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.
|
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