Slashdot Mirror
On the Ethics of a Code Split?
McWizard asks: "We've recently had a code split at a project I'm leading. (No name given, as this is a question, not an advertisement campaign). While both projects have done some major design decisions in opposing directions, we've been keeping a close eye on the changelog of the spinoff for small changes that could be used. So, whenever we've found an interesting piece of code (mostly GUI stuff, nothing longer than 20 lines of code), we transferred it to our project and gave credit to the spinoff team in the changelog.
What does Slashdot say on that matter? Is this unethical or are such things fair game?"
"Yesterday, I was contacted by the leader of the spinoff project who told me that he's quiet angry at us for doing that and that it's considered unethical and rude to copy code from the spinoff.
As both projects are under the GPL, we have an opposing opinion on that matter and we've more than once invited him to copy code from our project. Nevertheless he's thinking about obfuscating his changelog and only open the source as packages when he's doing a release, which is, as he says, his right under the GPL."
Legally, there's nothing wrong since both projects are GPL'ed (I presume).
Ethically, I don't see anything wrong with it. In the end, it's your design decisions that are going to make a difference, which is why the code split in the first place. In fact, there's no reason why both projects shouldn't take code from each other; if there are common areas where there's actually no disagreement, this will help to reduce duplication of effort.
Gan Family Homepage
It's open-source. If he doesn't want certain people re-using the code, well, then he shouldn't release his code under the GPL. Trying to restrict use of open-source code because he has a personal grudge with a project he split off of is the real unethical behavior.
If he wants to do this and not share with everyone, he needs to start over with his own commercial implementation from scratch. Until he does, just tell him to suck down a nice big mug of STFU.
Can you imagine human history without being able to use other people's good ideas? I mean even if it's not derived? "I'm sorry, you can't have that steam train - I represent the estate of the ancient greeks, and we have a patent on the steam engine."
Having said all that, accreditation is nice - aknowledge the work that people have done, it's cool that you are doing this. This is what polite people in academia do - just recognise the derivation of the idea, then use it with what you're doing.
T
Arguably, it might have been more polically aware to ask permission before using the code, but I'd say the more serious problem is that the leader of the spinoff doesn't appear to fully understand the concept of the GPL. Anybody can take a project and expand on it. That code can, in turn, be added to any other project. It's all about sharing and showing your stuff, so someone using your code should be taken as a compliment, not theft.
Maybe you could try and talk to him and ask why this is a problem; perhaps it's a matter that can be settled. In any case I wouldn't borrow any more of their code until the matter is cleared up since that would only escalate the feud.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
I've seen this happen in pretty important chunks of code - even gcc - which is pretty sad.
As a maintainer for a file system, I try to treat people as "customers". Sure, unless they're paying, they don't have any legal rights, but there is still some moral obligation to serve. I try to add the features that people want without breaking the design goals etc. I'm sure this is easier with a file system which is very deeply buried than with a userpsace program where everybody has a beef about itty-bitty features.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Ah, but the GPL is also an ETHICAL document. The purpose of the GPL is to share code. It's not merely that sharing code is *permitted* by the GPL, but that it is *encouraged* - indeed, prescribed by the GPL. The purpose of the GPL is to disseminated shared and reused code, and obfuscation and claims of "code theft" are in direct opposition to the moral basis of the GPL. In other words, you're comparing a prescription to a proscription.
I work for a primarily FLOSS company. We recently developed an application which we were pushing at trade shows all over Europe. During our travels, we met several other companies' suits who were developing similar or identical solutions. Even though some of these companies are direct competitors, we encouraged them to look at our code, see the solutions we had created and adopt some of our code. Result: Out of 22 companies we talked to 20 made their solutions OSS. We have now integrated some of their code into our own product just as they have used our code. Moral of the story: Sharing makes the community stronger, eliminates much inefficiency and makes the software better! We survive separately BECAUSE we have different ideas of how features should be implemented.
--cros13