Slashdot Log In
Closed Source On Linux and BSD?
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Jun 13, 2007 04:36 AM
from the license-ramification-details dept.
from the license-ramification-details dept.
An anonymous reader writes "I want to start (very small) software/hardware business. The code in question will be closed source. I won't modify or use any GPL code or any 3rd-party sources. It will be my own handwritten C/C++ code from start to finish. I am planning to sell embedded-like boxes with an OS (Linux or BSD) and this code. I am more familiar with Linux but I am scared a little bit of Linux licensing, and also of Linux fanboy-ism: I personally got a 'go to hell with your @#$ closed code' slur on Slashdot. I am not a GPL guru and not a software freedom fighter. I just want to do my job and make a living." Read on for this reader's five particular questions.
My questions:
1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Closed Source On Linux and BSD?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 526 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
Answers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Answers (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmmm, maybe you could compile it.
Re:Answers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Answers (Score:5, Informative)
More clear answer: No.
Even if you publish proprietary code linked to GPL code and swear you are aware of the violation, nobody can force you to disclose your code. It's a copyright violation, and forcing to publish code is not a remedy for copyright violation. In that hypothetical case the most a court would probably do is force you to stop distributing, and perhaps if it's that obvious you knew you were in violation it could order some punitive damages.
Even so, (Score:5, Insightful)
A2b. GNU/Linux (the whole system) comes with many libraries, some of them BSD-licensed, some GPL-licensed, some GPL-with-linking-exception-licensed, some LGPL-licensed, etc... it's a common interpretation of the GPL that if you link to a GPL-(no-linking-exception) library (like GNU readline or Qt) you are making a derivative work and thus, you have to license your work under the GPL.
and I mean this respectfully: as you will be selling your box as an embedded utility, what do you have to lose by GPL'ing (or otherwise opening) your code? If you do things right, you will have:
I. a community of people that are willing to buy your box to start;
II. a community will want to tinker and make your product better, fast, and you get to incorporate the changes for the next versions of your product;
III. the respect of a lot of people.
Example: lots of people I know have Linksys (WRT54G[L]) wireless routers _because_ they know they can tinker with it, that there are lots of new, interesting uses to it with the alternate verstions of the software, etc. I, myself, when installing SoHo wi-fi networks _only_ recommend WRTs to my clients, as opposed to non-tinkerable D-LINKs that here in Brasil cost 30-40% less.
Re:Even so, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh, guess what (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Even so, (Score:4, Insightful)
If his product becomes popular, it's likely to get cloned either by a larger company selling a commercial version, or by a group of enthusiasts making a free version. Either way, he has no control over the situation and the clones will ultimately take over because they have more developers and in the case of the commercial company, greater marketting clout.
If it fails to become popular, he will eventually tire of maintaining it for little/no profit, and it will die off... The few customers he does have, will be screwed.
If he opens it, and it fails to become popular he's no worse off than if he left it closed. However, the few customers he does get are better off, because when he gets tired of pushing an unsuccessful product and gives up, they still have the code and can maintain it in their little niche.
If he opens it and it becomes popular, he will attract more developers who will help improve the code. He is still in a good position to provide support, and bundled ready to go versions. Especially if the software is tied to a piece of hardware he produces, as people will buy the hardware to hack on it.
Even if his software is available for free, many companies and end users will buy a commercially supported version instead of the free version anyway. Conversely, an increasing number of businesses will not buy a product that is tied to a single supplier, because of the risks of losing support if that supplier disappears.
Re:Even so, (Score:5, Informative)
> If his product becomes popular, it's likely to get cloned either by a larger company selling a commercial version, or by a group of
> enthusiasts making a free version. Either way, he has no control over the situation and the clones will ultimately take over
> because they have more developers and in the case of the commercial company, greater marketting clout.
Come on - it's quite possible to make a popular product and derive a quite nice income from it, without attracting the attention of cloners and large companies.
