Slashdot Mirror
VX30 Ad-Stats Code Online
tmk writes "Drunkenblog has done it again. After deconstructing Maui X-Stream has GPL Violations with reproducable proof, he put a copy of the VX30 Ad-Stats source online. There is also a copy of the phpAdsNew source to compare. Drunkenbatman
says 'This is a community problem, and it's pretty much up to you.'"
Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
Although we met several technical challenges along the way
(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
now be available at no cost to our competitors.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
it remains only a bit player.
Thank you for your time.
This just goes to show that people are willing to pay extra for software that they believe isn't encumbered by the GPL.
You write a program and make it freely available, including source code.
Someone takes that program, makes a few changes and releases it as their own.
You take legal action against them for "GPL violation"
Although *technically* you are justified for taking action, in reality, all you're really doing is being a prick.
Please, just give me one reason why what the gp said was poor communication
Who said anything about poor communication? I really did add it to my lexicon. The problem I personally need to deal with right now is not sounding like a fool around the paople I know. They don't know or care about SCO at all. Using the term 'SCOing' around them will require at least 10 minutes discussing the etymology of the word.
Hmm. I see that companies don't think they can adhere to the GPL, if they're going to incorporate GPL code into their products. On the other hand, I see the GPL as still a paper shark, where violating it gets you nothing but a bunch of nasty emails from geeks.
These are two separate problems with the GPL: Companies can't live with it, and they can't be made to do so. Maybe it's time to accept that the GPL needs some serious reworking if OSS is to be used commercially.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
The software was used in the Golden Globe awards. Since customers of commercial copyright infringers can in turn be sued for copyright infringement, how about one of the copyright holders suing the MPAA? You have to admit that would be interesting to see :-)
I posted the above in response to the previous story. I'm absolutely serious - they should sue the MPAA for copyright infringement; they made illegal copies of the software when they installed it onto their hard drives, and ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.