Slashdot Mirror
The Open-Source Detector
McDutchie writes "With open-source related lawsuits on the rise, a
market is developing for automated tools that detect the presence of open-source code within larger
application development environments.
Palamida Inc.
stepped in with IP Amplifier 3.0,
essentially a search tool and a database that consists of more than 38 million
of the most commonly used open-source files. Something Google-inspired called
CodeRank is claimed to match code against the database. Hmm...
maybe
someone should run it on
this,
or even
this." Of course, some open source code is perfectly welcome in commercial software, even if that software's code is not itself open; it's no secret or surprise that Microsoft, for instance, has taken advantage in some products of BSD-licensed code.
Because the BSD license explicitly allows them to do this.
Can't people use BSD code in non-OSS projects?(Why I don't like BSD licenses personally, because they will be abused.)
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
appears to be the whole point of this tool anyway.
FTP.exe still contains the string regarding portions being copyrighted by the California Board of Regents... but why would anyone go after Microsoft for using BSD licensed code in their products? Last I checked, the BSD licenses was more 'free' than the GPL, permitting someone to keep their changes to themselves and be free to uses it how they see fit, provided they give props, which does and has happened.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Maybe someone should run it on its own codebase...
did you ever read the bsd license?
This tool is meant for commercial software companies to use, to ensure that they are not mistakenly using GPL code in their programs. It is not for open source developers to find misuses of their own code.
You have confused Open Source with GPL. There is nothing wrong with using Open Source in applications as long as the license permits it.
Why should Microsoft be singled out for it? Expecially when we had people taking GPL'ed code and selling it as closed source...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Usually the key to things is not the actual implementation used, but the algorithm behind it. This tool can't possibly ensure that some binary wasn't made by someone who looked at the open source version, and just reimplemented the same ideas. There are so many different ways of doing the same thing that this would be trivial. All this does is mean that someone who wants to use GPL code in their closed project must change a few stylistic things around. Open Source software, OTOH, is open to a much higher level of scrutiny, since anyone can see exactly what is going on underneath the hood. It will still be fun to run it against old software though ;-)
...free....as in beer. The software is not "free"....
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
It's just the GPL they hate, because they can't use GPL'ed software. See here for example.
Could this tool be used in reverse?
For example, one could write a bug-filled line of code, perhaps something with a buffer-overflow. This could then be matched with open-source projects and projects with buffer overflows are found. Of course, this could also be used to find vulnerabilities and so on.
what MS anti-spyware suite does, when I first installed it it labeled vnc and something else (can't remember now.. ) as spyware.. open source infection indeed..
Having inherited, and now to clean up and later to maintain a fairly big chunk (unbelievably huge, cumbersome and bloated actually, when considering what it should do) of Microsoft code at my job, I don't wonder anymore about anything concerning Microsoft products, except them reliably working. Found no OpenSource code in there though. Only loads of Microsoft technology where it isn't needed, and retarded code constructs where there is actually an appropriate standard way in the MS environment.
/. MS rant.
In private I'm all MS less for months already (after another Windows breakdown I decided it was time to part). Still have to deal at work with it though.
Ok, so here we have the standard
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
Talk about paranoid.
Okay, I can appreciate the need to protect your intellectual property, but what sort of a control freak will go through megabytes of files to work out if some guy may have used a few lines of your code?
I thought the RIAA was overly protective of their rights, but it seems the open source commuity feels exactly the same way.
It's only "more" free if you define "free" as "having the freedom to remove freedom from those who you distribute the software to".
If I write a big open source application, I will license it under the GPL, because I want *everybody* - not only the people who got the software from me, but also the people who got the software from a third party - to benefit from the same freedom. How is this "less" free than allowing third parties to not pass the same freedoms to other?
Your freedom ends where others' begin.
>Of course, some open source code is perfectly >welcome in commercial software, even if that >software's code is not itself open; it's no secret >or surprise that Microsoft, for instance, has taken >advantage in some products of BSD-licensed code.
This example (socket code) often pops up, and is often used in GPL advocacy.
Note however that the TCP/IP work was done under a DARPA grant, paid for by the US government, so it is not only legal, but even moral right for Microsoft to use this code.
No, the BSD license is more free than the GPL. It gives users the right to do anything they want with the code. The GPL lets users do anything they want with the code as long as they keep within the GPL frame of mind.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
yes, msft do indeed give props in FTP.EXE, as long as you grep/findstr for it. Hence the sig.
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
"Mistakenly using GPL code"? How can anyone use GPL code on accident? You downloaded a tarball, you extracted it, you opened it in a text editor, you copied and pasted the code. And then you tell your boss that you did that "on accident"?
Can anyone explain this to me?
Palamida charges $50,000 to $250,000 for an annual subscription to IP Amplifier. Cost depends upon the size of the customer's development environment.
That seems rather steep. Are they doing something really complicated or is this something that a well-maintained (open-source?) project could do? Of course they are storing a major amount of information (i.e. all of sourceforge/freshmeat).
This might in fact be a feature that sourceforge might want to implement (for a fee): doing a search in their database.
On the other hand, it might make more sense to check against proprietary source, data and images. They are, by their nature, harder to find.
Also: when outsourcing parts of a project, wouldn't a contract have to state explicitly conditions such as not stealing/borrowing code from elsewhere? It would be a minimum requirement that the licensing of any (sub-)code would have to fit the overall product.
see a Text Widget
There are too many things that this won't do, as already pointed out in the thread. The problem I see here is how someone, somewhere will use this tool once or twice, find something and that looks like infringing code and "AH HA! THERE is the REAL offender" taking something out of context or not understanding in full the hows or whys of how the code got there in the fist place, and run screaming to whoever will listen. There are a lot of issues surrounding Open Source code and mixing it with proprietary code. While this may help, I only fear this will create more problems.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
The whole advantage of open source is you are not tied to the whims of the original developer.
This seems to be a resurrection of an old attack strategy, pretend that open source is such an burdensome onerouse license that you have to hunt open source code down like a virus.
