'Infectious' Open Source Software?

Created by Stuart Yeates (University of Oxford) on March 2, 2006

An official document out of New Zealand about open source has caused considerable ruckus both on /. (general open source / geek forum) and on groklaw (paralegal dissection of open source issues).

I've got to agree with one of the groklaw participants:

While I find the article quite unbalanced, particularly in the way it careless throws around very loaded language, there isn't anything actually untrue in it.

As a kiwi I though I had to comment on this, if only to stop people sending me links to it...

Stuart's blog
Login or register to post comments
4499 reads

Looks like this is coming in

Submitted by Stuart Yeates (University of Oxford) on March 3, 2006 - 10:47am.

Looks like this is coming in for quite a bit of local criticism too: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/1B2E46617745E36BCC2571260004CBE3 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0603/S00053.htm

Untrue or just misleading?

Submitted by Henry E. Schaffer (North Carolina State University) on March 12, 2006 - 8:18pm.

Untrue or just misleading? Thanks to Stuart for picking this one up - and in reading the doc, I came across this:It can be argued that any output from a piece of open source software is "derived" from that software, and accordingly is infected. Open source compiler programs are an interesting case in point. A compiler translates source code into object code that can be executed on a computer. The object code is the output, and derivative, of the compiler. So any application that has been compiled by a strongly infectious open source compiler may itself be infected.

"It can be argued" and "may" allow nearly any claim to be presented without the presentation being "untrue". At least in US Intellectual Property discussions, "derivative work" doesn't have this meaning at all! In NZ is a poem typed out using a word processor really a "derivative work" of the word processor code?

I wouldn't be so harsh if the authors clearly said that this was a far-out interpretation - but they seem to be saying that this is a reasonable interpretation that needs to be considered whenever using FOSS.

		'Infectious' Open Source Software? Created by Stuart Yeates (University of Oxford) on March 2, 2006 An official document out of New Zealand about open source has caused considerable ruckus both on /. (general open source / geek forum) and on groklaw (paralegal dissection of open source issues). I've got to agree with one of the groklaw participants: While I find the article quite unbalanced, particularly in the way it careless throws around very loaded language, there isn't anything actually untrue in it. As a kiwi I though I had to comment on this, if only to stop people sending me links to it... /. \| Groklaw \| New Zealand \| Open Source \| Slashdot Stuart's blog Login or register to post comments 4499 reads Looks like this is coming in Submitted by Stuart Yeates (University of Oxford) on March 3, 2006 - 10:47am. Looks like this is coming in for quite a bit of local criticism too: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/1B2E46617745E36BCC2571260004CBE3 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0603/S00053.htm Login or register to post comments Untrue or just misleading? Submitted by Henry E. Schaffer (North Carolina State University) on March 12, 2006 - 8:18pm. Untrue or just misleading? Thanks to Stuart for picking this one up - and in reading the doc, I came across this:It can be argued that any output from a piece of open source software is "derived" from that software, and accordingly is infected. Open source compiler programs are an interesting case in point. A compiler translates source code into object code that can be executed on a computer. The object code is the output, and derivative, of the compiler. So any application that has been compiled by a strongly infectious open source compiler may itself be infected. "It can be argued" and "may" allow nearly any claim to be presented without the presentation being "untrue". At least in US Intellectual Property discussions, "derivative work" doesn't have this meaning at all! In NZ is a poem typed out using a word processor really a "derivative work" of the word processor code? I wouldn't be so harsh if the authors clearly said that this was a far-out interpretation - but they seem to be saying that this is a reasonable interpretation that needs to be considered whenever using FOSS. Login or register to post comments
		© Copyright 1999-2009 EDUCAUSE Need Help? \| Feedback \| Privacy Policy
	Unless otherwise noted, EDUCAUSE holds the copyright on all materials published by the association, whether in print or electronic form. In certain cases the work remains the intellectual property of the individual author(s) (see Special Circumstances). Content from conference speeches, presentations, blogs, wikis and feeds reflect the opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of EDUCAUSE or its members.