Sony Gaffe Breeds FUD about Open Source Software
Obviously, my take was a little different.
Sony did indeed step in it big time with the episode in question (they are in fact being sued by the state of TX as we speak), but it had little to do with their use of code from the lame project. In a sense, they committed two errors here: installing a rootkit on their client’s computers without their permission, and using code from an open source project without proper attribution. In the grand scheme of things, the second error pales in comparison to the first, and it’s important to keep in mind that the two errors are unrelated. That is, it would have been just as possible for Sony to install rootkits and skip the use of the code from the lame project, which probably went into the music player application rather than the rootkit application anyway. Here’s the applicable quote:
Developers on Slashdot.org and other Internet bulletin boards could not find an open source reference in the copy-protection software.
It’s the copy-protection software, which I’ve been calling a rootkit, that got Sony into trouble here, not the use of hte lame libraries without proper attribution. Their actions were certainly boneheaded all around, so we shouldn’t be surprised to see them stepping into more than one pile at a time as a result of this adventure.
My feeling here is that it’s probably best not to paint open source with this brush. It’s actually far easier to abide by the licensing (not copyrights) associated with a typical open source project than it is to abide by the licensing coming from a proprietary vendor product. With a proprietary product, there are often copyrights involved as well, which only complicates things. It is true that there are many, many open source licenses for sure, but they tend to be somewhat standardized and certainly more legible than your typical license from say a TIBCO, or BEA, or Microsoft. Those things tend to be documents that only a lawyer could love.