3 ms·

I worked at an open source startup once. I was -shocked- to repeatedly run into the misconception that because the code was open source, anything -using- the co

I worked at an open source startup once. I was -shocked- to repeatedly run into the misconception that because the code was open source, anything -using- the code was open source. I saw several potential sales get tanked because the customer had an advisor who believed that if they used open source to develop their website, they would no longer own the content. For example, a furniture company thought they would lose control of their pictures of the furniture. Another blog style site thought they would lose control of the blog posts they wrote. Literally, I am not making this up. It's like believing that Microsoft owns your document because you wrote it in Word. No amount of discussion, examples, or logic would dissuade them. I can't imagine how this idea survives, but I saw it as recently as a month ago in a comment here on HN (which of course I can't find right now), so it's not completely isolated. I'm not sure open source was a net win for the startup I worked at. Due to complicating some sales and assisting a few competitors, it wasn't a clean slam dunk.

kenjackson 15y ago
Dollars to donuts, I bet its because of the GPL license. People hear about it and then extrapolate. If you're not GPL then you need to make it clear that you're not a copyleft license. If you are GPL then its trickier because you have to call out what sorts of assets and distribution mechanisms are covered.
- pkteison 15y ago
  Why? The license commercial software uses gives you no rights to do much of anything, yet nobody thinks Adobe owns photos edited in Photoshop. Why should granting more rights change that? It makes no sense to me. Edit: And GPL already calls out what is covered. Source code. It's incredibly clear.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    Why you ask? The license commercial software uses gives you no rights to do much of anything, yet nobody thinks Adobe owns photos edited in Photoshop. Exactly. No one thinks that with Adobe. Yet as the original poster pointed out, people do have confusion with open source licenses. Why should granting more rights change that? It makes no sense to me. Rights granted with GPL aren't strictly more to the person deploying the GPL code. And GPL already calls out what is covered. Source code. It's incredibly clear. The GPL definition of source code is the following: The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. Honestly, I'm not sure exactly what that means. I have a good idea, but if deploying with it, I'd certainly get a lawyer involved.
  - omouse 15y ago
    Because of propaganda. Developers and managers at commercial software companies contribute to it. They call the GPL viral or infectious. The FSF needs to up its own propaganda game to counter this non-sense :/
- SwellJoe 15y ago
  You're contributing to the misinformation with a blatantly false statement like this. I'm not going to argue with you (again) on your misstatements about the GPL, but I did want to call it out as being obviously wrong, lest anyone read your comment and take it as somehow sensible. The GPL provides more freedom to the end user than any commercial license, and it is deeply disingenuous to keep spreading FUD that indicates otherwise.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    Tell me a single lie stated in that post.
    - SwellJoe 15y ago
      "If you are GPL then its trickier because you have to call out what sorts of assets and distribution mechanisms are covered." This is a straight up lie. We were discussing assets like pictures, blog posts, etc. None of these assets, distributed in any way, would ever be affected by the license of the software used to build the website on which they appear. Just like the text you edit in Word is not owned by Microsoft and the photo you edit with Photoshop is not owned by Adobe. There is nothing tricky about the GPL (or any other Open Source license) in this context (or really in any other, since the license is extremely well-documented), and it is FUD to suggest otherwise.
      - kenjackson 15y ago
        This is a straight up lie. We were discussing assets like pictures, blog posts, etc. None of these assets, distributed in any way, would ever be affected by the license of the software used to build the website on which they appear. I didn't say they were. I said you'd have to explain it. You'd have to make a distinction about code, non-code, services, shipping code, etc... Otherwise this same company says, we can use this same code to compile with this fancy new HTML5/Javascript compiler and deploy on iPhone. The nice sales guy said that we don't need to be concerned with the GPL license. Uh oh. If only he would have spent five minutes telling us how the GPL worked. (That said, I'm not really sure what the OP's product provided, to know what other assets would be effected, if any. So this scenario is purely speculative) My point, you do need to explain the GPL in more detail than many other open source licenses. The OP made this clear in the real world from the fact that potential customers didn't undertand it. But I think this is the problem with the GPL movement. They're in such disbelief that people may not understand they flame anyone who takes the time to explain it.
jberryman 15y ago
Surely this would be easy to counter? Where would you even begin creating, say, a website without using any OSS?
omouse 15y ago
It looks like the propaganada of calling the GPL "infectious" and "cancerous" has worked. It's sad that some programmers continue to call the GPL viral because it gives an overly negative connotation. I understand if you dislike the license, but attacking it is basically attacking open source licenses in general.

