☞ Framing Open Source

  • I can't decide whether I am pleased there are people doing this or concerned that their actions become the focus of public understanding about open source software.

    Not all software is GPL licensed. MIT/BSD/X11/Apache probably lead the pack for integrated/embedded software (by definition there can be no hard data) and thus not every use has the same stringent compliance concerns. Even most uses of GPLed software don't carry serious issues.

    The result of making it seem otherwise is that the more subtle opponents of open source are able to raise Fears about compliance, attaching Uncertainties soluble only via extra costs that aren't really applicable to the majority of uses and thus seeding Doubts that the bother is really worth it. This has all the classic hallmarks of the best FUD, turning the weakness of proprietary software and its BSA-mediated enforcement heavies and by implication tarring open source with it. We should reject the frame.

One Response

  1. Pretty sure the fears were already there (IANAL, but I sure work with ’em!). Having NYT report that non-compliance can be fixed by the simple expedient of compliance seems de-FUDding to me, and therefore all-good.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: