«

On Dec 21, 3:04*am, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Larry D'Loserites contrast "open-source software" to "proprietary
> software" -- as if the two were different species. But nothing could be
> further from the truth.

Truth in your case is stretchy it seems....

> Open source software released under the GPL is proprietary software, meaning

no it is copyrighted software.

> that developers have certain exclusive property rights that give them
> control over how that software is used, copied, distributed, or modified.

As per copyright law.

> The same is true of software released under a convential End User License
> Agreement. In both cases, these rights originatre from copyright protection.

Yes but EULA often is far more restrictive and seeks to extend
copyright law, usually way past the bounds of reason.

> Confusion

There are alsways stupid people who seek to take unfair advantage.

> over this issue is now hurting open-source developers, who have
> increasingly found themselves resorting to lawsuits to prevent infringement
> by companies that thought "open source" meant they could save money by
> ignoring compliance issues.

See above.

> "Open source licenses are granted by the copyright holder and the license is
> an exercise of the copyright. In order to enjoy the benefits of the license,
> you must comply with its terms. If you don't comply with the license, you're
> not licensed--and another word for unlicensed use is 'infringement' ....

Correct...

> "The main issue for businesses is internal control. Businesses have
> procurement organizations that are responsible for procuring everything the
> business uses in its operations. Those organizations review agreements and
> establish terms before they write the check. The internal control is based
> on the assumption that the business will pay for everything it uses. In
> order to arrange for payment, you have to go through procurement.

If you "write" it in house there is no procurement process.

> "Because open source is made available without charge, this basic internal
> control fails. The software often comes into the organization without review
> of the associated obligations or any process to ensure compliance. Companies
> are in the process of implementing policies and processes that impose basic
> internal controls over acquisition, use, and compliance of open source
> software"

Which is reasonable, but mis-directed within the context you are
trying to claim (which does not exist) ie You can take GPL software
and use it, and modify it within your company and there is no
compliance issue...Most companies who use the OSS dont have any
concerns or issues or liabilities, unlike users of "true" commercial
software.

ie in the USA (and others?) the financial penalties are actually very
severe for using un-licenced commercial software, punitive in fact
(and in some ways not un-reasonable IMHO).

>There is only a compliance issue when you seek to distribute it and sell it at which point if the GPL code is statically inside your software you are >in breech...

Its really quite simple, its lazy or dis-honest programmers/managers
or (software writing) business owners who are trying to have a free
ride...

> http://www.informationweek.com/news/...howArticle.jht...

You should get a job as a PR consulatant or something else (equally
useless...) you have a talent for lies, half truths and mis-direction
that would see you well.

regards

Thing