Open Source Of Confusion Article - WDYT

[dann]

I'm curious as to what you guys think of this article: http://www.legalweek.com/ViewItem.asp?id=32018

It was posted today on LXER. I read through it, that I did, and got the impression that the author was ill-informed on some topics. First, is MS's Shared Source, which I believe he is talking about, a true OSS license?

some OSS licences permit users to inspect the code but not to modify it, as is the case with those issued by proprietary developers such as Microsoft.

Here is another paragraph I have a problem with:

For instance, some licences, including the current version of the GPL, require that all derivative works must "in turn" be licensed under the GPL — a rather difficult concept to accept if you have just funded extensive bespoke adaptation that could potentially give you an edge over your competitors.

Why would this be difficult to accept? The tone makes it appear as if people would be shocked to learn that you cannot just take someone else's code and do with it as you please and lock it up. Oh wait, BSD let's you. Anyway, the tone is very alarming, almost negative as if to say, "ohhh, that bad GPL."

Oh, and then he brings out SCO card and IP issues, and then drag the issue of technical support through the mud and says all this is to be expected with a concept/product/solution that is still in it's infancy. I don't get the infancy part there, a lot of this stuff has been around for decades.

This line kills me:

The more prudent CIOs will be aware of where open source code has been used in their company and will have paid for a solution to track such usage.

Although he does not come out and say this, it seems as if he is advocating that if you use OSS software you better find a commercial, [closed] application to keep tabs on it's proliferation.

What frosts me the most I guess is that you can say almost the exact same thing about any type of software. Singling out OSS is just too close to FUD.

[TankCatNinjaFish]

This article is just more of what Mr. Ballmer wants to hear.

open source products often have limited or no technical support.

Not unless you pay for it, or are business expecting free support contracts nowadays? Anyone who has a clue about Apache, Linux, Samba, or any other non-corporate project knows that support comes from employing the developers and other experts in the community. DUH.

For instance, some licences, including the current version of the GPL, require that all derivative works must "in turn" be licensed under the GPL — a rather difficult concept to accept if you have just funded extensive bespoke adaptation that could potentially give you an edge over your competitors.

Why would this be difficult to accept? The tone makes it appear as if people would be shocked to learn that you cannot just take someone else's code and do with it as you please and lock it up. Oh wait, BSD let's you. Anyway, the tone is very alarming, almost negative as if to say, "ohhh, that bad GPL."

Not to mention the GPL is only relevant if you actually derive from the work. This article makes it sound like you have to keep an unlocked building in order to run MySQL. Not to mention many "enterprise" software vendors have far more draconian licenses involving royalties, NDA, mandatory subscription fees, etc.

[Gomer_X]

Here is another paragraph I have a problem with:

For instance, some licences, including the current version of the GPL, require that all derivative works must "in turn" be licensed under the GPL — a rather difficult concept to accept if you have just funded extensive bespoke adaptation that could potentially give you an edge over your competitors.

If you're modifying code to get an edge over your competitors, why are you releasing it? Won't that destroy your edge? Why not just keep the code in-house? If you're not releasing anything, there's no need to license it.