Its not something to be encouraged!
The whole concept of code seems to scream "Some will be the same". Very basic things will look very similar between several things and with the current "justice" system and ignorance of most people this is going to screw OSS.
I just think it's pathetic that we live in an era where people trying to do something nice gets stabbed in the back for it..
I like muppets.
But how can you check commercial software for open-source code used in it. Don't you need the source code of that software to search in. I don't think they will give you their code to do that.
a colleague IMs you a code snippet
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Just today on the way to work I was wondering what it would take to write a C pre-processor which takes as input a set of .c and .h files, and spits out a re-formatted, 'changed' version of the same sort of code .. effectively 're-writing' the OSS into something still functional, but unrecognizable from the original.
..
.. and if I had the spare time (I don't), I'd make one myself, and .. of course .. release it under the GPL.
This would be an interesting challenge, and not entirely above the capabilities of most compiler writers. With such a tool, the motivation for releasing OSS software would be decreased; OSS writers would be de-moralized, since their original code isn't being used, only the outline/framework
I'm a big fan of OSS, really. Have been for years. But I think tools such as these loom on the horizon
(Just coz.)
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
And the GPL frame of mind is: give others the same rights you enjoy. How is this less free than BSD? Would your country be more free if you have the "freedom" to take rights away from your children? Would your country be more free if you have the "freedom" to kill people?
Boss told the programmers to write some routine, and the smartass downloaded a GPLd library, cut&pasted it into the program, tested that it works and slacked for the rest of the week, pretending to work on that routine.
This sounds more like an auditing software. It looks like this tool would allow you to scan an existing codebase to check for the existence of open-source code nuggets. Considering the licensing minefields that exist today, it's probably a good thing for a release manager to do before a "release to production". This is especially so because a lot of developers routinely copy-paste code from the net and usually don't read the license accompanying the code.
IMHO, this is quite an innovative tool, and would save a release or a project manager a lot of headaches in terms of legal compliance.
You keep all your reference files in the same folder, both those from your company and those garnered from the internet? I know I'm easily that sloppy, though admittedly I don't code for a living except in a very peripheral manner.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
We have scanned your computer and found the following files that are in violation off corporate IP protection policy for development: /usr/include/signal.h /usr/include/socket.h /usr/include/stdio.h /opt/java/src.zip
Please remove them.
"free" as in "free for leeching".
That's why I really prefer GPL and especially LGPL.
With LGPL, you can use portions of my code in your proprietary programs, but I get testing and bug fixes in turn. If my code is helping someone, why wouldn't that person help me?
If the BSD stack was LGPLed, Microsoft would still be free to use it, but at least it would have to cooperate with BSD. That would make them a lot more likely to keep their sources synced with the original tree, and thus pull in any fixes. Can you imagine a non-buggy TCP stack in MS Windows?
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Again, you are not seeing the target. The target for the package is the lead programmer, Q/A and/or Legal to run and verify that none of their programmers did just that.
Now its wonderfull theat they help people get the most out of OSS software but i dont like the fact they are making outsourcing easier .This is not so much a problem where i live but in the USA as i understand it many people are loosing their jobs in the tech industry thanks to companys trying to save a fair bit by outsourcing to cheaper areas .
Again my second problem is there strong patent support here .It just makes me as someone who uses and contributes to OSS uneasy.(just my opinion and how i feel , not a statment of fact )
On to the legal section ,Their bussines model is basicaly that of enforcing IP rights , sure that may help us find companys abusing GPL code , but it also swings both ways and can open up a whole host of patent cases against GPL software.
Fair enough this can be usefull in this day and age , allowing you to pay them to make sure your not infringing on any patents , But this just dosn't work on 90% of the OSS projects out there , i am betting it costs a fair whack.Most people using this on OSS are IMHO going to be looking to enforce a patent case ala SCO.The potential minefield here is not fun.
Now that is alot better ,I can strongly respect what they are doing here .Still i dont like that they keep harping on about IP compliance..
I am probably just being paranoid an
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
How can a perfectly acceptable use of BSD code (BSD code in non-OSS projects) be abuse ?
The BSD goal is good code, not open code.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
OSS thieves
:)
There I was thinking it was only theft if you deprive someone of property.
Why not call them "source pirates" and make your transition to the dark side complete, Mr RIAA
Except decrypting the code before running it takes significant portion of CPU time, effectively making the "open source alternatives" much faster. Hiding, obscuring, obfuscating, all that creates a lot of overhead...
And of course it can be done by examining the memory dump instead of executable file. It must be decrypted to run.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Maybe you farmed it out to Elbonia, and got back thinly-veiled rip of some Free Software code.
To whomever has access to the Windows source (via their "shared source" channel or any other _legitimate_ way): please check their source.
No I don't. I always put them in seperate folders. I'm not going to mix files where I'm not supposed to, that's asking for problems. And with a versioning control system, you can easily check which files don't belong in your project.
> How is this less free than BSD?
Whether you think it's good or bad is irrelevant. The GPL is less free than BSD because it does not grant the licensee as many freedoms.
I wouldn't call it abuse exactly. BSD was just apparrently written by people who cared more about the ideology behind open-source than actually forcing people to conform to it, whereas GPL was designed by a slightly more hardcore communist bunch. Of course, my opinions are colored by high-level slashdot exposure, so they may be suffering from radiation damage.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
It is relevant. Freedom is all about ethics. Freedom is not true freedom if it is bad.
So did the Thirteenth Amendment make the USA more free, or less free?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
There I was thinking it was only theft if you deprive someone of property.
Slashbot^H^H^Hdot usageseems to be that you can only call IP crimes "theft" if they involve claiming material someone else has created as your own, not if you're just copying stuff without permission. No idea why; it's just one of those things...
You dont get the point of the whole thing at all. This is not for searching open source code that you could use.
;-)
This is so that you can detect OS code in your own source code. Presumably if you're managing a commercial software company you'd want to know if your developers have simply been copying code from some OS project.
