IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Because it doesn't matter where the code came from
If your developers are just copying code into your source without considering the legal ramifications then it doesn't matter if it is open source or closed source. It is probably illegal either way.

Using GPL code might force you to open source your own product when you didn't mean to. But if it was closed source you run the risk of your product being blocked from shipment, sale or use entirely.

Jay
New They're not talking about copying closed source
And I don't see the FUD. Which part of the first quoted section is false?

If one of my developers puts Apache licensed code in the app, it's no big deal. If they put GPL code in and we distribute the binaries, then it's a huge deal. All the article is saying is you have to be careful, which is very true.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New How is it worse/different from closed source?
The problem managers have is that they cannot know what parts of their code base comes from open source projects.

If you write closed source software, are the developers any less likely to include source from somewhere else? Is there any difference except for the fact that when you distribute your own source it's easier to get caught?
A code snippet reused from a newsgroup posting could actually have come from a copyrighted open source project.
Or it could have come from a copyrighted closed source product that the developer worked on.

And its use could legally require the company to open source its entire product.
Only if you want to keep distributing it without re-writing it. If a developer adds OSS code to your product and you're caught distributing it under an incompatible license, that doesn't retroactively apply a new license to your code. (Is that the terms of the GPL, or just how it's typically approached? I can't recall.)

If the company is an ISV, it might even be faced with being required to offer its product at no cost.
All the GPL says about cost is that 1) you're explicitly allowed to charge for your product, and 2) you have to offer the source to anyone who gets the binary for no more than the cost of providing the media. Yes, that person could then distribute your product at no cost, but you can't be required to.

For example, the Apache license might be acceptable to many sites, whereas the viral provisions of the GPL (General Public License) might lead some companies to preclude its use.
And this is different from closed source licenses how? If you don't like the terms, don't use the code. Nothing new about that. Why is it "viral" when the GPL specifies the terms under which you can redistribute code, when closed source components in your product can prevent it being redistributed at all?
===

Kip Hawley is still an idiot.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Because people are far less likely to see closed source.
Which in turn leads them to thinking long
and hard about the usage of it.

Eons ago, if I wanted to see the code that produced
an internal file for an application so I could write
my own interface to it, I needed to call the vendor.

The vendor would FedEx me some very serious looking
legal documents about usage restrictions. I would
pass them on to the legal department of the company
I worked for. The lawyer would quiz me, make sure
I REALLY needed to see it, and would make sure I
understood the legal problems that would ensue if
I did anything that would allow the vendor's source
code to be passed on to anyone else. I would think
for a bit, and agree I really did need to see it, then
the lawyer would sign it, my boss would sign it,
and I would sign it. Everyone kept copies.

We would then FedEx the doc back to the vendor, and
wait. And wait. And wait.

The disks would show up, I would copy them to my system,
and my boss would remind me to be careful.

I would review the code, pull the file structure out
of it, write a bit of code that used the structure,
test it, and then destroy my copy of the vendor's code.

I would then notify my boss and the lawyer. The lawyer
would send a nice little letter to the company stating that
the code had been destroyed.

The whole process would take months, multiple people were
involved, and an internal enforcement procedure (me getting my
ass canned) would be triggered if there was a hint of that
code passing from me to anyone else.
New Really?

Seems to me that the majority of employed programmers in the world right now are working on closed-source products, so it's at least as likely that they've seen closed-source code as open-source code.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
New Purposeful denseness
Or are you just playing?

Working on closed source with the authority to modify and release to production is a bit different from this discussion.
New It's not false per se
It is not false per se, rather it is FUD because it is true of everything.

It is rather like Microsoft saying that using Linux is dangerous because it leaves you open to patent lawsuits. What they don't say is that Microsoft doesn't promise to protect people using their OS from patent lawsuits either.

The problem addressed in the article is in no way specific to OSS. And yet the first article only talks about that part of the problem as if it was the entire problem.

Looking at it closer, I don't think the article was drafted as FUD though. Rather the underlying product they are talking about only covers OSS. But the way the lead in paragraph says that this is an OSS problem ends up making the entire article misleading.

Jay
New Yes, it's bad product placement
It's presented as an article about a problem that OSS has. "Oh, and by the way here's a product that happens to target that problem, and while it's not perfect it's better than nothing."

I think the danger or a product like this, and particularly this type of article pimping it, is it becomes fodder for people to argue against OSS: "See, if you start using OSS you'll have to invest in the additional products and processes, and even then it might not work."

No one with a vested interest in selling this product, nor in making this argument, will ever concede that the only reason you don't do this with closed source programs is that you have no code to compare against.

So you solve the problem of unknowingly including OSS code in your product by purchasing this tool and auditing everything. You solve the problem of unknowingly including closed code in your product by not looking for it, and hoping no one else can look at your code either.
===

Kip Hawley is still an idiot.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
     Well, there they go again - (drewk) - (9)
         How is that FUD? - (admin) - (8)
             Because it doesn't matter where the code came from - (JayMehaffey) - (7)
                 They're not talking about copying closed source - (admin) - (6)
                     How is it worse/different from closed source? - (drewk) - (3)
                         Because people are far less likely to see closed source. - (crazy) - (2)
                             Really? - (ubernostrum) - (1)
                                 Purposeful denseness - (crazy)
                     It's not false per se - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                         Yes, it's bad product placement - (drewk)

I hope you don't mind if I don't read this. I don't know if it's going where I don't want it to be going, but if it is going there, I *don't* want to go there, so the best place for me to be is here, not there, and here is where I'm staying.
*puts on blinders*
*whistles very loudly*
*claws out own eyes*
45 ms