open source
Something not explored on that page in any depth is the distinction between invasive open source (e.g. GNU GPL, GNU LGPL) and laissez faire open source (e.g. BSD). With a BSD-type license one can do as one likes with the code, just passing along the copyright notice, and perhaps republishing the source. The the GNU-type license, the intent of the FSF is to open up any proprietary software that comes into contact with the GPL/LGPL code. The FSF FAQ is somewhat militant about this, insisting that one cannot include GPL code in a proprietary system.
This has become a huge issue in venture funded companies, which sometimes pick up some GPL/LGPL code as a way to develop products more quickly/cheaply. There is no case law to serve as a guideline for how to draw boundaries, as cases tend to be settled out of court. The licenses themselves are among the most ambigious legal documents I've come across.
The strategy for protecting proprietary aspects of a system that incorporates GPL/LGPL is to establish firewalls, e.g. separate executables that rely on OS constructs to exchange information or the use of GPL/LGPL code as shared (dynamically linked) libraries.
By the way, I may have just coined the terms "invasive" and "laissez faire" open source. These descriptions come from the throes of a recent internal audit of licenses at an enterprise not to be named. Don't get me wrong, I love me some GNU code, but I approach with caution.
Somewhat off topic, but the company that makes the music sequencer I use recently adopted a "dongle" policy for later versions of the product. This is a hardware key that you stick in a USB port (thus tying up the port), without which your software doesn't run. We're talking about a 100 dollar budget program here, not their top of the line product. One defender thinks the company must have done the numbers and felt so economically threatened by crackers this was the only solution. Seems excessive and alarmist to me.
good tech perspective mark. i kind of had open source housing in mind when i designed my shipping container housing. you know, any body with a welder and a couple of containers should come up with something nice (instead of mearly serviceable). im still brooding about moving over to monochrome painting, another open source endeavor.
We own some pricey software ($20K+) that comes with dongles/host IDs. We put a dongle in a $5k product. This is the first I've heard of sub-100 software with that kind of feature. They cost $10-20 per dongle, so it's gotta hurt to put it a $100 product.
They raise the barrier but don't prevent cracking.
Steinberg's Cubase SE3--your leader in software protection overkill.
|
- bill 10-05-2005 1:20 pm
Something not explored on that page in any depth is the distinction between invasive open source (e.g. GNU GPL, GNU LGPL) and laissez faire open source (e.g. BSD). With a BSD-type license one can do as one likes with the code, just passing along the copyright notice, and perhaps republishing the source. The the GNU-type license, the intent of the FSF is to open up any proprietary software that comes into contact with the GPL/LGPL code. The FSF FAQ is somewhat militant about this, insisting that one cannot include GPL code in a proprietary system.
This has become a huge issue in venture funded companies, which sometimes pick up some GPL/LGPL code as a way to develop products more quickly/cheaply. There is no case law to serve as a guideline for how to draw boundaries, as cases tend to be settled out of court. The licenses themselves are among the most ambigious legal documents I've come across.
The strategy for protecting proprietary aspects of a system that incorporates GPL/LGPL is to establish firewalls, e.g. separate executables that rely on OS constructs to exchange information or the use of GPL/LGPL code as shared (dynamically linked) libraries.
By the way, I may have just coined the terms "invasive" and "laissez faire" open source. These descriptions come from the throes of a recent internal audit of licenses at an enterprise not to be named. Don't get me wrong, I love me some GNU code, but I approach with caution.
- mark 10-05-2005 8:25 pm [add a comment]
Somewhat off topic, but the company that makes the music sequencer I use recently adopted a "dongle" policy for later versions of the product. This is a hardware key that you stick in a USB port (thus tying up the port), without which your software doesn't run. We're talking about a 100 dollar budget program here, not their top of the line product. One defender thinks the company must have done the numbers and felt so economically threatened by crackers this was the only solution. Seems excessive and alarmist to me.
- tom moody 10-05-2005 8:41 pm [add a comment]
good tech perspective mark. i kind of had open source housing in mind when i designed my shipping container housing. you know, any body with a welder and a couple of containers should come up with something nice (instead of mearly serviceable). im still brooding about moving over to monochrome painting, another open source endeavor.
- bill 10-05-2005 8:48 pm [add a comment]
We own some pricey software ($20K+) that comes with dongles/host IDs. We put a dongle in a $5k product. This is the first I've heard of sub-100 software with that kind of feature. They cost $10-20 per dongle, so it's gotta hurt to put it a $100 product.
They raise the barrier but don't prevent cracking.
- mark 10-05-2005 11:23 pm [add a comment]
Steinberg's Cubase SE3--your leader in software protection overkill.
- tom moody 10-05-2005 11:38 pm [add a comment]