Legal traps in open source

[Matthew Hawkins]

Kim Holburn (kim.holburn at anu.edu.au) wrote:
> There's an interesting article "Legal traps in open source" in the
> Australian IT section today (Tuesday) p27.  
> 
> It calls the GPL "viral", where have I heard that before?

I've said it ;-)  Clause 2 of the GPL is quite explicit about this.

"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on
the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
License"

ie, if I write a program that uses gettext for internationalisation,
then if I distribute gettext with my program then my program must also
be GPL'd, even though gettext may be the only GNU code linked with it
and my program was not derived from gettext at all - it simply uses it.

This is why libraries should be LGPL'd (or, better still, people use the
more free BSD or derived licenses for their software)

> I don't follow her logic, why would "using" a piece of GPL software be
> in any way restrictive as opposed to "using" a piece of bought
> software (a binary) with a complicated and restrictive EULA?

Well it isn't in that context.  She doesn't put it in that context
though - this Debra Tippet simply makes completely unfounded statements,
many of which are false.  Her name rings a bell, I think she's been
party to this kind of FUD before.

Some of the more amusing comments in the article were that the GPL
has only been around 10 years (version 2 has been around over 11) and
has never been tested (I remember slashdot articles years ago about the
GPL being tested);

"From a copyright point of view, developers are most at risk because
they lose the ability to assert ownership" (lie - she obviously doesn't
know the difference between copyright and licensing)

"Open-source free licences are generally over the internet and assent to
enter into the licence generally occurs when somebody modifies or
distributes the actual program or any work based on that," (sorry,
licenses apply when you *obtain* a copy from any source, and the
application is the same as any other license, its not restricted to the
internet).

"Not understanding the implications of what they are doing, they could
incorporate it into a program for their employer, which may then be
distributed for a price and they could be in breach of the GPL."
(there's two issues here; one is that there's obviously no proper
software development procedures being followed at such a company hence
they deserve any legal trouble they get into; two is that GPL'd software
is able to be charged for, whether in initial sale or in redistribution)

"The lack of a liability regime also meant the distributor was not
liable for defects in the product"
(according to the GPL, extra warranty is able to be placed on GPL'd
items (it's the first clause!!!)).

It seems to me that Ms Tippet simply has no clue and has not bothered to
do any homework whatsoever. 

> This is interesting:
> >The lack of a liability regime also meant the distributor was not
> >liable for defects in the product, which may cause data loss or
> >systems to crash.
> 
> Does this mean Microsoft are liable for defects in their products?

Of course not.  No computer engineer is liable for defects in their
products, by past precedence.  People seem content that computer
software is dodgy, and are content to pay for it again and again to get
it "fixed".  Microsoft would not be where they are today if this was not
the case.  That's why I think its important that hardware and software
engineers be treated the same way as civil and other kinds of
engineering.  This would probably involve legislation to push the point
home.  I'd like to be involved in advocating this to whoever the right
people are.

-- 
Matt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux/attachments/20021030/4dd839b3/attachment.bin