Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Perens On Combining GPL and Proprietary Software
jammag writes "Combining GPL and proprietary software is ever more common, especially in the world of embedded devices like cell phones. But the question is: how to combine them legally. As sticky as the issue is, there is an answer, as self titled "open source strategic consultant" Bruce Perens explains. The proper procedure entails fully understanding what type of open source software you're using, and knowing why you need to combine these disparate licenses. The problem, he notes, is that many companies don't know or care about doing this legally. 'They're used to just "clicking yes" with no regard to what they're committing themselves and their company to.' Hopefully Perens' guide can be read by more company execs — resulting in fewer lawsuits going forward (but we're not holding our breath)." update 21:31 GMT by SM: Bruce wrote in to make sure we knew he was not a lawyer, even though he is weighing in on a legal issue; updated to reflect.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
> no regard to what they're committing themselves and their company
Most employees aren't legally empowered to commit their company / organisation to anything. They don't have the authority to sign contracts on behalf of the company / organisation.
"An "Ask Slashdot" with the goatse guy would be more enlightening to read."
LOL, he certainly has had a tremendous and lasting impact on Slashdot. I would love a interview with the guy. Does he use Linux or Windows? BSD or GPL for his open source projects? We've all gotten insight into one side of him. It's long over do to learn about the other.
Can you #include header files from GPLed code in proprietary code?
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
They're used to just "clicking yes" with no regard to what they're committing themselves and their company to.
This is a very subjective question for you to answer (so feel free to say "I'd rather not speculate"), but my question is: When these companies disregard the license, is their primary reason for doing so stupidity or malice? Is it usually because someone mistakenly thinks "hey, this is available online so I can do whatever I want with it" or is it more along the lines of "no one will ever catch me, so I'm just going to grab this code."
In any case, thanks for all your hard work for the community!
When I visit a company to help them develop their Open Source strategy, I schedule a 50-minute talk for the top execs and the head of legal. This talk tells them what I am doing with the middle management, gives them some anti-propaganda to reset their opinions and expectations about Open Source, and establishes who I am working with in the company so that when they have issues about Open Source they know where to go.
That's about all I can get out of the top execs. But I get a lot of attention from the middle management folks who actually do the work.
Some of the recent lawsuits have got their attention. But what it often does is cause them to put a "no open source" clause in their default supplier contract. I signed a contract with a big phone company that promised I would not give them any Open Source! Of course, I was giving them advice.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The FSF were the wrong folks to do this with, because they do not want to help you make proprietary software. I will help you make both Free and Proprietary if you wish, and I'll make sure they don't get mixed in a harmful way. I charge for the service - I've got to make a living. You also need an attorney, if you don't yet have one. Part of the time I'd be working with your attorney, and part with you.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
It sounds easy, but it is actually very difficult to keep from distributing. You see, a distribution is a transfer between any two legal entities. So, for example, you hire a consultant and give him a copy of the software. Then you decide not to use the consultant any longer. He's annoyed, and he asserts his GPL rights on your entire product, and distributes it. You go to sue, and the copyright holder of the GPL piece gets involved and makes a case that you don't have the rights you think you did. Your NDA does not apply to GPL software because GPL prohibits you from adding incompatible terms.
In some cases, transfer between divisions, especially partnerships with one or more additional firms, are distribution. So, in practice, I think that purposefully not distributing is too difficult to do reliably. It also does not work against Affero GPL3. If you perform that as a service, you have to give up the source code.
So, it is much easier to keep your software separate as I advise.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
(AC because I work on what I'm talking about, and this problem hampers me continuously, at my current job and all previous).
I am dismayed that this is a possible loop-hole to the GPL. There is a very real examples of this today: the T-Mobile G1, and its slightly-unlocked Developer handset counterpart.
The trouble is, these devices are completely unusable without the binary blob loaded into the other processor. A lot of the functionality is still inaccessible, and worse still the manufacturers can get away without even providing a data sheet. Even worse still - these devices can be totally locked down, signed, and remove the ability to replace the GPL parts.
