to your code, your code must be GPL (there's a huge hoop of confusing crap here that lawyers can juggle; this is the fail-safe assumption)
* The copyright holder of a pile of code can relicense the code at any time
** You can later extract GPL code from your app and rewrite the functions you need yourself
** Once the only remaining code is yours or was originally BSD licensed, you can make a relicensing decision

Using GPL code is something that must be done with care. If you want to GPL your app, go for it. If you want to consider closing it later, make sure you keep tabs on what part of the code base you have the copyright on so you can expunge all GPL code and relicense later. If you fumble, just remove the GPL code later or export it to a library and dynamicly link to it.

Point by point

Posted May 21, 2005 23:36 UTC (Sat) by dvdeug (guest, #10998) [Link]

Moving the GPLed code to a library and linking it dynamically isn't going to solve your problems. The FSF argues that the GPL forbids linking non-GPL code to a GPL library. Those who disagree usually argue that the court isn't going to care about the technical issues, but is going to look at how tightly bound the code is, and making it into a dynamic library isn't going to magically change that.

Trying to solve it by moving it to a dynamic library will not solve the problem in the eyes of the FSF, who may be the copyright holder or advising the copyright holder. And it may not solve it in the eyes of the court, if you do choose to fight it out.