×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

299 comments

Do no evil (directly) (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423368)

Cool. So Google's motto is "Do no evil, but don't get in the way of letting others do it."

Re:Do no evil (directly) (4, Informative)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423448)

You flag the app, and Google will remove the apps from the android market. Why are Google to blame here? iOS has violations too. http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/The+Blocks+Cometh/news.asp?c=26696 [pocketgamer.co.uk]

Re:Do no evil (directly) (0, Troll)

macs4all (973270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423518)

You flag the app, and Google will remove the apps from the android market. Why are Google to blame here? iOS has violations too. http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/The+Blocks+Cometh/news.asp?c=26696 [pocketgamer.co.uk]

Ok, that's one iOS example down, 177,499 to go to equal Android ( at 71% of the 250,000 current iPhone apps).

Re:Do no evil (directly) (4)

macs4all (973270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423556)

You flag the app, and Google will remove the apps from the android market. Why are Google to blame here? iOS has violations too. http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/The+Blocks+Cometh/news.asp?c=26696 [pocketgamer.co.uk]

Ok, that's one iOS example down, 177,499 to go to equal Android ( at 71% of the 250,000 current iPhone apps).

I retract my previous post. I didn't RTFA, and didn't realize the Summary was misleading.

Sorry, Androids, I apologize. I guess we're ALL in the license-violation-boat together...

Re:Do no evil (directly) (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423668)

You flag the app, and Google will remove the apps from the android market. Why are Google to blame here?

iOS has violations too. http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/The+Blocks+Cometh/news.asp?c=26696 [pocketgamer.co.uk]

Ok, that's one iOS example down, 177,499 to go to equal Android ( at 71% of the 250,000 current iPhone apps).

I retract my previous post. I didn't RTFA, and didn't realize the Summary was misleading.

Sorry, Androids, I apologize. I guess we're ALL in the license-violation-boat together...

Honestly I'm a little surprised it wasn't obvious. Why would android be any different than other software? The android fanboy in me immediately noticed that it was probably unnecessary to single out that one OS. The article is now dead, but from what you say it sounds like I had the right idea.
-Taylor

Re:Do no evil (directly) (3, Informative)

basotl (808388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423702)

The linked article says "A new study from open source services vendor OpenLogic reports that 71 percent of Apple iOS and Google Android apps are not in compliance." So I guess they ARE saying around 177,500 iOS apps are also offenders.

But I am taking the whole article with some skepticism.

Re:Do no evil (directly) (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423784)

"Do no evil, but don't get in the way of letting others do it."

In practice, that is preferable to policing others, yes.

Whining never helps (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423374)

It actually makes me antagonistic towards your cause.

Re:Whining never helps (2)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423472)

I agree with this person's sentiment. It makes me a bad person, but it's at least true. I have found software I wrote with an open source license used with the license stripped. I can't afford an attorney so I use the sour grapes model to get over myself. It works pretty darned good. Lets me get on with life*.

*: your inevitable life joke is hilarious. har.

Re:Whining never helps (3, Insightful)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423986)

If you use a piece of Free Software in your software product and then distribute that product and you fail to follow the license then the folks that wrote that particular piece of software have you by the nuts. You might not like whining, but I can guarantee you that you'll like litigation a lot less. Especially because you will lose, and the penalties for copyright violation are ridiculous (at least in the U.S.). Assuming, of course, that the folks that wrote the Free Software that you "borrowed" actually care, which is probably not the case.

In fact, in this particular case the article is basically about a company that scans people's software for them, finds out if they have any licensing issues, and then offers to help you sort the licensing issues out if they find something bad. It's not really the Free Software developers that are whining. Instead it is a third party that wants you to pay them money to help you sort out a licensing issue on the off chance that the Free Software developers *do* decide to complain. You might not think that this is a service, but your legal counsel probably has a different opinion.

IANAL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423412)

Although development agreement for application store will discuss intelligent property issues and can even open source reference code, there is little information to help developer understand what problems are and how follow rules. In addition, when a source of conformity is open problem, is likely to cause an application to demolish the application. This is central problem. To right this wrong, we must search for violation and provide source of informing the phone user. Despite other avenues.

Re:IANAL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423688)

Re:IANAL

I ANAL too. But this being an Apple related story, it is expected.

