It's not a common myth, it's simple truth...
It's not a common myth, it's simple truth...
Posted Aug 7, 2011 8:45 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Companies are used to complying with a thick stack of legalese? - please by ayers
Parent article: Emacs and the GPL
The fact that very few people can claim to understand the intricacies of the plethora of interactions of proprietary license schemes with all their cross references simply hides the contradictions and violations from the public view.
This is not the most important distinction. The most important distinction is the fact that you operate within framework of for-profit people. If violation is found (and it happens with proprietary software more often then with free software, actually) then your development team is rarely affected.
Different people are dealing with proprietary licenses and with free software licenses. Proprietary licenses are confined almost exclusively to legal department: developers contact them when they need/want to use some proprietary tool, get the approval (or rejection) and forget all about licenses: when the approval is given it's up to legal department to solve further problems.
Copyleft works in entirely different fashion: it does not contain any complex puzzles for legal department, but it does contain strict requirements for developers which are accustomed to entirely different modus of operandi.
The proprietary model as I see it, is about creating an unsurmountable confused mess of interdependent obligations, instating a direct or indirect revenue stream and ignoring the convoluted obligations as long as that revenue stream is satisfactory. Once that satisfaction falls below a threshold you start looking for violations, which are bound to exist, to increase that revenue be it by negotiation or litigation.
Exactly. This makes it safer for companies: it's easier for them to estimate risks. Since it's all about money it's easier for them to estimate what is expected, but, what is more important it's up to the legal department to settle the problems, developers are never involved... Well, legal department can revoke the right for some component and then developers need to redo their work, but this all happens in the same fashion, developers never need to think about how their source is organized and what pieces can never be published and what they are expected to publish, etc.
Free software imposes smaller burden then typical proprietary licenses (that's why they are growing much faster), but this is entirely different kind of burden - a lot of companies just don't know what to do about it.
