The Open-Source Detector

Re:windows already has some by jeroenb · 2005-05-04 00:31 · Score: 3, Informative

Because the BSD license explicitly allows them to do this.

Re:windows already has some by imemyself · 2005-05-04 00:31 · Score: 1, Interesting

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!

GPL violations! by jeroenb · 2005-05-04 00:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

appears to be the whole point of this tool anyway.

Re:GPL violations! by Jim_Callahan · 2005-05-04 00:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Fair enough, I guess. Way to streamline the process of flooding the nation with pointless lawsuits. Maybe between this and medical malpractice, we'll finally be buried under a mile of paper and preserved for future generations of africans to excavate, like in that children's book I read once. Forgot the title.

--
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by jdmetz · 2005-05-04 00:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Bill_the_Engineer · 2005-05-04 00:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

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...

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...

No Gurantee Against reimplentation by neomage86 · 2005-05-04 00:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

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 ;-)

Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by Speare · 2005-05-04 00:41 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Um, last time I checked, this is a quite reasonable approach. You can paraphrase your book report in school, you can paraphrase your predecessor's speech, you can take photographs from famous vistas, and you can rewrite your own closed code inspired from Open Source algorithms.

Source code is protected by copyright-- that is, literal or near-literal copies containing the essence of expression. Open Source code doesn't require that reverse engineering must be done in a clinical clean-room black-box methodology. That's kinda the POINT of Open Source: show people how it's done.

--
[ .sig file not found ]
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by kagemaru · 2005-05-04 00:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Usually the key to things is not the actual implementation used, but the algorithm behind it.

That's fine. Algorithms cannot/should not be copyrighted or patented.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by Jim_Callahan · 2005-05-04 00:43 · Score: 2

Heh. Soon someone will write a 'Gpl encrypter' that does this automatically. Whee, a new version of encryption wars!

--
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by Erwos · 2005-05-04 00:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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."

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Reputable colleges and universities do exactly that sort of check in CS courses - there are any number of tools designed to check for cheating, and they are not fooled by anything so trivial as changing variable names or swapping a couple statements. They are pretty good at catching cheaters, too.

You are correct in that it can't check "some [random] binary", but this tool was made to run against source.

I'm trying to remember where I'm not allowed to reimplement other people's ideas to begin with, though.

-Erwos

--
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-04 00:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

> 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 by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-04 00:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

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

I don't understand how this differs from the BitKeeper situation. Reverse engineering is OK. And it sure is a hell of a lot easier if you get source code.

In fact, if reverse engineering from GPL code was not allowed within the GPL, the GPL could be used by unscrupulous people to protect their algorithms against reverse engineering and reimplementation. Just publish the source code, and no one can ever again claim they had a "clean room" reimplementation.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by strider44 · 2005-05-04 00:54 · Score: 1

firstly, reimplementing the same ideas or even the same algorithm is fine, as long as you don't copy-paste the code.

secondly, it's pretty damned easy to detect (using computerised algorithms) that someone has changed variable names, stylistic differences etc. That is very very easily done.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by MartinG · 2005-05-04 00:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 .@adgimnoprstu
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by Chris+Kamel · 2005-05-04 00:59 · Score: 1, Interesting

decided to read the "hidden" replies first before replying myself and found it's all been said already.
But why is the dumb comment being replied to at +5 while the truly insightful AND correct replies are at +3 max

--
The following statement is true
The preceding statement is false
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by strider44 · 2005-05-04 00:59 · Score: 1

as elaboration:

The first thing to do when comparing two source files is throw out all variable names and stylistic choices and convert them to a specific format and style. This means it doesn't matter if you change "speed" to "velocity" it's still trivial to catch automatically. It also doesn't matter if you go:

int main()
{
char * message = "hello world";
printf("%s", message);
}

or

int main() { char * message = "hello world"; printf("%s", message); }

it means exactly the same thing to the computer.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by tolan-b · 2005-05-04 01:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

As far as I understand it, the GPL has a clause saying that any patents that cover the code being distributed must be licensed for everyone's free use. That's not the case with Microsoft's shared source.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2005-05-04 01:25 · Score: 1

I'm trying to remember where I'm not allowed to reimplement other people's ideas to begin with, though.

Ah, you must have missed that memo. It's the one that says that, once you implement one version of an idea, you own all possible implementations of it. It's the same one that said software patents are a great idea, "Intellectual Property" really exists and something about AYBABTUSC.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by logicnazi · 2005-05-04 01:39 · Score: 1

The real answer is that these situations are legally questionable. I'm not sure what the result of an actual court case about someone who copies an single algorithm (and not overall code organization) from copyrighting code. However I do know that when companies reimplement another companies copyrighted code they make sure to go out of their way not to hire anyone who has looked at the original just to make sure they have no copyright problems. Even if you are ultimately able to win such a copyright suit would still be very complex and expensive.

Thus if you have seen MS source code it is a bad idea to work on a FOSS product as it gives MS legal leverage against any related code you write. Of course with 5 million dollars in lawyers fees you could probably win the case but that wouldn't be much help to most FOSS products.

On the other hand it is quite unlikely that the GNU or OSDF people are going to go after a commercial product which copied an algorithm but not the code itself. Not only do they not have any incentive (they don't benefit by trying to bankcrupt their competitors) but these organizations are generally opposed to the idea that stealing code ideas (i.e. software patents) should be a crime.

--
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by shutdown+-p+now · 2005-05-04 01:46 · Score: 1

Frankly, that's why I never really understood the point of copyright. Copying is bad, but looking and 'paraphrasing' (I apply this word here to code as well as other textual material) is alright, even though fundamentally it's the same thing, only more time-consuming; worse, time thus spent is wasted - you didn't do anything productive in the process. And how exactly that wasted time is beneficial for society as a whole?
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by ajs318 · 2005-05-04 01:47 · Score: 1

But that's the whole point!

Copyrights, and even patents, protect only one particular means to a given end. {In fact a patent can't, shouldn't and never used to be granted if it covers the sole means to an end. Encouraging innovation, see -- if you can't use a flint pressed by a spring against a revolving steel wheel to ignite a vapourised fuel drawn up on a wick, then everyone else has to think of some other way to light their cigarettes. OTOH, if a patent on one kind of cigarette lighter meant nobody else were allowed to make any kind of portable apparatus for establishing ignition of nicotine inhalation devices, that would be stifling competition -- which is a different thing.} Everyone else is free to use any other means to the same end -- and all means to the same end are equally valid, so long as the end was properly specified in the first place.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by mzwaterski · 2005-05-04 02:01 · Score: 3, Informative

For students, paraphrasing is a part of learning. If you can read something that someone else wrote and rewrite it in your own words you probably know the material. If you go and photocopy a page in a book all you've learned is how to make photocopies.
Further, not everything that takes time is wasteful. Copyright is intended to protect the expression of ideas, not the underlying ideas. Thus, you don't protect the idea of love or even the words I love you, but you can protect the expression of love and the words I love you in the context of lyrics to a song possibly with a musical score.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by m50d · 2005-05-04 02:05 · Score: 1

The only thing that matters is whether reimplementations are legally derivatives. This depends on individual countries' laws, but it's certainly not clear-cut non derivative in all cases.

--
I am trolling
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by LMCBoy · 2005-05-04 02:11 · Score: 1

Which is it slashdot? If that's true for MS's source, it's true for any source.

A: In case you haven't noticed, more than one person posts to /., so you can expect to see a variety of opinions and ideas posted in the comments. Some of these ideas may even be in conflict. Shocking, I know.

Second: There is no logical inconsistency here, anyway. As the GP said, the GPL is a license enforcing copyright. Therefore, merely looking at GPL code does not permanently "taint" your mind, it merely prevents wholesale cut-n-paste. These companies, however, are asserting much broader claims than mere copyright. MS would argue that, having viewed their code, you might try to reproduce the "methods and concepts" found therein. From a Copyright point of view, there is nothing wrong with such re-engineering. However, when they sue you, it will be for some other, totally different set of laws that make up the hydra called "IP", such as Patent law, or Trade Secret law.

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by Orion+Blastar · 2005-05-04 02:27 · Score: 1

Well, think about it. Someone wants to write a Word Processor, will Wordperfect, Microsoft, and others who have Word Processors sue them for violating their IP of having a Word Processor first?

There are cases when companies made work-a-likes to Crosstalk, Lotus 123, etc that used the same menu layout, etc, and they eventually won the lawsuit. Not a single bit of source code from the original product.

The only fear is when an 800 Pound Gorilla like Microsoft, who can afford more expensive lawyers than you, sues you for making a product that looks like or has a name like one of theirs. Case in point, Lindows. Rather than pay lawyers fees and fight and appeal the case, Lindows got changed to Linspire, and Microsoft backed off. Microsoft only does this to companies that are making a lot of money, small fish like F/OSS developers who don't even earn $1M USD a year are not worth their lawyer fees.

