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.
Yes. But "my employee did this, and he didn't have authority to do so" hasn't worked very effectively as a defense regarding software license violation and copyright infringement - or anything else. Or those BSA audits would have turned out differently, etc. Ultimately, the stockholders and management are responsible for what the company does even if they are so out of control that their employees do stuff without being instructed to :-)
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.