Linux Kernel Source

[santosh]

[snips]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:43:19 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:

In fact ALL the commercial software I supply RTOS, stacks, file
systems etc comes in source code form.

Fortunately they don't have the highly restrictive GPL license.

A license which allows you to do virtually anything you want,

Except keep your code private. Something that is usually
essential for commercial code.

If company bought a closed source application it would have no access
to source code and no possibility to modify it anyway.

BTW there are many commercial applications where the source code IS
available and can be modified. You just cant release the source. The
majority of the users of this software (normally OEM's) would not
want to release the source or their system anyway.

Guess what. You can do that with Open Source software. You can use
application in your company and modify it's source code providing that
you don't redistribute the modified version.

But not with GPL, which is what, I suspect Chris Hills is talking about.
Other open source licenses like the BSD or Apache license allow that,
but the GPL *requires* access to the relevant source if the binary is
distributed.

If they don't want to they don't have to.

Not if GPL is used.

<snip>

The GPL isn't suitable for all types of open source software or for all
companies. Fortunately other open source licenses are available.

 

[Michal Nazarewicz]

A lot of people seem to be doing (ignoring GPL) it though.

The question is that if the GPL-violations team get good at this will
it kill the use of GPL software in the commercial space?

Why? Linux is used in business and it is GPL

Most companies don't want to release their software to
competitors.

Then don't redistribute the binary, write application from stretch or
buy source code of closed source application. I don't see your point
here. Should companies be allowed to take open source software and
redistribute it as closed source[1]? I consider this to be something
worse then theft.

And in some cases releasing it will open the system to serious
security problems.

If knowing the source code opens system to serious security problems
then not-releasing source code does not prevent those serious security
problems. And releasing source code to general public could help find
and fix security issues.

______________
[1] At least when we are talking about licenses such as GPL. There are
some licenses (notably new BSD license) which allow redistribution
of software as a closed source. AFAIK MacOS X being a closed source
application is based on FreeBSD sources.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

I've never said that.

Apparently, Billy Bong did, but I was piggybacking.

Only pointed that some companies pay for
developing Open Source Software, like Red Had, Noverl, etc.

Sure. And there's lots of different situations with developers being
paid but the code being released as OSS, or split, with one side being
OSS, the other being CSS.

"Paid development" and OSS have no particular relationship; you can't
tell, just from it being OSS, whether the coders were paid or volunteers
or both.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

Why? Not my fight

Remind me to apply that thinking should I ever see you getting mugged or
stabbed or in an accident.

HAND.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

So you are saying that, when you supply source, the receiver is free
to show that source to anyone who wishes to bid on making
improvements?

No. Why would they want to?

Anyone who wants modifications that you can't, or won't provide, or
won't provide in a timely manner, might want to. So, does handing out
the sources, or portions thereof, to development houses for competitive
bids qualify as "redistribution"? How about handing it to them for the
development phase?

What I have discovered over the last few months is a LOT of places get
FOSS, use it, improve it and don't release any source either the
application it is used in or the Open Source they started with.

So report 'em.

Why? Not my fight

BTW, as an addendum to the previous note, I'm hereby plonking you. I
prefer to deal with people I regard as remotely worthy of respect, and
you just removed yourself from that grouping.

 

[Chris Hills]

[snips]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:43:19 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:

In fact ALL the commercial software I supply RTOS, stacks, file
systems etc comes in source code form.

Fortunately they don't have the highly restrictive GPL license.

A license which allows you to do virtually anything you want,

Except keep your code private. Something that is usually
essential for commercial code.

If company bought a closed source application it would have no access
to source code and no possibility to modify it anyway.

BTW there are many commercial applications where the source code IS
available and can be modified. You just cant release the source. The
majority of the users of this software (normally OEM's) would not
want to release the source or their system anyway.

Guess what. You can do that with Open Source software. You can use
application in your company and modify it's source code providing that
you don't redistribute the modified version.

But not with GPL, which is what, I suspect Chris Hills is talking about.
Other open source licenses like the BSD or Apache license allow that,
but the GPL *requires* access to the relevant source if the binary is
distributed.