It can do binaries too if you actually read the thing.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some code I need to obfuscate
I worked at a ruthless company. Part of the culture was to get results as fast as possible and completely ignore things like licenses, rules and laws, if it helped to make money.
We certainly would have violated the GPL in a second, given that one couldn't really prove damage to the other party (aging idealist hippies with beards who were naive enough to give away software with a silly "license").
The ripoff of commercial software was driving me nuts though -- it seemed quite wrong, esp. given that we were raking in the dough and were not paying just because we could easily avoid it through technical measures.
However, part of the "culture" was that we were so busy that we were sloppy about the misdeeds. We wouldn't have had time to cover our tracks.
Such tools would have caught us, so I'm guessing such tools will lead to finding many similar violators.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Actualy thats a bit wrong , the nature of the BSD license allows people to do what the hell they want with it , so in essence you cant abuse the BSD license. .
This is why some people love the BSD license as they see it as total freedom and i have much respect for it myself
I just prefer the GPL way as we get back any changes and thats gaurenteed by the license(if the software is released , i belive its ok not to feed the changes if its an internal tool only)
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
I wonder what would come up if they compared their own source code with GNU grep?
Also, your metaphores are laughable, to say the least. You're one step away from mentioning Hitler...
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Not so much a problem as the point of the license. Freedom of choice is good for you, it allows you to develop actual social responsibility and stuff, instead of simple obediance from fear of punishment.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
How is this "less" free than allowing third parties to not pass the same freedoms to other?
It is less free because it places restrictions. Any practice or method that places restrictions, regardless of motive, restricts freedom. (note, not all restrictions are bad)
Just because it replaces restrictions that happen to coincide with your political ideology does not mean it provides freedom, especially for those who don't subscribe to the same ideology.
Since the use of your code in a commercial project does not directly harm you or the opensource community, then placing any sort of contract on that use is removing freedom.
Please, at least try to understand that underneath all the politics and bullshit there is true freedom. Where an individual is allowed to choose what action to take and how to live life without fear of repercussions from those who don't have the same set of moral values as himself. So long as their actions do not cause direct harm to others, people should be free to do whatever they want.
I don't know, I don't live in the USA and I don't know what the 13th Amendment is.
If the BSD stack was LGPLed, Microsoft would still be free to use it, but at least it would have to cooperate with BSD.
Actually, since a code license is not retroactive, MS would not have to change a thing provided they did not lift a stack that was LGPL'ed.
Disingenuous argument there. There are many ways one can posit that the BSD lic. os 'more free' than the GPL. Not the dubious 'only if free means removing freedoms' way you assert.
'More free in that it imposes fewer restrictions' is one simple example. The OP definately put quotes round 'free' in his original comment acknowledging that free is often a complex issue WRT licenses.
I would even suggest that your assertion that the BSD lic. removes freedom is false in that the original code that was imported into the hypothetical closed project isn't closed by the same project, it still roams free and available. Only the closed projects utilisation of that code is never released - there is nothing 'lost' in this.
"If my code is helping someone, why wouldn't that person help me?"
Believe it or not, there are philosophies that advocate helping people just because it's the right thing to do. It's called "anything in western philosophy but Hobbes". You should read it sometime.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
http://users.frii.com/gosplow/13th.html This one?
No, the BSD license is more free than the GPL. It gives users the right to do anything they want with the code.
How so? I'm the user, how does the BSD license give me the right to do anything with the code that MS copied into Windows?
BSDL fanatics seem to have this confusion about giving users rights vs. giving Microsoft rights. The GPL gives users rights, the BSDL gives Microsoft rights. The rights to deny users rights through their EULA.
But when those restrictions are simply to prevent the addition of other restrictions, they result in less restrictions overall.
I am trolling
Now all we need are bots to automatically scan S/W and send out C&D notices -- it would be like the perfect mirror image of the RIAA version.
70e808a22cb027cde4a6abddf6435d55
The code MS copied is not BSD code any more. You have the right to do whatever you want to do on BSD code, including forking it and changing its license to GPL or whatever. THAT's being free.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Yeah, but helping people who actively work against me is against my personal philosophy.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
For the submitter to assume that Microsoft has GPL code is nothing short of trolling. Internally, Microsoft has a strict policy against GPL code. And by the tons of good programmers they have, it is ludicrous to suggest that they need GPL code anyway. The core Windows kernel, IIS, .NET,etc are so different from their OSS counterparts that it would be impossible to import algorithms, let alone code.
As for the BSD code, that code has been in the kernel for over a decade. AFAIK, that code has been rewritten and changed several times. They can't change the external characteristics as that would break backwards compatibility.
On the other hand, what I would like to know is how many OSS projects reverse engineer Microsoft products to implement functionality. It doesn't matter whether Microsoft's EULAs are moral or not - once you agree to one, you are legally and morally bound to follow it.
Don't like it? Dont use MS products.
Did anyone notice that the Firefox popup blocked notification changed to look like the IE 6 SP2 blocker?
Yes, actually, it would. Restricting my freedom to kill is what we call exchanging freedom for security. And BSD is more free because it places fewer restrictions on those it affects. Unless you're talking about monetary cost, in which case it's still more free, because releasing source code on a for-profit project results in a reduction of profit (effectively a monetary price on the use of GPLed code).
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
This is the fallacy of OSS. The GPL is not enforceable. If you publish source code then you have given it away. You cannot erase peoples minds. If you don't want it used don't publish it.
Cue the buzzer.
BZZZT Wrong.
The GPL is a very strict license. It does not "prevent" restriction. In fact you can go use the same code base that MS used in its stack and do whatever you want with it. Are you now trying to advocate that ALL code for EVERYTHING should be opensource?
Seems a little extreme to me.
Face it, BSD is less restrictive as the only restriction it places is giving props. GPL and LGPL place numerous conditions on the use of the code. Regardless of their intent, the are restrictive and thus "less free"
If your app uses a single line of material (code) from a header file belonging to an LGPL library, then your app's binary code can be classified as *derived* work of LGPL based on this criteria:
.jar libaries into their java projects. So at least Apache Foundation isn't screwing over LGPL libraries.
