'Infectious' Open Source Software?

Gavo writes "Law firm Chapmann Tripp advises New Zealand State Services Commission that the New Zealand Government should be wary of using 'infectious' open source software. They claim 'While the use of open source software has many benefits, it brings with it a number of legal risks not posed by proprietary or commercial software.'"

Comments

Sigh. Another one.

[jimicus]

It's not FUD, it is simply "OSS for the uninitiated - be warned that if you're developing software, you might want to actually read the license of anything else you or your contractors plan to use rather than just ignoring it like you usually do". The general tone is "You can use OSS, but be careful".

It's not terribly well written, mainly because it seems to add a load of guff to licenses which are by and large pretty easy to read. And it uses some contentious terminology which is likely to cause concern. ("Infectious", anyone?)

Doubtless a whole boatload of slashbots who didn't RTFA will be a long in a moment to say "yeah but no but it's microsoft FUD ignore it don't give it publicity etc etc" - I'm not going to debate that one. I actually think it's more likely to be an attempt on the part of the law firm to drum up a bit of business. Something along the lines of "Now you've read this article, contact us for further advice!"

RTF Document

[KingSkippus]

Read the actual document, not just the summary. The actual document isn't that bad.

The stuff inside isn't that big a secret to most folks. It mainly boils down to, "Using open source software under licenses we've reviewed is okay, but be careful if you're developing code using open source software that we don't want released to the masses, because under some licenses, we may be obligated to."

In fact, this document is probably a good thing, in spite of a somewhat badly written summary. Check out Chapter 2:

(a) Only use open source licences that have been legally reviewed, including the GPL, LGPL, CAL, MBSD, MIT, which have been reviewed and are recommended by SSC for use in accordance with this guide.

(b) Obtain performance and intellectual property warranties from the supplier of the open source software, where appropriate and available.

This only makes sense. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing, saying that you should use software with a license we're not familiar with, or to disregard the IP of open source authors.

Also, look just below it. It says that for software development that is for open distribution, it's okay to use open source software. For software that is for limited or closed distribution, don't. Is this new? Am I missing something? If anything, people who are interested in open source software can look at this document as permission to go forward, not as a hinderance!

I mean, I realize that the words "infectious" has negative connotations, but I just don't see this document in and of itself as a bad thing. And even though I'm a strong FOSS advocate, the stuff that's in there is stuff that I would recommend to any company, government or organization to consider in their decision whether to use closed- or open source software.

Re:RTF Document

[bani]

I mean, I realize that the words "infectious" has negative connotations, but I just don't see this document in and of itself as a bad thing.

You might think that, with your head screwed on properly. However the pointy hairs who read this document are going to go apeshit when they read the emotional words "infectious" and "quarantine".

This document is written for pointy hairs, not engineers. It's designed to scare them into submission, make them freak out and think that open source is going to steal all their company patents, intellectual propery, their baby, and kick their dog too.

Re:and GPL v3 makes this problem worse

[meringuoid]

For companies that do not want their source code plastered all over the internet, avoiding GPL'd software just makes good sense.

Ehh... sort of. You can still use open-source software: you can develop in emacs on GNU/Linux and write up all the documentation using LyX or OpenOffice or whatever. As long as your product is all your own work that's fine. It's when you start shipping, say... an Integrated Firewall Solution that happens to run on a modified Linux kernel that you might run into GPL issues.

That's the quarrel we generally have with this kind of article: it can confuse the issue between use of GPL software - which you can do freely, even if you don't accept the terms of the GPL itself - and redistribution of GPL software or derived works, which is just plain illegal under standard copyright law unless you do so under the terms of the GPL.