Open Source Software Shows Its Muscle

Two recent events should give for-profit companies new reasons to re-evaluate the ways in which they use open source software as well as the extent to which they use it. These events are: (1) the release of a new version of the widely used license that covers such software, i.e., the General Public License version 3, and (2) a round of lawsuits filed by the Software Freedom Law Center against for-profit companies using the software for commercial gain. Four companies to date, the largest of which is Verizon Communications Inc., have been sued for violation of the GPL.

Although the lawsuits are not about changed provisions in the GPL, both events are muscle-flexing by the free software community and, taken together, may foreshadow new risks in the irreconcilable conflict between open source software and its widespread use by for-profit companies. With the filing of court documents, a philosophical debate about the proper place for software in society has become a business dispute with the risk of substantial consequences. For-profit companies using open source software should take notice and understand the risks.

"Not a lot of people yet realize these “GPL” licenses are created by green party leftist Richard Stallman, but word’s finally getting out as he gets more greedy with his code confiscation clauses."

I don't know where you get that from. Just about every open source software uses the GPL license. WHere do you get that he gets "more greedy"? No one person controls the GPL license as it's just a license agreement for anyone that produces open source software. You act like the GPL agreement contributes to leftist causes which is just flat out wrong.

According to Stallman’s stated “ultimate goal” on his website, it’s quote “to make proprietary software obsolete” and once that happens have a government “software tax” on everyone to pay software programmers. His licenses are how he currently helps bring his vision to life, as anyone who tries to sell or distribute their own custom developed GPL code must also be willing to give the rights to freely duplicate the code infinitely away to the recipient. Stallman’s legal groups regularly go to court to force companies to follow this requirement, with well known compamies such as Linksys being victims of Stallman’s GPL trap.

And with each new version of the GPL, he makes it harder and harder for companies to operate profitably using GPL software, such as GPL 3 which specifically targeted Tivo’s use in personal video recorders.

As the law.com article above states, Stallman’s next license could very well require developers to hand over ALL personally developed software improvements, whether the company intended to keep them private, or not. This would be targetted at businesses like Google, who internally modify but don’t distribute GPL code, and are therefore currently free from his confiscation attempts, but would not be if Stallman ultimately gets his way and is able to pluck their software from them in his mission of making all software free.

Stallman’s software is like a trojan horse in a way, he claims his software is quote “free”, but the license actually has many gotchas in it that continue to grow with every release. Many places including where I work, policies are in place that prevent developers from using any GPL code in their products whatsoever, so they don’t accidentally find themselves suffering a lawsuit from Stallman and having to give the rights to infinitely duplicate internally developed software to corporate competitors.

That seems to be the point of the law.com article, Stallman getting more greedy with his license gotchas, which will have a ripple effect through the industry.

The GPL is not a “trap” or “trojan horse.” You have no right to copy somebody else’s work without complying with their terms. The terms of use are spelled out in plain English.

If you fail to comply with those terms, it is because you were negligent. You don’t just copy source code from the internet, Microsoft, or anybody else without understanding the conditions. You can get away with it as a hobbyist (maybe) but professionals should know better.

Linksys and other companies believed that they did not need to respect copyright law, and they paid the price.

That said... Stallman does advance a far-left agenda in what he does. But let’s be honest about what the conditions really are. The market is already rejecting GPLv3 for some applications, and many companies are taking a good hard look at whether they really want to deal with the new license. His revolution will never come to pass at this rate.

>> It’s nothing but FUD.

Maybe so, but help me out here.

Who, then, is behind raising the spectre of fear, uncertainty, and doubt?

Who is the target?

And what is the reason? What is the agenda?

Thx

What's not acceptable is to violate the license.

What I don't find acceptable is that the GPL3 makes an attempt to control hardware though the anti-TiVO clause. Sorry, a software license has no business telling you how to design the hardware it's being run on, especially not a supposedly free software license. Stallman got his head so full of his philosophy of free that he lost sight of reality.

