McAfee Worried Over "Ambiguous" Open Source Licenses 315
willdavid writes to tell us InformationWeek is reporting that McAfee, in their annual report, has warned investors that "ambiguous" open source licenses "may result in unanticipated obligations regarding [McAfee] products." "McAfee said it's particularly troubling that the legality of terms included in the GNU/General Public License -- the most widely used open source license -- have yet to be tested in court. 'Use of GPL software could subject certain portions of our proprietary software to the GPL requirements, which may have adverse effects on our sales of the products incorporating any such software,' McAfee said in the report filed last month with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Among other things, the GPL requires that manufacturers who in their products use software governed by the license distribute the software's source code to end users or customers. Some manufacturers have voiced concerns that the requirement could leave important security or copyright protection features in their products open to tampering."
I don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
By their logic it would be trivial to hack into a Linux computer because it is open-source, and next to impossible to hack into a Microsoft computer.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite a few bugs are obvious to the experienced programmer.
Many are not obviously bugs, but are obviously "bad practice" which will often lead to bugs.
Once a proficient programmer re-factors "ugly" (full of "bad practice") code, most flaws also become obvious.
Nope (Score:3, Insightful)
Refactoring means modifications of the code that are not supposed to alter its functionality. Things like renaming variables or moving code or data from one place to another.
I re-factor a lot of code, much of it I did not write (but sometimes its my old code where I didn't get it perfect or account for future developments).
Semantic transformations of code that do not alter functionality allow you to remain relatively sure that you are not breaking anyt
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
I'm of the belief that there are more people wanting to do good than bad. Of course, McAfee probably can only see the attacks they receive on their product by the nefarious trying to bypass their systems. From all that I can tell, McAfee is the Gateway (computers) of the AV world, it's useful if you aren't too worried about quality.
/sorry, early in the morning. thoughts may be incomplete and incoherent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
They have a very simple solution, then, don't they? Do their own graft, write their own damn software, and stop freeloading off the community.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Do their own graft, write their own damn software, and stop freeloading off the community.
What kind of leftie, tree-hugging nonsense is that? Expecting corporations to accept responsibility when there is shareholder value to consider, quarterly numbers to make and fat bonuses to earn.
Accountability...I can't believe such a radical concept will ever fly. The American corporate way is to have our cake, eat it too and expense the bill as entertainment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm all for profit, after all that means my paycheck is secured and will grow, but if it's achieved by almost-criminal means, I don't need it. Otherwise, why don't we all just start selling crack? That's where the really big money is, after all.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your understanding of the issues involved seems pretty close to zero. They are not "freeloading off the community", they are supporting Linux.
The problem is simply that in order to write software that interacts with Linux at the low level they need to interact, they need to use code that defines how Linux processes some things internally. There is no choice -- to su
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
The article isn't very clear on this point but it sounds like McAfee is almost admitting they violated the GPL and are about to end up in court.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Much security software is already open-source: encryption, firewall, virus scan, etc. The fact is that there is no inherent security problem with GPL software. McAfee just appears to have a problem with the licensing.
Yes it seems like they would like to have their open source cake and eat it too.
Probably more complicated than that (Score:3, Informative)
The major issue for the GPL v2 is that it is not 100% clear where the boundary relating to mere aggregation is. In general it is easy to read "a work based on the original work" meaning derivative work (i.e. a transformation or adaption
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me put it another way..
1. You create a program for counting beans, it's written for Microsoft Windows
2. 40% of your important customers (government) switches to Linux
3. Because you want to keep you clients, you port your application to Linux.
In order to get access to the proper low-level interfaces (that you imagine you need for your bean counter), you start writing some kernel support functions.
4. You deliever your application to your government. You are happy, the government is happy.
5. One day, someone posts a "Company X are in violation of the GPL!" to Slashdot -- and all hell breaks loose. Your lawers tell you that "Yes, we have to open source all our products, because they have all been contaminated by the GPL, becase we touched the linux kernel source (which is GPL)!".
