Slashdot Mirror
Using OSS for In-House Tools, Only?
Robert Hart writes "With people such as Microsoft and ADTI suggesting incorrectly that if you use GPL software in house (without distributing it to third parties) you must make your code publicly available, actual examples of people using GPL software internally would seem to be the best response (pragmatic examples to back up the 'theory').
I am interested in hearing about examples of corporations and government agencies, from around the world, using GPL software as part of an inhouse development effort. As there is also a potential for time/money saving by doing this, there is a possibility that this
may lead to some research to put numbers behind this."
Microsoft will come out of this smelling like roses and the OSS camp will look like a bunch of Communists. The fact of the matter is that the GPL is too complicated for the layman to understand in toto.
/. story about an FSF quiz that was designed to gauge your GPL knowledge. Just about everyone here on /. scored 70% or so. That's 30% misunderstanding. And this is among people who argue for the GPL all the time. How much less do you think the average person is going to understand the license?
Recently there was a
With regards to OSS tools, there are two choices. Use them or not. Using them entails following the GPL which adds all sorts of weird, non-obvious restrictions. Not using them means they can get on with their normal routine.
Microsoft is pushing this aspect to its limit. To understand Microsoft licenses, it's pretty straightforward. You can't copy the product to another machine. They play this up to its fullest as well.
No matter what you think of the GPL or OSS, it's underlying value system is so contrary to the American psyche that you'd need a true revolution to make any significant inroads. Such a revolution won't happen in the near future because the anger and bile that OSS zealots have for closed source products doesn't resonate with Capitalist Joe.
I have been pwned because my
If the opinion of GPL code is really that bad, why not use dual-licensing to get around it?
If you released your OSS project with a license that allowed the licensee to apply their choice of the GPL or a standard "You have no rights to redistribute" license, they might actually be more reassured. (as strange/silly as that is)
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program,
In this case, "derived from" is not referring to the output of the program, but the actual codebase of the program having been modified in some way.
from the GPL FAQ
Q: Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free?
A: In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program. If the user uses your program to enter or convert his own data, the copyright on the output belongs to him, not you. More generally, when a program translates its input into some other form, the copyright status of the output inherits that of the input it was generated from.
So the only way you have a say in the use of the output is if substantial parts of the output are copied (more or less) from text in your program. For instance, part of the output of Bison (see above) would be covered by the GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in this specific case.
You could artificially make a program copy certain text into its output even if there is no technical reason to do so. But if that copied text serves no practical purpose, the user could simply delete that text from the output and use only the rest. Then he would not have to obey the conditions on redistribution of the copied text.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
What is to stop someone within your organization from taking the source from your internal app and distributing it outside the company?
Threat of termination. Lumpish Scholar posted his interpretation of just such a scenario above.
Anyone who is willing to divulge company secrets is not someone who should remain in your employ. Kaner, et al discuss interviewees divulging private company information, but the same reasoning can be applied to currently employed engineers as well.
I have been pwned because my
I think that is the crux of the issue. Modifying the code doesn't modify the license; and, according to section 2, all you really need to do is copy the modified code to trigger it:
Who doesn't make copies of their code?
So, actually, it looks like Microsoft and ADTI have it right in a sense:
Premise: Original work licensed under the GPL.
Premise: Company obtains a copy through GPL and makes modifications.
Premise: Company makes copies of modified code for internal use.
Premise: GPL, under section 7, doesn't allow additional restrictions on distribution. So, company cannot restrict distribution.
Conclusion: Anyone with access to modified source can distribute under the GPL or company cannot use GPL'd work.
Hmmmm.... Not exactly the mindset I've been working under. How did we start this conversation? Oh yeah, we we're looking for proof Microsoft and ADTI were wrong. Oops.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
These things are very different; there's a tonne of open source software out there that lots of people use that isn't GPL:
To constantly suggest that the GPL is the One True License is not only wrong, but very damaging, since it undermines perceived choice over licensing.
This is supposed to be a site for vaguely intelligent people; can't we at least make some effort to be more precise in our terminology?