| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Open source licensing minefield looms | |
|
||
| Time: 08:49 EST/13:49 GMT | News Source: VNUNet | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
With the rise of open source software in the enterprise, companies increasingly run the risk of violating either open source or commercial software licences, legal experts at LinuxWorld have claimed. The risk centres on applications developed and maintained by internal IT organisations. When developers mix code governed by the General Public Licence (GPL) with proprietary code from a company like Microsoft, they violate both Microsoft's licence and the GPL. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:08:55 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/17/2005 12:27:19 PM |
|
These legal experts at LinuxWorld are clearly being manipulative.
Everybody knows the GPL is a warm fluffly license, and isn't designed to force companies into releasing their own source code. *snark* |
| #2 By 2231 (68.100.199.62) at 2/17/2005 2:32:30 PM |
| Why is that any different than mixing home grown non-GPL code with Microsoft code or mixing Microsoft code with Cisco code? |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 2/17/2005 3:30:19 PM |
|
#1: You're acting dumb to try and make a weak point. Open source, by fricken definition, means OPEN SOURCE. Tricky eh? If you contribute code to an open source project and then are surprised that the source is available for all to see, well then you're just clueless. Newsflash: the other day I bought a carton of milk. And when I opened it up, there was MILK inside! I was flabbergasted!
#4: You don't want to give up your source code? No problem. Just don't use any GPL-covered source -- write it all yourself. No problem. And yes, it's insidiously evil. If you want to benefit from the work of others, you must allow others to benefit from your work. Much more evil the the MS 'all your base are belong to us' model. |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 2/17/2005 4:43:16 PM |
| #6: Um, no. Your proprietary code is at risk if you incorporate (a nicer word than 'steal') GPL code into your software without abiding by the terms of the GPL. You're at risk if you steal and get caught. |
| #5 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 2/17/2005 5:29:24 PM |
|
What's looming about it? It's here already! You have software companies indemnifying it and insurance companies selling indemnification for it.
|
| #6 By 10896 (24.25.182.11) at 2/17/2005 8:15:36 PM |
| What idiot would pay RH 1699 dollars/perserver/peryear for RHEL 4. This is the cheapest option, by the way. Aren't they supposed to give you the source so you can install it on as many machines and redistribute as you see fit. Guess I will head over to Centos.com and download RHEL 4 for free and not pay these ridiculous prices. |
| #7 By 2459 (69.22.124.228) at 2/17/2005 10:47:17 PM |
|
Latch: If you want to benefit from the work of others, you must allow others to benefit from your work.
Not true in all cases. There are OSS licenses other than GPL that are commercial/proprietary-friendly and allow you to use code as you see fit with zero consequences. There are also licenses that allow the same freedoms, with attribution of the original author/contributing entity as the only requirement. Attribution may be seen as a benefit for the second case, but the first case offers no direct benefits to the code provider. Either case would be much more flexible/desireable for commercial entities than GPL/GPL-like licenses. This post was edited by n4cer on Thursday, February 17, 2005 at 22:48. |
| #8 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 2/18/2005 1:07:42 AM |
|
halcyon - "But I assume those who want to pay for 24/7 support would do so just because they want someone else to support them. But you're right, you can get along fine without it."
Get along fine without it? What the hell kind of business does not have the NECESSITY of maintaining support agreements with their vendors? THIS lack of understanding of how BUSINESS happens is holding back OSS. |
| #9 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 2/18/2005 1:36:09 AM |
|
#17, Dead on! ...and no one has even mentioned escrow and liquidation clauses in contracts...
Where the SW Dev, or seller, has to give up all rights to the source in the even the seller's company fails. Not at all rare - buyers have to protect their investments in SW, too and they do. OSS lic. models aside, there are many business deal points that no one seems to speak to here. RHN subscriptions are not at all cheap and required inside most deals to ensure consistent sources of support/patches, etc... are provided for. Without them, deals are not made, SW is not licensed and the companies building it fail. I work to support many young companies and have addressed more "response documents" than I care to count. moorsa is dead on, there is a business world out there with requirements that must be addressed. Perhaps the greatest strength in building custom SW using .NET for use on MS's platforms is the clarity available, its consistency and support for partners and developers. We can build all the SW we want and sell it any way we want and on a platform that is clear about what it is and how to support it. |
| #10 By 10896 (64.140.196.109) at 2/18/2005 5:01:06 PM |
|
Try centos.org for free versions of RHEL 4.
It is GPL so of course it is free Not on red cent for Redhat. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:08:55 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