--
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by strider44 · 2005-05-04 02:45 · Score: 1

Lindows beat Microsoft, got paid off ten million dollars (from memory) to change their name. And no the GPL doesn't cover the interlectual property at all, and there'd be no real motivation for an open source developer to sue a product that reimplemented their algorithms in their own form (besides the fact that there'd be no case that's not worth millions).
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by erlenic · 2005-05-04 02:54 · Score: 1

You do realize that copyright is part of IP law, right? I think what you mean to say is that Microsoft will use patent law to go after people in this type of situation rather than copyright law.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by Randolpho · 2005-05-04 02:58 · Score: 1

The purpose of copyright is artistic preservation, to ensure that the artist who created a work of art is properly credited for his/her creation. Songs (lyrics or music) may be copyrighted. Poems, stories, articles, essays, movies, sculptures, paintings, all these may be copyrighted.

Unfortunately, the purpose of copyright has been twisted by corporate greed to the point where it has become almost like a patent.

--
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by PierceLabs · 2005-05-04 03:06 · Score: 1

This is legal. You can look at an implementation, understand it, and reimplement it. Copyright (which is all an Open Source license grants) only covers a particular expression of an idea - it does not prevent other people from developing the idea again whether or not they looked at some other work for inspiration.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by Jasin+Natael · 2005-05-04 03:28 · Score: 1

Copyright is not just supposed to be for the benefit of the copyright holder -- it is intended to be good for society and humankind in general.

Copyright, historically, is the balance between society's need to allow people to build on previous advances, against its more immediate need to provide an incentive for people to invest in new advancements.

Look at it this way: Why would you even bother to innovate when a less-intelligent or less-inspired individual could immediately take your idea and (without adding value or even fully understanding it), market it as their own? Copyright enforces (or used to enforce) a very good balance between these conflicting goals. If you can benefit from your advances until they become largely irrelevant, trivial, or otherwise fade into the static of history, while still allowing others in your field to build on your ideas (but not your literal product!), that seems like an excellent situation to me. America's founding fathers thought so, too. Now if I could just convince my Congressman...
Jasin Natael

--
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by ArsenneLupin · 2005-05-04 03:36 · Score: 1

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.
Actually, it's even worse than that. For software patents, "independent discovery is no defense", meaning that if you set out to write a drawing program, never ever saw Photoshop in your whole life, but somehow happened to implement some items in a similar way, you could still be sued by Adobe!
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by cahiha · 2005-05-04 03:42 · Score: 2, Informative

Frankly, that's why I never really understood the point of copyright.

The point of copyright is to let people derive commercial rewards from the expression of ideas; copyright does not protect the ideas themselves.

(I apply this word here to code as well as other textual material) is alright, even though fundamentally it's the same thing, only more time-consuming;

No, it's not "fundamentally the same thing". There have been thousands of Mary-with-baby pictures. It's the expression--the actual painting--that is the work. If you create a new painting yourself, it contains the same ideas, but the work is, as you observe, in the actual creation of the painting. That's what copyright is supposed to do.

Patents are designed for protecting ideas themselves; patents are deliberately harder to get and more limited.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by molnarcs · 2005-05-04 03:48 · Score: 1

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.
I know, it's old, but that's exactly what Linus agreed to by using BitKeeper - effectively Linus granted a software patent to BitKeeper when he agreed that no OpenSource replacement (read: software implementing similar functionality) will be written in exchange for using it.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by tolan-b · 2005-05-04 04:38 · Score: 1

so can you explain this paragraph from the preamble in the gpl2? :

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by MartinG · 2005-05-04 05:04 · Score: 1

That's because he entered into an agreement to use the software and so had to abide be those terms. (the "eula")

GNU GPL software does not require you to agree to its terms unless you distribute it because its a copyright license and copyright only covers copying and distribution.

--
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by innocent_white_lamb · 2005-05-04 05:15 · Score: 1

'paraphrasing'... time thus spent is wasted - you didn't do anything productive in the process.

I couldn't disagree more.

I learned to program in C by first reading a book on C and then sitting down with a couple of the old David Ahl Basic Computer Games books and re-writing some of the programs in C.

The programs were small enough to be fairly trivial to re-implement and interesting enough to keep me working at it.

My C programs weren't original but "paraphrases" of the Basic-language games in Ahl's books. And I don't think I wasted my time as I got a reasonably decent understanding of the basics of C from that and had fun while doing it as well.

--
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by shaitand · 2005-05-04 06:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

The reason you are tainted from looking at shared source is the two headed. First the license itself prevents you from utilizing the knowledge with contract law. Second, everything there is software patented.

Copyright does not require a cleanroom implementation. Patents do. Open source code is not patented.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by jbolden · 2005-05-04 08:25 · Score: 1

There are a lot of cases involving paraphrases of copyrighted works being considered derived works. If the courts decide to apply the law to programs even half as stringently as they have to art the GPL will apply far more broadly than almost any programmer considers likely. That's why most legal authorities that have looked at the GPL believe the one area that the FSF is dead wrong on in their FAQs and informal opinions is where the line the courts are likely to draw between "mere aggregation" and "derived work" is.

This effects commercial software less because most commercial libraries have very generious clauses exempting whole classes of derived works (Microsoft visual studio being a very good example), and for most other types of bundling people have a seperate one off license. The GPL does not have such exceptions and one off licenses are very rare.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by jbolden · 2005-05-04 08:31 · Score: 1

Copyright law specifically includes translations and paraphrases. Extend that idea to software.
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation by mr3038 · 2005-05-09 01:31 · Score: 1

Like m50d wrote in another message, the case isn't that clear. It's true that GPL is based on a copyright but the copyright law defines derivative works. For example, a translation of a work is defined to be a derivative and still under the same copyright, so you cannot escape GPL by re-writing the code in another language. For example, you cannot just re-write a Perl algorithm in C# and be done legally. You can use the same algorithm (though it might be covered by a patent you or anybody else has never heard of) but you cannot copy. Where's the difference between the "same algorithm" and "copy" if writing the thing with different words might be counted as a translation? It depends on whom you ask...

--
_________________________
Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:windows already has some by MrByte420 · 2005-05-04 00:37 · Score: 1

...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?

Re:windows already has some by petaflop · 2005-05-04 00:37 · Score: 1, Informative

That's the problem with the BSD license. It allows you to do exactly this, Microsoft are totally within their rights. As a result Microsoft are pretty happy for software to be BSD licensed. See the license text here

It's just the GPL they hate, because they can't use GPL'ed software. See here for example.

I wonder... by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · 2005-05-04 00:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:I wonder... by FidelCatsro · 2005-05-04 01:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:I wonder... by m50d · 2005-05-04 01:06 · Score: 1

No, because it only detects the exact same code - as someone else pointed out above, simply rewriting the OSS code would be enough to defeat it. Very few buffer overflows are written identically. One place you could use it to look for vulnerabilities, though, would be looking for older (vulnerable) versions of libraries in staticly compiled programs

--
I am trolling
Re:I wonder... by McDutchie · 2005-05-04 01:28 · Score: 4, Informative

My employer already uses an internally-developed GPL-scanner tool which is required to be run across all sources before we release a new product version. The company also requires all developers to take yearly training on the issues of OSS and GPL. We do support the ideas of OSS and GPL, and put out OSS offerings of our own, but it would be financially devastating to us if our commercial products were forced to be open-sourced.

It's a widespread and unfortuate myth that your product automatically becomes subject to the GPL if you (accidentally or otherwise) violate the GPL by including GPL'ed code. In such a case, a copyright violation has been committed and you have to remove the code in question, and possibly pay damages -- but your product will not become open source (unless, of course, you choose to make it open source as a way of remedying the license violation).
Re:I wonder... by McDutchie · 2005-05-04 01:31 · Score: 1

Replying to myself because I've been silly. Scratch the part in parentheses of the parent post. The GPL includes a clause that automatically terminates your rights to use the code in question if you violate the GPL, so open-sourcing your product would in fact not remedy anything and would, if anything, be an additional violation.
Re:I wonder... by logicnazi · 2005-05-04 01:49 · Score: 1

Well perhaps in some technical sense but in any realistic sense his would work. For one most copyright holdders aren't going to bother to sue you, Secondly I expect courts will be quite loath to award damages in this case. What the copyright holder intended is now being done so no injunctive relief will be given and it is unlikely you could prove damages for their violation of the GPL.

Finally, one could presumably just assert that it was under the GPL all along and you are just now releasing the code.