6. You shut down your business, and live on welfare for the rest of your life.
The only thing which has happened here is that McAfee has proclaimed that GPL is viral (it infects innocent suspects' code).
I suspect that McAfee has been offered a Great Deal by someone, in exchange for publicly stating that the GPL is viral.
And no, I don't believe they are using GPL code. That's not what this is about. They are afraid of their (important) customers demanding McAfee support GPL products.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
You post doesn't make sense - or maybe I'm not following you? Anyone can write a Linux application and use any license they like (or stated another way, quite a few Linux applications are proprietary - the proprietary Flash plugin, for instance). McAfee wouldn't need to release their product under the GPL just to run it on Linux.
And if they want to write a kernel support function that compiles with Linux and is also part of their product, they can dual-license (GPL when it's compiled with Linux, proprietary when part of their product). As long as they hold copyright, they aren't limited at all.
What they seem to be saying is that they compile code written by someone else and released under only the GPL in their products. They can't change the license on code on which someone else holds copyright, so they are distributing that code in violation of the license (or, more precisely, in violation of copyright). Either they must "cure" the violation (e.g., by releasing their source code or replacing the GPL'd code), or acquire a commercial license from the copyright holder (if available).
I must be missing something between step 3 and 5 in your post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong
If you link against the Linux kernel (or part of it), then you have to use GPL. Very few programs do this. Even kernel modules do not have to do this, provided they use the correct API.
If you copy code from the Linux kernel, then you have to use the GPL. Incidentally, this applies even if you don't copy verbatim - if you copy the structure and then change variable and function names, you still have to use GPL.
But if you have a piece of code which you wrote in its entirety, and which is only linked against the Linux kernel when on Linux, then it only has to be GPL'd when actually linked to the Linux kernel. The version you ship on Windows or Mac OS X can be licensed any way you like.
Anyone who tells you different is just spreading FUD. Version Two [gnu.org] of the GPL is a very simple document and is easy to read. It means just what it says, there's nothing complex behind it. Version Three [gnu.org] is a little more prolix, but it still means just what it says. Go read it yourself; don't listen to people who are trying to mislead you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On-demand virus scanners probably do however.
They just need to free the interface & module (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, the Unix security model inherited by Linux includes permissions (which make it much less likely for things to get executed that should not get executed) and ownerships (which make it less likely for things to get modified that should not get modified). Sensible default behaviours (for example, not running as root except when
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The GPL must be attached to any "derived works" of the Linux kernel. I.e. if you write a module for the Linux kernel it must be GPLed. However, nVidia did not do this - they wrote their driver for Windows. They then took the Windows driver and wrote a GPLed i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
pretty much something of a non-issue.
You can't legally distribute to someone an install done this way, or provide an installation that ships directly with the NVidia
drivers, but you can ship a Linux install that can make it easy for someone and you can always turn it off/remove the offending
binary blob when you hand someone a machine you've been using the driver on. Since usage is not controlle
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
If you choose to use GPL code in your product, then you must agree to the terms under which you are permitted to do so. These companies cross license code between each other all the time with a plethora of different licensing requirements. For example Microsoft will license a lot of code to you, such as wma/wmv codecs and drm, under the condition that you pay them for each copy you distribute as part of one of your products.
The only difference with the GPL is the requirements which you must abide by in order to distribute. Don't like the terms? Then write your own, or license code from somewhere else under different terms, or merely change the way you use the GPL code so that compliance no longer bothers you.
All this garbage about "releasing the source makes our products less secure" is ridiculous... Open source software has a very good track record when it comes to security, just look at OpenBSD for instance, and then you have apps like qmail for which the source has been available for years without huge numbers of holes. And Solaris hasn't suddenly seen a rash of new vulnerabilities since being open sourced.