It's self-reinforcing, too. The ARM9/ARM11 split (in this specific case) is an increasingly inefficient thing to do, as ARMs are very good at low latency response (FIQs), and the partition is NOT as simple as multiple processors. In the Qualcomm MSM7200 part used in the vast majority of handsets (including the G1), it's another core and they share RAM and all peripherals. There's an awkward memory partition that has to happen, and that's inefficient use of memory. There's a duplication of ARM pipelines and caches. It's not as efficient as people would have you believe.
In short, it's a bad use of hardware resources just to work-around licensing.
I hold out little hope that manufacturers will provide access to radio layers, unlock devices, and generally provide data sheets so long as the "it's on another processor" work-around is an acceptable solution. Perhaps market forces will change their mind as soon as one big player decides that the hardware cost is no longer worth it. Perhaps not.
To be honest, though, I'm slightly happier that there is the workaround and we can see GPL software in handsets, rather than nothing at all.
Are you actually happy with this solution (or only somewhat happy, like me!), or is it just a recommendation?
In the United States, it is not legal for anyone but an attorney whom you have retained, and who is admitted to the applicable Bar Association, to give you legal advice. Thus, people like me make clear that they are not attorneys, and that our advice, although it concerns the law, is something less than legal advice. It's your responsibility to check it out with your lawyer. I would be happy to talk with your lawyer, too.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
If even he says that Linux is a pain in the ass to use, my advocacy days are over.
In order to get my employer to move in the direction of Open Source, I provided research to show that closed source isn't free of litigation either.
In fact, our chipset supplier ran into trouble with closed source software which still lead to a cease and desist order requiring a class A Change
I do believe the GPL does need to be re-written in a far less verbose manner as many executives still do not understand it.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I don't understand why you need 2 processors to combine proprietary and GPL code. Anything that can be done on two processors can be done on one processor at half the speed. So obviously, you don't need 2 processors.
So maybe using 2 processors makes it easier to combine proprietary and GPL code. Why and how? Are you arguing that code that runs on processor A can not possibly be a derivative work of code that runs on processor B?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Some folks have written GPL equivalents without the preamble. They've not become popular. The problem these days is not really the GPL. It is that there have been thousands of meaningful court cases about software creating precedents helpful or harmful, and there is a lot of rather pernicious legislation like DMCA. So, we have to craft a license that will protect us from a tower of existing legal paper higher than I can figure. The fact that you can still read it in one sitting is pretty impressive. If you read the findings in recent court cases, especially the appeal in the JMRI case, it's pretty clear that judges like the GPL. And that's what we really need. If it doesn't protect you in court, why is it there at all?
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Does anyone know why we always give those "IANAL" disclaimers?
In the United States, it is not legal for anyone but an attorney whom you have retained, and who is admitted to the applicable Bar Association, to give you legal advice.
How far does that go? I mean, in the extreme, wouldn't that mean it's illegal for a cop to tell kids that they need to obey the speed limit?
I guess what I'm asking is what rules, if any, prevent that (absurd) example from being actually illegal?
That would be a zombie president. I thought we just tried that.
While the GPL purists might balk at this, it does make the product usable elsewhere (more usage == more testing == good for everyone) and also provides a revenue stream to help further development (good for everyone).
Being practical is far more important than being purist.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
There's a good explanation in Wikipedia:
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
So, for example, you hire a consultant and give him a copy of the software. Then you decide not to use the consultant any longer. He's annoyed, and he asserts his GPL rights on your entire product, and distributes it. You go to sue, and the copyright holder of the GPL piece gets involved and makes a case that you don't have the rights you think you did. Your NDA does not apply to GPL software because GPL prohibits you from adding incompatible terms.
What are the realistic odds of this actually happening?
Let's get real here for a minute. Virtually every legal case is decided by who has the most money to hire the most lawyers. So most legal "battles" are only between evenly-matched opponents, which is not the case you describe above. In reality, the company would threaten the consultant and because they have more resources the consultant would quickly back down.
