[olug] U.K. Urged to hold back on open source

[Sam Tetherow]

William E. Kempf wrote:
> Sam Tetherow said:
> 
>>William E. Kempf wrote:
>>
>>>You seem to be under a misaprehension about what the GPL says.
>>>
>>
>>Nope, no misaprehension here, if I don't redistribute the code I don't
>>have to give it to anyone.  The GPL says so ;)  So does the FAQ
>>concerning the GPL if you go to
>>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
> 
> 
> Oh boy... I hope that if you ever release a program that's used any
> GPLed components that you know a lawyer.  I quoted the GPL, and it
> explicitly states that distribution of the _PROGRAM_ (not the _SOURCE_)
> causes the derivative work to be bound by the GPL.  The FAQ you link to
> here doesn't disagree with this, though the wording in the FAQ could
> give you the false impression that it does.

Where did I say distribute the binary only?  I said code, which I 
mentioned at the end of this message as refering to the source or the 
binary/executable.  If I do not distribute it then I don't have to 
release it, period.

> 
> 
>>>Again, this is not the case.
>>>
>>
>>See above.
> 
> 
> Yep.  See above alright.
> 
> 
>>>But is also frequently the only solution that corporate lawyers are
>>>willing to do.  The risk is too high that something will slip through
>>>the cracks, and one slip can cause a "ripple effect", making other
>>>projects to be accountable under the GPL terms.
>>>
>>
>>That is just pure laziness from all parties involved.  If I create a
>>windows application that uses another package I have the same issues
>>as well.
> 
> 
> But the risk is that at worst, you'll be sued for the cost of the
> license.
>  This is a much smaller risk than being sued for the source!  And it's
> not
> laziness that's the culprit here, it's just bad assumptions.  Yes, the
> fault is with the company, but it's a reasonable fault for employees to
> make.

Bad assumptions are laziness since the person in question did not do 
their due diligence.

> 
> 
>>>You contradict yourself.  First you say that your tax dollars pay for
>>>it so you should "get the maximum benefit out of it (ie the source
>>>code)", then say you don't want them to redistribute the code.  In
>>>any event, the above comments still make two mistakes:  1) assuming
>>>that the GPL applies only if you distribute code and not binaries,
>>>and 2) assuming that using GPLed software results in GPLed products
>>>(again, I can use gcc to compile non-GPL software).
>>
>>No I don't, you must have selectively skipped the *where appropriate*
>>clause in my statement.  Releasing code that is used to provide
>>national
>> security, such as defense system controls, would NOT be appropriate
>>in
>>my opinion.
>>
>>When I say "distribute the code", I mean it in any form, source or
>>binaries, not specifically source code and maybe that is where the
>>confusion has arisen in terms of what I am and am not obligated to do
>>under the GPL.  There is really not special difference between a
>>binary executable and the source code that created it other than human
>>readability, and comments of course, we all comment our code right ;)
> 
> 
> The govt frequently distributes secured binary applications to other
> vendors (under strict rules, of course).  If they use GPLed components,
> this means that technically the source must be distributed.
> 


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Tetherow                           tetherow at nicusa.com
Director of Development
NIC Labs (PSSG)                        http://www.nicusa.com