--
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Re:I wonder... by m50d · 2005-05-04 02:14 · Score: 1

You can't assert that. GPLed code has to have the GPL copyright notice

--
I am trolling
Re:I wonder... by DustMagnet · 2005-05-04 03:09 · Score: 1

it is unlikely you could prove damages for their violation of the GPL.
I used to worry about this too (it's hard to claim damages for free software), but it turns out the copyright law allows for the choice between actual damages and statutory damages.

You argument still holds. I just wanted to point out a common misconception.

--
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Re:I wonder... by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · 2005-05-04 03:11 · Score: 1

I bet if you used the tool on itself, you'd find parts of grep.
Re:I wonder... by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · 2005-05-04 03:17 · Score: 1

It seems to use fingerprinting and heuristics (as exhaustive searches of this kind are impossible for large projects), aka CodeRank.

True, buffer overflows are numerous, and gdb would be easier to use to find such bugs. However, buffer overflows were just an example. However, if a buffer overflow is found in some part of the code, a "fingerprint" could be developed for that kind of error - something like a regexp for code, but with heuristics and fingerprinting.

Alright, I'll lay off the sci-fi for a while.
Re:I wonder... by zootm · 2005-05-04 03:31 · Score: 1

I hear this argument a lot, and it's got one fatal flaw -- you cannot use GPL code legally without opening your source. This line of argument seems to be along the lines of "of course you can use GPLed code - just don't get caught", and it's always worried me. Correct me if I'm wrong, I frequently am!
Re:I wonder... by CaptKilljoy · 2005-05-04 03:42 · Score: 1

>In such a case, a copyright violation has been committed and you have to remove the code in question, and possibly pay damages.

That doesn't change a thing! While that's better than having to open source their codebase, those consequences are quite severe. Doing a recall and emergency fix would be extremely expensive in terms of cost and in terms of customer satisfaction and confidence.

Sad as it is, for the grandparent's poster's company, running the GPL code scanner is still the right thing to do.
Re:I wonder... by Spy+der+Mann · 2005-05-04 03:54 · Score: 1

Of course, this could also be used to find vulnerabilities and so on.

And to fix them, which is most important. Someone should research on this and check if it's possible to use the tool as a vulnerability-finding software. Then publish his results so everyone can benefit from it, not just the hackers.
Re:I wonder... by cahiha · 2005-05-04 03:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

I hear this argument a lot, and it's got one fatal flaw -- you cannot use GPL code legally without opening your source.

Correct.

This line of argument seems to be along the lines of "of course you can use GPLed code - just don't get caught", and it's always worried me. Correct me if I'm wrong, I frequently am!

No, that's not what it means. What it means is that the penalties and consequences of violating the GPL are not automatically that your source code itself falls under the GPL. In fact, placing your code under the GPL after the fact is not even sufficient as a legal remedy--it is simply not relevant to anything.

By analogy, if you park in a no-parking zone, the penalty and consequence is not automatically that your car gets towed; maybe you'll get a fine or maybe your car gets disabled instead. And it certainly isn't sufficient for you to say "my bad" and just drive away--you still got a ticket and will have to pay that.

How the copyright holder and how the courts deal with you if you violate the GPL depends on your behavior and on your product. You seem to think that forcing a company to GPL its code is the worst thing that can happen to it if they violate the GPL, but that's not true. On the other hand, that may be too severe a consequence. Either way, changes to the license of the code that was used to violate the GPL after the fact simply aren't relevant to the legal issue of the GPL violation. The only way they may enter is part of a voluntary negotiated settlement, if the copyright holder on the GPL'ed software agrees to accept that as a remedy.
Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-04 03:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, that's not the point of the argument, the point of the argument is that illegally using GPL'd code is no different than illegally using proprietary code that you haven't properly licensed - it's a copyright violation, plain and simple.

Some people try to paint the GPL as even more dangerous by claiming that unlike proprietary code where you'd only have to pay damages, the GPL would force you to open up all your code and "take away" all of your "intellectual property".

The point isn't that corporations would be deliberately using code that they don't have a right to use, the point is that a large enough corporation can never trust all of its employees.
Re:I wonder... by zootm · 2005-05-04 04:10 · Score: 1

Well when people say they're "forced" to open their source, I'd expect they're forced by their adherence to legal working practices, rather than the interpretation that leads to this argument, that they'd be forced at some point "down the line". The argument that companies have isn't that they will need to open their source later when legislated, it's that they'd need to open their source now to avoid legislation altogether.
Re:I wonder... by zootm · 2005-05-04 04:14 · Score: 2, Informative

That's a fair enough argument -- but it always seems that people's queries are formed in the way "My company would like to (purposefully) use GPLed code, but we can't because we'd need to open ours" and people jump all over it as a fallacious argument, which it's not.
Re:I wonder... by wfberg · 2005-05-04 06:47 · Score: 1

If you want to use code, abide by the license or renegotionate. That's the same as for proprietary code.

What WON'T happen is that a judge will step in and force you to publish your source code because you included GPL'ed code. THIS is the fallacious argument.

A judge will only force you to pay damages. It's up to the corporation to decide whether to pay damages, or to release the code. If releasing the code is less costly, this is an additional escape the GPL provides that you DON'T have with proprietary code.

So even if you illegally sneak GPL code into your product and are caught, GPL code is more benign than proprietary code since it gives you more options.

Not quite as ideally risk-free as BSD-licensed or public domain code, but better than proprietary nonetheless.

--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Re:I wonder... by zootm · 2005-05-04 07:09 · Score: 1

What WON'T happen is that a judge will step in and force you to publish your source code because you included GPL'ed code. THIS is the fallacious argument.

That's what I said, yeah. Well, it's what I meant!
Re:I wonder... by chemistry · 2005-05-04 08:38 · Score: 1

Also of course...the closed source company could simply screen the code for the aforementioned bug and remove it.
Re:I wonder... by leuk_he · 2005-05-04 08:57 · Score: 1

Obvious their database contains much gpl'ed code. Should they open their source under the gpl, or did they licence all this code?

Just wondering.
Re:I wonder... by McDutchie · 2005-05-04 09:08 · Score: 1

Obvious their database contains much gpl'ed code.

I think it's much more likely that the database contains cryptographic hashses of GPL'ed code, that cannot be reduced to the code itself. In that case there would not be a GPL violation.
Re:I wonder... by cahiha · 2005-05-04 20:25 · Score: 1

Well when people say they're "forced" to open their source, I'd expect they're forced by their adherence to legal working practices, rather than the interpretation that leads to this argument

No, nobody is "forcing" them to open their source code. They can go to court. In that case, the consequences are likely that the court will order them to stop shipping the product until they have removed the code whose license they are violating and that they update all previous shipments. They would also likely have to pay a penalty. That would be the normal consequence for a wilfull copyright violation.

The argument that companies have isn't that they will need to open their source later when legislated, it's that they'd need to open their source now to avoid legislation altogether.

They may not even have that option. That option only exists if the copyright holder of the code whose copyright they violated gives them that option. That may not even be possible for large GPL'ed projects with many contributors.

So, my point is this: violating the GPL is a serious problem for a company, and the consequences may end up being far worse than merely having to open source their software.
Re:I wonder... by zootm · 2005-05-05 00:01 · Score: 1

Well, yes. But to stay within the law and avoid prosecution altogether, they must open their source. That's them being "forced". We're arguing semantics though, and I suspect we're talking about exactly the same thing.
Re:I wonder... by cahiha · 2005-05-05 00:30 · Score: 1

But to stay within the law and avoid prosecution altogether, they must open their source. That's them being "forced". We're arguing semantics though, and I suspect we're talking about exactly the same thing.

No, we are talking about two different things. You are talking about what it takes to be compliant with the GPL. But that's not what we are discussing here. This is the context:

It's a widespread and unfortuate myth that your product automatically becomes subject to the GPL if you (accidentally or otherwise) violate the GPL by including GPL'ed code.

What we are discussing here is what happens after you have failed to comply with the GPL. After you have failed to comply with the GPL even just once, opening your source code simply will not help you anymore.
Re:I wonder... by zootm · 2005-05-05 00:51 · Score: 1

I was discussing why that argument wasn't really applicable to its parent. I know what you're arguing about, I've just been trying to say that a lot of people immediately assume that companies misunderstand the GPL when they disallow inclusion of code. Their rationale isn't "if we get caught, we'll need to open our source", it's "we need to open our source now, or we could get caught and face worse consequences". It's a silly debate anyway, a technicality!

Isn't that by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-04 00:39 · Score: 1, Funny

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..

Ouch. by 91degrees · 2005-05-04 00:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.

