Reaction to an highly suspect Open G License breach

[Thoric]

Today I inherited some LabVIEW code created by an external consultancy. Whilst reviewing the quality of the code I came across a series of subVIs which are indubitably OpenG VIs with the license information stripped out.

 

One particular instance is a VI called "Variant to Header Info.vi" and the front panel is identical in layout and size to "Variant to Head Info__ogtk.vi" except the license text is missing. The VI icon is identical, and the VI description word for word. There's no doubt in my mind that this developer took the Open Toolkit, stripped all the licensing out, and is using the code in their own distribution without honouring the license agreement.

 

Is this something I ought to follow up, or does this happen a lot these days?

[ShaunR]

Today I inherited some LabVIEW code created by an external consultancy. Whilst reviewing the quality of the code I came across a series of subVIs which are indubitably OpenG VIs with the license information stripped out.

 

One particular instance is a VI called "Variant to Header Info.vi" and the front panel is identical in layout and size to "Variant to Head Info__ogtk.vi" except the license text is missing. The VI icon is identical, and the VI description word for word. There's no doubt in my mind that this developer took the Open Toolkit, stripped all the licensing out, and is using the code in their own distribution without honouring the license agreement.

 

Is this something I ought to follow up, or does this happen a lot these days?

 

I usually gently point out these "discrepancies" if I have firm suspicions and give them the opportunity to rectify it and/or respond. They may have an agreement in place or they might have received the code in good faith but were not as diligent as you were and have been caught holding the ball. I'm fairly lenient with individuals and ignorance but can't abide business decisions that produce this situation.

 

After that, it depends. I might ask the supplier if I can check with the original authors to see what their reaction is or I might tell the authors straight away-it really depends on their reaction and who they are. An expletive ridden email response telling me to insert parts of my anatomy in various orifices will definitely result in the latter with supporting evidence after several hours of investigation of all the software they have ever written, to boot.

 

Does it happen alot? Not really in the LabVIEW world-much more in other domains. Most of the time it is an oversight or some engineer somewhere hiding a lack of ability from a boss. Corporate misappropriation does happen but it is an exception rather than the rule. It's happened twice to me with my software and both times a gentle nudge resolved it with no drama.

 

Generally these things are a bit like witnesses at road accidents-noone wants to get involved even though they should.

Edited February 23, 2016 by ShaunR

[Thoric]

That's a good tack, I'll approach them directly about the situation. I have no evidence yet to indicate they were the perpetrators of the de-licensing, they may have inherited the toolkit themselves in its current form with no awareness of it's true origins.

[hooovahh]

I'm still not quite sure why someone would do this.  I mean if I found a golden goose, or if someone gave me a golden goose, the point still remains that I now have a golden goose, why lie about it?  If you are trying to impress your boss, they either are a developer and know of OpenG and know you are lying, or they are the management type, and don't really care about those types of details and just wants your work to be done.  For other toolkits which aren't free, or don't have as open license as OpenG, I can see a desire to do this.  Knee-jerk reaction would be to scold them for taking advantage of an open source consortium, but the sensible thing is to take Shaun's advice and probe into the situation a bit first.

[jgcode]

I don't see the point of removing it as from an end user point of view, the BSD licence is so simple and non-restrictive

They probably spent more time editing it out

Will be interesting to hear the outcome of the nudging 

[ShaunR]

I don't see the point of removing it as from an end user point of view, the BSD licence is so simple and non-restrictive

They probably spent more time editing it out

 

It usually arises with subcontractors especially on rentacoder type sites where it's a race to the bottom.

.

Companies like to "own" source code outright. It greatly simplifies licencing issues or risk.. If you work for a company then there is probably something in your contract that says anything you write they own.

With this mind-set. When you subcontract out work, you need to know that the code you are getting is original and that the sub contractor is disavowing all rights to it. This puts pressure on the sub contractor to supply working solutions with vanilla code. Sometimes things are just too hard or not enough time for them so they take tried and tested solutions and try to pass it off as their own so that they can get paid. If ripping out OpenG licencing terms for a piece of code that probably will never be looked at means make or break for a milestone payment then it's a very attractive solution especially if your contract includes a "No open source or third party code" requirement.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ShaunR

[Thoric]

Shaun is right. As a student (a long time ago) I found OpenG code very valuable and had no issues with the licensing structure. When I moved from academia to industry the terms became a problem and I justified creating my own substitute software so that I could avoid the license, but I also didn't put much effort into it so my own VIs were inferior (less well scoped/tested). As a consequence I didn't use OpenG much.

 

Since those days I now work for a manufacturer, not a software consultancy, so I'm happy to return to using OpenG internally for my test system development. I can see how other, perhaps struggling, developers might see the opportunity to cleanse the licensing from the OpenG libraries and pass the code off as their own work to an ignorant employer. It's very shortsighted, but easy to see how they might choose to take the gamble.

 

I've contacted the person who received the software from the outside consultancy - I'm awaiting feedback.

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

There is a small chance that the software originated from the original developer or copyright holder who of course would have the right to relicense his or her work in any way he or she likes. I definitely have used VIs in some of my projects which I have also submitted to OpenG at some point and they don't carry the OpenG license text as that was often added after the initial submission to OpenG.

 

Will be interesting to hear the outcome of this.