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.
appears to be the whole point of this tool anyway.
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...
"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?
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.
> 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.
What the fuck are you talking about ?
GPL is a based on copyright. You can't copy/paste the code.
Re-implementing the algos is fine, and have always been.
It is 100% FUD to pretend that code become tainted because you looked a GPL source. Don't spread this. Microsoft would LOVE people to beleive that. It would end up like this in interviews:
- Did you contributed to an open-source project ?
- Well, I once fixed a bug in mozilla
- Sorry, our lawyers said we can't hire you
- Why ?
- You would contamine our IP
Repeat after me. GPL is COPYRIGHT. There is no IP involved. There have NEVER been.
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"
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.
Good. So long as all they are doing is gathering ideas there is nothing wrong with that. Its like me reading harry potter and then writing a book about wizards. Of course I should be allowed to.
Next you'll be telling us that someone could just look at an application working and then write their own implementation incorporating some of the same ideas. Should they be stopped from that as well? Oh wait, they can be. That's what software patents are often used for.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Glad to know im not the only one worrying about this.The tool has an anual use fee in the tens of thousands , now the only people using this are not going to be companys who worry that GPL code may slip in(most will have a fairly good clue if it has and not want it publicised) its going to be people who want to try and make some money with patent litegation.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
...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
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
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.
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