What the hell? (5, Informative)

Stratoukos (1446161) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423414)

The article doesn't mention Android separately. It has one set of numbers for both Android and iOS. Exact quote:

A new study from open source services vendor OpenLogic reports that 71 percent of Apple iOS and Google Android apps are not in compliance. OpenLogic scanned 635 apps, including both free and paid on the Apple App store and Google Android Marketplace. Of those 635 scanned apps, 52 apps include Apache licensed code while 16 included GPL/LGPL licensed code.

Who the hell wrote that summary?

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423490)

Welcome to Slashdot.

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423552)

How does 52+16 out of 635 work out to being 71 percent?

Re:What the hell? (1)

Zcar (756484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423698)

Of course, Apache and GPL/LGPL are the only Open Source licenses? Of course, I'd be surprised if other licenses are that prevalent in this arena with at least 383 apps in the survey that had no Apache or GPL/LGPL code but had code from other OS licenses.

Re:What the hell? (4, Insightful)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423574)

Furthermore, the 71% figure has no apparent relationship with the other numbers mentioned in the article.

The article is nearly as brain-dead as the summary.

Re:What the hell? (5, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423848)

Of the 635 apps that they looked at, they confidently identified 68 as having Apache or GPL'd code. Of the 68 apps with open source code 71%, or 48 in absolute terms, were in violation. I admit that it would have been clearer and more interesting to say that 7.6% of the apps they looked at were in violation. If they had a truly random sampling and that number held out, you'd be looking at more than 20,000 apps that are violating the Apache and GPL licenses.

Re:What the hell? (2)

MichaelKristopeit352 (1968160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423616)

a hypocritically ignorant marketeer, of course.

slashdot = stagnated

Re:What the hell? (5, Insightful)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423760)

You have a negative one score, but there is nothing wrong with what you said. This summary is complete crap. Slashdot chose to publish it. So Slashdot is publishing crap. This happens often. It is then not unreasonable to say the site has stagnated. I sure am sick of all this bottom of the barrel content myself.

The submitted did not read the article, or was an idiot. The approver(s?) did not read the article or are idiots. Everyone involved in posts like this are doing a bad job or are an idiot. Why does slashdot keep doing this? I see extremely poorly written content all the time here. Its just dumb.

*ALSO*, most blogs nowadays read their own comments and post updates like "many people in the comments have pointed out...". I don't think I have ever seen this happen on Slashdot, or if I have, it does not happen often enough. You'll see times where 80% of the comments are rightfully pointing out that the story is BS, but it still does not get updated. Posting bad content and then not fixing it when it is clearly shown to be BS just shows that the people running the site do not care about the quality of the content, or at the least are very bad at showing it. You just see false stories hang out on the front page all day long. Its ridiculous.

Shape up slashdot!
-Taylor

Re:What the hell? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423846)

He starts at -1 because he's a troll.

He'll inevitably reply to this post with "Your moms a troll. Cower some more feeb. You're completely pathetic". Or something similar.

Re:What the hell? (4, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423802)

And one set for GPL and Apache, too. That's pretty night and day as far as the requirements go, and it's not clear if all of those are really even violations.

I mean, GPL code, sure. That's pretty much toxic to closed source development. But Apache? How do you even violate the Apache license when you're distributing only object code?

Apache defines a derivative work very narrowly, such that (by my reading anyway) library code under an Apache license used as a small part of a larger work isn't one. Therefore, one could potentially argue that it doesn't even require attribution or a copy of the license....

iOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423420)

The article actually states "A new study from open source services vendor OpenLogic reports that 71 percent of Apple iOS and Google Android apps are not in compliance." Way to leave out 1/2 of the article.

Further proof (0)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423430)

...that a CS degree should require you to pass the bar exam before you write code.

Link against a library (even unintentionally) and the hell of reading license legalese begins.

Re:Further proof (2)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423550)

The three layer model [creativecommons.org] used by Creative Commons is a great method of making licenses effective but unintimidating.

Have a look at this relatively burdensome lawyer-readable version:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode [creativecommons.org]
and then have a look at the "human-readable" version:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ [creativecommons.org]
Then concurrent with both of those, there is the machine-readable version, so automation is facilitated.

I understand that more-closed licenses have more particulars, but one would think there could be ways to adopt this general form.

Re:Further proof (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423752)

It's pretty simple really.