kenjackson 15y ago

Dollars to donuts, I bet its because of the GPL license. People hear about it and then extrapolate. If you're not GPL then you need to make it clear that you're not a copyleft license. If you are GPL then its trickier because you have to call out what sorts of assets and distribution mechanisms are covered.

pkteison 15y ago
Why? The license commercial software uses gives you no rights to do much of anything, yet nobody thinks Adobe owns photos edited in Photoshop. Why should granting more rights change that? It makes no sense to me. Edit: And GPL already calls out what is covered. Source code. It's incredibly clear.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  Why you ask? The license commercial software uses gives you no rights to do much of anything, yet nobody thinks Adobe owns photos edited in Photoshop. Exactly. No one thinks that with Adobe. Yet as the original poster pointed out, people do have confusion with open source licenses. Why should granting more rights change that? It makes no sense to me. Rights granted with GPL aren't strictly more to the person deploying the GPL code. And GPL already calls out what is covered. Source code. It's incredibly clear. The GPL definition of source code is the following: The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. Honestly, I'm not sure exactly what that means. I have a good idea, but if deploying with it, I'd certainly get a lawyer involved.
- omouse 15y ago
  Because of propaganda. Developers and managers at commercial software companies contribute to it. They call the GPL viral or infectious. The FSF needs to up its own propaganda game to counter this non-sense :/
SwellJoe 15y ago
You're contributing to the misinformation with a blatantly false statement like this. I'm not going to argue with you (again) on your misstatements about the GPL, but I did want to call it out as being obviously wrong, lest anyone read your comment and take it as somehow sensible. The GPL provides more freedom to the end user than any commercial license, and it is deeply disingenuous to keep spreading FUD that indicates otherwise.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  Tell me a single lie stated in that post.
  - SwellJoe 15y ago
    "If you are GPL then its trickier because you have to call out what sorts of assets and distribution mechanisms are covered." This is a straight up lie. We were discussing assets like pictures, blog posts, etc. None of these assets, distributed in any way, would ever be affected by the license of the software used to build the website on which they appear. Just like the text you edit in Word is not owned by Microsoft and the photo you edit with Photoshop is not owned by Adobe. There is nothing tricky about the GPL (or any other Open Source license) in this context (or really in any other, since the license is extremely well-documented), and it is FUD to suggest otherwise.
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      This is a straight up lie. We were discussing assets like pictures, blog posts, etc. None of these assets, distributed in any way, would ever be affected by the license of the software used to build the website on which they appear. I didn't say they were. I said you'd have to explain it. You'd have to make a distinction about code, non-code, services, shipping code, etc... Otherwise this same company says, we can use this same code to compile with this fancy new HTML5/Javascript compiler and deploy on iPhone. The nice sales guy said that we don't need to be concerned with the GPL license. Uh oh. If only he would have spent five minutes telling us how the GPL worked. (That said, I'm not really sure what the OP's product provided, to know what other assets would be effected, if any. So this scenario is purely speculative) My point, you do need to explain the GPL in more detail than many other open source licenses. The OP made this clear in the real world from the fact that potential customers didn't undertand it. But I think this is the problem with the GPL movement. They're in such disbelief that people may not understand they flame anyone who takes the time to explain it.

jberryman 15y ago

Surely this would be easy to counter? Where would you even begin creating, say, a website without using any OSS?

omouse 15y ago

It looks like the propaganada of calling the GPL "infectious" and "cancerous" has worked. It's sad that some programmers continue to call the GPL viral because it gives an overly negative connotation. I understand if you dislike the license, but attacking it is basically attacking open source licenses in general.