On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:57 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

Leo Simons wrote:

Rant below. Decided not to tone it down.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:11:57AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

Comments welcome.

I like everything but the references to "Black Duck Software". I took
a look at their website and their licensing policies and everything
about it "feels" wrong. I don't like basing a big part of our processes
on some commercial black box "service-like" offering.
Taking another look around the web for similar companies, they seem to
be about "open source risk management" where the risk is to avoid
"contaminating" propietary stuff with "open source" stuff. I resent the idea of "open source" being "contaminating" or anything like that (GPL is viral, but most other stuff is not). There's this entire category of companies who capitalize on FUD. I can imagine SCO having stock options
on some of 'em.
I think we should avoid the ASF being seen as being part of any of that.
---
Leading Open Source Foundation Does Not Trust Its Own Processes
The ASF has recently started using the same tools that intellectual
property sharks use when figuring out whom to send cease and desist
letters.
When asked for comments, the ASF said: "We finally gave up trying to
understand why people are so scared of open source, so now we're just
using some incomprehensible piece of commercial software which makes us feel secure. We think its pretty silly, but if we already have run the tools, at least companies like SCO can't really use them as grounds for
suing us since we'll look pretty clean when they run the tool."
Darl McBride said: "We think the ASF is making a very smart decision
by employing code scanning techniques. Its the only way to be safe from
prosecution. Of course, most other open source organisations don't
employ code scanning techniques (since they do have a brain of their
own) so we're just going to sue all of those."
IP firm XXX said: "What Darl said. Don't use any of that scary open
source stuff. Even the ASF understands that now. Won't be long before
they turn into a commercial entity themselves!"
---
Grrrrr.
Hmm. Didn't SCO run keyword scanners and the like? Didn't they find out that they'd actually taken code from open source codebases? Didn't much
of the same happen at JBoss some time ago?
I doubt there's a lot of keyword scanning tools or any kind of other
automated technology that I wouldn't be able to circumvent with a few
hours of work. Its just such a stupid idea. If I take source code from (say) the sun jdk, work on it for a few weeks to make it look completely
different so no line of the original code remains, I still have a
derivative work but no scanner is going to be able to detect that. Just
like spam still manages to make it into my inbox.
I can imagine how some people or companies would feel safe if we were
to say "we scanned everything using this intellectual property risk
management tool XXX" but we'd be legitimizing something silly and giving a
false sense of security.
Now, if these tools were open source and I'd be able to take a look at how they work I might put some trust in them. But fancy websites, lots
of press releases, not a lot of technical details, anal usage
restrictions and total lack of a "download" button just sets off a lot
of alarm bells.
With my infra@ hat on I'd probably be against running this kind of
black box software under this kind of policy on ASF hardware. With
something like jira, I at least know how it works (or doesn't work) and what technology is under the cover and can get at the source code if I want to.


Leo++

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the issue here.  I'm proposing that

a) We suggest to people that are about to contribute to us to do some careful inspection before they do that. The assumption here is that people are well-meaning but sometimes makes mistakes or are lazy, and we want them to think before the contribute. A keyword scanner (which is a glorified "grep") is a great way to find things that you weren't aware were there, such as who authors were (if there are author tags), what copyright claims are listed in the files, etc. There's nothing inherently evil about it. It doesn't matter what SCO or anyone else did with a keyword scanner - we're trying to have it used to protect ourselves and just as importantly, other copyright holders like Sun.

b) We use a tool internally to check code for which the contributor can't provide our ASQ for each author. Ok, the tool isn't open source, but I don't know of any options, and we need something like this *now*. I'd love to see us create a toolsuite like this (because one of my goals is to work out a process that we can share with the rest of the ASF....), but we don't have the luxury of time to do it.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Reply via email to