Same old, same old
Same old, same old
Posted Jul 11, 2007 13:23 UTC (Wed) by moxfyre (guest, #13847)Parent article: An update on Yoggie GPL compliance
This kind of thing seems to happen way too often... e.g. with SWSoft's Parallels product, Linksys's Linux-based routers, etc.
The good news is that in nearly all cases, the companies involved eventually do release all the source code that the GPL obliges them to... thanks to the legal weight of the GPL.
The thing that irks me is that there are always these significant delays in getting the code. It seems to be a major sign of disrespect for the open-source projects on which these companies build their products. Releasing GPL code is always an afterthought compared to getting their products out the door. I don't recall anything in the GPL text that says "it's okay to twiddle your thumbs for a couple months and blame the Legal Department before releasing the source code."
It seems to me that, under the GPL, source code needs to be available as soon as binaries are distributed. Not a month later after a lot of foot-dragging and wasting people's time. Companies that distribute products with modified GPL code could probably gain a lot of goodwill with the open-source community by having source code ready for distribution the moment their products roll out the door.
Posted Jul 11, 2007 14:48 UTC (Wed)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link] (1 responses)
I suspect there's a good opportunity for somebody who'd like to set up a business providing source-access service to manufacturers, so they don't have to think about it. Especially for small companies that don't have in-house counsel and product support organizations. Such a company could offer training, review companies' internal processes, validate the source code against the shipped product, and give the companies a simple operational checklist for meeting their responsibilities as well as providing a web site where people could download or request the code. [I'm sure there are a bunch of consultants already providing this kind of service.]
Note, though, that all the GPL requires is an offer to provide the source on request; it says nothing about timing. I'm sure that lawyers could characterize timely vs non-timely performance and argue what scope the license gives by not making any timeliness requirements.
Posted Jul 13, 2007 20:21 UTC (Fri)
by moxfyre (guest, #13847)
[Link]
This is a pretty great idea!
Unfortunately, in the current climate, companies using GPL software seem to often see it as simply a form of "free as in beer" software. They use GPL'ed software because it's cheap (which is not a bad reason!!) and then they don't want to spend any money or time on fulfilling their obligations under the GPL.
Posted Jul 11, 2007 15:15 UTC (Wed)
by justme (guest, #19967)
[Link]
Does anyone think that the time lags involved here are enough to win that game?
Posted Jul 11, 2007 16:11 UTC (Wed)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link]
And, it should be remembered that some companies are far-flung and have complex and not-completely-coordinated divisions, and sometimes educating one division doesn't mean that all the others are following along.
If a company repeatedly needs prodding to do the right thing THEN the community should definitely take stronger action.
As more companies become familiar with what the licenses actually mean, and as they accumulate more engineers who have been through OSS-based development before, the processes involved in compliance will get to be more routine. Same old, same old
I suspect there's a good opportunity for somebody who'd like to set up a business providing source-access service to manufacturers, so they don't have to think about it. Especially for small companies that don't have in-house counsel and product support organizations. Such a company could offer training, review companies' internal processes, validate the source code against the shipped product, and give the companies a simple operational checklist for meeting their responsibilities as well as providing a web site where people could download or request the code. [I'm sure there are a bunch of consultants already providing this kind of service.]Same old, same old
It leaves me wondering if this is a way to game the license: build your product on GPL code, leave it closed, and then hold on, hoping that the market or pricing advantage gained by secrecy takes hold before someone forces your code open.Same old, same old
The question is, are the delays repeated by the same company? If it can be shown that once a company is "educated" on the requirements and has complied with them in one product/release, that they then do so voluntarily and expeditiously for subsequent products/releases, then I have no problem with it. The GPL is a completely foreign legal and social environment than companies are used to operating in and I'm fine with giving them time to get their footing in it... as long as once they've done so they participate as expected.Same old, same old