Open source but proprietary software?

[Sunnz]

Do you think it is possible?

To say, release an open source software that one can modify for their own use at their own risk... but maybe with restrictions such as no redistribution?

Another question, if someone uses GPL'ed code in their close source software but does not distribute their source code, how is anyone going to know if GPL code was used? Has this kind of thing ever happened?

(Just a curious cat...)

[macogw]

Isn't that how BSD works? That's why Mac OS X is able to be based on BSD. They can take the open source of it, use it, and release their OS without saying "here's what we did to that source code after we got it."

[earobinson]

Do you think it is possible?

To say, release an open source software that one can modify for their own use at their own risk... but maybe with restrictions such as no redistribution?
You would need your own license for that I do not know of one that has it.


Another question, if someone uses GPL'ed code in their close source software but does not distribute their source code, how is anyone going to know if GPL code was used?
The same way MS or apple find copywrite violations ... more info here http://gpl-violations.org


Has this kind of thing ever happened?
yup http://www.out-law.com/page-5620 ... lots more if you google gpl lawsuit

[Sunnz]

Isn't that how BSD works? That's why Mac OS X is able to be based on BSD. They can take the open source of it, use it, and release their OS without saying "here's what we did to that source code after we got it."
But the BSD licence allows them to do that, whereas GPL would require them to release whatever change they made.

[Sunnz]

You would need your own license for that I do not know of one that has it.vBulletin licence? vBulletin, the software that runs this very forum, is proprietary, yet it is not distributed as binary, its PHP and people can change to suit their own need.

[MrHorus]

Do you think it is possible?


Yes - Microsoft have programes where they give researchers and trusted partners access to their code.

Not "open source" in the sense you are thinking of but it's an example where the source is somewhat open for a proprietry product albeit under a tight NDA I suspect.

Interestingly enough most researchers who have seen the Windows code have commented that it's pretty well written for the most part...

[Rhapsody]

To say, release an open source software that one can modify for their own use at their own risk... but maybe with restrictions such as no redistribution?

It wouldn't be open source in a way the Open Source Initiative would approve of, but it would be a kind of open source. I doubt it'd be looked upon very well though.


Another question, if someone uses GPL'ed code in their close source software but does not distribute their source code, how is anyone going to know if GPL code was used?

Generally by reverse engineering the resulting binary to find out what code was used to make it.


Has this kind of thing ever happened?

Yep. The case I'm most familiar with is Sigma Designs ripping off Xvid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xvid) code, saying they'd removed it (when they'd actually just rearranged the code), and eventually releasing the source code to their product.

It's somewhat worrying to me that several EULAs have specific prohibitions against reverse engineering, which are getting legal backup from stuff like the DMCA and EUCD. This may end up with people being in the bizarre situation where their code has been stolen and is being used illegally, but they would have to break the law in order to prove it.

[ghowells]

I would really advise that everyone who is into Linux/OSS watches the documentary "Revolution OS" this covers all sorts of interesting issues surrounding the legal side of GPL'd and Open Source software. The author of the Open Source Definition, Bruce Perens, explains what the term "Open Source" means in full and even quotes Steve Balmer as saying (paraphrase) "Open Source means more than just releasing your code".

[Sunnz]

It wouldn't be open source in a way the Open Source Initiative would approve of, but it would be a kind of open source. I doubt it'd be looked upon very well though.Well I don't really want to get into political definition... but to me, if the you can see the source, and can tinker it for your own need, then it is open source enough to be open source... maybe just not free software.

And as I mentioned before, vbulletin is a good example of being Open Source yet proprietary... or are you going to argue it isn't open source??


Generally by reverse engineering the resulting binary to find out what code was used to make it.That'll take a hell of hard work... and may not be able to prove anything in the end. Different compilers can result different binary, etc. I was wondering if there are any other way that I don't know of...


Yep. The case I'm most familiar with is Sigma Designs ripping off Xvid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xvid) code, saying they'd removed it (when they'd actually just rearranged the code), and eventually releasing the source code to their product.

It's somewhat worrying to me that several EULAs have specific prohibitions against reverse engineering, which are getting legal backup from stuff like the DMCA and EUCD. This may end up with people being in the bizarre situation where their code has been stolen and is being used illegally, but they would have to break the law in order to prove it.But the EULA is or the "end user", right?