If it's not yours, you probably should not treat it as such.

Never mind law school. Try making it to kindergarten.

Basic arithmetic first (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423778)

...that a CS degree should require you to pass the bar exam before you write code.

Given that the article refers to scanning 635 apps of which 68 contain OSS licensed code and then uses this data to claim that 71% of apps are not in compliance I would say that basic arithmetic would be the first thing to require before worrying about more challenging topics like laws.

What about iOS? (5, Insightful)

rafial (4671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423432)

Wait a minute here, the linked article says "A new study from open source services vendor OpenLogic reports that 71 percent of Apple iOS and Google Android apps are not in compliance." Yet the headline for this story mentions only Android. I understand it's become fashionable to bash Android lately, but this seems a bit egregious. The problem appears to be endemic across all mobile devices.

71 percent? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423442)

How does 52 apps out of 635 add up to 71%??

"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certainly" (4, Insightful)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423464)

Actually I find the Copy left licences have far more demands than any commercial licence. You can spend huge amounts of time figuring out if you can link or not link, how you must publish the code and how you can distribute the application.

With commercial software you are often presented with a library or set of tools you can or can't bundle with your product, past that there is no code to deal with most of the time..

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (4, Insightful)

Teckla (630646) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423528)

Actually I find the Copy left licences have far more demands than any commercial licence. You can spend huge amounts of time figuring out if you can link or not link, how you must publish the code and how you can distribute the application.

As a commercial software developer myself, I'm glad at least one other person on Slashdot understands this!

For some of us, copyleft code is, by far, the most expensive code there is. In fact, it's pretty much poison.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (5, Insightful)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423594)

Well, that was the original intent. RMS envisioned a world in which all software was Free (Libre), and then he thought about how this could be brought about. What he came up with was two-pronged. 1) copyleft 2) write lots of really excellent software, so excellent that people will want to use it even though they know they will get sucked into the copyleft. It appears to be working.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423786)

good god, you're trolling, right? "lots of really excellent software"??? since when did stallman write lots of really excellent software? i'm forced into using gnu tools and frankly i'd rather not. let's take gfortran, which i have to use on a regular basis, and compare it with a closed-source alternative like ifort. which one produces larger filesizes and worse-optimised codes? oh yes, gfortran. which one doesn't support the full range of switches ifort does? oh yes, gfortran. and believe me, ifort is a fucking dog and i've been frequently let down and exasperated by its many bugs and interesting "features" including one severe bug in a version about five years back that capped memory usage at something like 1.5gig and if you addressed anything more seg faulted on you no matter that another 5gig were free on the system. despite all these frustrations, gfortran is a piece of shit. "but it's a work in progress!" so what? seriously, SO FUCKING WHAT? i don't want a work in progress, i want something that will do my fucking job and gfortran is seriously not fucking fit for purpose.

oh, and let's mention openmp and mpi support... no, let's not. late to the game again, gnu. let's not even mention how long it took (what, 10 years?) for a stable gnu release of an f90 compiler. seriously, did we have to wait ten years for a properly stable free f90 compiler? no. no, we didn't. but gnu -- authors of that widely-used EXCELLENT piece of software, the HURD kernel which is running in... wait... fucking NONE of the servers or desktops or laptops you'll ever see because it's fucking shit vaporware -- managed to make it last that long. someone even forked the fucker and made g95, which is equally shit.

or are we talking linux? oh, sorry, you're a fucking stallwart aren't you? gnu/linux. maybe we should be REALISTIC about this and call it gnome/gnu/linux or kde/gnu/linux because almost everyone who touches the fucker outside of a server environment will interact with it via gnome or kde one way or another and any claims to the contrary are retarded. you know the only reason gnu is in there? because it's free. not because it's EXCELLENT but because it's free, and enough monkeys have hammered at gcc over the years to make it more or less fit for purpose. is gnome from gnu? no. is kde? no. fuck it, is X from gnu? like fuck is it.

stallman is, ultimately, a self-obsessed prick with a towering sense of self-righteousness, supported by a bunch of moronic fucking zombies online. fuck the lot of you.