Re:Ouch. by NetNifty · 2005-05-04 00:53 · Score: 1

This isn't for Open Source devs to use to check for thier own code, it's for managers of closed source software projects to check for code that programmers may have plaigerised from open source projects.

--
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
Re:Ouch. by 91degrees · 2005-05-04 01:09 · Score: 1

Well now you know. I totally pwn those guys when it comes to illiteracy!
Re:Ouch. by GigsVT · 2005-05-04 02:32 · Score: 4, Informative

They can demand you open-source any application that contains GPL'd code.

No, they can't. Stop spreading this myth.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:Ouch. by chemistry · 2005-05-04 08:43 · Score: 1

"and I may force you to give it to me by court's order!)" Get your facts straight. This is a myth that needs to die. The GPL does not rewrite copyright law.
Re:Ouch. by swv3752 · 2005-05-04 08:43 · Score: 1

$50 sure is cheap. Though I wonder why you feel the need to go down to tenths of a cent.

Yes I realize you were using a an European convention for denoting thousands place, but you are posting to an American board referencing American currency, and it is in reply to an American article about an American Company.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Re:Ouch. by Suddenly_Dead · 2005-05-04 10:50 · Score: 1

They original author(s) can demand that the "creator" open sources it, yes. Demands are just demands (many definitions).

If they don't open the source, however, they have to either stop distributing it or are potentially faced with a lawsuit.

Re:windows already has some by FooBarWidget · 2005-05-04 00:41 · Score: 1

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.

The BSD license argument by marcovje · 2005-05-04 00:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

>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.

Re:The BSD license argument by mshiltonj · 2005-05-04 00:55 · Score: 2

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.

Granted. However, if they do so, their horse isn't so high when they harp on and on about having strict intellectual property controlls. *They* benefit from the work of others, how can they call it a cancer?

--
Software Wars
Re:The BSD license argument by Gopal.V · 2005-05-04 00:57 · Score: 1

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.
Microsoft does not have the moral right to use it because it prevents the exact same thing from happening again. It seems to concentrate on shoveling money from governments (US included) into it's bank even after reaping the benefits of public funded open software.
The obvious double standards is what we look down upon.

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Re:The BSD license argument by Tim+C · 2005-05-04 01:01 · Score: 1

Because work performed for and by the government of any country should be to the benefit of all its citizens and businesses, that's why.

Love them of loathe them, MS generates a huge amount of money. That can only be good for the economy, and so for the country as a whole.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:The BSD license argument by m50d · 2005-05-04 01:04 · Score: 1

Some would argue that since it's immoral for them to be writing closed source operating systems, it is more moral to try and stop them doing this.

--
I am trolling
Re:The BSD license argument by Spoing · 2005-05-04 01:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

No one licence -- BSD, GPL, other oss, or any of the closed source licences -- are always ideal. Anyone who thinks there is one true licence isn't very smart. Advocate what is appropriate.

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:The BSD license argument by Richard_at_work · 2005-05-04 01:13 · Score: 1

THe 'publically funded open software' is still available for you to use and build on. Microsoft has the moral right, just as you yourself do, and microsofts use of that code in no way detracts from your use of the same code. You both have the same advantages and the same starting position.
Re:The BSD license argument by ajwitte · 2005-05-04 01:14 · Score: 1, Troll

Unless they printing counterfeit bills (and I don't think they are), Microsoft does not "generate" any money. Only the government can do that.

--
chown -R us ~you/base
Re:The BSD license argument by elrous0 · 2005-05-04 01:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

Unless they printing counterfeit bills (and I don't think they are), Microsoft does not "generate" any money. Only the government can do that.
Tell me, when someone at work says "Boy, it's a real monkey on my back" do you find yourself wondering why there is no monkey behind them?

-Eric

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:The BSD license argument by drsmithy · 2005-05-04 01:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

*They* benefit from the work of others, how can they call it a cancer?
Because the GPL spreads out to affect more than just the GPLed code that was originally introduced and its subsequent modifications.
Re:The BSD license argument by unapersson · 2005-05-04 02:02 · Score: 1

No it doesn't. It only affects code that is combined with the GPL code and released. You can use the code with your own code to your heart's content, but if you want to distribute GPL code then any code combined with it needs to be GPL (or GPL compatible) as well.

But of course you accepted the license when you used the code so that shouldn't cause you any problems. It's entirely voluntary. If you decide you want to release your code, but not GPL it, you can just replace the GPL code with more of your own.

So it doesn't affect any code unless the author of that code wants it to. How's that for freedom?
Re:The BSD license argument by WNight · 2005-05-04 02:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Considering that most of Microsoft's money comes from the US, and most of the software they sell has cheaper and often better equivalents, you could instead say that they've been a huge drain on the economy.

What have they contributed? How has any Microsoft product ever made a business run better than the average competitor's product? But they certainly charge more, restrict more, lie/cheat/steal more, sue over invented infringment more, and hold back the industry more.

It's in everyone's interests to commoditize their complements, as an economist would put it. Hardware companies like free software (IBM, Intel, etc) and software companies like cheap hardware (Microsoft, etc). We the people, being neither hardware or software companies (usually), would benefit from cheaper hardware and software. Microsoft not only doesn't provide this, but goes out of their way to prevent anyone else providing it. They don't even have any confidence in their products themselves or they wouldn't be so busy locking people in with patent-encumbered data formats and just plain lies and obfuscation.

I submit that Microsoft is one of the biggest drains on the economy.
Re:The BSD license argument by drsmithy · 2005-05-04 02:11 · Score: 1

Microsoft does not have the moral right to use it because it prevents the exact same thing from happening again.
Please explain why you think Microsoft's (or anyone else's) use of BSD-licensed code in any way prevents another party using that same code.
Re:The BSD license argument by marcovje · 2005-05-04 02:22 · Score: 1

No because Microsoft pays taxes.
Re:The BSD license argument by Peter+La+Casse · 2005-05-04 02:24 · Score: 1

The standard GPL-fanatic always downs on the BSD license for some reason, and I've never understood it. Some people want to make code and then give it away for anyone (even the great evil that resides in Redmond) to use. Sometimes I think some opensource people get too caught up in the "opensource everything!" work that they forget the end goal is better software for everyone.

That is one end goal, but it isn't the end goal of the GPL fanatic. The GPL fanatic's goal is to spread what they consider to be "software freedom."

It might help your understanding to realize that the GPL fanatic's definition of "software freedom" is different than the BSD license fanatic's definition. To the GPL fanatic, the BSD license is less free because BSD licensed code can be used to improve non-free code.

It's no coincidence that this dispute is often compared to religion: the BSD license fanatic says "Do what thou wilt" and the GPL fanatic says "God says that this is the right way to behave, and to do otherwise is sin."

(This is the fanatics I'm talking about, not the level-headed advocates.)
Re:The BSD license argument by drsmithy · 2005-05-04 02:29 · Score: 2, Informative

No it doesn't. It only affects code that is combined with the GPL code and released. You can use the code with your own code to your heart's content, but if you want to distribute GPL code then any code combined with it needs to be GPL (or GPL compatible) as well.
Indeed. Of course, "combined" in GPL-speak can mean "linked", so you can end up with code completely unrelated to any GPLed code having to be GPLed because it's magically become "combined" with the GPLed code.

As I said, the problem is the GPL can spread to "infect" code that has no relation whatsoever to the GPLed code. Hence, some people call it "cancerous".

But of course you accepted the license when you used the code so that shouldn't cause you any problems. It's entirely voluntary. If you decide you want to release your code, but not GPL it, you can just replace the GPL code with more of your own.

There are few things more reliable than the GPL zealot's tendency to dismiss anything remotely critical of the GPL with the "but it's voluntary" spiel. Hell, it's practically the Godwin's Law of the 2000s.

So it doesn't affect any code unless the author of that code wants it to. How's that for freedom?

Like your lines about it being "voluntary" above, completely irrelevant. The original poster wanted to know how "they" can refer to the GPL as "cancer". The answer to his question is because that's precisely what the GPL is *designed* to do - generate more GPLed code by "infecting" other code.
Re:The BSD license argument by BarryNorton · 2005-05-04 02:49 · Score: 1

It seems to concentrate on shoveling money from governments (US included) into it's bank even after reaping the benefits of public funded open software.
I don't know much about research funding in the US, but I am active in UK and EU Computing research and here showing potential commercial benefit to local industry is a must for getting research funded.
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...
Re:The BSD license argument by cavetroll · 2005-05-04 03:12 · Score: 1

the GPL fanatic says "God says that this is the right way to behave, and to do otherwise is sin."

IIRC RMS normally portrays himself only a saint, (St iGNUcius in fact) and not God.
Re:The BSD license argument by maxpublic · 2005-05-04 05:51 · Score: 1

so you can end up with code completely unrelated to any GPLed code having to be GPLed because it's magically become "combined" with the GPLed code.

