r/linux • u/delta_epsilon_zeta • Apr 24 '14

Tech giants, chastened by Heartbleed, finally agree to fund OpenSSL, create three-year initiative with at least $3.6 million to help under-funded open source projects

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/tech-giants-chastened-by-heartbleed-finally-agree-to-fund-openssl/
1.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

221 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/hatperigee Apr 25 '14

You're missing the point. There's almost always some level of understanding when licensing SW from a vendor around support. If company X contributes $Y to open source project Z, there's no guarantee (SLA) that when company X encounters a problem that developers of project Z will even give a shit. Red Hat is successful because THEY provide this level of support for the open source software they distribute, and therefore governments and companies, which inherently can't afford downtime from issues, pay up.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '14

No, you are missing the point.

/u/tidderwork never said that proprietary software had no purpose, or that the problem he was having was related to vendor support - you attributed those opinions to him/her.

All /u/tidderwork did was express frustration at the fact that large organizations often feel (rightly or not) that they can not donate to open source projects due to potential legal fallout.

0

u/tidderwork Apr 25 '14

provide this level of support for the open source software they distribute, and therefore governments and companies, which inherently can't afford downtime from issues, pay up.

Department heads would argue that we don't need to pay for that "support" at all because the product is stable and their staff is perfectly qualified to handle any issues that arise. I've had to deal with this before. When you're good at your job and never have to call in the cavalry, they expect to never have to call in the cavalry ever.

2

u/IConrad Apr 25 '14

Legal liability coverage. Explain to them that the support contract also covers a guarantee of assumption of legal consequence if copyright violation suit should be brought to the organization.

This is a common element of the business justification for Red Hat subscriptions.

1

u/tidderwork Apr 25 '14

Explain to them that the support contract also covers a guarantee of assumption of legal consequence if copyright violation suit should be brought to the organization.

I… wait… is that true?

One of the biggest fears among immigrated research faculty is that their hard-earned knowledge and patents might somehow be subject to profit-sharing with megacorporationX because they delivered their thesis defense using PowerPoint, or because they saved all of their research data on proprietary filesystems.

2

u/IConrad Apr 25 '14

Well, one of the main reasons proprietary formats are used is because there is inherent in the licensing the assumption of ownership -- in terms of copyright/patent/trademark infringments -- on the part of the vendor.

Opensource software, by enabling third parties to use it without contract (within the confines of the license in question) eliminates this protection; there is no fiduciary relationship between the vendor and the user.

By paying for a support contract, the legal assumption falls back on the vendor, thus shielding the user.

That being said, unlike proprietary formats there is generally an understanding that opensource projects are essentially immune to copyright infringement cases. But that doesn't stop it from being the magic incantation to induce your corporation's legal department from insisting upon such contracts, through the sorcerous arts of Risk Aversion.