back to article Windows and OS X are malware, claims Richard Stallman

Linux GNU firebrand Richard Stallman says Windows and Apple's OS X are malware, Amazon is Orwellian, and anyone who trusts the internet-of-things is an ass. In a column for The Grauniad Stallman preaches to the non-technical masses about the evils of proprietary software and vendor lock-in, and how closed-door coding …

Anonymous Coward

and even worse

The professional "journalists" are so illiterate in their own language they can not even recognise and avoid USA spellings, semantics and references when writing for a European/British/Australasian audience. But if writing for a USA audience, translation seems to be obligatory (perhaps a reflection on their estimation of USA comprehension and adaptability).

1
0
Silver badge
Big Brother

anyone who trusts the internet-of-things is an ass

Statement of the obvious.

Amazon: Not as bad as Google.

Desktop Windows & MacOS?: Not as big an issue as Android, iOS and Windows Cloud/Phone/Win10 /Win Surface.

6
3
Silver badge

Explains a lot

So that's why Avast threw a wobbler and nuked Windows system files the other week, plus the others before it. They've been trying to tell us for years! It's so clear now.

9
0
Anonymous Coward

Of course..

.. telling everyone that your way is The Right Way is not denying people a choice either...

I call (partial) bullshit, and not just because I want the downvotes.

I'm no fan of proprietary, but in certain circumstances I can see people not choosing the open route, and I think they are entitled to make that choice themselves. I also take issue with his praying on people's security fears to make statements that have no real factual basis, like the myth that Open Source makes it more likely (weak word) that flaws are found and fixed - we have seen clearly that that is open to debate. It's easier to get an independent 3rd party involved to check, but that does by no means guarantee that it actually happens. Proof in point are the recent bash and OpenSSL vulnerabilities which, despite being rather critical code, remained undiscovered for a very long time.

This is not to say that proprietary does any better, but the statement that companies prefer a shorter time to market over decent code eval is not one I see valid for all providers, and some of the more recent Open Source code I've looked at was a mess too.

Stallman seems to suggest that everything offered under the FOSS banner is ready for production and secure, just by the sheer fact that it is FOSS. Really? Even Eric Raymond has admitted that his famous "many eyeballs make bugs shallow" was more marketing than reality. That security myth is extremely dangerous because it creates a false sense of security that makes people careless.

So, to bring the statements in bold into the real world:

- Individually, by rejecting proprietary software and web services that snoop or track. As Google is built on Linux, is that then OK? The issue is actually spectacularly bad legislation and enforcement, not technology.

- Collectively, by organising to develop free/libre replacement systems and web services that don’t track who uses them (if a proprietary service can prove to me they do it right I don't have a problem using that, provided I can pull my data at any time - I'll get back to that in a minute*)

- Democratically, by legislation to criminalise various sorts of malware practices. (already exists, not a new idea) This presupposes democracy (no, it doesn't, even a less-than-democratic place like China has laws in place for that), and democracy requires defeating treaties such as the TPP and TTIP that give companies the power to suppress democracy. That's again rhetoric twisting to impose an own agenda. The correct expression would be "democracy requires open discussions and voting on the benefits, risks and content of treaties such as TPP and TTIP" which would be both factually correct and free of an agenda to push one point of view.

* Interesting, not a word about the one thing that really avoids lock in: Open Standards, maybe because Stallman wasn't really involved in developing those (please correct me if I have this wrong, if Stallman has submitted RFCs I'd be happy to be corrected). Open Standards allow anyone true freedom of choice by enabling interoperability between such choices, and makes it possible to revisit that choice later by migrating their data without problems. It also leaves people the freedom of choosing fits their specific needs instead of what fits Stallman's agenda.

True freedom is allowing people to make their own choices after presenting all the available facts fairly, honestly and without spinning it towards your own agenda. I have no problem with someone offering their opinion and debating it fairly because THAT is democracy. Anything else is pretend.

32
4
Windows

ingenuity

http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/13117/tech-cuba-reforms/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugaad

Just thinking random thoughts and standing rms on his head a little: those places where technology isn't seamlessly packaged, closed or easy to use may have an advantage in that (some) people are used to hacking things (using 'hacking' in its sense of 'adapting stuff to meet needs'). Is this not the logic of the Raspberry Pi?

A point to watch: will the Cuban government allow free software in? Because once it is in, people will be able to get round what controls remain...

PS: A weekly drop of 1Tb on a hard drive currently beats my adsl connection's bandwidth by a factor of around 5.

0
0
Silver badge
Flame

Re: ingenuity

"will the Cuban government allow free software in?".

I wonder where you got that from?. As far as I remember Cuban hospitals started to use Linux about 15 years ago. I am more concerned about Cuba when they let Microsoft in.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2409808/microsoft-bullied-mps-over-government-switch-to-open-source-standards

Will the USA transform (again) Cuba into a brothel run by gangsters. Look out Cubans.

As for Stallman I have a slight feeling that Darren Pauli is not a great admirer of him as I think it would be hard to find anything more appalling a pic or video to represent him.

He deserves credit for things he did and has worked for, GPL, GNU and things like that, no reason to downplay his part.

It's an other thing that he's probably a bit bitter and perhaps the "looks" are not quite whatever.

But he is often right all the same.

The TTIP is worse than people understand. Companies have always been able to take governments to court but now the Americans want the court to be private, (run by very expensive lawyers) and in the USA.

A government that accepts TTIP hands it's laws and rights to a private court to do what ever money decides.

"They" will also tell you TTIP is old and normal in every trade agreement. But the background is old trade agreements made with "rough" third world countries where companies felt the legal system was non existing.

Now when this is demanded between the EU and the USA one has to assume the EU is considered a rough country (the way Sarah Palin considers Africa a country) or the USA considers itself a rough country, then again there are all those lawyers and perhaps some good businessmen who want to kill all stupid regulations in the EU or/and get some extra money for the effort. Oh, did I forget the money lobby.

12
2
Windows

Re: ingenuity

"I wonder where you got that from?. As far as I remember Cuban hospitals started to use Linux about 15 years ago. I am more concerned about Cuba when they let Microsoft in."

Have a look at the Nova 4 user manual, especially the section on network installation.

Fully agree with your observations on TTIP however

0
0
LDS
Silver badge

Re: ingenuity

Cuba has been and still is a brothel - what changes is just who runs it and its "customers", once Americans, now Europeans...

1
4
Silver badge

So the long and the short of it is...

The world has moved on but this guy still thinks it's 1995?

Plus if you want to be taken slightly seriously then that look isn't helping him.

Mental illness is a terrible thing.

11
27

Re: So the long and the short of it is...

...so your response to someone who claims that people should not be so stupid as to be seduced by the shiny into accepting evil is 'if you want to be taken slightly seriously then that look isn't helping him' ?

Damage Control Team to the Irony Room, Stat!

19
5

@ Zack Mollusc

"so your response to someone who claims that people should not be so stupid as to be seduced by the shiny into accepting evil is 'if you want to be taken slightly seriously then that look isn't helping him' ?"

You need to get out in the real world; maybe you'll find out what "evil" really means. Hint: it's got nothing to do with proprietary software.

7
3
Silver badge

Re: @ Zack Mollusc

Indeed, some folks have obviously led very sheltered lives with some of the stuff they get over emotional about.

Leads to a lack of perspective.

3
0

Re: So the long and the short of it is...

..And i wish you a speedy recovery jason, and hope you return to make further great contributions to future of software.

0
2

I want that hat!

Where can I order one?

1
0

Re: I want that hat!

It doesn't come across well in the picture above, but other shots make it clear that Stallman is trying hard to make it represent a nimbus, or halo, and is presenting himself as some sort of angel.

I believe it's made out of tinfoil.

4
1

Re: I want that hat!

It's his "Saint IGNUcius" outfit

5
0

Re: I want that hat!

For those that are too young, it is a disk platter. Probably out of an RM02 or similar. It is too big to have come out of an old 12 inch stack. Given RMS has been doing this gig for decades it is probably looking a bit battered by now.

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: I want that RM02

"it is a disk platter. Probably out of an RM02 or similar"

Seems plausible. For younger readers, some aspects of this kind of device:

. Size of a washing machine (roughly)

. Power consumption of a washing machine on max (3kW?)

. Noisier than a washing machine

. Capacity: Nominally 80MB or so

... Big enough to store a complete secure multi-user OS and lots of user data

. A "disk pack" would be removable and have multiple platters for data

. Often needed frequent routine visits from service engineers to "align the heads"

. Occasionally needed service engineer visits for routine wear and tear of mechanical parts

. Superceded for removable storage by things like the RA60 (~200MB, early 1980s)

Much more interesting reading about these things than reading unnecessarily personal attacks on RMS.

2
1

Can't fault the man for speaking the truth, trouble is not many want to listen - too bad.

13
10
Silver badge

So what did YOU do then ?

Getting a bit bored of the current fad to make whiny comments about Stallman's one track mind. When the commentards here get themselves a reputation for something other than whining, I'll be glad to hear their opinions. Until then, consider what the landscape would look like with no FOSS.

15
13

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

Consider what the landscape would look like without GPL3. People might actually be using FOSS, instead of keeping themselves as far away from a crippling licensing agreement as possible. Most commerical software houses I'm familiar with now completely forbid the use of anything bearing this license, thanks to Stallman's penchant for lawsuits and his many attempts to seize ownership of software that so much as shares the same room with a GPL3 license.

Stallman has single-handledly stifled the spread of FOSS through the spread of his tumorous bilge.

17
6
Silver badge

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

"Most commerical software houses I'm familiar with now completely forbid the use of anything bearing this license"

And quite right too. It's not intended to allow commercial software houses to make a quick buck from the community's efforts while giving nothing back. If they want to retain complete control of their product, let them put the work in. The world doesn't owe them a living.

I'll keep using software that's made to be built onwards for my benefit, not funnel my needs into building their business. And you're welcome to pay them to reinvent the wheel.

12
8

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

Not so much. Those same companies are happy to make use of other open source licenses - MIT, the LGPL, and so on - because unlike GPL3, those licenses allow them to keep their own proprietary code proprietary. GPL3, on the other hand, demands that anything it touches be released to the public domain. It is poisonous in the extreme, and it's outrageously expansive demands have smothered the open source movement. GPL3 is specifically designed to metastisize and malignantly infect everything it touches. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "your benefit"; it benefits one thing and one thing only, and that thing is Dick Stallman's enormously overinflated ego.

14
13
Silver badge

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

Lol at downvoters.

So come on then, prove your point. What are you useful for ?

3
12
Silver badge

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

I have no argument with that. It is indeed intended to spread the license into related code.

But this 'keep their own proprietary code proprietary'. You say that like it's a good thing. You're doing it wrong.

Look at the patent system, even though it's now widely abused. It was intended to allow creators to earn back the cost of developing their inventions, then pass the ideas on to the rest of the community in order that later developments could benefit from them. It's a trade. It has benefits both ways. Developing software and then burying it in the dead end of company secrets is just wasteful, and something we don't tolerate in other areas, beyond the trivia of cookie recipes.

7
13
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

I write and use open source software. FOSS gives me hives.

6
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

"Developing software and then burying it in the dead end of company secrets is just wasteful, and something we don't tolerate in other areas, beyond the trivia of cookie recipes."

Than what do you call Trade Secrets? This kind of stuff is just ripe for exploitation by The Competition, who can then undercut you because they didn't spend the R&D you did. If I am hell-bent on keeping my Trade Secrets secret, then I'm going to keep them secret in spite of God, Man, or the Government. If you try to play cricket with me, I've got a bat with your name on it and a plane ticket to a more-cooperative country as a last resort.

4
2
Silver badge
Linux

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

It's up to you if you use GPL2 or GPL3 or whatever license. Linux is GPL2.

Years ago Linus wrote something like this - it's amazing how many words are needed just to express such a simple thing as - "use this code but if you distribute it tell the version number and if you change the code then show the changes (and let us see if we could use them).

Still more surprising is how much intentional shit and FUD there is regarding the GPL.

Perhaps even more surprising is the amount of companies and people involved in FOSS.

As for Linux on the desktop. Jobs knew very well that he had to build his own shops to compete with Windows. Computer shops gain nothing from selling Linux desktops. It's much easier with Windows, people expect problems (acts of God), reboot, format the damned thing, by a new sound card, anything goes.

If you want Linux on the desktop just install it, it's very easy to day, it was more "fun" years ago.

8
5

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

Well, no. It's not up to you. Many packages are only available under a single license; those available under multiple licensing agreements are rare indeed. And, if you make the mistake of brushing up against GPL3 without realizing it, you have just kissed your code goodbye, even in cases of tangential contact.

As a result, a huge number of developers simply refuse to go anywhere near code that may be tainted with the GPL3 blight. It has done more to stifle the FOSS movement than any other single cause.

9
6

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

I agree that the GPL is a much less useful license than the Sun / FreeBSD style licenses, when simply looking for code to incorporate into your own projects.

But for tools like g++, gdb, &c, GPL is fine, and the GPL license for tools like these really don't hurt things.

4
0

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

I disagree. The decision to use a given bit of code based on licensing isn't often made by the legal department; it's made by developers, or by management, who will often extend the nuances of GPL3 malignancy to a simple, "Don't use anything GPL'd." GPL3's harm extends beyond its immediate threats as a result.

3
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

> because unlike GPL3, those licenses allow them to keep their own proprietary code proprietary.

Erm, did you miss the bit about RMS hating proprietary code?

The whole point about GPL2 & 3 is to eradicate proprietary software. His aims are no secret.

7
1
Silver badge

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

But for tools like g++, gdb, &c, GPL is fine, and the GPL license for tools like these really don't hurt things.

I beg to differ: the change in some of the GNU tools to GPL3 is what has driven a lot of developers away from them. Most notably FreeBSD which has gone about removing them from the tool chain but look also at the CLANG and LLVM licences. Quite weird if you think open source is about encouraging code reuse and peer review.

5
1

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

Yes, I'm well aware of Stallman's hatred of private ownership of pretty much anything at all.

The point is, earlier versions of the GPL and many other open source licenses allow developers to protect their own code, and don't demand that it be released into the public domain as GPL3 does.. It's an impediment to the entire open source movement when its largest proponent goes off the deep end as Stallman has, and winds up driving people away instead.

3
5
LDS
Silver badge

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

It looks many Linux user used Windows last time in 1996... and still believe nothing has changed since Windows 95 - and still going on with the usual FUD about Windows.

Keep your head under the sand, but you look more like a ostrich than a penguin...

6
7

@Adrian 4

"Getting a bit bored of the current fad to make whiny comments about Stallman's one track mind. When the commentards here get themselves a reputation for something other than whining, I'll be glad to hear their opinions."

Yes, because how could a commentard possibly make a valid comment?

And yes, again, because there's no fallacy as fallacious as an on-going appeal to authority.

4
2

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

GPL3 requires nothing to be released to the public domain at all. Quite the opposite. Release in this way would be violation. It does have requires about release under GPL3.

Nor is "anything it touches" correct. You can use GPL3 (or 2 or 1) to create, manipulate other code. You can use it to perform any kind of analysis you want. You can launch GPL3 code, or use GPL3 code to launch other code. None of this requires any release under GPL3.

You can even modify GPL3 code, and do almost anything you want with that code. The only thing that you cannot do is distribute the modification without also releasing it under GPL3.

Of course, this is a limitation and will prevent people from using the software under some circumstances. It is designed to do this. It's useful and reasonable, depending on your motivations for writing free software. In some cases, there have even been strong commercial motivations for using GPL3.

It's quite a long way away from "metastasis and infect" (two different things by the way). It may be a stronger quid pro quo than you want under all circumstances, but it is right for many.

10
1

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

"And, if you make the mistake of brushing up against GPL3 without realizing it, you have just kissed your code goodbye, even in cases of tangential contact."

Let's be honest, if you use other people's code, without reading their software licence, then you are a pretty poor developer or working for a pretty poor software house. If you do this with GPL software, yes, you are correct, it would result in a licence violation which means that you'd have to take it out again.

If you do this with commercial software, you will be in a far worse situation.

Tangiental Contact? What does that mean? There are many ways to combine GPL code and others. Code written in R (GPL) does not need to be GPL.

5
1
Silver badge

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

You can't use a GPL3 library, because if you do, it makes your entire project GPL3.

Even in a free project, you often can't do that because it breaks the license for other parts of the project.

In a commercial project, you can't consider that. Releasing the code is a commercial decision that the developer cannot make.

Thus, you cannot use any GPL3 code for any commercial project, or for any non-GPL3 FOSS project, or for any project which uses any parts that are not GPL3.

Thus you cannot improve said code.

Thus said code will die.

This comes from Stallman's insistence that no software developer should be paid for developing software, which is a position that I am fundamentally opposed to as I want to have somewhere to live and to be able to eat and give things to my friends and family.

3
5
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: Re: So what did YOU do then ?

Whoever spam reported this comment (I won't name and shame you, for now), don't do it again. The "report comment" function will not be misused because you're too lazy to form a coherent argument against a comment you dislike. Persistent abuse will land you on the pre-moderation naughty step.

Here endeth the lesson.

2
1
Silver badge

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

"What are you useful for ?"

There are more programmers and systems than you can imagine, from tiny embedded devices right up to industrial systems. The difference is people involved with those don't evangelise with emotional cue words. Certainly, the software produced may not be as open as you might like[1], but one has to ask where the true benefit lies - the availability of code that you can hack at if you feel so inclined (and 99%+ of the population are unlikely to be that interested), or the software that makes your car more efficient and cheaper to run, the software inside an AED that might just save your life, the software that means you can travel on public transport just by waving a card and not fiddling around for money (or worse, find "exact change").

1 - For what it is worth, I consider GPL to be "source available" but I certainly do not consider it truly open in the sense of what we generally mean here. Yes, the bsd licences do not require modified source to be public which is bad from a purists point of view, but on the other hand the GPL mandates that all code is supposed to become GPL which makes it practically impossible for a company to build a "value added" product on top of a GPL base. The company will have difficulty with the proprietary parts, and no they shouldn't necessarily have to share these if the development is their source of income. Some companies will abuse this, yes. But then some companies abuse tax laws, human rights, etc. It happens. It is bad but it happens. Just be careful that GPLv4 doesn't make the cure worse than the disease, because the changes in GPLv3 would imply that it is heading in that direction.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

" There are many ways to combine GPL code and others. Code written in R (GPL) does not need to be GPL."

Are you intentionally missing the point? Documents written in word do not automatically belong to Microsoft. Documents written in LibreOffice are not GPL. So, of course a program written in R would not be expected to be GPL just because the language implementation is.

But this was not what was being discussed. How about we try talking about using code with GPL code and not getting in a mess. For instance - explain the linking thing (with references), because the wording of the GPL is unclear, the GPL FAQ says that it is something the courts will decide (wrong wrong wrong, this should be clearly stated up front), and Linus himself would appear to consider a kernel module a "derivative work" purely by the use of the API and kernel level knowledge instead of, you know, the code itself "being derived from" which is the usual interpretation of "derivative".

Another example is the GPL text states "However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work.", while the FAQ says "You may not distribute these libraries in compiled DLL form with the program. To prevent unscrupulous distributors from trying to use the System Library exception as a loophole, the GPL says that libraries can only qualify as System Libraries as long as they're not distributed with the program itself.". So the essential libraries which form, for example, the VisualBasic runtime (and are installed as proper system libraries if they aren't already present) apparently cannot be included within the same "installer" as a GPL program as this mere proximity would imply the necessity of them being GPL even though I can't find anything in the licence text that would seem to support this. Still, the next paragraph in the GPL FAQ makes this clear - "It is possible to write free programs that only run on Windows, but it is not a good idea. These programs would be “trapped” by Windows, and therefore contribute zero to the Free World." - in other words, here's some bull they made up because Windows is evil and idealism wins over accuracy and logic.

With all of this in mind, it is no surprise that people and companies are going to be increasingly steering clear of the GPL.

2
1
Silver badge

Re: @Adrian 4

>there's no fallacy as fallacious as an on-going appeal to authority.

Actually, there are quite a few fallacies, much worse than 'appeal to authority' (which isn't a fallacy, unless misused).

One of the worse fallacies is that which pretends that 'my ignorant opinion is worth the same as any expert's'.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

> You can't use a GPL3 library, because if you do, it makes your entire project GPL3.

Your first statement is wrong, just simply wrong. The rest of your errors fail from that point on.

Go and actually read the documentation available and find out what the real situation is.

If you *incorporate* GPL code into your "blob" then yes, you have to release the source for your "blob" under GPL. That is also true if you statically link the library into your blob.

But if you simply *use* a library, and don't statically link it in then you do not have to release your own code under GPL. That much is made very clear (somewhere, can't tell you exactly as it's a while since I last had to look it up).

I would suggest that anyone who is competent enough to be let loose writing code should be capable of understand that dynamically linking in a library doesn't make that library *part of your code*.

2
1
Silver badge
Linux

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

@Phil Lord

Yes, thanks for mentioning the "anything it touches", it's one of the more "successful" FUDs from Microsoft's "Get the Facts" era. And of course we have a communist comment by now. A word that seems to work so well in the USA for reasons I don't get. Not any un-american comments yet.

Funny stuff really, should we not call Apple things like that as they produce most of their ithings in communist countries in a very un-american way.

To be more serious lots of companies who use a Linux kernel do their "secret" stuff in "user space". If you modifie the "kernel space" then stick to the rules regarding the kernel.

3
0
FAIL

@ Six_Degrees

What exactly is your problem? You don't want to share your code? You think sharing code is an evil communist plot? That's perfectly fine (and retarded), you have a right to your opinion.

Sharing your code is an awful burden nobody should force on you, OK. But you feel you have some kind of right to use code that other people have shared in any way you see fit? GPL places some restrictions on you, and you can't stand it? You place much more severe restrictions on people who use your code, and that's fine, but if someone puts any restrictions on you using their code then that's some kind of harsh human rights abuse? I really can't see your point through the forest of hypocrisy.

You don't like sharing code, fine go crawl back under your rock and reinvent wheels all day. What do you think gives you the right to demand anything from people who do like sharing code? GPL code isn't going anywhere, all the code that is GPL now will always be GPL, and there is more and more of it every day, leaving people free to solve new problems instead of wasting time working around moldy old proprietary software patents and restrictive copyright, making life better for everyone. There are lots of people who get paid to write, modify, maintain, and support it. More of them very day. I'm thankful for all of them, and even more thankful for the even greater number of people who freely volunteer the fruits of their labour for the greater good. You should show a bit of class instead of trying to twist their altruism into some kind of blasphemy.

Ranting and raving against the way some people choose to share their code with you would be much more valid if you weren't so vehemently against sharing any of your code at all in the first place.

2
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: @ Six_Degrees

@ Mike VandeVelde:

"That's perfectly fine (and retarded), you have a right to your opinion."

What makes this unintentionally funny is that your head appears to be so far up where the sun cannot shine that you actually seem to equate "sharing code" with "GPL", as if no other option exists.

Dude, you've been brainwashed.

When I release my code, it is EUPL. You might want to look it up, to experience something that is "like the GPL, only without the politically bogus restrictions". Oh, and, my god, via the interoperability clause, EUPL code is even compatible with GPLv2. It's a shame we can't say the same in reverse; but then isn't the basic premise of every great religion to promise the earth while curtailing freedom?

1
2
Silver badge

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

Headers? I have to include the headers.

Windows and Mac Installers? I have to include the actual library binaries, or the customer cannot use the product.

Embedded systems? I have to statically link as there is no filesystem.

All of these things mean that I cannot use GPL3 code, because it opens us up to potential legal action.

Even if we 'win' said action, it costs us a lot and wastes time that could have been used to make products - this has already happened to us with invalid patents.

And if we lose, we are forced to give away our product, perhaps breaching other licences.

It's not worth the risk - get it wrong and you lose the farm.

BSD, Apache, LGPL, MIT and GPL2 are ok. GPL3 is not.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

> All of these things mean that I cannot use GPL3 code, because it opens us up to potential legal action.

Just because some code is available with a GPL3 licence does not mean that it cannot be obtained with a different licence. Much GPLx code is available with a commercial licence. You may have to pay for it, but that may be exactly what is required.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: So what did YOU do then ?

"Just because some code is available with a GPL3 licence does not mean that it cannot be obtained with a different licence. Much GPLx code is available with a commercial licence. You may have to pay for it, but that may be exactly what is required."

And much GPL3 code is ONLY available GPL3, so it's untouchable for anything of a commercial nature since using it, even as a separate library, which as noted is not an option many times, REQUIRES adding the header code which, by its mere existence in the project, contaminates the whole thing. At least LGPL and the like recognize this and allow you to keep the free code at arm's length, but GPL3 was specifically construed to break commercial control. Remember that part of the motivation was TiVo's inclusion of GPL code. They published code that was nonetheless useless because Tivo would only accept SIGNED code (and only Tivo had the signing key). In trying to prevent a relapse, they basically balkanized the software industry into "all-free" and "none-free" attitudes because GPL is the license that gets all the attention.

1
1

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018