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.

Comments

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective

[jdmetz]

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.

Re:windows already has some

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Why hasn't anyone gone after MS for this?

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...

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective

[FooBarWidget]

"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?

Be careful of FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation

[MartinG]

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.

Re:I wonder...

[FidelCatsro]

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.