HP Launches FOSSology Open Source Tracking Tool

cpudney writes "An article in Computerworld UK reports on a new open source analysis initiative launched by Hewlett-Packard. The FOSSology Project's mission is to 'build a community to facilitate the study of Free and Open Source Software by providing free data analysis tools.' The first such tool reports how an open source project is licensed. Rather than simply collecting a project's advertised license, the tool analyzes all of the source code for a given project and reports all of the licenses being used, based on the license declarations and tell-tale phrases that identify software licensing. A video demonstrating the tool applied to abiword is available. The FOSSology source code is licensed under GPLv2."

Video Summary: 2 files not compatible with GPL

[benad]

For those that don't want to load the video, there is two files in Abiword (hash.cpp and tword.cpp) that use the original BSD license (with the "obnoxious" advertising clause) and are incompatible with the project's GPLv2 license. Oops.

This has already been around for years

[LS]

A friend of mine in SF started a company a few years back called Palamida [palamida.com] that provides a very similar service. I don't think their code is GPLed though.

LS

not if the advertisement clause is present

[keeboo]

Please feel free to learn more about this issue [gnu.org].

Re:not if the advertisement clause is present

[AuMatar]

Outdated- the new version of the BSD license (new meaning about a decade old, if not more) has no advertising clause. Nobody uses the old style anymore, when people say BSD you can assume they mean no advertising clause. In which case, he's absolutely right.

Re:Video Summary: 2 files not compatible with GPL

[tlhIngan]

no, BSD software can be relicensed under the more restrictive GPL, just not the other way around. By the way, I downloaded the source for Abiword-2.4.6.tar.gz and found the hash.cpp with the full license inside but no tword.cpp file

Actually, no. Prior to the modified-BSD license (which became the official BSD license), the original BSD license is incompatible with the GPL. This is because the original BSD license had an "advertising" clause that stated the software must say it includes portions copyright the Regents of California. That very clause makes it incompatible with the GPL (because the license makes additional terms in order to use the code - something the GPL prohibits).

Even the FSF states that the original BSD license is incompatible with the GPL [gnu.org].

Now, I believe in the late 90's, the BSD folks reorganized the license and eliminated that clause, thus making BSD compatible with the GPL. They made it retroactive, I believe, but you had better be careful with code with the original terms since BSD originated code is under the new license, but the old code from a different author (but same license) may not be using the modified/revised BSD terms.

Re:not if the advertisement clause is present

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot. The BSD license used on the small bits of code in abiword is the old "obnoxious" one. Read the fucking article, and the posts before you reply.