LGPL Section 5 Paragraph 3:
'When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not. Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library. The threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.'
This means it is impractical or virtually impossible to use LGPL library without the binaries of your entire application to be classified as "work that is *BASED* on the library" rather than "work that *USES* the library".
Which means commercial vendors who's software link to LGPL libraries (like c runtime on Linux) must abide by the terms of LGPL relating to derived works (not works that use the library).
Since they are not granting us patent licenses related to their binaries or rights to modify their binaries, they are literally screwing us out of rights they are obligated to provide under the terms of the LGPL.
If products like Bitkeeper linked to LGPL libraries (ie c runtime), then they cannot whine about end-users reverse engineering their product--and their EULA clause prohibiting reverse-engineering is invalid. And even if they have a patent on it, good luck to them trying to enforce it against an end-user of their now LGPL binaries. Richard Stallman is a freakin genious!!!
Prove me wrong. You cannot.
ps
This is why Apache Foundation didn't allow LGPL
you forgot to mention that this should be checked too.
To the 'Ooo Darwin is BSD!' crowd: fuck you. I bet there's a bazillion GNU lines all over OSX.
...seriously, have you looked at how well people respect copyright? Do you expect employees to cease being human when they walk in the door? All it takes is one worker to "download a tarball, extract it, open it in a text editor, copy and past the code", then tell his boss the task is done.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You remind me of a fight I once saw between this skinny hippie guy and this big burly skinhead.
The hippie guy attacked the skinhead screaming, "People need to get along, hate and violence are ruining the world you fucking asshole"
You rhetoric is reminiscent of most left wing fascist.
Um... BSD: release or don't release source code. GPL: release source code.
You're somehow arguing that one option is more than two options. And, interestingly, your agrument benefits from the "for large values of 1 and small values of 2" argument, i.e. that a restriction is somehow a freedom. I give up. Truly, your wisdom is mighty. I realize now that ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery, and doublethink is doubleplus good. Thank you.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
...of bribing a Microsoftie to "accidentally" include some of the Linux kernel source into Longhorn.
Actively? They take your open code and somehow remove it from the body of common knowledge? Neat.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
The BSD license allows you to use the code freely. It also allows you to remove that freedom from others, by converting the code into a closed-source product. So it gives you one additional freedom: the right to deny freedom to anyone else.
Obviously, people who want to make use of this additional freedom are very much in favour of it. Those on the receiving end of proprietory software tend to be less well disposed to giving away this one extra freedom.
The GPL is less free than BSD because it does not grant the licensee as many freedoms.
No, the GPL is more free because it does not permit anyone to take away anyone else's freedom. Say I write some GPL code. You are free to use it, modify it, sell it if you want, but you may not tell any later user or developer that they can't enjoy the same freedoms you have enjoyed.
Scenario 1: Person A writes some GPL code. Person B uses it and modifies it, and releases the code. Everyone else is free to use that code as they wish, as long as they don't try to restrict anyone else's rights.
Scenario 2: Person A writes some BSD-licensed code. Person B uses it, modifies it and starts selling it as a shrink-wrapped product. All his users are restricted by EULAs. They can't have the source code, they can't legally share the program, and they're stuck if B discontinues the product.
In which scenario do you think the licensees have more freedom? It's free as in liberty, not free as in 'free ride'.
#define struct union
Do I really need to point out how Microsoft is working against us?
Hint: it's not about lifting FLOSS code.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Er, what's "left wing" about some good selfishness?
The person who I care about the most, is me. If I do something for you, I expect something in return. Be that money, fame, bug reports, improvements or even just satisfaction -- doesn't matter. But, I would hate it if my efforts are used against me.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
... but I'd SWEAR that Mac OS X has BSD code in it.
Note however that the TCP/IP work was done under a DARPA grant, paid for by the US government, so it is not only legal, but even moral right for Microsoft to use this code.
Not only that but whenever I've been present when someone has asked the people who wrote the code if it's OK for Microsoft to use it, they didn't say "we can't stop them", they said "we want them to use it".
I don't see how you can possibly come up with a more ethical or moral justification for it than that.
koders
It's good that a company is offering a comprehensive solution for this, and one that already contains lots of FOSS code.
Contrary to the company's claims of being "groundbreaking", that's not new: plagiarism detectors, code duplication detectors, etc. have been around for a while.
The reason I said "regardless of whether you think it is good or bad" was to ignore discussions such as this.
It is very simple: the BSD license is more free, because it grants more freedoms.
Yes, to take this to its logical extreme means that anarchy is maximum freedom. No, this would not be a good thing; but by trying to argue that the GPL is more free (when you should have said that it is better for the user of Person A's software) you have already accepted that unlimited freedom isn't such a good thing anyway.
Free Software is not about granting the right to use your code in exchange for "testing and bug fixes." Free Software is about encouraging the spirit of voluntary cooperation. Using the GPL to punish others for their autonomy is completely bogus.
Do I really need to point out how Microsoft is working against us?
wait, where is my tinfoil hat.
MS is working for MS, not against anybody. There is a HUGE difference.
Reimplementation under other licenses of software under free or open source licenses is permitted. That is one of the essential freedoms of free software, and it's one way in which such source code differs from commercial source code.
With commercial source code ("community license", "shared source license", etc.), companies usually try to attach restrictions on your ability to re-implement the APIs, or even on your ability to compete with them. Sun's Java licenses are an example of such behavior.
That's why it's perfectly fine for employees to look at open source or free software, as long as they don't actually copy it into a closed source product. What you need to be scared stiff about is if your employees look at source code that is not under a FOSS license, because the risks of that are enormous.
? who moded this offtopic ... That makes no sense.
I am more paranoid daily about the influx of comerical articals on slashdot .People who say anything negative about the companys are mysteriously getting modded offtopic. I have seen this about 20 times atleast .
