[Nagios-devel] Reasons to not release in house GPL'd code (was

Support forum for Nagios Core, Nagios Plugins, NCPA, NRPE, NSCA, NDOUtils and more. Engage with the community of users including those using the open source solutions.
Locked
Guest

[Nagios-devel] Reasons to not release in house GPL'd code (was

Post by Guest »

When I worked as an enterprise IT consultant, I noticed that lots of GPL'd =
projects that were created for in house use would never be released to the =
public.
Below are the top 5 reasons given by these organizations, most of these dec=
isions came from either corporate legal or some MBA way up the chain in mid=
dle management.

#1 Possible Liability. According to several firms I worked with, the legal=
team had determined that even IF the GPL disclaims any and all liability, =
that may not be enough to prevent a lawsuit.
Someone would likely try to file suit at some time, and lawsuits for a fort=
une 500 company can be prohibitively expensive, just having the legal team =
appear in court and say "umm your honor it says use at your own risk", will=
cost tens of thousands of dollars.
In fact I've seen some companies that exist expressly for the purpose of li=
tigating against larger companies in hopes in of a big payday, since a sett=
lement would cost less than the litigation.
Sadly those companies seem to be getting more and more popular as of late.

#2 We can't support it. If you make it, they will come, and they will come=
with questions, and we really don't have time to answer their questions, e=
specially if they aren't paying customers, and especially if they don't RTF=
M. Sadly hundreds of open source projects are killed for this reason alone=
everyday.

#3 We aren't an IT company. This kind of wraps #1 and #2 as well as a bit =
of company image. What they are saying here is that we specialize in "x" a=
nd only "x" and anything not directly related to "x" is outside of our core=
competency and we therefore don't have the resources.

#4 Competitive Advantage. We've invested "x" dollars in this product, beca=
use it will give us some sort of edge over our competition. If we release =
it to the general public our competition could use it to gain a leg up at n=
o cost, or if they couldn't use it then maybe they would at least have some=
visualization of our business processes, which could cost us untold amount=
s of money.

#5 We don't have to. It's actually the cleanest argument. If a company cr=
eates or has created something with GPL'd code strictly for in house use, t=
he GPL says they don't have to make those changes public, period, so why bo=
ther with even thinking about 1-4?

It sucks, but those are the top 5 reasons I've seen for companies not to re=
lease changes to the public. I'm glad that where I'm at now allows me the =
freedom to work on opensource projects and contribute anything relevant bac=
k.

Oh yeah that reminds me of #6

#6 It's not relevant, i.e. the change is too dependent on some change we'v=
e had to make internally to facilitate some business logic function. If we=
just released a patch no one could get it running without some serious tin=
kering.

Sincerely,
Steve
=20

>________________________________________
>From: Andreas Ericsson [[email protected]]
>Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 3:22 AM
>To: Nagios Developers List
>Subject: Re: [Nagios-devel] Future of Nagios (was Nagios is dead! Long liv=
e Icinga!)

>sean finney wrote:
>> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 12:42:28AM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>>>> doable. I know this can be successfully accomplished as I was hired as
>>>> a consultant for a large university client in Upstate New York, where
>>> Seeing such an eventbroker module would be nice, as it would solve a lot
>>> of requests. Since all such modules are derivatives works of GPL'd code,
>>> they should be GPL'd too. Is the code available somewhere?
>>
>> just to nitpick a little: the GPL doesn't say it has to be shared with
>> anyone other than the client who recieved it. that said i'm sure it'd
>> be nice to have :)
>>
>
>I know, but there aren't normally any reasons for holding GPL'd code
>back, unless putting it up for download (a 2minute job for most orgs)
>is considered unacceptable overhead.
>
>--
>Andreas Ericsson [email protected]


NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s=
) and may contain confidential and priv

...[email truncated]...


This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]
Locked