4 ms·

Does anybody actually read, let alone abide by these open source licenses? I can't imagine actually picking through one of them and making strategy decisions b

Does anybody actually read, let alone abide by these open source licenses? I can't imagine actually picking through one of them and making strategy decisions based on them. Has anybody ever actually been called on it? Are there really companies that have open-sourced their entire product just because they use some random little GPL library? I tend to avoid using 3rd party code, as it invariably ends up being garbage, but I'm happy to use the odd open source software package to do my work. If any of those packages stuck some silly gotcha clause into their license agreement, I wouldn't know about it. And I certainly wouldn't spend my time worrying about it.

nailer 17y ago
Google 'Cisco vs the FSF'.
- jasonkester 17y ago
  I guess it's not surprising to see big names suing each other over this stuff. I guess I was referring to the little guys (like us) using random open source packages. Anybody know of a case more along the lines of '[random PHP image rotation library from SourceForge] vs. rtatr.com (rotate your images online!)'?
  - mattyb 17y ago
    I highly suggest you read the GPL one more time. If you're hosting a web app that rotates images for people, that random library is running on (effectively) your server. You're distributing the end, not the means. The GPL does not restrict you in this regard. If, however, you wanted to package up your app ('Run your own image-rotation service!') and distribute it to folks, you have to release it under a GPL-compatible license. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well. To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. The GPL (v3, at least) restricts conveying. GPL v2 states the following: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: So long as you do not distribute your modified copy, there is no need to abide by the conditions following that section.
SwellJoe 17y ago
Does anybody actually read, let alone abide by these open source licenses? Of course. If you don't, you can't use the code. Thousands of companies and millions of individuals are abiding by these open source licenses every day. I can't imagine actually picking through one of them and making strategy decisions based on them. Then you can't use the code. You'll have to buy non-Open licensed code, or write it yourself. Has anybody ever actually been called on it? Yes. Though it rarely comes to lawsuits. The GPL is a pretty strong license, from a legal perspective. The people who've tested it aggressively have suffered the consequences (SCOX, for example). Some others (The Artistic License, for example) are more questionable and less strong from a legal perspective, but even the weak ones have proven to hold up pretty well in court (there is an ongoing trial involving the Artistic License, though sort of indirectly, but it seems to be holding its own in the eyes of the law). Are there really companies that have open-sourced their entire product just because they use some random little GPL library? You've already admitted to being willfully and proudly ignorant about Open Source licensing in multiple posts in this thread. So, why are you being so damned pushy about sharing your ill-informed opinions on the subject? You are assuming the GPL is intended as a trap to lure unsuspecting businesses into being forced to open their code. It is not, and it's a symptom of your ignorance that you think it is. It is a license that allows anyone to use the code, provided they share the results under the same terms. In the event of a license violation (which is in no ones best interest), there are many possible outcomes, only one of which is opening of everything the code ever touched. Law, including copyright law upon which the GPL (and all other software licenses) are based, has many shades of nuance. I tend to avoid using 3rd party code, as it invariably ends up being garbage This says more about the limits of your experience than about Open Source software or licenses, and is not relevant to this discussion.
- jasonkester 17y ago
  Are you sure you represent the typical developer? Knowing this stuff in the detail you just provided would seem to put you near one end of the spectrum. I would suspect that most people simply don't think about it. I think of places I've worked in the past and the people who worked there. Would your typical VB developer in a typical corporation know about this stuff? If he did a google search for a code snippet to perform a task, and ended up on SourceForge, would he read the license or would he simply drop the code into his project and get on with his day? I think hanging out on sites like HackerNews, filled with some of the smartest programmers around, clouds our perception of the "typical programmer". I've worked at a lot of shops over the years, and I can count on one hand the number of devs who I might ever expect to find here.
bmj 17y ago
Absolutely. I needed a wrapper for the Native WLAN API in Windows XP/Vista, and hey, there's an open source (LGPL) library available. I ran the license by our lawyer (we actually produce packaged software), and while the LGPL would have allowed us to use the library in closed source software, he thought the inclusion of the LGPL license regarding a library could have potentially scared our users (who need to maintain the integrity--and secrecy) of the data our software is used to collect. This wasn't ideal from my perspective, because now I had to write the wrapper knowing that the code existed and I could just sit there and copy it. But I didn't. And I probably know more about the Native WLAN API because of it.
sho 17y ago
"I tend to avoid using 3rd party code, as it invariably ends up being garbage" Huh? So what do you do, re-implement the whole world from assembler up?
- jasonkester 17y ago
  I think you misunderstand: 3rd party code, not 3rd party software. Think Open Source CMSs and Javascript libraries. Anybody who's been burned by enough of that sort of thing quickly learns to avoid it. 3rd party Javascript is especially bad in this respect, generally requiring a complete rewrite before it performs the task it was advertised to perform.
  - sho 17y ago
    I must misunderstand, yes, because I have no idea what the difference between "code" and "software" is supposed to be. Especially for something interpreted like JS. Is jQuery code or software? Can't argue that most JS examples you'll find on the web are awful, though, or that open source CMSs are typically useless. Or closed source CMSs for that matter.