That's not only complete bullshit, but a nearly verbatim regurgitation of MS FUD. If you think otherwise, please cite - word-for-word - the clause in the GPL which proves your assertion.

There are few things more reliable than the GPL zealot's tendency to dismiss anything remotely critical of the GPL with the "but it's voluntary" spiel.

This coming from an anti-GPL zealot who can't even keep his fucking facts straight.

The answer to his question is because that's precisely what the GPL is *designed* to do - generate more GPLed code by "infecting" other code.

Riiiight. Again, cite that part of the GPL copyright which supports this idiotic statement.

Oh, but wait - you can't. Because there is no such clause in the GPL. All of this is nothing more than lies. Perhaps you think that if you lie long enough and often people people will actually begin to believe the horseshit coming out of your mouth?

Yet another waste of good oxygen screwing with the noise-to-signal ratio on the internet....

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:The BSD license argument by jbolden · 2005-05-04 08:14 · Score: 1

How old are you? Its one thing to complain about some Microsoft pratices its quite another to argue they have contributed anything. Making the office suite mainstream via. a 80% price drop, OLE, making java apps run faster, the intel/microsoft/western digit hardware standards (basically making x86 hardware an inexpensive commodity), mainstream the IDE, mainstreaming RAD development techniques... They have had huge positive impact.

I'll start with your most basic assertion "they charge more". The fact is in virtually every market that microsoft has entered they have driven prices for the consummer down quite rapidly. From operating systems, to databases to office suites, to programmer's tools to minigames to... Microsoft has generally entered the market because the margins were so fat that it was easy to make money.
Re:The BSD license argument by zippthorne · 2005-05-04 08:36 · Score: 1

Is there a version of GPL where you don't have to GPL your code if all it does is link to a GPL library? That seems the main sticking point to me: if you can keep your code segregated from the GPL stuff, shouldn't you be able to license your code however you want? as long as you distribute the source for the GPL library if you distribute the library with your program?

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:The BSD license argument by kbielefe · 2005-05-04 09:31 · Score: 1

Is there a version of GPL where you don't have to GPL your code if all it does is link to a GPL library?
Yes, it's called the LGPL. There are very few programs designed to be linked as a library that are released under the regular GPL. A notable exception is the mysql libraries.

However, the GPL depends upon copyright law. In my opinion, it would be difficult to prove that a program is a derivative work if it is only dynamically linked. In other words, since it does not modify the original binary in any way and isn't represented as a monolithic piece of software, is it really a derivative work? Does someone who makes a frame designed to perfectly complement a painting violate the copyright of the artist? As far as I know, the precise boundary of a derivative work of software has not yet been tested in court.

--
This space intentionally left blank.
Re:The BSD license argument by drsmithy · 2005-05-04 10:25 · Score: 1

That's not only complete bullshit, but a nearly verbatim regurgitation of MS FUD.
Not to mention a "verbatim regurgitation" of RMS's philosophy (different words, but same meaning).

If you think otherwise, please cite - word-for-word - the clause in the GPL which proves your assertion.

Section 2(b):

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Because in RMS-speak, "derived" and "linked" are equivalent. From the GPL FAQ:

Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.
What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

For a real-life example, you may wish to reflect on what would happen if, say, glibc was GPL instead of LGPL. For another, you may also wish to consider how gettext's GPLed status has affected developers' (of non-GPLed code) usage (or, rather, lack thereof) of it.

Riiiight. Again, cite that part of the GPL copyright which supports this idiotic statement.

That "idiotic statement" represents one of the primary goals of the GPL. The other way it is usually described goes something like "preserving freedom".

Oh, but wait - you can't. Because there is no such clause in the GPL. All of this is nothing more than lies.

Maybe you should actually read up on what the GPL does and why it does it, because spewing the typical bilious party line on Slashdot ?
Re:The BSD license argument by drsmithy · 2005-05-04 10:28 · Score: 1

Is there a version of GPL where you don't have to GPL your code if all it does is link to a GPL library?
Yes. The LGPL. This is the license people who want to integrate open source code into their proprietry products (eg: Apple - khtml is LGPLed) prefer, because it means the only code they have to "give back" is the code directly relevant to that which they initially integrated.
Re:The BSD license argument by kz45 · 2005-05-04 11:12 · Score: 1

Microsoft generates a lot of money all right. They make a HUGE profit on software, costing American businesses BILLIONS of dollars every year for software that costs nothing to reproduce. They also keep alive a HUGE industry of anti-virus, firewall, cleanup programs, popup blockers, etc. American corporations spend BILLIONS more on those accessories to Microsoft's products. So yeah, microsoft generates a LOT of money all right. Money that is being concentrated in their bank accounts to sponsor SCO lawsuits rather than being spent by American companies (both large and small) to expand their operations and/or hire more people

money doesn't cost anything to reproduce either, but it still has a value, doesn't it. Large companies spend billions of dollars on support, research and development, and the fact that there isn't anything better to suit their needs.
Re:The BSD license argument by WNight · 2005-05-04 17:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

But you're just parroting the Microsoft line. They didn't make hardware cheap - the Apple2, C64, and a host of other computers were cheaper than any IBM clone you could buy for quite a while. Did Microsoft make the IBM clones cheaper? No, they charged for what had always been free in the PC world - an OS, that made computers more expensive.

They didn't make the office suite mainstream, that was already happening. Sure, it kept happening while they were around, but it's not like they made something happen that wouldn't have otherwise.

OLE and similar technologies aren't bad, but they're nothing the market wasn't exploring at the time. Apple's OS does the same things.

As for the IDE, they do release the most popular, but that's a function of market share. They didn't invent it - the first I used was Borland C in the early 90s and it was a pale copy of what commercial IDEs were on big iron. As for mainstreaming rapid application development... whoa - where to start?

And I'll take issue with your taking issue with my comment on prices. Microsoft's sole price advantage has always been working on commodity hardware. Arguably this is Intel's doing - the cross licensing they did to be a military supplier and the "clone" market this caused made the x86 the defacto standard. Microsoft just rode the cheap Taiwanese hardware market.

Sure, many Microsoft products are now cheap, and many people who couldn't have had an office suite in the 80s now have one, but they'd have one on whatever hardware and OS existed - every type of product Microsoft makes was already around on other platforms. It might have been WordPerfect or Appleworks, but they were already around in the mid 80s and seem to

You simply miss the perspective you'd have gained if you watched the PC revolution unfold instead of listening to Microsoft tell the story.

Seeing as how Microsoft hasn't brought us anything that other companies wouldn't have bought (likely with less criminal actions involved), their anti-open source policies, and their format and licensing lock-in, I stand by my statement that a PC is more costly today and the market worse off than it would have been if Microsoft hadn't become an OS monopoly and illegally leveraged that into market share dominance in other areas.
Re:The BSD license argument by jbolden · 2005-05-05 03:12 · Score: 1

You pretty much failed to reply to the actual causes of anything in my post. The cheap taiwanese hardware market existed because of the Intel/Microsoft/Western Digital specification; without it there would have been no cheap clones. If you can think of another reason suddenly had office suites rather than 1 or 2 premium packages other than the 80% price drop let me know. I'm not disagreeing that Wordperfect was putting together an office suite and Lotus certainly was but they wanted to price it well over $1k. It was Microsoft that kicked off the price war (Wordperfect in particular didn't join in until almost a year later and only after their product was seen as third to Word and AmiPro).

As for watching the PC revolution take place... I was involved in computers (as a kid) starting 1979, so.... I was professionally involved in the early 1990s which is when the office suite transition occured.

I can't argue with casual dismissal. But the same sorts of arguments you are making would work to prove that America has brought the world anything, I mean virtually every American invention of importance was being explored by somebody else and the ground was laid for it to be succesful.
Re:The BSD license argument by WNight · 2005-05-05 10:19 · Score: 1

Microsoft did license basic, but it's not like they were the only ones. And OSes tended to come with PCs, they were an expected part of the package. Not only did the OS for my Apple2s come free, but it came with source.
Re:The BSD license argument by WNight · 2005-05-05 19:27 · Score: 1

I can't argue with casual dismissal. But the same sorts of arguments you are making would work to prove that America has brought the world anything, I mean virtually every American invention of importance was being explored by somebody else and the ground was laid for it to be succesful.

Yeah, that's my point. Microsoft pulls a lot of weight in the industry and in the sense that a rising tide floats all boats, Microsoft displaces a lot of water, but so do Intel, IBM, etc. To point to Microsoft as the source of inspiration or the enabler behind most technologies is wrong - they benefit from it and do try to proliferate cheap office suites as you suggest, but only in that the next dose isn't free.