Correct. I supply various RTOS, coms stacks and other software that can
be provided in either object or source form. You can of course modify
the source version but they you are on your own for support. Most users
get the supplier to do the mods as part of the support package

The point is that when they build the software into their own systems
and sell those systems for example set top boxes, phones, security
systems, missile guidance, chemical weapons detection systems etc they
don't have to make the software public. In many cases making the
software public would be a crime under counter terrorist laws.

Not if GPL is used.

<snip>

The GPL isn't suitable for all types of open source software or for all
companies. Fortunately other open source licenses are available.

There are other licenses available for commercial source... Just because
the source is provided does not mean it is Open Source

 

[Chris Hills]

Why? Linux is used in business and it is GPL

Yes.. But not everyone releases their modified versions. Nor do they
feed the fixes back to others.

Then don't redistribute the binary,

But they do. That is the point

write application from stretch or
buy source code of closed source application.

What closed source? You seem to think things are either FOSS or closed
source.

I don't see your point
here. Should companies be allowed to take open source software and
redistribute it as closed source[1]? I consider this to be something
worse then theft.

No they shouldn't it breaches the license but that is what I understand
it happening more and more I am told.

If knowing the source code opens system to serious security problems
then not-releasing source code does not prevent those serious security
problems.
Yes...

And releasing source code to general public could help find
and fix security issues.

SO you are happy to release source code of your security system to the
enemy? It is not released to YOUR public but the world including
terrorists. What if they find the holes long before your side does....?

[1] At least when we are talking about licenses such as GPL. There are
some licenses (notably new BSD license) which allow redistribution
of software as a closed source. AFAIK MacOS X being a closed source
application is based on FreeBSD sources.

 

[Michal Nazarewicz]

Correct. I supply various RTOS, coms stacks and other software that
can be provided in either object or source form. You can of course
modify the source version but they you are on your own for support.
Most users get the supplier to do the mods as part of the support
package

And that's perfectly fine -- you get binary and source code and if you
modify the binary you're on your own. It's the same in hardware
world -- you get a warranty but if you somehow modify the hardware
you're on your own.

The point is that when they build the software into their own systems
and sell those systems for example set top boxes, phones, security
systems, missile guidance, chemical weapons detection systems etc
they don't have to make the software public.

Yes, I agree. Unless, of course, they are using GPL software.

In many cases making the
software public would be a crime under counter terrorist laws.

In my opinion that proves that counter terrorist laws are just wrong.

There are other licenses available for commercial source... Just
because the source is provided does not mean it is Open Source

Of course, there's no doubt about it.

BTW. What are we discussing again? I mean what's your claim again?

 

[Michal Nazarewicz]

[snips]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:43:19 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:

In fact ALL the commercial software I supply RTOS, stacks, file
systems etc comes in source code form.

Fortunately they don't have the highly restrictive GPL license.

A license which allows you to do virtually anything you want,

Except keep your code private. Something that is usually
essential for commercial code.

If company bought a closed source application it would have no access
to source code and no possibility to modify it anyway.

BTW there are many commercial applications where the source code IS
available and can be modified. You just cant release the source. The
majority of the users of this software (normally OEM's) would not
want to release the source or their system anyway.

Guess what. You can do that with Open Source software. You can use
application in your company and modify it's source code providing that
you don't redistribute the modified version.

But not with GPL, which is what, I suspect Chris Hills is talking about.
Other open source licenses like the BSD or Apache license allow that,
but the GPL *requires* access to the relevant source if the binary is
distributed.

Yes, that's what I've pointed out -- you can modify and keep source code
secret if you use given application inside of your corporation.

Not if GPL is used.

No one forced them to use GPL.

The GPL isn't suitable for all types of open source software or for all
companies. Fortunately other open source licenses are available.

I'm an idealist (maybe it'll change in the future) and believe GPL suits
all the software but as you've pointed there are other Open Source
license and more over, there are many closed source licenses if company
want to write application on their own or buy such closed source
programme.

 

[Michal Nazarewicz]

Yes.. But not everyone releases their modified versions.

They they are committing a crime.

Nor do they feed the fixes back to others.

They are free to do so (if we are talking about situations where binary
is not distributed of course).

