Stealing Open Source
August 28, 2009
The open source horses are galloping through the organizational arroyo. You can steal a horse when it is branded. You can capture a wild horse in Altai Mountains of Mongolia. Now the question of ownership of a horse can be a tricky issue. If you think stealing a horse is problematic, consider the question, “Can you steal open source software?” I have to admit that I have never considered the question. ComputerWorld, however, has turned its considerable capabilities to this question and concluded, “Yep, you can steal open source and find yourself in a world of legal excitement.” The story “Question in Goldman Sachs Case: Can Open-Source Software Be Stolen?” explains what happens when a big outfit uses open source and an employee downloads that software and takes it home. Several thoughts flapped through the addled goose’s brain when he thought about Eric Lai’s story:
- What is really different between open source software used inside an organization and proprietary software licensed from IBM or some other outfit which contains open source components?
- Is open source really “open”?
- Will organizations use their legal eagles to redefine open source to make it by definition closed?
I don’t have answers to these questions which are probably superficial, ill advised, and not worthy of legal brain cycles. I wonder if the folks contributing to open source know that their efforts may morph into a state that is similar to the proprietary software that we know and love.
Stephen Arnold, August 28, 2009
Comments
3 Responses to “Stealing Open Source”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
It’s important to remember that what identifies code as open source is really only the license. As an open source developer, who holds the copyright in the code one has written, one can choose a license for various different reasons. The GPL is a reasonably restrictive license, designed to prevent open source code from being locked up in a closed source package, whereas the BSD and MIT licenses are less restrictive.
I think in this case the key point is that Goldman Sachs would have held the copyright in the software they had created, even if it was derived from open source code. If they chose not to distribute it outside their organisation that would be their choice, and even if the code was under an open source license it would be wrong for their employee to take it.
Charlie Hull,
With all the buzz about open source, is this now a world for the legal eagles? When lawyers get involved, costs sky rocket. Open source trims costs. Perhaps some folks may not understand the cost implications of license variants. The marketing collateral skips over liabilities with a certain Nureyevian lightness in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, August 28, 2009
The continuing legal trail: guilty verdict December 10, sentencing to be on March 18, see http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/sergeyVerdict.pdf in relative fast forward ( perhaps within the context – does context matter? given here http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/rainkeep/2009/07/-plunge-protection-team.php ). Not included in the indictment but referred to here http://www.institutionalinvestorsecuritiesblog.com/2010/12/exgoldman_sachs_employee_found.html is the nature of the signed employee confidentiality agreement which would have made the use of perhaps any professional knowledge gained on the job illegal let alone the use of copied software, open source or not. So where is the line and who measures it?