The above post to me seems 100% ontopic , it is about the company who runs the product , and it rightfully questions their lauralls(not their hardys though).
Im a robot your a robot , That however is a row-boat
The GPL doesn't grant you the right to get back any changes. Only some.
Fine moderation work their .. offtopic my arse you idiots , it couldn't be more ontopic .
Trolls with mod points?
Or paid storys ?
You downloaded a tarball, you extracted it, you opened it in a text editor, you copied and pasted the code. And then you tell your boss that you did that "on accident"? Can anyone explain this to me?
Muscle memory?
By your argument, repealing laws against murder would also result in greater freedom. Yeah, sure, code is not the same as murder, but it's the same logic and hopefully you can see its absurdity.
this tool can help you to make sure you change just enough the stolen implementation so that the tool won't detect the similarities, giving you an approval stamp without too much work :)
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
Yes. But can you imagine where we would be without BSD licensed code? First of all, projects like Mac OSX wouldn't be possible, and if you wanna get technical, neither would Linux in its current form. And Microsoft would have never had a decent TCP/IP stack...do you remember how horrible networking in Windows was in the old days? The computing world is better because of BSD licensed code, and it's the free nature of the license that allows that to happen.
The World is Yours.
Despite your best attempt at selfishness, you fail.
Expecting something in return for your labor is fine. Unfortunately, this is not at all what the GPL is about. If you write code and someone takes it, it is fine to want any improvements returned to you. You restrict personal freedom when you tell the other person that they must also demand the same return because they started with your code. Thus, limiting the freedom of anyone but the creator of the project. It is assimilation via licensure. Very much like communal living. (I was born on a commune and raised there until the age of 12)
At which point does removing freedoms "to ensure the freedom of others" (ie: what the GPL does over the BSDL) stop "ensuring freedom" and start oppressing ?
It's not as hard as you make out to use GPL code by accident, especially library code. Consider the plight of a poor developer, forced with unmeetable deadlines and a fire-breathing boss with a P45 waiting (I've been there, it happens).
He needs to implement a specific piece of functionality and fast. He searches the web and finds some 'sample' code and thinks "just the job".
Copy.. paste..
You now have GPL code in your application, copied and pasted direct. Why? Malicious and callous hatred of free software? No, an accident. Carelessness. A quick fix in a tight spot.
It happens. I've seen it.
They say so here:
Use the software development kit (SDK), which supports more than 1,900 UNIX APIs and migration tools (conforming to the IEEE 1003.1-1990 standard), such as make, rcs, yacc, lex, cc, c89, nm, strip, gbd, as well as the gcc, g++, and g77 compilers.
The wonderful thing about free as in freedom, is that it requires the choice. If you do not have the choice to not be free, then you can never truly be free.
GPLed code is ultimately about forcing all users to abide by certain rules, with little choice (yes, you can choose not to use the code, but that is really your only choice. With BSDed code, you have that choice, to do with it as you please, to let others or not, it's all up to you, as it should be, without someone else forcing you to do their will.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
So this article got me thinking about what it would take to make a program which automatically scans binary software for OS code. I imagine it is possible but it would be an interesting programming problem.
One early thought is that you could scan for matching arithmetic operations. Walk through the assembely and keep a table of register contents/memory contents/constant loads to regenerate algabraic operations. By transforming these operations to some canonical form one could match algabraic operations from the source regardless of compiler optimization or variable renaming.
Of course there are several problems with this approach. First implemented in the obvious fashion it is horribly slow (like N^2M^2 N=binary size M=Source code files). Secondly some programs may do very little explicit algabraic manipulations. Finally common snippets of array bounds logic or pointer arithmetic may trigger false positives.
I wonder if there is a better solution?
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
The individual licensee is irrelevant. The GPL is there to ensure the software remains free for everyone.
Hopefully you can see the ridiculousness of resorting to comparisons to murder to prove your point.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
BSD means that code written as free can some day be made not free. How does that mean the code is free? Try http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
You grabbed a random project off freshmeat that you knew was included in FreeBSD so you assumed it was BSD licensed without checking?
I am trolling
I'm really tired of this groupthink.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
A restriction does not add freedom, that is not the way it works. The GPL is more restrictive than the BSD, thus less free.
You seem to think that in your example 2 instantly when someone takes and makes a closed-source derivative that the BSD version stops existing - this example has always been used and is still stupid. OpenSSH exists still while there are closed-source SSH suites, why aren't we all stuck with the SSHCS SSH?
You cannot magically take away the BSD version of something, so it's still there for anyone to use, even make multiple competing programmes based on the same BSD code. The BSD stuff isn't going to disappear just cause there is someone making money off the code.
Your imaginary freedom of editing code is only one that GPL users believe in, stop trying to tell us that you're right and we're wrong because you said so. You're as bad as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormans for that nonsense, leave our beliefs be.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
quickly, mod parent down as troll or flamebait, there is nothing 'Insightful' about it - it is the perfect case of a Trollish Flamebait and this sort of thing is not harmless either because he can be later quoted or referenced to. What he is talking about is paramount to applying a patent not a copyright and a GPL compatible license.
You can't handle the truth.
I've got to say, this guy Timothy who chooses these headlines has got to be the biggest Anti-MSFT FUD maker out there. Talk about unfair, biased reporting. Did Bill Gates kill your first born or something?
I'd put the source for the components out there.
... I develop code in Smalltalk. Its __always__ been open source.)
What I DO with them, my value adding application, doesn't __have__ to be open source. (Well
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
There are at least two ways:
1) Company A is honest but unknowingly employs dishonest programmer B. B uses GPL code to save time. Company A is accidentally using GPL code (ie if they knew they were using it, they would take it out).
2) Honest programmer C downloads code but can't find a license, or thinks the code is LGPL, or downloads it, copies the source (but not the license) somewhere, forgets it, then sees it on his disk 2 years later. Thinking it's internal code, he uses it without checking for a license.