ps: the use of the word "copyleft" would be a fucking capital crime if i ever ran the world, along with "herstory". i fucking HATE things like that, they're always coined by some fucking smug cunt who smirks and preens as if to say "oooooh look how CLEVER i am with that bit of wordplay come and lick my balls!" except of course that most people who say "herstory" don't have balls what with being girls and all. but it's the same thing as people who fucking insist on using "her" and "she" as general pronouns rather than "he" and "him". fucking hell. if you really have to drop gender use "they" and "them", what fucking good does SWAPPING the gender do? PRICKS.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (2)

DamonHD (794830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423598)

I wouldn't go as far as "poison", but the GPL mission is clearly is more important than the efforts of the people who write the GPLed code, ie its aims must win out over the aims and IP of the creative contributors. For example, if I want to make my code easy to use commercially, then using or publishing code under a BSD licence is far easier than GPL. IMHO.

Rgds

Damon

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (4, Insightful)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423632)

Actually I find the Copy left licences have far more demands than any commercial licence. You can spend huge amounts of time figuring out if you can link or not link, how you must publish the code and how you can distribute the application.

As a commercial software developer myself, I'm glad at least one other person on Slashdot understands this!

For some of us, copyleft code is, by far, the most expensive code there is. In fact, it's pretty much poison.

Which was the intent, free to extend, not so free to commercialize. TANSTAAFL [wikipedia.org]

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (1)

jemmyw (624065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423720)

I'm sure you understand this then, but obviously many people don't: If you don't understand the terms then don't use it.

It seems to me that people will go well out of their way to use free instead of paying for commercial libraries. Even though cost wise they'll end up paying way more in time and trouble. And how many times have I heard "I'm not paying $xx for a graphing library! We'll just write one ourselves."

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423820)

As a computing professional, I find all of this whining about Free Software license complexity rather embarrassing frankly.

Electronic Arts and Oracle can manage navigating this "quagmire". Why can't you?

One really wonders what an SBA audit of you whiners would turn up.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (1, Informative)

Teckla (630646) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424006)

As a computing professional, I find all of this whining about Free Software license complexity rather embarrassing frankly.

Who's whining? Please, don't be unnecessarily rude.

I understand licenses such as the GPL very well. I'm not whining, and I don't find the license complex in the least. I'm simply pointing out that for commercial software developers, GPL'd code is often not an option.

I also write software for my wife's small business with no plans to distribute, but I avoid GPL code in those projects, too, in case I ever do decide to commercialize what I've created. I don't want to get trapped into too much reliance on something with too high a cost, then be forced to refactor at great expense in terms of time later down the road.

I have no problem with other people using GPL code if they want to.

Electronic Arts and Oracle can manage navigating this "quagmire". Why can't you?

Why the hostile and rude attitude?

One really wonders what an SBA audit of you whiners would turn up.

Wow...fuck you, too.

I don't pirate anything. Anything. Not software. Not music. Not movies. Your thinly veiled accusation that I'm a thief is assholery in the top degree.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#35424018)

As a computing professional, you should know that EA and Oracle are large corporations, with large, well-staffed legal departments. One of the jobs of said legal departments is navigating quagmires.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423684)

You can spend huge amounts of time figuring out if you can link or not link, how you must publish the code and how you can distribute the application.

One guy in the world whom speaks your native language has to do that one time for each version of each license, pretty much.

You can't seriously claim that every time you use a line of BSD'd or GPL'd code, you reread and reanalyze the entire license, even if it hasn't changed?

Also legal jargon is not a strictly interpreted sourcecode. But, none the less, its semi-logical and fairly straightforward. If the GPL mystifies you for a "huge amount of time" then I shiver to imagine how long it takes to figure out a "hello world" (unless you're doing it in intercal or whitespace, etc)

Code that is written under "some random loons license" is probably either very special in which case you don't care how long it takes, or there is a (probably better) BSD and/or GPL version out there to be used.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423946)

One guy in the world whom speaks your native language has to do that one time for each version of each license, pretty much.

First, a lot of the GPL is open to interpretation. Same goes for pretty much any other license. For example, does a GUI wrapper that calls your GPLed tool fall under the category of a derivative work? It's not at all clear from the license. On the one hand, it uses public interfaces exclusively. On the other hand, it is wholly dependent on the tool for functionality. So it's legally fuzzy.

Second, GPLv3 is a whole different animal, so there's the question of whether somebody who is using the v2 version might move to v3 at a later date (in which case if you're depending on the differences, you'd be screwed).