Thus my favorite open source license remains the Mozilla Public License.

The GPL is not a “trap” or “trojan horse.”

Many of those that had their personally created software taken away from them, against their wishes, may not agree with you.

Linksys and other companies believed that they did not need to respect copyright law

Source?

That said... Stallman does advance a far-left agenda in what he does.

Which is the main reason I oppose his license. He even refers to it as "copyleft" vs. normal "copyright".

The market is already rejecting GPLv3 for some applications, and many companies are taking a good hard look at whether they really want to deal with the new license. His revolution will never come to pass at this rate.

Let's hope so. The law.com article is helping raise awareness in that regard, but truth is many poeple simply don't understand the full intricacies and implications of the tricky GPL license outside GPL proponents, this very article is actually poorly written and much less specific than our current discussion. Not to mention the software is marketed as "free", and when people find out that's not the case and question the marketing, they're told "we meant free as in freedom", which is equally bogus.

and are therefore currently free from his confiscation attempts

Here we go again. When it's the GPL being enforced, it's confiscation. When it's any proprietary license being enforced, it's protection of "intellectual property" rights. No principles. We agree that it would be wrong for Stallman to change the license to go after Google, but then you do that.

so they don’t accidentally find themselves suffering a lawsuit from Stallman and having to give the rights to infinitely duplicate internally developed software to corporate competitors.

For the nth time, they don't have to give anything. The company can cease distribution of the infringed code, recall any infringing code, pay damages to the copyright holder, and replace the infringed code with non-infringing code. They have the same options as with any proprietary software copyright infringement case, plus the option of continuing use of the infringed code by paying with code instead of cash.

The reason most companies have chosen to GPL their code is simple: This usually happens using Linux illegally to run hardware, of which millions of units have been sold. Giving up a little code is usually a LOT cheaper than having an injunction slapped on your fast-selling product and recalling millions of already-sold units. But Cisco and others had that option.

I wonder what it would have cost Cisco had they used Windows CE to run those routers sold without getting a license from Microsoft. Even being nice and demanding only $50 per infringed copy it would have cost Cisco over $100 million just for the units shipped up to 2002.

Part of the deal is that in exchange for being able to reuse their code, you need to preserve the ability to tinker with it.

Originally that was done by simply requiring people to release their changes to the source code. But now that tamper-resistant hardware is common, the license was changed to make it clear that this is not consistent with the authors’ wishes.

This is hindering adoption of GPLv3 code in many embedded devices, and causing other vendors to look for ways around it (partitioning, virtualization, etc.).

When it's the GPL being enforced, it's confiscation. When it's any proprietary license being enforced, it's protection of "intellectual property" rights.

Several quick reasons off the top of my head. First, GPL is marketed as "free", until a gotcha jumps out of the box. If a proprietary software product marketed itself as "free" but then a gotcha jumped out of the box later, I would consider it a dishonest product and oppose the enforcement of their rights. Second, GPL is known as "copyleft", an extension of "copyright". I do support conventional copyright, but I do not support the copyleft extension, which still hasn't been specifically tested in US court. Third, copyleft is put forward by a radical leftist to advance his socialist views. I oppose that as well, and encourage others to oppose socialists and their agendas themselves.

This is an impractical option for software that may have already been distributed to thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of others. What you are suggesting is typically a much more serious penalty, therefore moot.

Giving up a little code is usually a LOT cheaper than having an injunction slapped on your fast-selling product and recalling millions of already-sold units. But Cisco and others had that option.

Exactly what I just said, why did you even bring this up in the first place if not as an intended distration?

I wonder what it would have cost Cisco had they used Windows CE to run those routers sold without getting a license from Microsoft. Even being nice and demanding only $50 per infringed copy

Cisco has their own O/S, or they could have used a much more capitalistic license with BSD and not been subject to Stallman's demands. CE was only $3 per unit by 2003 anyway.

I believe they are referring to the Affero license.

The basic idea is this:

If you take a GNU program, improve it, and then distribute/sell the modified version, everybody gets to benefit from your changes.

