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

[William E. Kempf]

Sam Tetherow said:
> William E. Kempf wrote:
>>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

Oh boy... I hope that if you ever release a program that's used any
GPLed components that you know a lawyer.  I quoted the GPL, and it
explicitly states that distribution of the _PROGRAM_ (not the _SOURCE_)
causes the derivative work to be bound by the GPL.  The FAQ you link to
here doesn't disagree with this, though the wording in the FAQ could
give you the false impression that it does.

>>Again, this is not the case.
>>
>
> See above.

Yep.  See above alright.

>>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.

But the risk is that at worst, you'll be sued for the cost of the
license.
 This is a much smaller risk than being sued for the source!  And it's
not
laziness that's the culprit here, it's just bad assumptions.  Yes, the
fault is with the company, but it's a reasonable fault for employees to
make.

>>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 ;)

The govt frequently distributes secured binary applications to other
vendors (under strict rules, of course).  If they use GPLed components,
this means that technically the source must be distributed.

-- 
William E. Kempf


-- 
William E. Kempf