Big Co are only interested if they're going to make mega millions out of it - if you're making a few hundred thousand a year, you won't even show up on their radar. There's an awful lot of software out there that falls into that category.
If you're selling to a tight niche of customers, then only people in and around that niche are likely to even be aware that your product exists, never mind want to clone it themselves. If you're building software for e.g. dentists, while a few dentists may want to add new shiny features to your product, it's highly likely that they'd want YOU to do it for them, rather than track down some software developer, pay him to clone your software and add their desired features to it. Conversely, while a random software developer might come across your software and think he can clone & extend it, he then also has to create a means of distributing his software (no, dentists won't downloaded their critical software from SourceForge), building relationships with an existing base of dentists, then providing support to those dentists (with all the associated issues of dealing with non-IT literate users).
I've got a mate who runs a garbage collection business. Many years ago, he paid a student to create software to allow him to manage his business - sort of a highly-customised piece of accounting software. He still uses that software, still engages that ex-student (now working in IT) to support & extend it, and is extremely happy with it. Shock, horror - it runs on MS Access. He's very happy with the software, and the guy who wrote it has both made a nice side income from it and sold it to a bunch of other garbos - I wouldn't be surprised if he's collectively made a tidy sum from it over a period of several years. Nobody's gonna clone this software, and no big company's gonna be interested in it either.
Hardware gives you a leg up, though in that case.. (Score:5, Insightful)
>tinker with it, that there are lots of new, interesting uses to it with the alternate verstions of the software, etc.
I'm not in the software industry, and I don't know much about GPL.
But I do know that if my sole
In your Linksys example, there is a hardware component that is not easy to replicate - there is a barrier to duplication. So in that case it is a great benefit to create and sell the hardware, but leave the software open so that the world can improve the functionality and attractiveness of the hardware you are selling.
But I don't understand how this works with a pure software product. If you give it away to the world, then someone else is just going to take the code and make a derivative product from it that does the same thing but is free. The way I see it, the only thing authors of free software can sell is support.
I guess I just still don't understand the free software movement as a business.
Re:Hardware gives you a leg up, though in that cas (Score:5, Insightful)
A one man closed source project that involves no particular genius is also susceptible to being duplicated since it won't be all that much effort for someone else to write the same thing from scratch.
So he either is filling a niche where no one else is likely to go (in which case, it doesn't really matter if he uses a closed or open source approach), or it's actually not pure software - perhaps a pre-packaged OS plus hardware plus support for an appliance type system. In which case, given the resources he has to hand, it still wouldn't really make any difference whether he goes closed or open source.
Re:Hardware gives you a leg up, though in that cas (Score:5, Informative)
In an embedded system dynamic linking can eat up scarce resources. Static linking is faster to load, faster to run, and takes up less ram.
Re:Answers (Score:5, Informative)
LGPL does not allow you to statically link the code. One of the terms of the LGPL requires that it be possible to make modifications to the LGPL'd code and incorporate these into the distributed program. This cannot be done with a statically linked executable (unless you're also distributing linkable object files).
Re:Answers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Answers (Score:5, Insightful)
With an added caveat; you can statically link the code with an LGPL library, but _you have to provide the option for the recepient to dynamically link should they so desire_. Include an unsupported dynamically linked binary, or perhaps better, object files so the recepient can relink statically against another version (again, you dont have to support that, just provide the option).
This is so that if the libraries are changed and upgraded, security bugs fixed, etc, the user isnt stuck having to use that particular statically linked version.
"'Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?' You can do whatever you want with BSD code"
As long as it's only BSD code, of course. Depending on the definition of 'BSD-based boxes', they can perfectly well include GPL, LGPL, or code under any other license. Anything you link against or in any other way include you have to check for licenses, wether it's Free, free or proprietary software.
And of course, no matter how careful you are with licenses, you can get legally nuked when the USPTO with its usual competence level grants a patent on "putting obfuscated code linked with free software on an embedded device" (or whatever your device is supposed to do).