nailer 17y ago

Google 'Cisco vs the FSF'.

jasonkester 17y ago
I guess it's not surprising to see big names suing each other over this stuff. I guess I was referring to the little guys (like us) using random open source packages. Anybody know of a case more along the lines of '[random PHP image rotation library from SourceForge] vs. rtatr.com (rotate your images online!)'?
- mattyb 17y ago
  I highly suggest you read the GPL one more time. If you're hosting a web app that rotates images for people, that random library is running on (effectively) your server. You're distributing the end, not the means. The GPL does not restrict you in this regard. If, however, you wanted to package up your app ('Run your own image-rotation service!') and distribute it to folks, you have to release it under a GPL-compatible license. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well. To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. The GPL (v3, at least) restricts conveying. GPL v2 states the following: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: So long as you do not distribute your modified copy, there is no need to abide by the conditions following that section.

SwellJoe 17y ago

Does anybody actually read, let alone abide by these open source licenses? Of course. If you don't, you can't use the code. Thousands of companies and millions of individuals are abiding by these open source licenses every day. I can't imagine actually picking through one of them and making strategy decisions based on them. Then you can't use the code. You'll have to buy non-Open licensed code, or write it yourself. Has anybody ever actually been called on it? Yes. Though it rarely comes to lawsuits. The GPL is a pretty strong license, from a legal perspective. The people who've tested it aggressively have suffered the consequences (SCOX, for example). Some others (The Artistic License, for example) are more questionable and less strong from a legal perspective, but even the weak ones have proven to hold up pretty well in court (there is an ongoing trial involving the Artistic License, though sort of indirectly, but it seems to be holding its own in the eyes of the law). Are there really companies that have open-sourced their entire product just because they use some random little GPL library? You've already admitted to being willfully and proudly ignorant about Open Source licensing in multiple posts in this thread. So, why are you being so damned pushy about sharing your ill-informed opinions on the subject? You are assuming the GPL is intended as a trap to lure unsuspecting businesses into being forced to open their code. It is not, and it's a symptom of your ignorance that you think it is. It is a license that allows anyone to use the code, provided they share the results under the same terms. In the event of a license violation (which is in no ones best interest), there are many possible outcomes, only one of which is opening of everything the code ever touched. Law, including copyright law upon which the GPL (and all other software licenses) are based, has many shades of nuance. I tend to avoid using 3rd party code, as it invariably ends up being garbage This says more about the limits of your experience than about Open Source software or licenses, and is not relevant to this discussion.

jasonkester 17y ago
Are you sure you represent the typical developer? Knowing this stuff in the detail you just provided would seem to put you near one end of the spectrum. I would suspect that most people simply don't think about it. I think of places I've worked in the past and the people who worked there. Would your typical VB developer in a typical corporation know about this stuff? If he did a google search for a code snippet to perform a task, and ended up on SourceForge, would he read the license or would he simply drop the code into his project and get on with his day? I think hanging out on sites like HackerNews, filled with some of the smartest programmers around, clouds our perception of the "typical programmer". I've worked at a lot of shops over the years, and I can count on one hand the number of devs who I might ever expect to find here.

bmj 17y ago

Absolutely. I needed a wrapper for the Native WLAN API in Windows XP/Vista, and hey, there's an open source (LGPL) library available. I ran the license by our lawyer (we actually produce packaged software), and while the LGPL would have allowed us to use the library in closed source software, he thought the inclusion of the LGPL license regarding a library could have potentially scared our users (who need to maintain the integrity--and secrecy) of the data our software is used to collect. This wasn't ideal from my perspective, because now I had to write the wrapper knowing that the code existed and I could just sit there and copy it. But I didn't. And I probably know more about the Native WLAN API because of it.

sho 17y ago

"I tend to avoid using 3rd party code, as it invariably ends up being garbage" Huh? So what do you do, re-implement the whole world from assembler up?

jasonkester 17y ago
I think you misunderstand: 3rd party code, not 3rd party software. Think Open Source CMSs and Javascript libraries. Anybody who's been burned by enough of that sort of thing quickly learns to avoid it. 3rd party Javascript is especially bad in this respect, generally requiring a complete rewrite before it performs the task it was advertised to perform.
- sho 17y ago
  I must misunderstand, yes, because I have no idea what the difference between "code" and "software" is supposed to be. Especially for something interpreted like JS. Is jQuery code or software? Can't argue that most JS examples you'll find on the web are awful, though, or that open source CMSs are typically useless. Or closed source CMSs for that matter.