This isn't a Microsoft rant - this is about how people attribute invention to those who loudly sing their own praises. Microsoft claims to have invented ones and zeros, cheap office suites, and commodity hardware, but really, like everyone else who wasn't the first they were merely refiners and enablers of things that require much capital.

People were buying computers and office suites (primitive as they were in the era) with all signs of expanding exponentially back in the early 80s. No one element is essential to our success, but to let Microsoft claim to be and not refute their claims gives unreasonable weight to their requrests for industry stifling ideas like software patents. Once you realize that they, like everyone else, build on the collected ideas of the industry you're less willing to give them the keys.

We'll only keep moving forward if we remove economic friction. Computers enable us to work, they aren't the end result, so "obviously" any industry that tacks price onto an enabling technology is a middle-man that eventually the industry will evolve out of the need for. Microsoft wants to convince us that we can't live without them by falsly claiming we owe everything to them. (Also applies to Amazon on one-click patents, etc - as if other online stores wouldn't have come around without them.)
Re:The BSD license argument by jbolden · 2005-05-05 19:35 · Score: 1

OK I think we may reach agreement here. Heck I'm not sure Microsoft (in reality) would really disagree. They know that in general they aren't a company that aims for massive innovation. They refine things, they mainstream things, they spread existing technologies widely. There goal has always been, "A pretty good software solution that's used by almost everybody."

Re:windows already has some by Dot.Com.CEO · 2005-05-04 00:41 · Score: 1

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.

Re:windows already has some by maharg · 2005-05-04 00:43 · Score: 1

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.

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by FooBarWidget · 2005-05-04 00:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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?

high costs? by moz25 · 2005-05-04 00:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Re:high costs? by tcopeland · 2005-05-04 01:11 · Score: 1

There's a copy/paste detector that works with Java, C, PHP, and Ruby here.

But, like some other folks have said, the hard part is keeping all the open source code handy for comparison purposes...

--
The Army reading list

Be careful of FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-04 00:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!

sigh by Turn-X+Alphonse · 2005-05-04 00:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:sigh by LiquidCoooled · 2005-05-04 05:34 · Score: 1

You can build a million models using identical bricks, but each will be distinct and have the creators "signature" in the build.

Many smaller components may be similar and some structures will look the same, but the overall mix will be YOURS.

If somebody else builds an identical model (regardless of coloring) then they have been watching over my shoulder.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:sigh by maxpublic · 2005-05-04 06:08 · Score: 1

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..

And this would be different from any other era in human history how?

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by DrSkwid · 2005-05-04 00:46 · Score: 1

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

Lets do it the other way: the "de-OSS'ifier"... by torpor · 2005-05-04 00:46 · Score: 1, Interesting

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.

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 .. and if I had the spare time (I don't), I'd make one myself, and .. of course .. release it under the GPL.

(Just coz.)

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

Re:Lets do it the other way: the "de-OSS'ifier"... by Raphael · 2005-05-04 00:51 · Score: 1

Try a Google search for something like "C" and "obfuscator".

--
-Raphaël
Re:Lets do it the other way: the "de-OSS'ifier"... by Vo0k · 2005-05-04 01:09 · Score: 1

Yes, except if someone writes something in certain way, they have some reason. First, clarity. Changing white spaces or braces location won't hide it. Changing more, like function names, makes the program much harder to maintain. Changing structure of the code (double negatives, unrolling loops, changing the off-by-one conditions etc) further impacts efficiency of the code and may introduce heisenbugs. Of course running it through optimizing compiler would undo most of your work, and where not, leave less optimal code - it's usually written in such a way so it would be easy to swallow for optimizer, and if not, it's far from optimal).
Sure you can modify GNU code to look completely different using machine, but you end up with a pile of stinking crap, that does compile but runs way worse than original. Or you could do it by hand, but then wouldn't it be easier to write it from scratch?
Or finally, make a directory required_by_gpl, paste in the library sources and hooks necessary to include it if modified, and include any LGPL code you wish in your proprietary work, giving it proper credit and using it legally.

Actually, there are even some loopholes to use pure GPL code with your proprietary project. You just need the GPL'd part to run separately, through some wrapper, and to have the wrapper open source and generic enough that if you wrote "something else that does the same thing as the GNU part", your main program would still work. Making your program -use- the GNU piece (freedom of use), but not -depend- on it (viral spread of GPL license onto dependent code). Of course the GPL'd piece with source code and all, your proprietary program separately.

--
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"

Re:windows already has some by FooBarWidget · 2005-05-04 00:46 · Score: 1

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?

Re:Bah... humbug. by asliarun · 2005-05-04 00:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by Jim_Callahan · 2005-05-04 00:47 · Score: 1

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. ~

Re:windows already has some by KiloByte · 2005-05-04 00:47 · Score: 1

"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.

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by mazesoft · 2005-05-04 00:48 · Score: 1

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.

something about this dosn't make me as happy as .. by FidelCatsro · 2005-05-04 00:48 · Score: 3, Informative

The company has some other bussiness such as , outsourcing

For companies engaging outsourced developers, Palamida: * Reduces your exposure to inadventant IP risksTake hold of software outsourcing by quickly assessing the origins of software IP sourced from contractors. * Helps the origins and ownership of third-party code. * Gets the most of out open source and externally developed tools. * Increases efficiency, consistency and understanding.

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 .

The Outsourcer: A Best-in-Class Tool for Best-in-Class Processes Outsourcers are playing an increasingly crucial role in global software development. Large, medium and small companies are looking to tap developers in the hopes of advancing their own software IP and business opportunities. <ecode> Again , I wouldnt want to do bussiness with a company that promotes this behavious , i am all for globalistation , but not for screwing people over as the companys seek to hype profits by exploiting cheap labout , Now safely aparently.. Perhaps i missunderstand the term outsourcing in this sense , though to me it always say "Contracters so we dont have honour the workers rights, localy or globaly". <ecode>For M&A teams, Palamida helps: * Identify and quantify IP issues early in the deal. * Improve certainty before closure, increasing your closure rate. * Reduce your legal exposure. * Immediately value software innovation and intellectual property. * Tap into the most up-to-date software IP database available. * Secure the best possible valuation.

<b>* Speed your assessment of open source and third-party code.</b>

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 )

IP Diligence, Compliance Enforced

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.

For counsel, Palamida: * Improves the timeliness and quality of legal diligence * Automates compliance processes. * Provides real time information on your code base. * Adapts to your business processes and workflow.

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.

or the open source community, Palamida: * Supports and evangelizes on the use of open source software. * Boosts productivity by spending time developing and not worrying. * Pushes forward in unison with legal and business staff. * Materially reduces open source compliance concerns. * Creates new business by proving the merits of open source technology

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

Re:windows already has some by DrSkwid · 2005-05-04 00:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by Vo0k · 2005-05-04 00:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

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"

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by cortana · 2005-05-04 00:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe you farmed it out to Elbonia, and got back thinly-veiled rip of some Free Software code.

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by FooBarWidget · 2005-05-04 00:51 · Score: 1

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.

Re:windows already has some by cortana · 2005-05-04 00:51 · Score: 1

> 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.

Re:Email from the net nazis by Vo0k · 2005-05-04 00:52 · Score: 1

Yeah, like these guys who got a lawsuit threat from Microsoft because they were hosting OpenOffice on their servers. (it has Office in name, must be pirated version of MS Office!)

--
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"

Re:windows already has some by Jim_Callahan · 2005-05-04 00:53 · Score: 1

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. ~

Re:windows already has some by FooBarWidget · 2005-05-04 00:53 · Score: 1

It is relevant. Freedom is all about ethics. Freedom is not true freedom if it is bad.

Re:windows already has some by ajs318 · 2005-05-04 00:54 · Score: 1

So did the Thirteenth Amendment make the USA more free, or less free?

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by makomk · 2005-05-04 00:54 · Score: 1

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...

Re:Bah... humbug. by graywolf001 · 2005-05-04 00:54 · Score: 3, Funny

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 ;-)

Will probably find many blatant violators. by putko · 2005-05-04 00:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

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_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html

Re:Will probably find many blatant violators. by dmaxwell · 2005-05-04 01:09 · Score: 1

Do companies like IBM and Novell count as "aging idealist hippies"? Some of IBM's counterclaims against SCO nail them for violating IBM copyrights on their GPLed code.
Re:Will probably find many blatant violators. by GreyWolf3000 · 2005-05-04 01:43 · Score: 1

I think he was trying to describe the "mood" of the software shop--why no one cared about copyright violation.

--
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Re:Will probably find many blatant violators. by Dogtanian · 2005-05-04 02:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

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").