No, the only credible legal case we're likely to see (and have seen, I've followed this) is a company that uses combined proprietary/GPL code and then a rival copies their product whole cloth (maybe changing a few logos here and there) and then starts selling it claiming that "GPL infection" means the original company can't assert copyright. THIS is the scenario most companies are concerned about.
You can develop a modified version for your consulting customer under an NDA in which you agree not to distribute your then-proprietary modification, because (in theory) you are not giving the customer any GPL software, only stuff that is proprietary at that time. But if either party gives the other BOTH the GPL software and the modification, together, then the NDA doesn't apply to that transfer and the whole thing is under the GPL.
In FSF's place I would not have given such a pat answer. I think this is harder to comply with in practice than they make it appear.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
My web presence is driven mostly by an account at Dreamhost, a nice net hosting company that runs Debian and charges very little. I also have a cheap ($30/month) dedicated server at corenetworks.net also running Debian, which currently runs the one application that wouldn't work at Dreamhost because I need to run my own server on a low-numbered IP port.
There are 3 workstations in the house, and one server. The upstairs workstation that Valerie and I use, and my office workstation downstairs and the server are running Debian. There is an HP Ethernet connected scanner/printer that connects to Samba on the server for storing scans and prints using IPP from CUPS. There is an old machine running XP that is only for Quicken, and TurboTax once a year, and for the situations once in a while where I have to see how web sites look in IE or programs run on Windows. I could probably host Quicken on Linux with Wine or Codeweavers, which would leave only Turbotax (which doesn't run for long enough each year for Codeweavers to support it).
My main laptop is an Acer Aspire One running Debian, with two 8-hour batteries and its original 3-hour battery. I fly a lot. I have a PowerMac laptop that someone gave me, for testing how things look or work on Macintosh, but it's not seen any work yet. There is an older laptop hanging around, and I just gave 5 or 6 laptops to the Alameda Computer Recycling Center. There is also a Nokia 770 running Linux, and I've an old Motorola A780 cellphone running Linux. I have a number of embedded systems boards that run Linux, sitting in my workshop. I have a little music player that plays Ogg. My 2007 Prius has had the video input hack, and displays the video output of my ham radio on the console screen. I could connect Linux to it, if I had more time to play.
I really like Debian. I try to practice what I preach, things pretty much are run entirely on Free Software here, except for the personal finances. The company finances do run on GnuCash, and I have GnuCash doing e-banking, so perhaps someday we'll ditch Quicken. Turbotax is pretty much the perfect proprietary program - not written for love, not written by programmers at all, deep and current information, high liability. It would be hard to make a good Free substitute for it without a sugar daddy of major proportions, like the government.
But this didn't give you much more insight into me, did it :-) I'll get a real interview sometime.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Previous to this netbook, I had a Sony Vaio with a Celeron 1GHz from about 2004. The netbook might be a little slower, I'm not sure. It came with 160M disk - bigger than the Sony, and 1G ram, same as the Sony. Using Debian the netbook does everything I want. I doubt this would be the case with XP or Limpus. The keyboard is big enough for my big fingers to touch-type upon, and the display is sufficient. I tend to use big fonts on it.
It didn't play HDTV video well at the full screen resolution in the one test I've done so far - I don't know if this is strictly a hardware limitation or if the Intel 945G graphics driver could be improved. Maybe DVD video, with its lower resolution, would work. Video in the smaller box generally offered by youtube and its ilk is fine.
It is, however, rather slow at building the Linux kernel, which I was only doing to optimize the netbook itself. For building my own, smaller, software, it works fine. So, using it for development is fine, using it to write documents or presentation with OpenOffice.org3 is fine, email and web are fine. I had to build a wifi driver that is out of tree, and I compiled a few drivers into the kernel that were usually modules so that the "expansion" flash card slot worked correctly. I think the other, non-expansion (because the card sticks out) flash card slot might not be working correctly yet. I just plug in a USB card reader in its place. I am running 2.6.28, which has the MTRR fix (see perens.com/blog for the MTRR discussion) and the best power management. I did some tuning with powertune.
Bruce Perens.