Third, all licenses must be interpreted based on case law, which is a continuously changing field. What might be assumed to be acceptable could suddenly become unacceptable. This is why the license clarification process requires an ongoing dialog between the people making commercial use of a piece of software and the people who produce that software.

So no, it isn't one person doing it one time for each version of the license. People who deal with intellectual property law would kill for a license so precisely worded that such a thing was possible.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (3, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423692)

Not sure why you're modded Funny because your statement pretty much matches my experience.

I've found commercial licenses far easier to deal with than GPL, and that alone is why our company doesn't bother with anything that has GPL attached to it, its just not worth the effort.

Generally, there are BSD licensed equivilents of the major GPL libraries anyway so why screw with it?

Even Apples licensing is far easier to deal with than GPL, its just a minefield.

I realize I'm picking on GPL, but its true of just about all Copy-left licenses, which are most of the time more restrictive than commercial licenses I've dealt with.

Its sad that its far cheaper overall for our company to pay 100k in licensing fees than to use a copy-left license.

I'm sure I'll get marked as a troll but the reality of it is, copy-left is a fucking pain in the ass unless you are also copy-left. More software isn't than is.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (0)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423830)

I've found commercial licenses far easier to deal with than GPL, and that alone is why our company doesn't bother with anything that has GPL attached to it, its just not worth the effort.

Funny, the GPLv2 and v3 are actually shorter than pretty much every EULA I've had the misfortune of stopping to look at. I'm sure your lawyers could do a cursory reading for you, otherwise what are you paying them for?

Most people who have a "problem" with the GPL are people who wish they could just jack the code and contribute nothing back and get whiny when they find that they can't. They then lash out against the people behind such licenses and the people that use them, because they're grumpy that they have to play by the rules instead of getting a free ride.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (1)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423906)

Funny, the GPLv2 and v3 are actually shorter than pretty much every EULA I've had the misfortune of stopping to look at. I'm sure your lawyers could do a cursory reading for you, otherwise what are you paying them for?

Most small companies have lawyers on contract, i.e. they pay them per service. You have to be pretty big to afford having lawyers on salary that are just sitting around waiting for you to send them licenses to read through.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (5, Insightful)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423866)

copy-left is a fucking pain in the ass unless you are also copy-left

That's pretty much the point.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (3, Insightful)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423880)

Oops, that's ambigious language.

copy-left is a fucking pain in the ass unless you are also copy-left

That's pretty much the intention.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (1)

NoSig (1919688) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423996)

It's stupid simple. The point of the GPL is to make source code freely available. You can only get in trouble with the GPL if you don't want that, in which case of course the GPL is not for you. All the GPL does is list ways of you being an asshole and telling you not to do that, given that you accepted the premise that the GPL is about making source code available.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423804)

> Actually I find the Copy left licences have far more demands than any
> commercial licence. You can spend huge amounts of time figuring

No. Not really.

Either what you're doing with the code is a derivative work or not. That's pretty clearly spelled out in the license.

If it's a derivative work, then it needs to be licensed just like whatever you're deriving from.

It's like "inheritance" is suddenly a mystery just because it's "legal".

This all gets hashed out every time some "gimme gimme, it's all mine" type of developer whines about this.

Whining about how "hard" licensing is just just a lame excuse to try and ignore it much the same as any other attempt to bother paying attention to finer details including engineering, security and usability.

Re:"FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certain (2)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423816)

Actually I find the Copy left licences have far more demands than any commercial licence. You can spend huge amounts of time figuring out if you can link or not link, how you must publish the code and how you can distribute the application.

Of course you see "far more demands" in free software licenses than in "any commercial license". After all, while in FLOSS licenses the copyright owners have to specify clearly that you can in fact use, copy,distribute, share, alter and even sell the software while typical proprietary licenses state that you can't do anything at all with them. The latter is pretty clear, while the former may not be to some people.

But nevertheless you are wrong. Typical proprietary software licenses extend for multiple pages, where some pretty outrageous demands are put in place. For example, I've took the time to read a license of a PDF reader that was installed by default on my Android phone and burried in the details it is said that by installing that app I agreed to grant the software distributor or any representative of theirs the right to not only enter my house whenever they see fit but also let them confiscate any electronic device in my house so they can audit them and search for unauthorized copies. I defy you to find any clause in any FLOSS license that imposes any demand which is more outrageous than this.

