[olug] U.K. Urged to hold back on open source

[William E. Kempf]

Sam Tetherow said:
> William E. Kempf wrote:
>
>>Sam Tetherow said:
>>
>>
>>>I think it would depend on the what the corporation does, if its not
>>> a
>>> software firm I don't see what the issue would be and if it is a
>>> software firm you would just need to evaluate the impact of using
>>> GPL software there, for instance, when would it not be a good thing
>>> to use gcc or perl in a business?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Too many factors here:
>>
>>* Is the software distributed to other companies or clients. (Even
>> non-software companies do this).
>>
> And if it is?  It depends on what is being 'sold'.  A customer
> software solution where a client is buying the 'code' (not the
> product) it is the
>  customer's call.
>
>>
>>* Does the source code have any intrinsic value the company doesn't
>> want to relinquish rights to.
>>
> You don't have to relinquish the rights if you are not
> selling/redistribution the code.  For instance the GPL would have no
> impact on an internal CRM package.

You seem to be under a misaprehension about what the GPL says.

----
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source
code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to
give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only
for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in
object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with
Subsection b above.)
----

If you derive from GPL source (which is a complex thing to determine in
some cases), the new work is automatically GPLed, and under the terms of
the license, the source code must be provided or be available upon
request, with no charge beyond "your cost of physically performing
source distribution".

The LGPL gives you a little more freedom, as some things are no longer
considered "derivative works", and thus would not require you to provide
anything other than the source for the original GPLed work.  Perhaps
that's what you were thinking of?

>>* Does the source code contain information the company wants to remain
>> proprietary (not exactly the same thing as point 2).
>>
>
> Again only a factor if the code is being redistributed.

Again, this is not the case.

>>And other's I'm not thinking of right now.  It may in fact be a
>> non-issue that certain things be "infected" by the GPL inside of
>> corporations.  But you're on a very slippery slope if some things can
>> be GPLed and other's can't, and had better be spending the time and
>> money to evaluate all legal risks in such a case.
>>
> Of course you need to evaluate the impact of your licensing on each
> project just like you evaluate all other aspects of the project.  I
> don't think it is a slipper slope if you understand the effects of the
> GPL and other licenses.  Excluding GPL'd software on all projects
> because the license might effect certain projects would be throwing
> the baby out with the bath water.

But is also frequently the only solution that corporate lawyers are
willing to do.  The risk is too high that something will slip through
the cracks, and one slip can cause a "ripple effect", making other
projects to be accountable under the GPL terms.

>>And using GPLed software is a non-issue.  Even gcc (perl isn't GPLed,
>> though there must be a perl interpreter that is) can be used to
>> produce non-GPLed software.  It's the act of incorporating/linking
>> GPLed code, even dynamically, that forces your work to be GPLed.
>>
> Perl isn't GPLed?  Why do they distribute the GPL license with the
> code then (cpan.org, core documentation 'Copying' file)
> The only restriction this imposes on my code is when it comes to
> redistribution.  If the code never leaves my ownership it has zero
> effect.

Perl is a language.  As such, it can't be covered by the GPL.  The
source code for particular Perl interpreters, such as those found on
cpan.org, however, can be GPLed.

>>>As for government, I would strongly encourage government funded
>>> programming to be done using GPL software as well as suggesting that
>>> the
>>> code be released under the GPL where appropriate, it is my tax
>>> dollars
>>>hard at work so I think I should get the maximum benifit out of it
>>> (ie
>>> the source code).
>>
>>Oh?  You want the source code that controls our defense systems to be
>> GPLed?
>
> No, and I don't want them redistributing that code so it shouldn't be
> a problem (see above).  Although many of the libraries that they
> created to support the code that controls our defense systems could be
> incredibly useful and since I paid for them it would be nice that I
> can get some additional use out of them.  In fact much of what the DOD
> does it GPLed due to their heavy use of GNU software.  That doesn't
> mean it is freely available though.

You contradict yourself.  First you say that your tax dollars pay for it
so you should "get the maximum benefit out of it (ie the source code)",
then say you don't want them to redistribute the code.  In any event,
the above comments still make two mistakes:  1) assuming that the GPL
applies only if you distribute code and not binaries, and 2) assuming
that using GPLed software results in GPLed products (again, I can use
gcc to compile non-GPL software).

-- 
William E. Kempf


-- 
William E. Kempf