Actually that's more than two ways, but you can see how it might happen.
you accept that unlimited freedom isn't such a good thing anyway when you agree to the protection of the copyright (I am a rabbid copyright supporter.)
You can't handle the truth.
"Mistakenly using GPL code"? How can anyone use GPL code on accident?
A company can easily use GPL code by mistake; it just takes one developer to download some code and file off the copyright notice. Granted, if it's a particularly egregious violation then management should catch it.
I know this was sort of a joke but I think we have already done better. The project manager for Caldera of the LKP project dhas indicated he is willing to testify to the fact that the LKP code in SCO used a process for development that would make it a derived work of the Linux kernel and thus subject to GPL. Sworn testimony from a former employee in a position of authority is generally more useful then output from a tool.
"'More free in that it imposes fewer restrictions' is one simple example."
Fewer restrictions to who? By imposing fewer restrictions like in BSD, you impose more restrictions on people who get the software from a third party. And now it's suddenly less free because those people have less freedom.
In other words: whether the BSD license is more free completely depends on one's view. It's useless to slander GPL with "OMG BSD is free and GPL is t3h evil and viral LOlololololol!!!!111"-type of posts, and frankly I'm sick and tired of them.
OH NOES TEH DLL ARE ENCRYPTED!!1one
The code must be decrypted at some point in order to be run. If what you said was true, we would have uncrackable copy protection.
Your scheme is a variant of DRM, and like all DRM schemes is fundamentally flawed, because the person you are trying to keep the data from, is the exact same person that you are making the data available to.
> Muscle memory?
That explains why I always seem to end up at slashdot.org when I first open my browser.
GPL is freedom for code (always open), BSD is freedom for developers (can do what they want). One isn't more free than the other, they just have different goals.
"But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
Oddly enough, they aren't willing to BSD their own code.
Go figure...
In the short term there would undoubtedly be much opposition
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I don't know if you've ever considered the revenue generated from having the desktop operating system monopoly being developed in the US, but perhaps you should...
Great point, and everyone reading this should absolutely be aware that Microsoft has considered it, and the US government has considered it, and they all know about it, and it's a filter that they listen to everything you say to them about Microsoft and Open Source through.
There's a very real "he's a son-of-a-bitch, but he's OUR son-of-a-bitch" effect.
No, the GPL is more free because it does not permit anyone to take away anyone else's freedom. Being able to take away somebody's freedom is a freedom in itself. The BSD licence provides this freedom. The GPL does not. Therefore, the BSD license provides a freedom the GPL does not, meaning it is more free.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
Essentially, the business model (of having development in the US or similar countries) is a failing one and, as such, if companies do not wish to find themselves disappearing - they need to adopt to the changing market or die.
Sound familiar? It's the key point made by people on here about the RIAA and MPAA's business models. If it doesn't work any more, it's time to change it.
Unfortunately it's really easy to rationalise it when you have nothing to do with that market (a la music and the RIAA) but when it starts to directly affect you (outsourcing) then the arguments become more emotional.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
In which scenario do you think the licensees have more freedom? It's free as in liberty, not free as in 'free ride'. This entire discussion isn't a question of the licensees, but the licenser.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
Well, if I follow your logic:
Country with law: don't kill people.
Country without law: kill or don't kill people.
Conclusion: a country without law is more free than a country with law.
Rediculous comparison? Maybe. But it's the same logic as yours.
I do hope you don't believe that Windows' TCP/IP stack came from BSD. The version in NT 3.1 was, but that was 12 years ago. Microsoft rewrote it to use native interfaces instead of a STREAMS hack over a decade ago! The only BSD code left is in old utilities like nslookup and ftp.
Quite honestly, I doubt even BSD even uses the old BSD TCP/IP stack.
dom
Hey, hey, hey -- it's CopyLEFT!
OK, take it like this. Each person has a freedom count. Each possibility is a point added to the freedom count.
Consider a piece of work that 10 developers would like to work with. Developers A-J. The first revision of code is available. Now developer A takes the code and changes it (forks the work).
BSD licensed:
9 freedom points for developers B-J to use the original code but not the forked project. Developer A gets one freedom point for access to the original, one point for access to the fork and one point for being able to close off the fork to others.
TOTAL: 12 Freedom Points
GPL licensed:
10 freedom points for developers A-J to use the original code. 10 freedom points for developers A-J to use the forked code.
TOTAL: 20 Freedom Points
So, therefore, GPL creates MORE FREEDOM than the BSD. If fact, only if 5 developers wanted to fork the work would the BSD give the same total freedom. But now you have lots of forked projects. That was what killed UNIX to begin with.
Some user programs (like ftp and ping) are taken from BSD, but they're hardly big enough to be worth worrying about, IMO.
But leaving freedom for others means there is more freedom.
If you remove freedom from one other person, and one other person only, THEN the total freedom works out even.
Otherwise, there is less overall freedom.
Taking freedom from 100 other people does not give 100 freedoms to you, just one: the freedom to take someone's freedom. Meanwhile there are 100 unfree people, so the total freedom has reduced.
finding matching pieces of DNA in science is mostly done by comparing Pieces of the sequence you are investigating with huge databases containing all known dna sequences, and trying if the match is bigger than the initially found piece.
This method allows for naturally occurring mutations, deletions and additions. You will have to tweak some parameters (a match of 20 letters in dna is pretty significant, in code it is not) to get meaningfull results, but you will find the cases whwere somebody has done a search and replace on the variables and passed it off as his own work.
Unfortunately this method requires big clusters of computers to execute the queries quickly...
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Yes it is. It is code copyrighted by the regents of [...], and licensed to Microsoft under the BSD license. The only way in which it is no longer BSD code is that Microsoft license it you under a much more restrictive license, and incidentally don't supply you with the source. Nontheless, the code is still not Microsoft intellectual property - it continues to be owned by its originators.
For one of our second year programming assignments, our lecturer posted a bunch of example code that she used during lecture.