Android Devices Are Hives of License Violations (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423476)

Not to mention the Scum and Villainy.

noob question (1)

destroygbiv (896968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423484)

Pardon my lack of understanding, but if this software is free, why do I have to tell you when I'm using it? Why do you care if I tell you vs not?

Re:noob question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423540)

Because they need their egos and e-peens stroked.

Re:noob question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423572)

you are misunderstanding which definition of the word "free" is being used...

Re:noob question (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423606)

Because, something like the GPL confers an obligation that your code be under the same license, that you will tell people it is using code under that license, and that you will make the code (and changes made by you) available for a 'reasonable' amount to cover shipping and media (for example).

Taking the code, using it, pretending you never did, and failing to comply with the license is considered to be a breech of the licensing terms.

This is why commercial software companies can find FOSS problematic since your own code can end up being interpreted as needing to be under a free license.

Contrast this with something like th BSD or Apache licenses, which more or less say "have at it", and if you want to bundle it into your app, go ahead.

Re:noob question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35424008)

... failing to comply with the license is considered to be a breech of the licensing terms.

The breech of a gun's barrel is the opposite end to the muzzle, to break through something or (in this case) to violate it is to breach.

Re:noob question (1)

SSpade (549608) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423722)

Because in this context "free" sometimes means "freely available to use", sometimes it means "sorta freely available to use, but you need to mention us in your docs" and sometimes it means "impossible to use, due to proprietary license that may (or may not) allow you to link to this code at all".

Some of the more bizarrely licensed "free" code isn't even compatible with other "free" code, and they can't both be used in the same application. Or maybe they can, but you're not allowed to distribute the application. (See readline-vs-openssl for one annoying example of that).

In the world of software licensing "MIT" or "Apache" or "Artistic" means "free", "BSD" usually means "free", but "Free" almost never means "free".

Re:noob question (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423894)

Generally, most people don't tend to interpret "freely available to use" as "freely available to create commercial derivative works".

The people whining in these discussions aren't "users" but "developers" that can't be bothered to pay attention to or comply with other people's licenses.

It's terribly sad really. One would think that "professional developers" would be sensitive to these issues as they are often the victims of large scale piracy themselves.

Although for most stuff it's a moot point since for the vast majority of cases the "build on top of this" sort of code is all licensed in such a way as to make such construction not a problem for commercial entities. That's why a company like Oracle can use Free Software to build proprietary products that it can charge 60K per CPU for.

Re:noob question (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423766)

Pardon my lack of understanding, but if this software is free, why do I have to tell you when I'm using it? Why do you care if I tell you vs not?

None of the big licenses that I'm aware of require "tell you when I'm using it". I would go as far as claiming 99.99% of the FOSS out there does not require it. There is probably some lunatics license out there for some psuedo-shareware c++ music player last updated and last used in '94 that requires some hoop jumping.

On the other hand most of the licenses have some requirements about exactly how you redistribute the code. Mostly revolving around not claiming your own copyright on software they've already copyrighted to themselves.

And the GPL really does not want you closing the source and simultaneously reselling it for cash, which is why I exclusively use GPL instead of BSD.

Re:noob question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423882)

The user is never in breach of the GPL or BSD licenses. Those who modify GPL, or BSD code and redistribute it are the ones who *must* comply with the license. Most F/OSS licenses simply require that you give away the complete source code and retain the original license. You are allowed to charge for your work, or even for the unmodified original but you must make the code available.

That's all. Nothing about egos. Nothing about punishing users. Just don't redistribute my code, with or without changes, without abiding by the terms of the license I chose.

Egregious... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423522)

This title/summary really must be changed. It's clearly trying to establish a relationship between this and Oracle in the 'base platform', when the article is basically 'random application developers for *any* platform don't pay close attention to the license terms'.

Apps or Platform? (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423536)

I think this is about the apps, but what about the platform? Honeycomb devices are out there in the wild, thanks to retail sales of Motorola Xoom. But is the source code for the released Honeycomb available yet? Rumors of "exclusivity agreements" floating around? Come on, Google, play it straight.

Re:Apps or Platform? (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423694)

Honeycomb became available before the Xoom was in stores.

Re:Apps or Platform? (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423902)

Was the source available and buildable, or just binaries popped from the emulator?