That's interesting. I wonder what the legal position would be if it was transparently obvious that, rather than being an honest mistake or result of one lazy/crooked employee, the inclusion of GPLed code was quite deliberate, as a consequence of (what would be obvious when one or more violations was investigated) unofficial company policy to infringe licenses.

Damages aside, if one piece of GPLed code is inadvertantly included, a court is likely to demand that it is removed, but not that the whole product becomes GPL.

If this is being done as a matter of course (and regardless of whether or not there was any written evidence, it sounds like a consistent pattern of violation at your company would have presented almost incontrovertible evidence that this behaviour was sanctioned as unwritten policy), the court ruling may well be different.

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:Will probably find many blatant violators. by putko · 2005-05-04 02:44 · Score: 1

Exactly -- management didn't really "get" GPL. Had they understood anything at all about it, it would have been "oh, so they are total chumps. .... NEXT!

It was a totally disgusting environment.

--
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
Re:Will probably find many blatant violators. by cduffy · 2005-05-04 07:11 · Score: 1

That's interesting. I wonder what the legal position would be if it was transparently obvious that, rather than being an honest mistake or result of one lazy/crooked employee, the inclusion of GPLed code was quite deliberate, as a consequence of (what would be obvious when one or more violations was investigated) unofficial company policy to infringe licenses.

I'd hope that the court would rule that damages would be calculated based on the reasonable cost to purchase a non-GPL license for such functionality, trebled on account of the violation being deliberate.
Re:Will probably find many blatant violators. by jbolden · 2005-05-04 08:42 · Score: 1

Damages are much higher if something is intentional rather than accidental. Further (though this is a stretch) a DA could decide such a software company is fundamentally a criminal enterprise and not a legitimate business at all and go after them for racketeering.
Re:Will probably find many blatant violators. by TekPolitik · 2005-05-04 10:29 · Score: 1

We certainly would have violated the GPL in a second, given that one couldn't really prove damage to the other party
It's not just damages to the other party you have to worry about. In a copyright infringement suit the plaintiff can seek an account of profits. If awarded, the infringer has to pay up all profits they made from the infringement (and there can still be profits from the infringement for this purpose even if the company makes a loss). This is the most likely remedy in a suit for infringing the GPL.

Additionally, by doing this you may be in breach of other (criminal) laws, for which lack of a requirement to pay damages may be small comfort.

As if that weren't enough, customers may be entitled to sue you for breach of implied warranties of title. If they do, you may lost all the profits and have to pay back revenue received from customers.

Casually disregarding licenses like this is a dangerous game. If you don't get sued, you may well get away with it, but if it starts to come undone it can implode on you in the most spectacular way.

Re:windows already has some by FidelCatsro · 2005-05-04 00:55 · Score: 3, Informative

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

Re:windows already has some by Dot.Com.CEO · 2005-05-04 00:58 · Score: 1

The thing I hate the most about iniciating serious discussions in /. is that, inevitably, the issue will become a moral one, that is one that depends on the point of view of the person you are talking with. In my point of view, being able to do whatever I want with a piece of code, whether that be sell it, base my new proprietary code upon it or whatever is real freedom, that is it does not depend on the point of view of the person who wrote it. For you, forcing your own, GPL point of view (i.e. all software must be Free therefore you can do whatever you want with this software as long as you adhere to my morality) is real freedom. I don't happen to agree with that.

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.

Re:windows already has some by Jim_Callahan · 2005-05-04 00:58 · Score: 1

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. ~

Re:windows already has some by FooBarWidget · 2005-05-04 00:59 · Score: 1

I don't know, I don't live in the USA and I don't know what the 13th Amendment is.

Re:windows already has some by myc_lykaon · 2005-05-04 01:03 · Score: 1

It's only "more" free if you define "free" as "having the freedom to remove freedom from those who you distribute the software to".

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.

Re:windows already has some by Jim_Callahan · 2005-05-04 01:04 · Score: 1

"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. ~

Re:windows already has some by m50d · 2005-05-04 01:08 · Score: 1

But when those restrictions are simply to prevent the addition of other restrictions, they result in less restrictions overall.

--
I am trolling

C & D by amling · 2005-05-04 01:10 · Score: 1

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

Re:windows already has some by Dot.Com.CEO · 2005-05-04 01:11 · Score: 1

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.

Re:windows already has some by KiloByte · 2005-05-04 01:11 · Score: 1

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.

Trolling by submitter by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-04 01:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

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?

Re:Trolling by submitter by m50d · 2005-05-04 02:09 · Score: 1

The submitter claimed nothing of the short, merely that some open source projects, particularly BSD, welcome the inclusion of their code in propriety products and MS has done this. And your assertions about MS EULAs only hold true if you believe that one is always morally obliged to follow agreements one has been coerced into, and also ignores the possibility of bypassing the EULA.

--
I am trolling
Re:Trolling by submitter by Secrity · 2005-05-04 02:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

"For the submitter to assume that Microsoft has GPL code is nothing short of trolling. Internally, Microsoft has a strict policy against GPL code.""

The submitter's article did not state that the submitter assumed that there was GPL'd code in MS products.

"On the other hand, what I would like to know is how many OSS projects reverse engineer Microsoft products to implement functionality"

Why do you believe that any laws or the EULA were broken by people implementing any funtionality in GPL'd software? If there were laws broken, do you not believe that Microsoft would have the people who broke the laws or the EULA in court?

"Did anyone notice that the Firefox popup blocked notification changed to look like the IE 6 SP2 blocker?

Did you notice that MS Windows looks alot like a windowing system that Xerox invented, or that MS Windows looks like the windowing system used on the Apple Lisa and the Apple Macintosh -- all of which predate MS Windows. Did you notice that Excel looks like VisiCalc and Lotus 1-2-3? Do you feel that it was wrong for MS to have copied the look and feel (and possibly even the name) of products invented by Xerox, Apple, and VisiCalc?
Re:Trolling by submitter by Halvy · 2005-05-04 04:15 · Score: 1

backwards compatibilitz?? u mean like with 'Edlin' ;) and as far as 'legal & morally' bound.. The words 'legal' and 'moral' are two of the MOST subjective words in the world.

--
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
Re:Trolling by submitter by Halvy · 2005-05-04 13:54 · Score: 1

nice try, but i suppose the fact that this 'secret specialized knowledge' is something only liers--- i mean lawyers (judges etc) 'understand' or 'know', would make it NOT subjective (in your mind or thinking).

you are saying that juries then, are 'taught' this magical knowledge (of the law) in such a brief period of time by attorneys!?

However for the rest of us layman:(who you imply are 'imbacils'), we'll just keep believing that 'The Law' is something that is CONSTANTLY; challenged, defined, 'fought-over', 'remanded' (retro-actively many times), and of course just plan ruled--- 'Un-Constitutional' or 'ILegal'. Which of course 'YOU SAY' has nothing to do with being subjective?!

You are only 'kidding' yourself.. and people 'like you'.

--
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..

Freedom to kill people by Jim_Callahan · 2005-05-04 01:14 · Score: 1

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. ~

Simple... by Kjella · 2005-05-04 01:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

...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

Re:Simple... by FooBarWidget · 2005-05-04 03:06 · Score: 1

Well, it that case, it's entirely their fault if they get sued to death. It's like copying a file from a Microsoft product into your own product and then pretending it didn't happen. I'm tired of all the crap about "GPL is viral and will infect your entire product", as if you won't get into more trouble if you copy proprietary code. You copied the code, you violated the license, you face the consequences.

Re:windows already has some by Jim_Callahan · 2005-05-04 01:20 · Score: 1

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. ~

Re:windows already has some by Jim_Callahan · 2005-05-04 01:22 · Score: 1

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. ~

Re:windows already has some by badfish99 · 2005-05-04 01:23 · Score: 1

Whereas you just mentioned Hitler, so you're zero steps away from that.

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.

Re:windows already has some by shrykk · 2005-05-04 01:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 /* Reduce memory usage */

Re:windows already has some by KiloByte · 2005-05-04 01:26 · Score: 1

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.

Re:windows already has some by KiloByte · 2005-05-04 01:32 · Score: 1

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.

Stop thinking small! by argent · 2005-05-04 01:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Stop thinking small! by WNight · 2005-05-04 01:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Microsoft has lobbied to keep the US government from using open source and has done their best to hurt open source and the people involved in it.

I'd say that's a good argument for them being prevented from using any open-source of public domain project. After all, it is communism...

But yeah, the point of the BSD license is to get closed-source companies like MS to use the standards. They in no way deserve it, but it's in everyone's best interests that they do.