If code is well written, it doesn't matter who can see the source code. If it's poorly written you can understand why someone wouldn't want to be embarrassed by it's release, but if it's full of holes people will still reverse engineer the binaries to find them.
Re: (Score:2)
6. You shut down your business, and live on welfare for the rest of your life.
Well lets see. If it is GPL software involved you have a choice. Either you release the source code and maybe you shut down your business /
ClamAV and ClamWin forever (Score:2)
routine ass-covering... move along... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's all so mysterious.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As opposed to... (Score:5, Funny)
What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just another piece of FUD.
Lone programmer, against company policy (Score:2)
You are seriously mistaken. You are assuming that it is company policy to inappropriately incorporate GPL'd code. It may be against policy but a programmer may get lazy and do it on his own. Hell, it could be a relatively honest mistake like confusing a GPL'd lib for a LGPL'd lib. A GPL related lawsuit would be an appropriate item in the risks section of an SEC filing.
Re:Lone programmer, against company policy (Score:4, Insightful)
Their best bet is to tighten up on their recruitment and code review processes. That would certainly beat complaining that it MAY turn out that some of their employees may be breaking various laws and that if they are then the victims may be gosh darned unreasonable about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are seriously mistaken. You are assuming that it is company policy to inappropriately incorporate GPL'd code. It may be against policy but a programmer may get lazy and do it on his own. Hell, it could be a relatively honest mistake like confusing a GPL'd lib for a LGPL'd lib. A GPL related lawsuit would be an appropriate item in the risks section of an SEC filing.
If you don't have sufficient code review processes in place, and you don't know where your employees are copying code from, that's very much your problem. McAfee may be that unprofessional, but if they are they deserve everything that's coming to them.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Informative)
Fine. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to end up in court for copyright violation, don't violate copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
just lazy companies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What if, instead of distributing GPL software with your app/hw, you had your installation software download the same GPL software onto the box from the internet. Would you be violating the GPL in any way?
Let's put a couple of caveats...
1. Your sw/hw can work without the GPL stuff, even if in a very limited manner.
2. You make the user press the button to download the GPL stuff.
Re:just lazy companies. (Score:5, Informative)
When you link a GPL work against a non-GPL work, you create a derivative work. As long as you are authorised to possess both works, the derivative work you create is initially permitted by the Law of the Land, as Fair Dealing (Fair Use in some jurisdictions), and any apparent prohibition in the licence terms is unenforcible precisely because a promise not to do something the Law of the Land already says you can do is worthless.
However, the terms of both licences now apply to the derivative work as a whole. If the restrictive licence said "You must not distribute the Source Code to others", that would conflict with the GPL's requirement to distribute the Source Code. Therefore, the only way you can comply with both licences at once is not to distribute the software at all (aka "Liberty or Death").
The key point is, you don't need a licence to create that Derivative Work. You need one to distribute it. None of which would be an issue, by the way, if software vendors just distributed the frigging Source Code already.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SEC Risks (aka Just Slashdot Laziness ) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What they are *really* saying... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when do software licenses... (Score:5, Interesting)
I would have thought that Copyright law was pretty unambiguous, and that any conditions imposed regarding distribution of a copyrighted work is at the whim of the copyright holder.
This would apply to any distribution license.
No need to test anything in court, unless you wish to discuss the finer detials of Copyright Law itself.
Re:Since when do software licenses... (Score:5, Interesting)
I could be wrong but seems like this and similar complaints about FOSS are from entities with self-serving interests rather than interests of society/world at large. A lot of it is just FUD hoping to encourage paranoia in businesses and slow FOSS adoption
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL provides conditional permission to use covered software in a product you sell. If you don't think the conditions are generous enough, then you have the right to fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
And stupid to boot. As another poster wrote, it is likely to be about a modified IP stack for their internet-oriented products.
