5 ms·

I saw this coming BUT I thought if they were clever they might get the code from the Singapore government (Who I think developed OpenTrace) direct? You can rel

I saw this coming BUT I thought if they were clever they might get the code from the Singapore government (Who I think developed OpenTrace) direct? You can release you code as GPL. But you can also release you code however, separately if you want. Also it depends on OpenTrace's libraries and if it's been contributed to.

toyg 7y ago
Uhm, no. Once your code contains GPL code that is not yours, it has to be GPL. Particularly in v3, where a number of loopholes were closed. You are free to attach further non-conflicting clauses to it, but the GPL of the original code must be respected. That’s the entire point of the GPL. Double-licensing requires you to have ownership of the entire codebase. At that point, you are licensing everything, so you’re free to pick any license that suits you.
- hyperpallium 7y ago
  >> You can release you code as GPL. But you can also release you code however, separately if you want. OP meant Singapore can dual license.
- cyphar 7y ago
  You're agreeing with the OP. The point they were making was that the Australian government could've gotten the source code under an alternative license by asking the sole copyright holder (which I believe is either the Singaporean government, or a contractor of the Singaporean government). But to be honest, as an Aussie I don't think our government is remotely competent enough to have considered the copyright license of the code they were using. There were initial reports they would provide the source code of the application, but these promises were quickly revoked for reasons of "national security" or some other such rubbish. EDIT: I meant to say that it was a bullshit reason such as "national security", not that it was a direct quote. The actual reason they claimed was that it was easier to hack if the source code was public.
  - crispinb 7y ago
    but these promises were quickly revoked Were they? Where did you see that? The Health Dept's response to the Privacy Impact Assessment's recommendation for release of the app's source code says as follows: Agreed. The PIA and source code will be released subject to consultation with the Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/covidsafe-application-privacy-impact-assessment-agency-response https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/covidsafe-a...) Now that 'consultation' might be a delaying tactic, but it's just as likely to be that the Dept. of Health has no idea of the implications of such release. It certainly doesn't suggest the revocation you claim.
    - cyphar 7y ago
      I was basing it on the public statements of the Health Minister[1]. Now, it's very possible that they'll release it tomorrow and this whole discussion will have been a waste of time -- but at the time of writing the Minister for Government Services said unequivocally that they would release the source code[2] and later the Health Minister said they were "unsure it would be safe"[1], and finally when the app was released the source code was nowhere to be seen. To be fair, he was insistent that they would release it (despite being "unsure it would be safe"). But sure, I also wouldn't be surprised to discover that the whole process has been delayed by some other bureaucracy. After all, they probably see releasing the source code as a token gesture and not a form of review by the public. [1]: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/health-minister-now-unsure-if-source-code-for-covid-contact-tracing-app-is-safe-to-release-546981 https://www.itnews.com.au/news/health-minister-now-unsure-if... [2]: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/govt-to-release-source-code-of-forthcoming-covid-trace-app-546884 https://www.itnews.com.au/news/govt-to-release-source-code-o...
  - lukevdp 7y ago
    Do you have a source for the source code not being released for “national security”?
    - cyphar 7y ago

toyg 7y ago

Uhm, no. Once your code contains GPL code that is not yours, it has to be GPL. Particularly in v3, where a number of loopholes were closed. You are free to attach further non-conflicting clauses to it, but the GPL of the original code must be respected. That’s the entire point of the GPL. Double-licensing requires you to have ownership of the entire codebase. At that point, you are licensing everything, so you’re free to pick any license that suits you.

hyperpallium 7y ago
>> You can release you code as GPL. But you can also release you code however, separately if you want. OP meant Singapore can dual license.
cyphar 7y ago
You're agreeing with the OP. The point they were making was that the Australian government could've gotten the source code under an alternative license by asking the sole copyright holder (which I believe is either the Singaporean government, or a contractor of the Singaporean government). But to be honest, as an Aussie I don't think our government is remotely competent enough to have considered the copyright license of the code they were using. There were initial reports they would provide the source code of the application, but these promises were quickly revoked for reasons of "national security" or some other such rubbish. EDIT: I meant to say that it was a bullshit reason such as "national security", not that it was a direct quote. The actual reason they claimed was that it was easier to hack if the source code was public.
- crispinb 7y ago
  but these promises were quickly revoked Were they? Where did you see that? The Health Dept's response to the Privacy Impact Assessment's recommendation for release of the app's source code says as follows: Agreed. The PIA and source code will be released subject to consultation with the Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/covidsafe-application-privacy-impact-assessment-agency-response https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/covidsafe-a...) Now that 'consultation' might be a delaying tactic, but it's just as likely to be that the Dept. of Health has no idea of the implications of such release. It certainly doesn't suggest the revocation you claim.
  - cyphar 7y ago
    I was basing it on the public statements of the Health Minister[1]. Now, it's very possible that they'll release it tomorrow and this whole discussion will have been a waste of time -- but at the time of writing the Minister for Government Services said unequivocally that they would release the source code[2] and later the Health Minister said they were "unsure it would be safe"[1], and finally when the app was released the source code was nowhere to be seen. To be fair, he was insistent that they would release it (despite being "unsure it would be safe"). But sure, I also wouldn't be surprised to discover that the whole process has been delayed by some other bureaucracy. After all, they probably see releasing the source code as a token gesture and not a form of review by the public. [1]: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/health-minister-now-unsure-if-source-code-for-covid-contact-tracing-app-is-safe-to-release-546981 https://www.itnews.com.au/news/health-minister-now-unsure-if... [2]: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/govt-to-release-source-code-of-forthcoming-covid-trace-app-546884 https://www.itnews.com.au/news/govt-to-release-source-code-o...
- lukevdp 7y ago
  Do you have a source for the source code not being released for “national security”?
  - cyphar 7y ago