(I know this hasn't been a popular section of OSnews, but it's worth a shot...) Recently, management has announced their intention to switch the project I am working on to open source, "probably that new GNU license, because it's supposed to be the best."
Now, I like this job, a lot. Good people, easy atmosphere, and it's not profit-driven. However, if they finish this changeover, professional ethics will force me to leave... and I can't really afford to lose this job, knowing how long it took for me to find this one.
My question is this: What method can I use to prevent management from open-sourcing this project? Should I try to appeal to their ethics? Should I point out the flaws and unenforcability of the license? Or since this project will (by necessity) involve working with people's private data (including medical information, at times), can I somehow legally prevent them from copylefting the project?
Any help you could give me would be appreciated.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-06-03
You point of view is one not held by the majority of people on this site. If I may ask, what are your ethical objections of Open Licenses?
I understand that data obfuscation is easier to implement in a closed environment, (Security zealots non-withstanding) but are the any other professional issues that you have?
For info about challenging open source licenses, perhaps the FCC ruling regarding Software-defined radios (47 CFR Part 2??) may help as a legal precedent.
Member since:2006-06-03
[The conversation comments are broken btw.]
Let's adress your points one by one.
1) There is a risk that making your code open source will reveal holes in the software, but seeing as it is the programmers job to make secure software, I guess that you can't use that as an argument to your bosses.
2) You are wrong. The GPL simply does not cover information/documents produced using GPL software. Making a document or storing information using GPL does not constitute making a derived work.
3) see 2.
4) I think that there are a great many companies who would employ people who worked on GPL code. Only idiots or anti-GPL zealots would take this stance. Hell I'm sure that Microsoft have employed programmers from GPL projects.
5) Well, I understand that you don't think the GPL ethical, but we are trying to dermine why you think it isn't Ethical in the first place.
6) Well, there are allegations that Microsoft, Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, Adobe, Amazon and most companies have broken the law, and copyright. However the GPL has no particular link to this. And I think that Google is a good example that using and creating Open source solutions does not unduly hamper profits.
7) see 2. e.g. Using Linux, or Open Office does not make all your personal documents open source.
'Derivative works' means using GPL source code to make a new program. NOT using a GPL program to create a document/store information.
8) If this were true, then this would have been your bargaining tool to use with your bosses. However, I just read the Code of Ethics, and the GPL does not violate it in any way:
1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent.
It is for this reason that most Linux distributions do not bundle MP3 codecs or other patented. The GPL does not say that it is right to ignore patents or copyright. If anyone explicityly publicises a valid patent claim on any community-maintained GPL code, I am confident that it will be immediately removed, or a work-around written.
1.6 Give proper credit for intellectual property.
Look at the Linux kernel changelog. Each commit is attributed to the contributing author, bug-reports are attributed. Most GPL projects include a list of contributers which explicity gives proper credit for IP
1.7 Respect the privacy of others.
1.8 Honor confidentiality.
Privacy is not eroded by the GPL (see 2.)
As for confidentiality, that is up to each project's maintainer and is in no way linked to the GPL.
I'm not sure that you will win an argument with your bosses without having a clear, and precise knowledge of why the GPL is unethical. Once you have this, then you can present them to you superiors for an open debate.
Member since:
2005-10-02
Member since:2007-02-22
Member since:2006-06-03
Member since:2007-02-22
Member since:2006-06-03
Member since:
2006-06-03
Let's adress your points one by one.
1) There is a risk that making your code open source will reveal holes in the software, but seeing as it is the programmers job to make secure software, I guess that you can't use that as an argument to your bosses.
2) You are wrong. The GPL simply does not cover information/documents produced using GPL software. Making a document or storing information using GPL does not constitute making a derived work.
3) see 2.
4) I think that there are a great many companies who would employ people who worked on GPL code. Only idiots or anti-GPL zealots would take this stance. Hell I'm sure that Microsoft have employed programmers from GPL projects.
5) Well, I understand that you don't think the GPL ethical, but we are trying to dermine why you think it isn't Ethical in the first place.
6) Well, there are allegations that Microsoft, Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, Adobe, Amazon and most companies have broken the law, and copyright. However the GPL has no particular link to this. And I think that Google is a good example that using and creating Open source solutions does not unduly hamper profits.
7) see 2. e.g. Using Linux, or Open Office does not make all your personal documents open source.
'Derivative works' means using GPL source code to make a new program. NOT using a GPL program to create a document/store information.
8) If this were true, then this would have been your bargaining tool to use with your bosses. However, I just read the Code of Ethics, and the GPL does not violate it in any way:
1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent.
It is for this reason that most Linux distributions do not bundle MP3 codecs or other patented. The GPL does not say that it is right to ignore patents or copyright. If anyone explicityly publicises a valid patent claim on any community-maintained GPL code, I am confident that it will be immediately removed, or a work-around written.
1.6 Give proper credit for intellectual property.
Look at the Linux kernel changelog. Each commit is attributed to the contributing author, bug-reports are attributed. Most GPL projects include a list of contributers which explicity gives proper credit for IP
1.7 Respect the privacy of others.
1.8 Honor confidentiality.
Privacy is not eroded by the GPL (see 2.)
As for confidentiality, that is up to each project's maintainer and is in no way linked to the GPL.
I'm not sure that you will win an argument with your bosses without having a clear, and precise knowledge of why the GPL is unethical. Once you have this, then you can present them to you superiors for an open debate.
Member since:2007-02-22
Well, I understand that you don't think the GPL ethical, but we are trying to dermine why you think it isn't Ethical in the first place.
No; I need help trying to make sure the program (and thus, the data) stays secure.
