Re: [Boost-users] Why is there so much co-dependency in Boost? Is there anything to be done about it?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Why is there so much co-dependency in Boost? Is there anything to be done about it?
From: Charles Mills (charlesm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-07 12:51:35

The difference with a purchased product is that the license usually has some
copyright and patent indemnification in it. I'm not being down on open
source, it's just a fact that one of the things you get for your license
dollars is IP indemnification. What's it worth? Your mileage may vary.

 

What about Linux? Well, Disney (in our example) is probably getting Linux
directly from Red Hat or SUSE, not from the Boost-using software vendor, so
it's not his problem. (Yes, there IS a potential problem, as we saw with SCO
v IBM.)

 

Yes, in my earlier note, isn't Jones in trouble for representing the code as
his own? Possibly, but that does not do Disney a whole lot of good. If he is
a legally unsophisticated contract programmer he would have a good faith
defense: "I paid Smith for the work and so I assumed I owned what he wrote."

 

The key is in the last paragraph below. Being able to say "well, what about
this factor? Doesn't that change everything" doesn't change anything. Disney
is still going to have to pay a law firm big bucks to sort it all out, and
it likely means the death of the Boost-using Disney software vendor. Again,
I'm not trying to bad-mouth Boost or open source. I'm just reciting the sad
facts of life in the big city in 2012.

 

> It would seem that the infringement would be on the 3rd party and not on
good-faith users of the 3rd party code.

 

A safe harbor shield law would be a wonderful thing for the small and open
source software community.

 

Charles

From: boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Chris Cleeland
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 8:18 AM
To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Why is there so much co-dependency in Boost? Is
there anything to be done about it?

 

 

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:

On 5 September 2012 22:05, steve_at_[hidden] <steve_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

Here's an example of what we're worried about....

 

Say we develop a tool for Disney to use on one of its feature length films.
A month before the premier date of the film, someone takes Disney to court
and claims that one of their production tools, the one we wrote, contains
code that was stolen from them.  Disney asks us to come to court to defend
our use of that code.

How are you vetting your compiler, OS, etc.?

 

Correct.  One might be tempted to say, "that's absurd", but given the level
of concern raised over using a toolkit that is clearly licensed and clearly
copyrighted, this seems a legitimate concern if one is using a compiler such
as gcc.  Or an OS like Linux.

 

For that matter, what's to prevent a similar doomsday scenario from
occurring if you were to purchase a license to use a 3rd party library, and
that 3rd party library is found to contain infringing code?  Where does tort
law stop?  It would seem that the infringement would be on the 3rd party and
not on good-faith users of the 3rd party code.

 

IANAL, but I would think that whatever would apply in the 3rd party
purchased software situation would similarly apply with boost--as long as
your usage model is the same, i.e., you treat it as a 3rd party product and
do not copy code from it.  Once you copy the code, YOU would potentially be
infringing.

 

Of course, the reality is that it may cost someone $$$$$ in legal bills to
find out that you are right and the complainer is wrong, and a settlement
would have been cheaper.