Why GPL-licensed code is dangerous for businesses to use

[Kuciwalker]

It's also precisely why GPL software is a niche compared to dominant commercial software.

Asher is overstating his case substantially.

[Kuciwalker]

Reading about the history of the Linksys fiasco gives me shivers still.

You can see why IBM is paranoid. They would lose hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, if some of their applications became 'contaminated' in any way by the GPL.

And that's all bull****, because they would be equally vulnerable to that thrice-removed company having stolen closed-source code for their firmware.

[Kuciwalker]

FTR most of the code I wrote for TI was released under BSD or GPL.

[DanS]

It's interesting to note that releasing the code doesn't seem to have impacted Linksys negatively.

[Asher]

Yes but THEIR code is GPL, that was the whole point of the story. And if it's a separate piece of code that got linked to non-MS GPL code, then it has nothing to do with the code MS released under GPL for the Linux kernel.

I think you need to read more of the story. Their code is GPL now as a result of the violation. It was not GPL until their hand was forced. That's the point of the story.

[Asher]

Asher is overstating his case substantially.

I'm not. The GPL is a niche. It's big and scary to virtually everyone but CS geeks.

Why do you think Cisco switched to VxWorks from Linux?

What OSes dominate computers worldwide?

GPL is niche. This is not really a point of contention.

[Asher]

And that's all bull****, because they would be equally vulnerable to that thrice-removed company having stolen closed-source code for their firmware.

But that's not the problem. If they stole closed-source code, they'd have to pay restitution of some kind but they would NOT need to opensource their application -- THAT is what terrifies companies.

Software companies live and die by intellectual property. If the GPL contaminates a commercial product, its intellectual property may as well become worthless. It's a revenue killer. That's the entire point of the license, by the way. The goal is to proliferate OSS, and one of the mechanisms is this viral aspect.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not. The GPL is a niche. It's big and scary to virtually everyone but CS geeks.

Why do you think Cisco switched to VxWorks from Linux?

What OSes dominate computers worldwide?

I suspect embedded Linux is in more devices than Windows

GPL is niche. This is not really a point of contention.

It's a large niche

[Asher]

I suspect embedded Linux is in more devices than Windows

It's not Linux vs Windows, it's GPL vs non-GPL software.

It's a large niche

Not as large as you think.

[Asher]

FTR most of the code I wrote for TI was released under BSD or GPL.

Why do you think they had the interns writing the open source code.

BSD license
GPL license

[Kuciwalker]

But that's not the problem. If they stole closed-source code, they'd have to pay restitution of some kind but they would NOT need to opensource their application -- THAT is what terrifies companies.

If they stole closed-source code they would have to abide by whatever penalty was embedded in the closed-source license, would could involve ARBITRARILY WORSE things than opensourcing an application.

This is idiot fearmongering, Asher. The story in the Linksys case wasn't ZOMFG THE GPL COULD KILL YOU, it was "software licensing in general is dangerous because it's hard to audit all of the code in any complex system".

[Kuciwalker]

It's not Linux vs Windows, it's GPL vs non-GPL software.

Then you shouldn't have asked "what OSes dominate computer worldwide?"

The whole embedded market is a niche, though an important one, and Linux is a huge player in that niche.

[Asher]

If they stole closed-source code they would have to abide by whatever penalty was embedded in the closed-source license, would could involve ARBITRARILY WORSE things than opensourcing an application.

This is an absurd, idiotic assertion. Point me to a single closed-source license that would mandate anyone linking to their application open the source or worse. Just one. The GPL is a real threat, both in precedent and in scale and scope. When a company is found to be infringing on another company's proprietary code, every single ruling that I'm aware of has simply been a monetary sum or royalty agreement. This is FAR less terrifying than the consequences of a GPL violation.

This is idiot fearmongering Asher. The story in the Linksys case wasn't ZOMFG THE GPL COULD KILL YOU, it was "software licensing in general is dangerous because it's hard to audit all of the code in any complex system".

No, the story was OMFG the GPL could kill you. Linksys/Cisco was lucky insofar as the value of the software on routers is pretty much worthless. But if this had happened to IBM on their compilers, for instance, this is a massive deal. The compilers sell for roughly $5,000 a pop, and if one component of that compiler was linked to a GPLed component, the source code would become public and the product effectively worthless.

That's a huge, huge deal. The GPL could kill entire revenue streams, very easily. This is not some fearmongering nonsense, this is exactly what the companies are all worried about. We had an entire mandatory education session on this in our first week at IBM. It's a serious concern by any company who is serious about its IP.

[notyoueither]

If they stole closed-source code they would have to abide by whatever penalty was embedded in the closed-source license, would could involve ARBITRARILY WORSE things than opensourcing an application.

This is idiot fearmongering, Asher. The story in the Linksys case wasn't ZOMFG THE GPL COULD KILL YOU, it was "software licensing in general is dangerous because it's hard to audit all of the code in any complex system".

In many cases you can buy the complaintant, if the product is important enough. Or you settle with a single other entity.

I doubt you could do that with the GPL zealots.

I can see Asher's point entirely.

[Kuciwalker]

This is an absurd, idiotic assertion. Point me to a single closed-source license that would mandate anyone linking to their application open the source or worse. Just one.

You're talking about the RISK that if you DON'T UNDERSTAND the GPL it can bite you in the ass. So I don't need an example to show the RISK that an ARBITRARY LICENSE might contain penalty provisions that are ARBITRARILY PAINFUL.

If the company using the source had understood the GPL it wouldn't have been a problem. If they can't understand the GPL then there's no reason to believe they will understand an arbitrary other license.

No, the story was OMFG the GPL could kill you.

No, because Linksys in this case could have banned all GPL code and it wouldn't have mattered because THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT CODE WAS IN THEIR PRODUCT.