But they do. That is the point

Then they can write it from stretch or use non-GPL software.

What closed source? You seem to think things are either FOSS or closed
source.

Yes, they are. I've told you before: I consider everything that is not
open source to be closed source the same way doors that are not open are
closed. It does not mean that one particular company cannot buy source
codes of a closed source application.

I don't see your point
here. Should companies be allowed to take open source software and
redistribute it as closed source[1]? I consider this to be something
worse then theft.

No they shouldn't it breaches the license but that is what
I understand it happening more and more I am told.

Well, I hope it's not the case.

SO you are happy to release source code of your security system to the
enemy? It is not released to YOUR public but the world including
terrorists. What if they find the holes long before your side
does....?

If we are talking about military equipment I might agree that there are
a bit different rules there.

 

[Michal Nazarewicz]

I've never understood this "you get better results if you pay 'em"
nonsense.

I've never said that. Only pointed that some companies pay for
developing Open Source Software, like Red Had, Noverl, etc.

 

[Chris Hills]

[snips]

No. Why would they want to?

Anyone who wants modifications that you can't, or won't provide, or won't
provide in a timely manner, might want to. So, does handing out the
sources, or portions thereof, to development houses for competitive bids
qualify as "redistribution"? How about handing it to them for the
development phase?

What I have discovered over the last few months is a LOT of places get
FOSS, use it, improve it and don't release any source either the
application it is used in or the Open Source they started with.

So report 'em.

Why? Not my fight

 

[Michal Nazarewicz]

Why? Not my fight

It's not your fight when someone break into your neighbours house. It's
not your fight when someone steals old lady's purse.

 

[Chris Hills]

[snips]

Why? Not my fight

Remind me to apply that thinking should I ever see you getting mugged or
stabbed or in an accident.

You don't understand. It's not the same argunment

 

[Kenny McCormack]

BTW, as an addendum to the previous note, I'm hereby plonking you. I
prefer to deal with people I regard as remotely worthy of respect, and
you just removed yourself from that grouping.

I'll bet he's heartbroken.

Repeat after me: Nobody cares what you do or do not read.
Nobody cares who is or isn't in your killfile.

 

[Randy Howard]

[snips]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:05:37 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:

So you are saying that, when you supply source, the receiver is free
to show that source to anyone who wishes to bid on making
improvements?

No. Why would they want to?

Anyone who wants modifications that you can't, or won't provide, or
won't provide in a timely manner, might want to. So, does handing out
the sources, or portions thereof, to development houses for competitive
bids qualify as "redistribution"? How about handing it to them for the
development phase?

What I have discovered over the last few months is a LOT of places get
FOSS, use it, improve it and don't release any source either the
application it is used in or the Open Source they started with.

So report 'em.

Why? Not my fight

BTW, as an addendum to the previous note, I'm hereby plonking you. I
prefer to deal with people I regard as remotely worthy of respect, and
you just removed yourself from that grouping.

So anyone that isn't Crusader Rabbit striving to rid the world of GPL
violations is beneath your threshold?

That's taking your Stallman Cult membership card a bit too seriously,
isn't it?

 

[CBFalconer]

SO you are happy to release source code of your security system
to the enemy? It is not released to YOUR public but the world
including terrorists. What if they find the holes long before
your side does....?

I have this startling theory: The number of good-guys is larger
than the number of bad-guys.
Barring disproof of this, open-source will produce (after a
maturation period) better and less vulnerable software than will
closed-source.

 

[CBFalconer]

Remind me to apply that thinking should I ever see you getting
mugged or stabbed or in an accident.

Most civilized countries have laws requiring citizens to report
observation of violations of the law.

 

[Michal Nazarewicz]

[snips]

So report 'em.

Why? Not my fight

Remind me to apply that thinking should I ever see you getting mugged or
stabbed or in an accident.

You don't understand. It's not the same argunment

It's the same. Only the crime is different. If you say that not
reporting GPL-violation is OK then someone else can say reporting
a murder is OK -- s/he just moved the line a bit further.

 

[Chris Hills]

I have this startling theory: The number of good-guys is larger
than the number of bad-guys.

Unfortunately that is not and will never be true. That is not just for
Open Source.