If you take a GNU program that works as a web service, improve it, then use it to run a web site, nobody else gets to benefit from your changes because you’re not actually distributing it.

So, an Affero-licensed program could include a facility that lets remote users ask the program to print its own source code, so that they can see your improvements. And you’re not allowed to disable this facility.

Again, this is not a “trap.” It is stated in plain English in the license, and they make it abundantly clear what the intent is.

I will not speculate as to what the author’s agenda was. Maybe he is just confused.

First, GPL is marketed as "free", until a gotcha jumps out of the box.

The licenses are easy to read and easy to understand. They tell you exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Extremely small operations (like one guy writing shareware from his dorm room) are capable of understanding and complying with these licenses.

There is no excuse for a multibillion dollar company like Cisco/Linksys to screw this up.

Several quick reasons off the top of my head.

Your reasons have everything to do with Stallman's ideology, but have nothing to do with copyright law. Either you support copyright law, or you don't. As you noticed in the other thread, I supported a film I absolutely disagree with on copyright law, because the law and the principles behind copyright do not change based on the ideology of the parties. Your situational ethics and lack of principle are disturbing.

This is an impractical option for software that may have already been distributed to thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of others.

Such are the problems of violating copyright. They still have a choice. Nobody can be forced to give up code as you say they can. When Microsoft finds infringers it often offers a long-term software assurance program as a cheaper way out. Do you say Microsoft forced the infringer into SA, or do you say the infringer chose the less expensive restitution for its illegal action?

Exactly what I just said, why did you even bring this up in the first place

Because it shows the infringer has a choice driven by the less expensive option.

Cisco has their own O/S, or they could have used a much more capitalistic license with BSD and not been subject to Stallman's demands.

Cisco didn't design the routers. BSD is far less capitalistic than the GPL because it doesn't require something of value in exchange for the license. It is completely free.

CE was only $3 per unit by 2003 anyway.

Then that means $6.9 million in actual damages as of 2002. The Cisco-owned code used in the router most likely cost far less than that to develop (basically just a very small web site to alter the settings for the included GPL code, and probably a device driver or two). Anyway, I said $50 as actual plus moderate punitive damages given that the routers sold for somewhere around $100-$200.

If you take a GNU program that works as a web service, improve it, then use it to run a web site, nobody else gets to benefit from your changes because you’re not actually distributing it.

This is the exact type of scenario that Stallman and his surrogates are targeting in future versions of the GPL, which the law.com article infers at the end as part of its warning about GPL. For reference see articles such as this:

Google, Other Linux Developers "Must Share Code"

Software Freedom Law Center Chairman Outlines View

http://wireless.sys-con.com/read/380011.htm

If you build your business on Linux, then you should share your code, according to Eben Moglen, chairman of the Software Freedom Law Center. This view was expressed in a presentation given by Moglen at the Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco. Moglen's remarks come in the context of the final weeks of completion of Version 3 of the GNU General Public License, for which Moglen is providing legal counsel to GPL creator Richard Stallman.

Google spokespeople have pointed out that the company committed to doing no evil has contributed to open source projects (including Linux), but Moglen makes it clear that his view is that the community comes first. "(Google has) ethical and community responsibilities to return at least those modifications that are not critical to their business and that are of general value to the community," Moglen said. "We will see over time whether there are additional measures necessary in order to secure cooperation in the community."

Your situational ethics and lack of principle are disturbing.

Your continued support of leftists and their agenda despite my very valid reasoning is much more disturbing.

BSD is far less capitalistic than the GPL because it doesn't require something of value in exchange for the license. It is completely free.

LOL is all I can say to that. BSD is very well known to be a much more capitilistic-friendly license because it doesn't require its users to share their unique features immediately with competitors. Stallman's theory's are well known to be anti-capitalistic including his call for replacing proprietary software with a software tax, you're way out on a creaky limb trying to claim GPL is more capitalistic, but not unusual for you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.