Slashdot Mirror
Removing Proprietary Bits from Illegally Closed Open Source?
hahnfeld asks: "I maintain an Open Source (GPL) project which is fairly popular among commercial companies who produce proprietary add-ons for the software. Recently I found that someone was selling code derived from my product under a proprietary license. As a settlement, we finally agreed that his software (which had come a long way from the original Open Source base) will be released under the GPL. Obviously, I have plans to distribute the newly GPL'ed code from my project's site. Now that I've made the announcement, many commercial add-on authors are saying that they believe their code may be contained in the software and it is MY responsibility to remove it or they will come after ME. I've received everything from threats to insults from the commercial add-on authors, who believe the newly GPL'ed product will cut into their business. I've already notified everyone who has a proprietary add-on that I know about, and I'm planning on cleaning out anything I find. But short of not distributing the newly GPL'ed software, is there any way for me to protect myself in the event some proprietary code gets left in the GPL code?" As open source gains popularity, this issue is bound to strike another developer. In addition to seeking legal advice, what suggestions would you give to someone unfortunate enough to be in this position?
Lemme guess, you write the VB 'gimmie 30 bux' shareware crap that permeates tucows (get it? tucows == two cows, what a hoot!).
Try again.
If you don't wish to give up your s/w, don't use any open licence. Simple.
Okay. Listen up smart guy, because you apparently have problems with reading for comprehension, because at no point did I attack the concept of open source, I attacked the idea of copyright reassignment.
My problem with the FSF is the new speak coming from them. Restrictions are Freedom! Dismantel intellectual property through copyright! If they truly believed what they preach, they'd release everything into the public domain.
Oh and one other thing. You're apparently confused by the actual legal mechanism at work in open licenses. The author doesn't give up anything, except secrets. If you gave up your software you wouldn't be able to defend any license, because you're not a party to the contract, because you don't own the software. That's the whole reason why you issue a license, it allows you to dictate terms.
The copyright assignment of GNU licensed s/w diminishes noone
It diminishes me, the author. My credit is removed. I am no longer the owner of my creation. That is deeply insulting.
and allows the FSF to act to protect that copyright, regardless of what duristiction it occurs in.
Again. This is a crock. Under what circumstances do you believe they'd simply stand by and not help? It makes no sense, and given the fact that very few pieces of software (when compared to the total number of pieces of GPLed software) are actually assigned to FSF, most people believe that as well.
So, on the blinding chance that you write something good, and a corp decides to illegally take it from you, best of luck pursuing them on your own.
Well given the fact that I very good friend who is an intellectual property lawyer, I don't think that would be such a problem. And even if I didn't "have an in", I can still find a lawyer.
Of course you won't believe me, and I really don't give a damn. I've wasted too much time with you as it is.
Come back when you can make an internally consistent argument, let alone a logically coherent one.
*plonk*