You may just want to do your job and make a living, but those the 'freedom fighters' are trying to protect you from have no interest in your wishes. They want your money if you're lucky. Or they want you off the market if you're not.
Obfuscated != source (Score:4, Informative)
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
It doesn't seem that this guy needs to release his code in any event, however.
Re:Answers (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Answers (Score:5, Funny)
See?
Linebreak!
It's magic.
LGPLv3 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ok thanks... (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, development of new versions are done on Linux and then ported to other platforms. Here is a good starting page if you are interested in seeing how and what s done by Oracle on Linux, both closed and open source: http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/linux/index
Legal advice (Score:5, Funny)
(Pre-Slashdot conversation ...)
"Hi, this is Bob from Smith, Smith and Wendell returning your call. I'm afraid we're not interested in advising you on matters of software licensing and distribution, but have you considered asking a few hundred thousand opinionated geeks in a public forum? Because that's what we advise most of our potential clients to try first. Here, let me get the URL for you ..."
Sounds OK to me (Score:4, Informative)
OK but if you want to sell software you need to understand licensing.
Yes, glibc is licensed under the LGPL which is compatible with non-free software.
I suppose so, but unless you are some kind of algorithm genius (and I don't think you are) it is not really going to be worth anybody's while to do reverse engineer it.
Go for it (Score:4, Insightful)
Answers (Score:5, Informative)
2. Yes if they are LGPL. Which includes the standard C++ libraries. Some components such as the kernel also have certain binary waivers.
3. Yes but why bother if you're not releasing the source. And if you are releasing the source, then there are benefits to not obfuscating it (e.g. helpful customers fixing your bugs).
4. Not unless a court says. Obviously if you violate the GPL you are taking a major risk of somebody finding out and forcing your code out into the open.
5. Yes, but neither will you have a problem with Linux. However you would have to supply the sources to the GPL / LGPL components of your system upon demand. Most people stick the source up on a web site or link to where they found it, but the latter may not absolve you of not providing it if somebody comes asking for it. Also BSD systems can contain GPL software too (e.g. if you use gcc as your compiler for the C++)
I think if you're in doubt you should probably go look at some existing Linux dist designed for embedded systems. They're bound to have a FAQ that covers most of this.
Re:Answers (Score:5, Informative)
No if they are LGPL. LGPL requires you to be able to update the LGPL'd license, which effectively means it must either be dynamically linked, or you must distribute your
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
Not unless a court says. Obviously if you violate the GPL you are taking a major risk of somebody finding out and forcing your code out into the open.
This isn't an expected outcome. Nobody can force you to release your source, even if you violate the GPL. Of course you can be forced to pay compensation to the GPL developers whose IP rights you have violated, and they may be prepared to negotiate if you choose to release your source.
Some answers (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Even if you decide to post on slashdot, at least try to read the licenses in question before plus the many articles on the subject that are readily available online.
3. If you want to have good and honest answers, avoid the word fanboy in your original post. Starting off by insulting the very people whose help you ask for isn't a very good idea.
Re:Some answers (Score:4, Insightful)
He probably will ask a lawyer, but that doesn't minimize the value of asking on Slashdot. One of the concerns the guy had was about the Linux fanboy community, and the rich community of
If you've ever prepared to start a major project, you know that sometimes getting advice from a wide range of sources is valuable. Personally, I've gotten some extraordinarily valuable information here on Slashdot that's directly helped me with my own projects. There was a recent article about video codecs that was a huge help to me.
I've seen a few of these scoldings around here lately, this notion that you should do research online before you do research online. One of the reasons you ask a question on Slashdot is because you're not an expert in that particular subject and you're looking for opinion.
Plus, reading TFA is against the Slashdot EULA.
"Fanboy" is an insult? I actually think it's a highly descriptive and precise term. Anyway, he wasn't referring to Slashdot readers as fanboys, he was describing a subset that would rip somebody for trying to make a living by making a product and not giving it away. If the shoe fits...
