On BNET: Fix your remote like MacGyver
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

February 18th, 2008

The next frontier for GPL Violations

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 8:01 am

Categories: Applications, Development, Enterprise Policy, FOSS, GPL, General, Legal, support

Tags: GPL, Open Source, Dana Blankenhorn

BSA logoUPDATE: A new post on the same topic is above.

To date the work of GPLViolations has been fairly non-controversial.

By going after vendors who violate the GPL by incorporating enhanced code into non-GPL products, Harold Welte & Co. have won a ton of goodwill within the open source community.

But there’s another type of GPL Violation, one hinted at in the group’s workshops and implied with the growth of tools like Hewlett Packard’s Fossology.

This is the user violation.

You download GPL code, you tweak it for your own operation, you maintain the tweak solely for your own use, but you don’t share the tweak, either for a market advantage, out of ignorance, or from pure laziness.

How do we enforce the GPL against users without causing a backlash?

The old Software Publishers Association and the Business Software Alliance made this mistake back in the late 20th century.

They moved from going after commercial software pirates in the 1980s to auditing corporate software in the 1990s and dragging companies into court for having violated End User License Agreements (EULAs).

The move into user enforcement caused a backlash which continues to this day.

I believe much of the controversy over open source software audits stems from the fear that GPL Violations might emulate the old BSA tactics.

There is a real problem here. Combining GPL software with other open source products, or merely tweaking GPL software for your own use, obligates you to contribute those code enhancements back to the community.

But finding such small tweaks, then enforcing the GPL against the tweakers, risks a backlash unless it is done carefully.

Another important point. Many companies, perhaps most, now support open source internally. As Dave Rosenberg noted last week, this can lead to all sorts of stupid marketing tricks.

So the question for this President’s Day is, how can the GPL Violations folks avoid becoming the BSA of the 21st century? How do we expand the enforcement of the GPL without angering a whole lot of powerful people?

Dana BlankenhornDana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983. You can follow Dana on Twitter. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.

Email Dana Blankenhorn

Subscribe to Linux and Open Source via Email alerts or RSS.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 34 Talkback(s)
Hit the nail on the head
With a sledge hammer, no less.

It hurts them soooooo bad! That's why you
see them cry. (Read the rest)
Posted by: Ole Man Posted on: 02/22/08 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
Get a clue  Yagotta B. Kidding | 02/18/08
I guess we'll have to start publishing our make.conf files  Michael Kelly | 02/18/08
Right  Richard Flude | 02/18/08
Heres's the problem with that....  DanaBlankenhornZDNet Moderator | 02/18/08
Once you start distributing a tweaked binary  Michael Kelly | 02/18/08
Assume for a second you are right...  TripleII | 02/18/08
Triplell, I hope you're right  DanaBlankenhornZDNet Moderator | 02/18/08
One solution would be to only share the tweaks among friends. So, you are  DonnieBoy | 02/18/08
This Has Been Discussed Often on Groklaw  dumptux | 02/19/08
Exactly.  Timpraetor | 02/19/08
RE: The next frontier for GPL Violations  dpnewkirk | 02/18/08
RE: The next frontier for GPL Violations  none none | 02/18/08
Here's the Clause  orcmid | 02/18/08
And then there's GPL 3  orcmid | 02/18/08
RE: The next frontier for GPL Violations  steve.mcjones@... | 02/18/08
As I said, everyone winds up distributing binaries....  DanaBlankenhornZDNet Moderator | 02/18/08
I don't see the mistake  Richard Flude | 02/18/08
The BSA is a bit worse than that. They don't have to PROVE theft.  hkommedal | 02/19/08
Rubbish  Richard Flude | 02/19/08
Hit the nail on the head  Ole Man | 02/22/08
Suggest You Re-read the GPLs  SwashbucklingCowboy | 02/18/08
Forgot to add  SwashbucklingCowboy | 02/18/08
Precisely. Dana, there IS NO Problem here.  dumptux | 02/19/08
Dana this just isn't a 'real-world' scenario  D. T. Schmitz | 02/18/08
My fear is it's becoming one...  DanaBlankenhornZDNet Moderator | 02/18/08
Not the same as what your article implies  Timpraetor | 02/19/08
The GNU GPL is a Trade Agreement that does NOT require distribution!  AGNUcius | 02/18/08
Re: The GNU GPL is a Trade Agreement that does NOT require distribution!  none none | 02/19/08
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted...  Sysadm1n | 02/18/08
Time to study the GPL  mannyamador | 02/18/08
The situation you describe is not a GPL violation.  Letophoro | 02/19/08
RE: The next frontier for GPL Violations  DanaBlankenhornZDNet Moderator | 02/19/08
RE: The next frontier for GPL Violations  jadon | 02/19/08
It's a strange thing, indeed  Ole Man | 02/22/08

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

Recent Entries

Archives

Favorite Links

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads