OT License Wars, was [Asterisk-Users] Re: Advice on OS Choice

[Chris Travers]

Joe Greco wrote:

>>Joe Greco [jgreco at ns.sol.net] wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Have you ever written code for something like a medical monitor?  For
>>>numerous reasons, you don't want that code available to the public.  You
>>>don't need some not-smart-enough hospital techie trying to make changes
>>>to it, figuring out how to override the safeguards and then installing it
>>>on your equipment, and then suddenly having liability issues.
>>>      
>>>
>>Making the code available and allowing unqualified people to tinker
>>with live medical equipment are two separate issues.  You're getting
>>confused now.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know.  I've been in a position where it's been a concern.  Have
>you? 
>
>For such a device, making the code available allows what had formerly been 
>a big black box to be tampered with a heck of a lot more easily.
>
>This isn't a problem for things like the Linksys router which someone has
>loaded Asterisk onto.  Wonderful.  Kudos.  It probably voids the warranty,
>but doesn't have any real unexpected consequences.
>
>  
>
I don't agree.  You seem to think that the main benefit of releasing 
open source is that people can tinker with it.  By this logic, open 
source software should never be used for mission-critical operations.  I 
understand that this is a worry for many people, but I think it is a 
very misguided worry.

The biggest benefit of open source is that it opens up the code to a 
large process of peer review and suggested improvements.  Of course this 
must be done by working on building community as well.

>However, the electronics shop staff at many larger hospital facilities are
>sharp cookies.  The possibilities for "well let's just do..." are quite
>extensive.  These people are not automatically qualified to go changing
>the code on these devices just because they've got it and they're able to
>read C, but providing the code would be unnecessary temptation.  They lack
>the background on the hardware, and more importantly the resulting product
>isn't certified, so now you have an unknown.
>
>  
>
Again, I understand the worry, but I think this is a false worry which 
has a simpler solution:  Don't overstaff your tech department so they 
have better things to do  ;-)

I think the larger issue is that one has a compelling argument of 
liability (regardless of software license) if you can sue a single 
company for a loss of life or health, esp. if the patient who sues has 
not agreed to any limitation of liability.  With open source, community 
maintained software, this becomes a larger issue.  Who is responsible?  
The software vendor?  The hospital?  IANAL, though.  I can see this 
being an issue with medical liability such as it is.  But I don't think 
it is so much an issue of open source as it is community maintenance 
(i.e. if you only use official builds of MySQL from MySQL AB then this 
problem does not exist, but once you modify it, it becomes a really 
muddy situation).

>The obvious answer is: don't distribute the source, which is merely an
>attractive nuisance.
>
>You may be a bit confused if you've never had to deal with such issues.
>I assure you that I am not confused, as I have dealt with them.
>
>  
>
The issues, I believe, are more perceptual than real.  IANAL, though.

>That's what we did.  Along the way, where we could have made some
>significant contributions to several GPL'd projects, we *didn't*,
>because we were busy writing our own code.
>  
>
That is your right. :-)  You have the right to charge $40 for a pint of 
water too if anyone will buy it ;-)

Open source is a business and economic model.  You can choose to 
participate or not as you choose.  I do think though that it is proving 
competitive in most areas given time, and will probably either force you 
to play along or go elsewhere.

>That's a loss for those projects, because they could have received
>something along the lines of a man-year worth of development effort
>towards improvements that would have been contributed back.  That's
>an immense amount of benefit to an open source effort.  Instead, we
>spent maybe twice that hammering on things from a new direction.  No 
>benefit to the open source community at all.
>
>In that situation, everyone loses.  Especially the GPL'd project(s).
>
>  
>
See here is the thing--

BSD licenses do allow contribution from proprietary projects, and there 
*is* an incentive to contribute material back.  Many very successful 
projects (BIND, Apache, OpenSSH) use this style of license hand have 
achieved market dominance to the point where proprietary spinoffs are 
unlikely to be able to compete.  Those who feel that GPL is the only way 
to go are either blind or deliberately discounting the number of very 
successful infrastructure-level projects which use this sort of license.

>>>That's (close to) real world.  In reality, we had a somewhat larger
>>>example (plus some other miscellaneous examples) of something that would
>>>have been nice to use, and which would have benefitted from returned
>>>changes, had they not been licensed under GPL.  We did, in fact, make
>>>great use of X11, contributed various code fixes and other things back
>>>to that project, though the driver I wrote for the propietary touchscreen
>>>stuff was not sent back to MIT...  what would the point have been?
>>>      
>>>
>>If you haven't realised the point of open source software and software
>>freedom by now then I can't really see the benefit in explaining it to
>>you again.  Perhaps you should apply for a job at Microsoft or Apple.
>>    
>>
>
>Sorry, I don't believe in "software freedom".  It's a ridiculous concept,
>at least up until the technology is sentient, wakes up, and says "I desire
>freedom."  We don't extend the right of freedom even to other living
>creatures.  We don't extend the right of freedom to our cars, our computers,
>or our cell phones.  Let's be real.
>
>  
>
I don't buy this rhetoric of software freedom either (i.e. software code 
wants to be free-- software code doesn't want anything).

However, I do think that there is substantial benefit to licensing 
almost any block of code under open source license.  You have to 
understand that the point is that it is a more efficient model of 
software development and maintenance.  Regarding the touchscreen 
driver-- unless you want to offer this as a barrier to competition, 
there is no point in not releasing the source.

Stallman's rhetoric of Free Software (not what you or I are objecting 
to, btw) is ok as far as it goes, but what gives the development its 
power is that has tangible economic benefits, not that  it is somehow 
morally right.  I will note, however, that freedom and the flexibility 
it offers is such an economic benefit.

>I do believe in allowing people the freedom to receive source, modify it,
>and distribute it, all at their option.  That's free software.  The GPL
>restricts one of those freedoms, and as such, is less free than something
>like the BSD license.
>
>  
>
As I said-- you have the right to participate in this community-driven 
model or not at your option.  In the end, I have a hard time imagining 
proprietary software holding on except in a few niche markets (thinking 
10-20 years in the future).

>>>>At least the GPL would have
>>>>protected the project from an even worse situation - wholesale code
>>>>theft and lock-up.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Theft?  Lock-up?  No.  That's what happens when someone actually breaks a
>>>license.
>>>      
>>>
>>Exactly.  The BSD would allow this sort of thing to continue legally.
>>The GPL would not, and purposefully prevents open source software from
>>being closed.
>>    
>>
>
>Huh?  No.  The BSD license does not allow that sort of thing.
>
>The instant someone applies the BSD license to a bit of code and someone
>else accepts it, it becomes a gift.  When you give someone a gift, they
>are not stealing it from you.  By definition.
>
>Giving away code under the GPL could be construed as a gift as well, but
>it is more like "Indian giver" (apologies to Indians everywhere) in that
>the giver has attached strings to it.  I don't know about you, but when
>I give out gifts at Christmas, I don't say "oh and if you improve this
>then you have to give it back to me" (or something like that).
>
>... JG
>  
>
I disagree with both of you on some points.  The BSD license provides a 
framework for freely sharing ideas and code, while the GPL exchanges 
code for certain conditions regarding derivative works.  I used to argue 
that Linux would not have taken off were it not for the GPL, but now I 
am not sure how much of it was due to the GPL and how much was due to 
Linus's skill at building community.

There is an incentive to contribute code  back to a BSD project-- this 
means that the code is more likely to be reviewed, and eventually 
community maintained, eventually freeing up some labor which might 
otherwise have had to go to ensuring that the code is compatible with 
the latest release.  It also provides a way to hurt ones competition by 
releasing free components that competition is keeping proprietary and 
thus devaluing their products.  The GPL's version of this tactic is also 
quite available and is more of an "area denial" effect.  Both systems 
are roughly equal here.

I usually use the GPL for my source releases.  But I can see using the 
BSD license if that helps me build community.  Also the GPL can be 
abused (MySQL client libs being GPL for example, essentially requiring a 
source license for other OSS licenses).

THe license is less important ot me than the community.  With a strong 
community, nobody can compete with an oss project.

As a side note, I have been on this list for some time, and I have 
noticed a *strong* development of community here especially as the push 
stated to release 1.0 some time ago.  Well done folks :-)

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chris.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 127 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20041015/28584058/chris.vcf