:D Still am! *shakes fist*
:D Google does a decent job for those who don't have access to a fancy OSS database.
It was sockets in C. The code was very poorly written, it actually contained a couple of GOTO statements. One of the files contained a typo in the commenting, so I figured... Let's google it!
And wouldn't you know it, several hundred results.
I'm not sure what I was angry at: Our lecturer not giving any indication that she didn't write the code, or not citing her sources, or giving us such crappy code to start with...
But needless to say, I was angry.
So, to tie this to the topic, nothing works better than searching for typos!
- shazow
Man, what the fuck are you on?
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
Restricting my freedom to kill is what we call exchanging freedom for security
..it is exchanging liberty for security.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty/
The problem is that outsourcing is to up profits not save a dying company or to change the bussiness model , half these companys that are outsourcing labour are quite profitable . . . .
,Most likely risk loosing my job.
My company for example saw a nice surge in profits last year , In-spite of it they outsourced 2000 jobs a month later and alot of my co-workers are now unemployed , the luck ones like me kept their jobs but our future is uncertain
The CEO was awarded a rather hefty Pay rise and bonus (enough to employ 10 people for two years based on average wages)
So don't use that failing bussiness model crap , ethicaly belive what you want
However the reality is that big bussiness dosn't give a flying f**k so long as they can maximise profits , there are no safe-gaurds to protect the workers.
I harbour no grudge against those who get the work , I would do the same in their position.
If we sit here and take it very soon America will suffer a brain drain or at worst a Depresion to rival that of the Great depresion.
our economy is a mess , more and more skilled work is outsourced
Very soon the only jobs in the USA will be service industrys and utilities (Things that require local workers)
The Trend is not restricted to the IT industry either.
I posts anonymously as if I posted as myself I could get in alot of trouble
How do you know you are using the same code base MS uses? They might just have taken a single function or two and done the rest themselves, and you have no way of knowing because you have no access to the source.
I am trolling
yea, because everyone knows ms is nothing more than a front for a software company. Their record for stealing and crushing 'real' companies has been noted by most. This tool probably won't help find illegal activities however in their code.
:)
However, since we already 'know' that ms steals code, ideas, in violation of gpl, open source (linux specifically), copywrite and patent infringment, then it is obviouse that it is time to 'make-them' open up their code (like sco is/was trying to do) in a court of law.
This would not only help kill the evil giant, but would allow the (world) community (oss) to make it easier to switch over to software that will be more user friendly, without waiting for criminals like bill gates to stifel more advances.
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
Does this tool presume that the binary produced by gcc would be equal to the binary produced by VC6 or VC7 or Watcom or Borland Builder?
Either this "tool" is going to have an absolutely HUGE hash table in it, or it's going to presume only one or two possible compilers
Then again, if it's going ASCII compares against the source code, GREP and it's cousins is your friend.
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
I forsee a market for companies that contract, worried perhaps that the people they hired saved time and money by dropping in a little pre-made OSS code. Yes you can have an agreement with them that makes them liable but I can easily imagine why such agreements won't let the CFO sleep well at night.
Everyone know OSS is a steaming pile of some of the shittiest code ever belched forth by retarded zealot monkeys. Go with Windows, zealots. At least then you know you're getting a quality product, and not some shitty-ass crap code written by retarded zealots. LinSux blows big hairy balls, faggots.
Sure they can, and it isn't even abuse, it's the intention of the authors.
I wouldn't worry too much about the proprietary alternatives crushing the free ones that they can use the code of, either - consider XFree/Xorg vs. proprietary X servers. Or Free/Net/OpenBSD vs. BSD/OS. In both cases, the free alternatives prevailed, and the proprietary ones mostly died.
So Microsoft hates the GPL because they can't use the code?
I wonder how BSD people feel, since they can't use GPLed code [without jumping through the same hoops as a commercial company at least] either.
In fact, no one can use GPLed code unless they drink the cool-aid or jump through all sorts of hoops.
there is nothing wrong with outsourcing. outsourcing is in fact GREAT (my business exists soley because companies outsource stuff)
offshoring is not a bad thing. outsourcing means hiring a different company to do a task. offshoring means moving your department outside the country.
My comparison is not ridiculous; your logic is.
Both the same thing's one firms profit gain but in the end the workers loose out , they lose long term benefits in general .
They also lose their power of union in many areas.
Would be interesting to run this tool's code through this tool. I'm sure there's GPL'd code cut&pasted somewhere. :0)
By imposing fewer restrictions like in BSD, you impose more restrictions on people who get the software from a third party. And now it's suddenly less free because those people have less freedom.
But you, the person who licensed the software, have more freedom. The licensees don't matter, because thats not what this discussion is about. The discussion is about how much freedom the licenser is afforded by the license.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
Country with law: don't kill people.
Country without law: kill or don't kill people.
Conclusion: a country without law is more free than a country with law.
Your conclusion is correct. The country without law is indeed more free than the country with law in this instance. Thank you for proving his point.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
So you keep saying - less freedom for what? The original BSD'ed code is still available. The person who took in the BSD code for the non-free project hasn't un-freed the orginal code. It still exists as free usable code. The new, closed, project isn't free, but is hasn't somehow slurped the orginal free code out of existence. With or without the new closed project the original free code still exists. It maintains status quo.
In other words: whether the BSD license is more free completely depends on one's view
Agreed, but only 2 posts ago you were asserting that the BSD lic. is only free if you "define free as [...]to remove freedom". You didn't allow the possiblity of point of view at all. You said it was the "only way".
It's useless to slander GPL with "OMG BSD is free and GPL is t3h evil and viral LOlololololol!!!!111"
If you thought my post was attempting to assert that the GPL is viral (I have never asserted that and have been involved in 2 GPLed projects - happily) or comprising leetspeak then frankly I think you have comprehension issues
While I think companies should be encouraged to comply with open source licenses I don't think it is in the spirit of the open source comunity to be license police. It seems like a distraction and a waste of time. I've already gotten flak from management for using GPL packages because it was unclear what this meant to our product. My manager's words were "We don't want the GPL to "poison" our software and we can't afford to hire a lawyer to be sure we are safe".
