Bruce Perens On Combining GPL and Proprietary Software 218
jammag writes "Combining GPL and proprietary software is ever more common, especially in the world of embedded devices like cell phones. But the question is: how to combine them legally. As sticky as the issue is, there is an answer, as self titled "open source strategic consultant" Bruce Perens explains. The proper procedure entails fully understanding what type of open source software you're using, and knowing why you need to combine these disparate licenses. The problem, he notes, is that many companies don't know or care about doing this legally. 'They're used to just "clicking yes" with no regard to what they're committing themselves and their company to.' Hopefully Perens' guide can be read by more company execs — resulting in fewer lawsuits going forward (but we're not holding our breath)." update 21:31 GMT by SM: Bruce wrote in to make sure we knew he was not a lawyer, even though he is weighing in on a legal issue; updated to reflect.
Re:Commitments? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. But "my employee did this, and he didn't have authority to do so" hasn't worked very effectively as a defense regarding software license violation and copyright infringement - or anything else. Or those BSA audits would have turned out differently, etc. Ultimately, the stockholders and management are responsible for what the company does even if they are so out of control that their employees do stuff without being instructed to :-)
Bruce
Re:Malice or stupidity? (Score:1, Insightful)
When these companies disregard the license, is their primary reason for doing so stupidity or malice? Is it usually because someone mistakenly thinks "hey, this is available online so I can do whatever I want with it" or is it more along the lines of "no one will ever catch me, so I'm just going to grab this code."
Yes.
GPLSoftware in Consumer Products (Score:2, Insightful)
In order to get my employer to move in the direction of Open Source, I provided research to show that closed source isn't free of litigation either.
In fact, our chipset supplier ran into trouble with closed source software which still lead to a cease and desist order requiring a class A Change
I do believe the GPL does need to be re-written in a far less verbose manner as many executives still do not understand it.
Re:Two processors (Score:3, Insightful)
Two processors are used regardless of the licence. It just makes things easier from a hardware perspective to have one processor dedicated to the phone network functions and another to the UI and assorted programs.
Re:The silly multi-processor workaround (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:easy answer (Score:3, Insightful)
So, for example, you hire a consultant and give him a copy of the software. Then you decide not to use the consultant any longer. He's annoyed, and he asserts his GPL rights on your entire product, and distributes it. You go to sue, and the copyright holder of the GPL piece gets involved and makes a case that you don't have the rights you think you did. Your NDA does not apply to GPL software because GPL prohibits you from adding incompatible terms.
What are the realistic odds of this actually happening?
Let's get real here for a minute. Virtually every legal case is decided by who has the most money to hire the most lawyers. So most legal "battles" are only between evenly-matched opponents, which is not the case you describe above. In reality, the company would threaten the consultant and because they have more resources the consultant would quickly back down.
No, the only credible legal case we're likely to see (and have seen, I've followed this) is a company that uses combined proprietary/GPL code and then a rival copies their product whole cloth (maybe changing a few logos here and there) and then starts selling it claiming that "GPL infection" means the original company can't assert copyright. THIS is the scenario most companies are concerned about.