5 ms·
Why just companies? Surely the pain and confusion applies to anyone wanting to incorporate open source code into something else that may or may not carry the sa
by andybak 10y ago
Why just companies? Surely the pain and confusion applies to anyone wanting to incorporate open source code into something else that may or may not carry the same licence. The patent granting is rather critical even to other open source projects.
- 4c2383f5c88e911 10y agoSoftware patents are a US thing, and it's a good thing many don't care about them. I should have said for-profit software instead of companies, really; the legal entity is quite irrelevant in this case. I said companies because they are entities that: 1) stand to be sued in case of license violations (you typically don't sue a hobbyist project) 2) have the perceived need to maximize profits, and as a consequence want to veer off from anything that might require releasing source code, which might offset a competitive advantage. Thus a hobbyist project being a licensing clusterfuck is a less critical issue, although it is of course an important one (and certainly, depending on the project’s popularity, there may be a vocal portion of people wanting to clarify the situation). The pain and confusion ratings also do not go into the details which are useful for OSS projects, such as how do licenses interact with each other, how is attribution and re-licensing managed, etc. Not to mention the ratings do not differentiate between pain/confusion for the developer, and pain/confusion for other future developers (e.g. in case of a lib). (I admit that I tend to forget that there is also hobbyist closed-source software, for reasons I never understand)
- TD-Linux 10y agoSoftware patents also exist in most of the EU and Asia as well, unfortunately. Check out one of the MPEG-LA license portfolios and look at the countries represented if you want your day ruined.
- eeZah7Ux 10y agoBecause most for-profit closed-source software is made by companies. It's in their best interest to use Open Source libraries in their software - it's free work and they don't have to give anything back.
- falcolas 10y ago> Open Source [...] it's free work I've heard this again and again, and yet every time I see open source used by a company, there are patches being applied, compliance concerns and audits, and integration efforts. Sometimes this effort costs less than writing the code yourself (such as integrating with a database), but not always.
- nopzor 10y agoIt can be one sided taking, and _often_ is. Apple and Microsoft, for example, have taken significantly from BSD/Apache-like code for their own OSes. They wouldn't have been able to do that with GPL-like code.
- bluGill 10y agoBSD advocates will tell you this is a feature not a bug and object to your use of the word "taken" as if it is a bad thing. Apple at least has contributed a lot back - they are a major force behind clang for example.
- boomboomsubban 10y ago>They wouldn't have been able to do that with GPL-like code Then explain Android.
- nopzor 10y agohttp://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/ an android phone is oss android plus a bunch of proprietary (non oss) google bits.
- boomboomsubban 10y agoGoogle took significantly from GPL licensed code for their own operating system, which is exactly what you said couldn't happen.