The whole license issue is getting more confusing and divisive with every passing year. I was not able to make a clear defense of my project to my manager.
I think it's a bad sign when the best that the open source community has to offer is now suspected of being "poison". I realize this is ignorance on the part of management, but it still reflects a problem with Open Source Advocates sending THE WRONG MESSAGE.
Yours,
Noah
Hehehe. I love irony...been waiting for this since the inception of thou's crusade. 'Tis the most rightous of pursuits for all to share...HEY!! Did that SOB steal our !*&#$ code!!?!?!?!
If you got the software from a third party then you're *still* a licenser.
"If you thought my post was attempting to assert that the GPL is viral (I have never asserted that and have been involved in 2 GPLed projects - happily) or comprising leetspeak then frankly I think you have comprehension issues"
I'm not specifically talking about your post. I'm talking about all anti-GPL-pro-BSD slander posts on Slashdot in general.
This is the distinction (once again) between freedom of the CODE (that is to say, that code itself carried rights and freedoms itself that people cannot infringe upon) and freedom of the DEVELOPER (that is to say, the developer has rights and freedoms that no code license presumes to infringe upon).
If there were no laws regarding copyright or other intellectual property, you'd effectively have all code released under public domain, to which the BSD license is very similar. That is absolute developer freedom. Person A releases some source code; Person B is free to modify that code and not release the changes; but anybody else can still use the code Person A released! Person B hasn't taken that code away from anyone.
The GPL is actually a very restrictive license in the sense that it imposes many responsibilities on people to assure that the CODE, in all of its changing forms and permutations, always remains free, at the sacrifice of some developers' freedoms (or rather, at an additional responsibility to developers). That is, not just the code that was released is still free to use, but that anything based on that code must also be free to use - it pulls MORE code into free availability, giving OTHER people more code; but in doing so, it limits what some developers can do with that code (limits their freedoms), since they may not otherwise be able or allowed to do what is required to use the GPL'd code.
To use a very loose political metaphor: BSD or public domain licenses are like anarchy (freedom of the individual from imposed responsibility); GPL type licenses are like communism (freedom of the product via imposed responsibility). Both have admirable goals in mind, and both have their flaws. Pick your poison.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Script:
- unpack leaking Windows Source,
1) emerge -f world or apt-get the source
2) unpack
3) run against IP Amplifier
4) reply to slashdot before the story becomes uncommentable!
A blog I run for the wealth
OK, then you should move to a country where people can kill you for no reason, because that country is more free, right?
...and when did you stop working for Microsoft?
...(I don't DO "open"), but I happen to know of a really good free software detector.
The issue is over use of Gnu Public License (GPL) code which requires that use (beyond that permissible as fair use) of the GPL code in a proprietary (non-GPL) application used by the public requires the proprietary application's source to be released under the GPL. It is for this reason - companies wanting to keep their code proprietary - that they want to be sure they are not using GP licensed code; it doesn't matter if they use BSD licensed code.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Well, what exactly is more free? Giving everybody freedom, or ensuring nobody's freedom is taken away? Freedom is a human invention. There is no such thing as "human rights". It is something we made up, unlike laws of nature such as gravity. You cannot compare the two. I submit that freedom is relative. Am I more free if there are NO laws? Or am I more free if there ARE laws? I think it depends on your perspective, though most people would probably be uncomfortable without laws. I think this is similar to GLP vs BSD. GPL is laws and BSD is no laws (not entirely accurate, but you get the point). GPL ensures nobody's freedom is taken away. BSD ensures everybody has freedom. So, do you want control at the expense of some personal freedom (GPL) or do you want personal freedom at the expense of control (BSD)? This is from the developer's perspective. From the end user's perspective, the GPL probably wins because it guarantees access to the source and any modifications. I personally like the BSD license because it allows everybody to use my code without any strings attached. But that's just me. Use whatever license you are most comfortable with.
Do you want Freedom Fries with that?
I just searched the comments and found no mention of BlackDuck They have been in this business since 2002.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
If you poke around in the win32/ and wince/ directories in the Perl source you'll find a handful of C source and header files which are:
* (c) 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
* Portions (c) 1999 ActiveState Tool Corp, http://www.activestate.com/
*
* You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
* License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.
These came about as a result of work ActiveState did for Microsoft (remember all that unnecessary wailing and nashing of teeth about ActiveState "selling out Perl" to Microsoft?) Yes, sometimes a little Open Source work leaks out of Redmond.
What marketing BS! Use Google if you don't understand what BS stands in. So there are a series of tags in open source software that they look for to see how popular some code is? I guess they hope to have an IPO like Google, that I believe. Google searches for stuff, so there software does too, must be every bit as good.
Or it is just their marketing guy.
For a nerd like me, it was not possible to understand from their web site to figure out the basics of how they hope to solve this technical problem. It certainly isn't using tags.
It would be good if there was a way to indepependantly test this emerging market (apparently www.blackducksoftware.com was the first in these waters). An open test of both would be cool.
No, the GPL is more free because it does not permit anyone to take away anyone else's freedom. Say I write some GPL code. You are free to use it, modify it, sell it if you want, but you may not tell any later user or developer that they can't enjoy the same freedoms you have enjoyed.
Yes they can. The original sourcecode is still free (which are the same freedoms everyone else has).
Come on, I'm really going to pay for this information? Yeah you know, while I'm at it I'll just pay for the BBC as well..what a joke, AND an insult.
Unfortunately it's really easy to rationalise it when you have nothing to do with that market (a la music and the RIAA)
Funny, I'd have thought that being the customers of said market made us integral to its success...
yep.
And some of the networking library files (dlls) in Windows actually state in the comment that poritions are Copyright to BSD, or whoever else.
Unlike OSS who don't credit anyone for their blatent theft of source code from BSD.