Commentary

Serdar Yegulalp
 

Subcontractors, Meet Open Source

Now that the recent lawsuit against Verizon by a couple of open source developers has been settled, it's become clear -- as some people suspected -- that the real offender here wasn't Verizon per se but a subcontractor, Actiontec.  I wonder if this will mean a new level scrutiny or contractual stipulations for the way subcontractors are hired to do this kind of work -- with one of the possible stipulations being "no open source," especially if litigation is a serious risk.

Now that the recent lawsuit against Verizon by a couple of open source developers has been settled, it's become clear -- as some people suspected -- that the real offender here wasn't Verizon per se but a subcontractor, Actiontec.  I wonder if this will mean a new level scrutiny or contractual stipulations for the way subcontractors are hired to do this kind of work -- with one of the possible stipulations being "no open source," especially if litigation is a serious risk.


More Software Insights

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Webcasts

More >>

In the abstract, it's not hard to avoid getting sued by the authors of an open source product for violating the GPL -- you just have to follow the rules and provide the source code for whatever you've been using.  The problem is that if you're a contractor, whoever is upstream from you may not want that -- especially if the modifications made to the open source code might (in their opinion) clue people in about things that they consider proprietary, like hardware designs.  (Note: I'm not trying to imply this actually happened in this case -- only that it's possible.)

One of the stipulations of the settlement, aside from Actiontec posting the code on its site, is the creation of an open source compliance officer's position at Actiontec.  This is something my cohort Paul McDougall talked about at the end of last year in the context of another settlement conducted by the SFLC.  He, too, was worried that moves like this would have unexpected side effects -- not least of all, an increasing hesitancy to adopt open source by companies who didn't want to find themselves strong-armed into creating job positions they didn't feel they really needed.

Now, the SFLC and its clients (mainly the authors of the Busybox toolkit, the code that was reused but not republished by Actiontec) aren't exactly using patent-troll tactics to get their way.  In fact, up until recently, they were content to simply shame the offenders on their Web site.  Then the sheer number of offenders grew and grew, shame stopped being effective by itself, and they decided to take legal action.

From their side, their behavior's perfectly reasonable.  But from the side of folks for whom using open source is still a relatively exotic and new (and, therefore, not wholly required) thing, it might be an incentive to keep things as proprietary as possible ... just to be safe.

The irony is that those who opt out of open source because of fears about getting pricked by thorns in the licensing stipulations may find themselves at a disadvantage in the marketplace.  When your competitors are using open source to get an edge -- and that might include potential bidders for a contract who already have documented open source compliance mechanisms in place -- you don't want to be last to the table.

Do you think contractors in IT should get special stipulations regarding their use of open source, or be left to fend for themselves?


Related Reading




Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
T-Shirt Giveaway T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting!
Subscribe to RSS

Resource Links