There is still BSD, whose license allows that copying into closed source products. IIRC you have to give credit somewhere in the documentation, but that is a small price for legally getting free code.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. The conditions are still subject to
a) common law
Extreme example: you can't demand the firstborn for the use or distribution of the work.
b) interpretation by court
The legal meaning is finally determined by judges.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law is well tested in court, and so is Licensing law, and so is Contract law. However, the various F/OSS licenses meld the three different kinds of law together in a new way, and this melding isn't yet tested in court.
A copyright holder can't impose conditions on the distribution of his work on a whim - either th
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people like you get this so completely wrong everytime
Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, that's the very idea of the GPL. It lets people who bought the product use it in any way they see fit, which includes "tamnpering" with it. It even allows you to redistribute it. The only thing it prevents is redistribution under a different license without permission. Didn't anyone give McAfee the memo?
Whaaaa! (Score:2)
McAffee is just wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Does this mean (Score:2)
boo hoo (Score:3, Funny)
Translation: "We fucked up and didn't do our homework."
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obviously they are worried (Score:4, Insightful)
When all software is open source, there will be so much of it that the scope for virus infection is wider and products that monitor system calls and does intrusion detection will have more market.
McAffee's real problem is that Windows gets more and more locked down and fine grained capability permissions are being applied. The days of the blanket anti-virus product are numbered in the business world balanced against the rise of the dedicated software administrator.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because of course Free software never has security bugs [redhat.com]. Look, I'm a paid-up card-carrying member of the FSF, which makes me about as much of a swivel-eyed zealot as they come, but even we don't make silly claims like that.
There should be legislation passed into law.... (Score:2)
However the real issues here is not exposing this FUD to those who know better but to those who don't.
So sue to force such FUD spreading companies to undo the FUD they spread by the same means and extent they used to spread it.
Security by obscurity (Score:3, Informative)
and
2) Only use code owned by others and covered by a strong copyleft in a product, if you are willing to release all the code for that product under a strong copyleft.
It is really not that complicated.
Ambiguous? (Score:2)
Both cases, "security by obscurity" and "keep part of the program proprietary" are simple no goes with regard to the GPL.
What "ambiguous" it really means is that some companies hope they can get away with ignoring the GPL, either directly or by finding some legal loophole.
McAfee correct that either strategy put the company at risk. Just as it puts the company to risk to ignore or circomvent the license of any proprietary soft
Re: (Score:2)
HEY MCAFEE! (Score:4, Informative)
GPL puts end-user freedom above all else (Score:4, Interesting)
Translation: "Some manufacturers have voiced concerns that the requirement could leave important user-restriction features or copyright fair-use prevention features in their products open to rightful destruction."
They fail to grasp the most important aspect of GPL: every end-user is also the master of said software; it is not up to anyone else to decide what he can and can't do. Features which keep the end-user out are not part of (publicly distributed) GPL software, period.
Kernel hooks (Score:2)
My guess is that this warning has arisen from the use of kernel hooks to provide on-demand scanning. I read somewhere that McAfee modifies the Windows kernel to intercept among others file access calls. They might want to do the same for Linux, which would subject the code that provides those hooks to the GPL. It may be the case that McAfee thinks that this code must be secret to ensure the security of their product, and that could be why they are so afraid of the GPL.
How about creating a generic interfac
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fuck McAfee (Score:2)
It's not so much that they aren't secure enough for various reasons, it's that they impose such an overhead on your machine, occasionally can be difficult to remove, install so much crap, and really impact the user experience
how many (Score:2)
PS: McAffee, never heard of them. Does it run on Linux? Has anyone greeted our McAffee Overlords? Imagine a McBeowulf Cluster of these...
A point of concern. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I can tell you from first-hand experience with at least half a dozen versions of their software that their uninstaller sucks golf-balls through the garden hose...