This is not a joking matter. If this code gets open-sourced, it is going to ruin other people's lives, people who implicitly put their trust in me -- and no amount of FSF apologists knowingly misrepresenting the GPL on an Internet message board will fix that. Some way has to be found to keep this code closed-source, or the users will pay for it.
Member since:2006-06-03
So, despite all those high-minded, misguided reasons for not trusting the GPL that you gave before,
you are really worried that your code will not stand up to public scrutiny? That someone will find your mistakes and exploit them.
Well, this is a difficult argument to push, because it is an implicit admission of bad programming. However, as I mentioned before, perhaps the FCC ruling: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.acces.... may help you.
Member since:2007-02-22
Member since:2006-06-03
I doubt that you would have much success with any confidentiality laws.
There is nothing illegal in the GPL, or using it for confidential material, and it has been proven that GPL'd software can be made secure.
So the only time that this law could be used was if it could be proved that you were criminally negligent in implementing pertinent security measures in the software. And if that were the case, then the fact that you were writing open source software would have no benefit over closed-source software. As a court could order any source code to be disclosed anyway.
"Windows 8 has a problem â" it really can boot up too quickly. So quickly, in fact, that there is no longer time for anything to interrupt boot. When you turn on a Windows 8 PC, there's no longer long enough to detect keystrokes like F2 or F8, much less time to read a message such as 'Press F2 for Setup'. For the first time in decades, you will no longer be able to interrupt boot and tell your PC to do anything different than what it was already expecting to do. Fast booting is something we definitely want to preserve. Certainly no one would imagine intentionally slowing down boot to allow these functions to work as they did in the past. In this blog I'll walk through how we're addressing this 'problem' with new solutions that will keep your PC booting as quickly as possible, while still letting you do all the things you expect."
0 
This is interesting news. According to WinUnleaked.tk, and given credence by Rafael Rivera and Paul Thurrot, Adobe has given Microsoft the source code to Flash, so that Microsoft could fully integrate it into Internet Explorer 10 for Windows 8. Interesting move, and probably not a bad one considering just how popular Flash still is, especially for games.
We've got some really good news for all of you: the jury verdict in the patent phase of the Oracle v. Google trial is in, and it's a unanimous one: no patent infringement. This means that the most Oracle could possibly get out of this is a few hundred thousand dollars if (and that's a very big if) judge Alsup rules that APIs are copyrightable. Oracle pretty much lost everything. Permit me to say, in your face, Ellison.
"Seagate this morning announced plans to acquire LaCie, a Paris-based producer of consumer data storage devices, for at least $186 million. Seagate said it has agreed to buy a 64.5% stake in LaCie held by Philippe Spruch, the company's chairman and CEO. On completion of that transaction, Seagate intends to made an all-cash tender offer for the rest of LaCie's shares."
"Just over two months ago, Chrome sponsored the Pwnium browser hacking competition. We had two fantastic submissions, and successfully blocked both exploits within 24 hours of their unveiling. Today, we'd like to offer an inside look into the exploit submitted by Pinkie Pie." A work of pure art, this. Also, this is not the same person as the other PinkiePie. Also also, you didn't think I'd let a story with a headline like this go by unnoticed, did you?
"Sure enough, a product listing provides a lot more detail about the tiny Chrome OS desktop than Samsung gave us in January, including its use of a 1.9GHz, dual-core Celeron B840, 4GB of DDR3 memory, a 16GB solid-state drive and six (not five) USB ports. We haven't seen mention of the promised wireless keyboard and mouse bundle, although the retailer's configuration might reflect a stripped-down trim level: at $330, it's a lot less than the $400 we were quoted at the start of the year." A $400 ChromeOS desktop box? Good luck with that.Google CEO Larry Page: "It's a well known fact that people tend to overestimate the impact technology will have in the short term, but underestimate its significance in the longer term. Many users coming online today may never use a desktop machine, and the impact of that transition will be profound - as will the ability to just tap and pay with your phone. That's why it's a great time to be in the mobile business, and why I'm confident Dennis and the team at Motorola will be creating the next generation of mobile devices that will improve lives for years to come." Strong hint that the Motorola purchase isn't so much about current devices and patents as it is about acquiring the hardware know-how for the device form factors of the future."When Tudor Brown stepped down as president of ARM Holdings earlier this month, he left behind one of Britain's and indeed the world's, most successful technology companies." Thanks for a fantastic architecture. The technology world would be poorer for it without ARM.
"Over half of PC users worldwide have admitted to using pirate software last year, according to a study by the trade group Business Software Alliance. BSA's ninth annual Global Software Piracy Study has shown a sharp increase in software piracy, especially among emerging economies. In the UK, more than one in four programs users installed in 2011 were unlicensed." If people decide en masse not to adhere to a law, said law is worth about as much as the paper it's written on. Laws become functional not because of the Queen's signature, but because the people decide to adhere to it. It's becoming ever clearer that as far as digital goods go, the law is not functional - for better or worse."He's one of 10 reverse-engineers working full time for a stealthy company funded by some of the biggest names in technology: Apple, Microsoft, Research In Motion, Sony, and Ericsson. Called the Rockstar Consortium, the 32-person outfit has a single-minded mission: It examines successful products, like routers and smartphones, and it tries to find proof that these products infringe on a portfolio of over 4,000 technology patents once owned by one of the world's largest telecommunications companies. When a Rockstar engineer uncovers evidence of infringement, the company documents it, contacts the manufacturer, and demands licensing fees for the patents in question. The demand is backed by the implicit threat of a patent lawsuit in federal court." And then people wonder why I call Apple and Microsoft patent trolls. These are the people destroying this industry, with Apple, Microsoft, RIM, etc. money. Sickeningly low.