I hate the very idea of IP, but not everyone can live out here where the air is thin.
Closed code (Score:5, Insightful)
The license for the Linux kernel is not going to change (It requires the consent of many hundreds of contributors, many of which will decline. Some are dead, others are unreachable.)
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
You can statically link, but why avoid dynamic linking? glibc and libstd++ are LGPL, which permits binary only distribution.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
Isn't compiling it enough? You can strip the compiled code or debugging symbols if you really want, but you only hurt your own ability to debug your users problems.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
Not if you avoid linking with code which has a license that require it.
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
Linux and the various BSD flavours both allow this sort of use. See the various wifi-routers and tivo style devices. Hell even my digital picture frames run linux.
Tentative answer (Score:4, Informative)
Yes.
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
AFAIK, no. Static linking is incorporating code directly. If you link dynamically then any library that is LGPL (not GPL) is fine, but for static linking I believe you need to have an open license on your own code as well.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
It's your code - do anything you want. If you're not open-sourcing it, just don't ship the source.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
No. Again, when people have been found to have violated the terms of the license, they've had to stop selling and distributing the stuff. I can imagine cases where someone may have to retroactively pay for the illegal use of code. But I can't see a situation where'd you actually had to open your code.
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
Well, 1, 3 and 4 isn't a problem under Linux either. 2 - for BSD-licensed libraries you could link statically. But a lot of libs (user-interface stuff and higher-level libs) in BSD systems are LGPL as well - everything in a BSD-based system isn't BSD-licensed.
not to disparage, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Your code will be closed source? Fine, I don't have much of a care about such, dig out, I plan to do a game, and that will be closed source at first. But your planned software will run on linux, and that gives rise to the problem.
Just say your project proves popular. Well in that case the chances are very high that you will find yourself in competition with an open source equivalent, either existing or created specifically because your software revealed a new need.
You need to look closely at the closed source rationale. It can work, but not everywhere. You could be beaten to a pulp by a small group of co-operating people out to do better then you. There have been some successes with closed software on embedded systems, but those have been heavily invested in, with lots of developers.
Hmm (Score:3, Informative)
To be perfectly honest, I have to question whether it's wise to enter a market where a) you don't have familiarity with the platform (there are long established answers to most of these questions) and b) don't know anybody you could ask. Having said that...
1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?
Today, yes, provided you comply with the terms of the license. Tomorrow, it depends on exactly what you are doing.
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries?
That contradicts your earlier claim that you "won't modify or use any GPL code or any 3rd-party sources". The term "Linux libraries" is meaningless. What libraries are we talking about? By statically linking a library, you make your application a derivative work and you are also distributing the library itself, which means you need to make sure that the library's license allows this and that you comply with its terms.
(My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
Your own experience is probably wrong.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
So long as it's entirely your code, although I don't see the point. Of course, if the reason you are obfuscating the code is because it's a derivative work and you are required to provide the source, then no, you probably can't.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
At worst, if you infringe on somebody's copyrights, then you could be offered this as an alternative to being sued.
See, this is the kind of question that makes me think you don't even have the remotest familiarity with Linux. You seriously think somebody can just shake you down for source? Huh? Or are you just spreading FUD?
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
Ah, that answers my question. Fuck off. You aren't genuinely asking these questions, you're just a BSD troll spreading FUD.
Just use BSD (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not opposed to proprietary software. Quite the contrary. But I do find the notion of taking an open source project, slapping on a bit of code, and trying to keep your part to yourself, to be extremely offensive. The people who contributed to GNU software did so with the expectation that their code is share and share alike. What you've described appears to run directly counter to that, completely disrespecting the wishes of the programmers involved. Unless I'm reading you wrong, you deserve a hearty "go to hell!".
BSD, on the other hand, is meant to allow for use exactly like you are proposing. Have at it. No hard feelings there as that's exactly in line with their programmers' wishes.