Google is very good at making the AOSP and the community surrounding it second class citizens. Has this changed?

Re:Apps or Platform? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423708)

I think this is about the apps, but what about the platform? Honeycomb devices are out there in the wild, thanks to retail sales of Motorola Xoom. But is the source code for the released Honeycomb available yet? Rumors of "exclusivity agreements" floating around? Come on, Google, play it straight.

The only thing Google needs to release is the source to the kernel. Honeycomb doesn't really matter.

The thing is, there's really TWO Android source trees. There's the one Google has and distributes to partners like LG, Motorola, HTC and Samsung to develop their next-gen products on. Then there's AOSP, which is what is publicly accessible. To give partners time to develop their Android products, the push of code from the internal tree to AOSP is delayed, normally to when the launch partner products are released, but it doesn't have to be.

Basically, everyone inside the OHA has got early access to the final releases...

Anyhow, one thing I like inside the Google Marketplace are the license violations. Free ebooks violating every possible copyright, apps that download ROMs for you so you don't have to do any torrenting or visit questionable sites to grab, etc. It's a sad day should Google decide to purge it.

You don't get that with iOS, especially after Apple decided to purge all the ebooks with questionable copyright licensing. Or apps that get removed (like VLC) because of disagreements over interpretations of licenses and such. Bleh.

stats outside mobile market? (1)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423548)

Anyone know what the statistics are for violation rates outside the mobile market?, or on other devices? I don't find the statistic provided really surprising though, since there are less options to protect your code. with free code you could run it through an obfuscator. Are legal options the only ones available to opensource projects to protect your code?

Re:stats outside mobile market? (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423680)

Do we like it or not with the mobile market we for the first time have a set of places where stats can be collected from (usually for some money). Outside mobile market it is a complete jungle with most stats based on guesswork and secondary evidence.

Isn't linking allowed? (1)

netsharc (195805) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423560)

God-damn, yet another misunderstanding of L/GPL? If I make an app where I can throw birds at pigs that happens to use a GPL'ed JSON library, it doesn't mean that the whole app has to be open-sourced does it?

Whereas if I take GNU Chess and put a pretty UI on top of it, that's a derivative product, and I do need to provide the source.

Re:Isn't linking allowed? (2)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423628)

If I make an app where I can throw birds at pigs that happens to use a GPL'ed JSON library, it doesn't mean that the whole app has to be open-sourced does it?

Depends, is the library LGPL'd or GPL'd?

If it's GPL'd, yes. If it's LGPL'd, you only have distribute the source for (and changes to) the library. Think of it by looking (VERY CLOSELY) at glibc and Qt.

Re:Isn't linking allowed? (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423706)

God-damn, yet another misunderstanding of L/GPL? If I make an app where I can throw birds at pigs that happens to use a GPL'ed JSON library, it doesn't mean that the whole app has to be open-sourced does it?

Compliance has many aspects. If you're redistributing you may simply have to state it and reproduce the copyright statement.

Re:Isn't linking allowed? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423762)

A GPL'd JSON library would require the app to be GPLd, a LGPLd library would not.

So clearly, its confusing as you didn't even get it right.

lolwut? (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423564)

Come on folks, FOSS licenses are easy to comply with, certainly easier than proprietary software licenses, and less punitive.

Really? You mean like not only complying with the letter of the license but having to receive all sorts of flak and hatred if you happen to violate all the unwritten rules and the "spirit" of the license? To be honest, it's FAR easier to comply with proprietary licenses because they don't have all the political baggage behind them.

Re:lolwut? (0)

wampus (1932) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423844)

Don't forget the warm reaction of the open source howler monkies if you find out you *are* violating the license and ask for help in stopping. Some people like to complain more than anything else.

27% for Android - 32% for iPhone (5, Informative)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423588)

From the press release [marketwire.com] for the study:

OpenLogic found that among the applications that use the Apache or GPL/LGPL licenses, the compliance rate was only 29%. Android compliance was 27% and iPhone/iOS compliance was 32%. Overall compliance of Android applications using the GPL/LGPL was 0%.

Easier than proprietary? How? (2)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423590)

Generally, with proprietary licenses: If you have access to the code, you are allowed to use the code however you want. If you don't have any rights to the code, your employer hasn't negotiated a license, and so you will never see the code.