Of course, I can say the same for Symantec, and don't really consider this at all accidental. After all, most OEM PCs come with 3 month's to a year's free AV support, and Zeus help anyone who decides they want to switch to a different AV pack
No course they fear OSS... (Score:2)
I don't think they're "worried" at all (Score:2)
If your CEO is brilliant, you have to point out that he could die. If you have a gigantic data center, you have to point out that it could get hit by a missile. If you have obvious competitors, you have to poi
What this is about (Score:3, Informative)
So as far as I can tell, here's what this story is actually about:
McAfee makes a virus scanner for Linux [mcafee.com]. Presumably the "on-demand" scanning uses a closed-source kernel module. Some kernel developers (i.e. copyright holders) assert that it violates the GPL to distribute closed-source kernel modules (although NVIDIA's and ATI's lawyers presumably disagree). This has never been tested in court. If one of the kernel copyright holders decided to litigate and won, then McAfee might have to stop selling their product, or significant alter it. Since there is a risk of this happening, they are required to disclose it to investors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not solely because of this of course, there are so many reasons really, but with this one as an addon it just gets too far...
Re: (Score:2)
The extra overhead of "security products" on a typical windows install just serve to increase the perceived performance benefits of Linux.
Re:I vote with my euros (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's correct, and when GNU/Linux takes over the world and McAfee feels the need to diversify by building more products for it (be it antivirus or anything else), I am going to remember their FUD about GPL and make sure to keep them out of my shopping basket.
Re: (Score:2)
talking about an American election that you would have no say in if you were European
I am European, but I am also a citizen of the world, so I have an interest in every country's wellbeing. I don't want to visit the US because of Bush's empire-building, but if a new president returns America to its true values of its founding fathers, then I would be happy to go and do business in America.
About McAfee.. I use Debian, but my meaning was that if I ever find myself considering a McAfee product for any reason, then I will remember what they said about the GPL and act accordingly.
Re:Simple Solution: Avoid The Kooky And Viral GPL (Score:4, Informative)
Very very simple.
Re: (Score:2)
No copyright governs use. Copyright only governs distribution!
Guess what! GPL is copyright!
Re: (Score:2)
EULAs cover use however.
Re: (Score:2)
ie
When you install it, you copy it to your hard drive
when you "run" it you copy into memory, or it's copied to virtual memory
If you hibernate, the whole lot is copied to hard drive
etc
I think in US copyright "if in the normal coures of operation" then there is an exception. The UK and probably most EU countries do not have that, so in theory you need a licence to run the software.
Re: (Score:2)
What would be foolish is not understanding the terms of the license. Apple ships Mac OSX with GPL components. Linksys and Asus (both after a slight spanking) ship products with GPL components. Even Dell does. The key is understanding the GPL, adhering to it and having a product that is beneficial beyond the GPL code base (notice that all three examples sell hardware... although with Apple their software is not dependent on GPL but rather benefits from it).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think Microsoft would sit idly by if someone took the windows source code that was leaked a couple of years back and created a derivative work? The leaked source could have proved beneficial to projects like Wine, Reactos and Samba etc, but they avoided it because it would be illegal. Given a reversed situation i doubt whether microsoft would behave in such a responsible and ethical manner, but despite their behaviour they do hav
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Go Apple!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm not thinking this through completely, so forgive my youthful ignorance..... but since when did OPEN SOURCE software NEED copyright protection features?
It is the other way around. A DRM implementation might find it useful to have code that implements AES, as an example, and there are open source implementations, so it would be useful to incorporate some well-tested AES code that is licensed under GPL into a DRM implementation.
That is perfectly legal to do, but it requires that the DRM implementation would be licensed under GPL, which means that anyone, including evil DRM crackers, would have access to the source code. If you can find a way to implement
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's an example: I was doing evaluations of the two open source identification products available today (from Black Duck and Palamida), and I found an instance where it appeared that code that was originally released under the GPL had found it's way into code that was released under the Apache license. I did some due diligence on this, looking back in the repositories to see when the initial checkins had been