Slashdot Mirror
Does Using GPL Software Violate Sarbanes-Oxley?
Anonymous Coward writes "eWeek is reporting that The Software Freedom Law Center has published a white paper that dismisses recent publications from embedded systems seller Wasabi Systems. Wasabi recently released statements focusing on alleged GNU General Public License violations in relation to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The white paper, titled "Sarbanes-Oxley and the GPL: No Special Risk," essentially counsels users of the free software license that they have no need to worry."
violators of GPL are violators of Sarbanes-Oxley.
solution: don't violate the GPL.
You can never equivocate too much.
More importanly, you can substitute any other license for "GPL" in the parent post. If you misappropriate software under any license, you could have some liability. Duh.
Is water wet?
In the vast majority of possible temperatures it is gas or solid. So I'd say, on average, no; water is not wet.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
Does this actually have anything to do with the article? No
The Article says that violating the GPL may be a SOX violation, but no more so than any other EULA.I've seen a lot of complaints about Zonk; SM is worse.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Instead of requiring companies to do anything, how about telling people that they really shouldn't put their money anywhere but where they trust?
Our culture has accepted a lie about trust. We believe that it is the obligation of people to extend trust, and that it is a moral failing when they do not. In reality, the exact opposite is true. Nobody should be trusted until they have proved themselves trustworthy. If person A fails to trust person B, that is solely and completely person B's responsibility. It is not person A's fault. A has to earn B's trust.
This was clear to me during my dating days in an online singles community when I'd hear women who had just been jilted say, "How can I ever trust anyone again?" Well, the problem is that they were extending trust to people who had not yet earned it, and those people performed as could be expected. Then these women were viewing it as somehow their own moral obligation to trust people after that. In reality they were receiving an education that was pointing them to the obvious conclusion that it was not their responsibility to trust people who have not earned it.
Extending that to business is left as an exercise for the reader; I've had more success in dating than I have in business. ;)
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
In almost EVERY argument against the GPL, you can substitute any other license for "GPL", and the argument would still hold true.
One of the biggest arguments against the GPL is that if you use it in your own code, you have to agree to its terms. In the case of the GPL, those terms mean that your code must be GPLed. Other licenses set other terms; many licenses don't even ALLOW you to use their code in your code. In any case, if you don't follow the terms, you can be sued for copyright violation. So you always have a choice, no matter what the license -- either follow the license, or get sued.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Is this an 'innocent until proven guilty' world or a 'guilty until proven innocent' world?
I tend to take a decidedly buddhist view when it comes to that, nothing to do with the religion (before I get a religious flamewar going here), but I believe in moderation. Completely distrusting everyone is no worse than complete trusting everyone. You have to strike a balance - the way our world works depends upon it. Buisness depend upon trusting that the average consumer is not a theif (someone should tell the RIAA that, before they strangle the music industry), relationships depend upon trusting that the person you are with will be true to you, in whatever way that means to you.
~ Wizardry Dragon