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423604)

Honestly, as a developer I've never bothered with FOSS because I can't grok the licenses for the life of me. It's all bizarre legalese and I always feel like I'm going to be backed into a corner by something I don't understand. Easier and more convenient to just go with the proprietary stuff.

Really? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423612)

I smell a scam.
71% are in violation? Really? They scanned every app in the both stores?
This I feel says it all.
"OpenLogic sells a product called the OLEX App Store Edition which provides tooling that can be used by developers to do a self-service scan on their apps prior to submitting to the app store and by app stores to track open source compliance."
I would love to scan my app. I wrote 100% of the code except what I linked from Apple. I think the method may be flawed.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423886)

Hey, here's a suggestion! Buy their program and scan your app. You can set the cost of their program against tax if you're declaring your income from your app on your forms, right?

(Yes, yes you can. But that would assume you're actually declaring all your income. And you're not, are you? No, just like every other fucking freetard in this fucking place you're just gurning for as much free money and content as you can cram up your dribbling arse while pontificating about copyright laws and those damned evil lawyers trying to stop you getting hold of dvd rips of house online.)

in a move many (2)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423620)

top experts explain as "predictable" open source service provider OpenLogic, charged with ensuring companies remain as terrified as is humanly possible about the threat of cancer-like, communist free software made a daunting proclamation. OpenLogic insists that most, if not every bit of software in the latest trendy open-source ecosystem is rife with non-compliance. this veritable tower of babel may crash down upon those who do not stop to panic long enough to purchase OpenLogic products and services, with disasterous effects that may or may not, kill your cat.

WTF - Someone selling the scanner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423690)

Isn't this just an attempt to get publicity for the scanner?

Well hidden slashvertisement? (3, Interesting)

ShadoHawk (741112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423734)

If you read the article aside from the summary leaving out iOS this is all really an advertisement to sell you a product from OpenLogic called OpenLogic Exchange (OLEX).

http://www.openlogic.com/products/olex.php [openlogic.com]
This product will certify your source code is compliant after it scans it...

inconvenient truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423742)

no-one cares...

once copyright holders start suing everyone for millions of dollars and the courts are clogged with GPL cases then maybe people will stop treating it as open season on GPL code. Until then, who really is surprised.

Finally, a use for SCO! (1)

OhHellWithIt (756826) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423756)

Someone else may have already had this idea, but maybe we could hire SCO to hunt down and litigate FOSS license violators.

This is part BS (2)

SwashbucklingCowboy (727629) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423764)

The thing about attributions and Apache License are at least part BS. The Apache license (which I just re-read) only requires attributions when a DERIVATIVE work is distributed. In most cases, I'm betting that companies are not distributing derivative works, but the original work. It's a hole in the license, but that't not the user's fault.

creators; for each of our innocents taken.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423838)

there is a debt.

Why is Anyone Surprised? (1)

bornagainpenguin (1209106) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423876)

When hundreds of tablets and "eReaders" are being released with Android, Busybox, and of course the Linux kernel itself in violation of the GPL by companies who disclaim responsibility for the devices they sell, why should we be surprised to see application developers doing the same? Go ahead and try to get the source that you are legally entitled to when you buy one of these things! You'll be astounded how quickly whatever it is goes from being an extraordinary achievement of that corporation's innovation in the market and becomes an orphaned rebadge from China whose lineage cannot be traced.

And good luck trying to get a hold of the OEM in China! They'll simply ignore any emails or letters you send them, if indeed that company is even around any more with the legal shell corporation games that get played to avoid any possibility of a real warranty. Application developers have been watching these things.

They've seen just how serious we've been about enforcing the GPL and taken steps accordingly.

Really why should we be surprised?

I welcome our new automated scanner overlords (1)

RobLS (595342) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423892)

An automated scanner? 71% sounds very high. How do we know here are not false positives? (Certainly the article wasn't critical)

advertisement (2)

chowdahhead (1618447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35423918)

The report sort of becomes a sales pitch halfway through:

OpenLogic sells a product called the OLEX App Store Edition which provides tooling that can be used by developers to do a self-service scan on their apps prior to submitting to the app store and by app stores to track open source compliance.

I don't doubt that violations are occurring, but I question data when not provided by an independent third party.

Nobody follows proprietary licensing either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35423982)

Nobody follows proprietary licensing either. Nobody reads either, even developers.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...