That was common view of participants at an industry forum organized by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and the Intellectual Property Academy last week. According to these delegates, companies that deploy open-source software, specifically those written based on the GNU Public License (GPL), continue to run the risk of intellectual property violations.
Written by free-software advocate Richard Stallman, GPL governs how open-source software, including Linux is used. Apart from the GPL, which is most commonly used by the industry, other licenses include Mozilla Public License, Lesser GPL, Community Development and Distribution License and Apache Software License.
One of the requirements under the GPL mandates that all modifications made to a piece of software must be released to the public. However, there are those in the open-source user community who have not closely adhered to this condition. This is perceived to be the result of various issues such as confidentiality concerns over publishing codes used within a company's network, or an unwillingness to share codes from software that combines proprietary tools and open source code.
This apparent violation of the GPL persists mainly because it has not been widely-enforced, legally or otherwise, the forum's participants said.
Stanley Lai, a partner at law firm Allen & Gledhill, explained that the legal process of suing a offender in this case can be arduous. To initiate a lawsuit, all developers who modified a particular piece of open-source software must collectively agree to take action, he explained.
In the open-source developer community, this could mean having to get the consensus of tens, if not hundreds, of contributors, he said. It can also be difficult to trace the complete line of modifications made, as well as the identity of their contributors, Lai noted.
A legal precedence?
Despite such difficulties, a German court found a Dutch firm guilty of violating GPL clauses in May last year. The case was viewed by most industry observers as a landmark ruling for the open-source community.
The company, a subsidiary of Sitecom Europe, had distributed a firmware containing software modules which included netfilter/iptables based on the GPL. The Dutch company offered the firmware as a download on its Web site, but did not make reference to the fact that it contained software licensed under the GPL.
This is clear indication that the GPL could be deemed a valid contract that will be recognized by a judicial court, said Lai. He added that organizations should scrutinize all licenses before using any open-source software.
Businesses should however, be sensible in dealing with the licensing issue, according to Craig Laughton, legal counsel for Linux vendor Novell in Australia and New Zealand.
"The reality is that most companies will have a combination of open source and private software, and solutions will be a mixture of proprietary and open-source software," he said. "You really need to work out a model that takes this into consideration."
"And don’t think the risks are greater in open-source software than proprietary software," Laughton added. He noted that Microsoft also has had to deal with lawsuits filed by people claiming the software vendor had committed copyright infringements.
Play video
I did stop reading after this sentence:
One of the requirements under the GPL mandates that all modifications made to a piece of software must be released to the public.
Posted by Dany L. on Wednesday, March 16 2005 08:43 AM