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

[Sam Tetherow]

William E. Kempf wrote:

>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.
>

Nope, no misaprehension here, if I don't redistribute the code I don't 
have to give it to anyone.  The GPL says so ;)  So does the FAQ 
concerning the GPL if you go to 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

>
>----
>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.
>

See above.

>
>  
>
>>>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.
>
That is just pure laziness from all parties involved.  If I create a 
windows application that uses another package I have the same issues as 
well.

>
>  
>
>>>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.
>
My bad, Perl is a language, perl is the implementation, I just 
capitalized it since it started the sentence.

>
>  
>
>>>>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).
>  
>

No I don't, you must have selectively skipped the *where appropriate* 
clause in my statement.  Releasing code that is used to provide national 
security, such as defense system controls, would NOT be appropriate in 
my opinion.

When I say "distribute the code", I mean it in any form, source or 
binaries, not specifically source code and maybe that is where the 
confusion has arisen in terms of what I am and am not obligated to do 
under the GPL.  There is really not special difference between a binary 
executable and the source code that created it other than human 
readability, and comments of course, we all comment our code right ;)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Tetherow                           tetherow at nicusa.com
Director of Development
NIC Labs (PSSG)                        http://www.nicusa.com