Searching 190,006,436 lines of code by millette · 2005-05-04 01:35 · Score: 1

koders

Re:Searching 190,006,436 lines of code by TekPolitik · 2005-05-04 10:46 · Score: 1

Unfortunately 188,536,724 appear to be duplicate copies of GNU's bfd (Binary File Descriptions) embedded in other projects.

good, but not new by cahiha · 2005-05-04 01:37 · Score: 1

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.

Re:windows already has some by cortana · 2005-05-04 01:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:windows already has some by downbad · 2005-05-04 01:39 · Score: 1

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.

as it should be by cahiha · 2005-05-04 01:42 · Score: 1

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.

? that isnt offtopic - mod parent up by curbion · 2005-05-04 01:43 · Score: 1

? 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

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by mr_z_beeblebrox · 2005-05-04 01:47 · Score: 4, Funny

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?

Re:windows already has some by alienw · 2005-05-04 01:48 · Score: 1

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.

For those in the dark side of the force, by Pastis · 2005-05-04 01:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:windows already has some by drsmithy · 2005-05-04 01:54 · Score: 1

It's only "more" free if you define "free" as "having the freedom to remove freedom from those who you distribute the software to".

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 ?

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by fishbot · 2005-05-04 02:00 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Re:windows already has some by DaHat · 2005-05-04 02:02 · Score: 1

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

Binary Checker? by logicnazi · 2005-05-04 02:02 · Score: 1

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:

Re:Binary Checker? by PigleT · 2005-05-04 04:45 · Score: 1

Multiply by having *my* CFLAGS (-Os, -fomit-frame-pointer and -fstack-protector) versus yours versus the rest of the world's options in there, and the fact I run on PPC ... *hic* yup, that's a heck of a big database you'd have to keep there. Oops :)

--
~Tim
--
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn

Re:windows already has some by Dot.Com.CEO · 2005-05-04 02:09 · Score: 1

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.

Re:windows already has some by MrByte420 · 2005-05-04 02:09 · Score: 1

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?

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by m50d · 2005-05-04 02:11 · Score: 1

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

Re:windows already has some by Dot.Com.CEO · 2005-05-04 02:17 · Score: 1

Oh my most precious Gods. Why the hell is it not possible to detach yourselves from RMS's "definitions" of free and think a tiny bit? It is insulting to you as a thinking human being to send me a link to a definition of "free". It is ridiculous to the extreme and frankly annoying. Just open your mind a bit, try to think how "doing whatever the hell you want" is more free than "doing what I want". And yes, today's societies are never "free" because you STILL have restrictions on what you can and cannot do.

I'm really tired of this groupthink.

--
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.

Re:windows already has some by Nimrangul · 2005-05-04 02:17 · Score: 1

You sir are delusional and should stop taking everything that Richard Stallman says as the absolute truth.

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.

important to mods: by roman_mir · 2005-05-04 02:28 · Score: 1

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.

If I used OpenSource components by crovira · 2005-05-04 02:30 · Score: 1

I'd put the source for the components out there.

What I DO with them, my value adding application, doesn't __have__ to be open source. (Well ... I develop code in Smalltalk. Its __always__ been open source.)

--
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by Autobahn · 2005-05-04 02:32 · Score: 1

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.

no, much earlier than that by roman_mir · 2005-05-04 02:37 · Score: 1

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.

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by Shimbo · 2005-05-04 02:40 · Score: 1

"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.

Run it on SCO by jbolden · 2005-05-04 02:44 · Score: 1

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.

Re:DLL encryption will render this ineffective by cortana · 2005-05-04 02:50 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:windows already has some by TravisWatkins · 2005-05-04 02:52 · Score: 1

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."

Re:windows already has some by ajs318 · 2005-05-04 02:53 · Score: 1

Are you now trying to advocate that ALL code for EVERYTHING should be opensource?

Dunno about the parent poster, but I for one would say that would be A Good Thing in the long term.

In the short term there would undoubtedly be much opposition ..... as there was to IR1 ..... but eventually we would all get used to it.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

Bing! Major point! by argent · 2005-05-04 02:54 · Score: 1

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.

Re:windows already has some by DJCacophony · 2005-05-04 02:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Re:something about this dosn't make me as happy as by Mr_Silver · 2005-05-04 02:57 · Score: 1

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

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.

Re:windows already has some by DJCacophony · 2005-05-04 02:58 · Score: 1

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.

Re:13th Amendment (slavery) by jimwelch · 2005-05-04 03:00 · Score: 1

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!

Re:windows already has some by FooBarWidget · 2005-05-04 03:01 · Score: 1

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.

User programs, not network stack by nick8325 · 2005-05-04 03:05 · Score: 1

The Windows NT network stack is not from BSD. The lower (NIC) parts use NDIS, and the higher (TCP/IP, etc.) parts use TDI.

Some user programs (like ftp and ping) are taken from BSD, but they're hardly big enough to be worth worrying about, IMO.

SCO's main page by peebeejay · 2005-05-04 03:09 · Score: 1

I know that all you anti language nazis love to mod down anybody who corrects anybody else's spelling or grammar, but what if I found a juicy one on SCO's main page:

It is the mature and proven operating system to support your most critical line of business applications, yet is affordably priced to host all compute needs.

And what if I made a lame joke about IP, like "I believe I have a patent on the use of the verb 'compute' as an implied gerund. Should I sue SCO?" Would I then not get modded into oblivion?

Use DNA matching techniques! by nietsch · 2005-05-04 03:21 · Score: 1

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

Re:windows already has some by signifying+nothing · 2005-05-04 03:37 · Score: 1

The code MS copied is not BSD code any more

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.

You know it's copied when... by Shazow · 2005-05-04 03:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

For one of our second year programming assignments, our lecturer posted a bunch of example code that she used during lecture.

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. :D Still am! *shakes fist*

So, to tie this to the topic, nothing works better than searching for typos! :D Google does a decent job for those who don't have access to a fancy OSS database.

- shazow

Re:windows already has some by Nimrangul · 2005-05-04 03:40 · Score: 1

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.

Re:windows already has some by m50d · 2005-05-04 03:54 · Score: 1

It prevents restriction because it doesn't allow additional restrictions on redistributed versions. It may seem strict by open source standards, but the restrictions that do exist are no practical problem (at least for me) and ensure derivatives are free, which seems to me to be worth the slightly greater initial restriction. I don't necessarily think all code should be open source, but I do think code should be open source unless there's a compelling reason for it not to be. GPL encourages this, because if you want to make your program closed and need a function from a GPL library you have to rewrite it yourself. This doesn't stop you making it closed, but should make you reconsider if that's really necessary. I think a lot of software, e.g. the hundreds of windows freeware programs, is still closed by default, where the author hasn't really thought about it, just stuck the binary up there and not worried about licensing.

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

Time to use SCO type suit against m$ by Halvy · 2005-05-04 03:56 · Score: 1

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..

Wait a minute by rongage · 2005-05-04 04:04 · Score: 1

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

Re:windows already has some by alienw · 2005-05-04 04:41 · Score: 1

My comparison is not ridiculous; your logic is.

Would be interesting to run it on itself by melted · 2005-05-04 04:57 · Score: 1

Would be interesting to run this tool's code through this tool. I'm sure there's GPL'd code cut&pasted somewhere. :0)

Re:windows already has some by DJCacophony · 2005-05-04 05:07 · Score: 1

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.

Re:windows already has some by DJCacophony · 2005-05-04 05:09 · Score: 1

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.

Re:windows already has some by myc_lykaon · 2005-05-04 05:14 · Score: 1

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.

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

Re:windows already has some by FooBarWidget · 2005-05-04 05:38 · Score: 1

If you got the software from a third party then you're *still* a licenser.

Re:windows already has some by FooBarWidget · 2005-05-04 05:41 · Score: 1

"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.

Developer Freedom vs Code Freedom (again) by Pfhorrest · 2005-05-04 05:49 · Score: 1

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: by jago25_98 · 2005-05-04 05:59 · Score: 1

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

Re:windows already has some by FooBarWidget · 2005-05-04 06:00 · Score: 1

OK, then you should move to a country where people can kill you for no reason, because that country is more free, right?

Some people seem to forget by rfc1394 · 2005-05-04 06:26 · Score: 1

BSD licensed code isn't a problem in any application; the BSD license allows you to take modifications private (without having to release the source to them) and thus you can use BSD-licensed code in a proprietary application.

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.

no mention of a pioneer in OSS license services... by museumpeace · 2005-05-04 07:54 · Score: 1

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.

On the flip side... by Schwern · 2005-05-04 08:35 · Score: 1

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.

Re:windows already has some by kz45 · 2005-05-04 10:01 · Score: 1

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).

Re:something about this dosn't make me as happy as by geminidomino · 2005-05-04 13:34 · Score: 1

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...

231 of 340 comments (clear)