Nokia spreading FUD?
Nokia is spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about Free Software in the statement where they announce selling the proprietary Qt business to Digia:
“Many organizations which want to use Qt for their business applications choose commercial licenses, for a variety of reasons. These include restrictions in using open source licensed software in industries such as defense & aerospace, or the need to provide product warranties & indemnities such as in the medical device industry. Others choose a commercial relationship for access to Qt professional support and services to ensure successful development of their projects.”
First, warranties, indemnities, support and services can be done with any GNU license. Qt is licensed under the GNU LGPL, so in this sense it is a commercial license. There is commercial Free Software, as well as non-commercial non-free software, or to put it in David Wheeler words:
“It’s time to end the nonsense. OSS is practically always commercial, which means that there are two major types of commercial software: proprietary software and OSS. Terms like ‘proprietary software’ or ‘closed source’ are plausible antonyms of OSS, but ‘commercial’ is absurd as an antonym, and phrases like ‘commercial or OSS’ make no sense.”
Second, what does Nokia mean by “restrictions in using open source licensed software in industries such as defense & aerospace”. I am not aware of such restrictions. On the contrary, David Wheeler in 2008 wrote in his Questions and Answers on Free Software for the Department of Defense:
“The DoD has different rules for different kinds of systems and different uses, but in practically every case the rules have nothing to do with whether or not the program is OSS. So the question is really, ‘to use some program, does it need to be on approved list X?’ The answer is ‘it depends on the circumstance’.[...] ‘Many OSS programs are already on these lists. In some cases you may need to add the program to the approved list for your circumstance,’
At the moment this very much looks like FUD to sell the proprietary Qt licenses. But perhaps Nokia knows about specific problems for Free Software, so I have sent this question to Knut Yrvin, Open Source Community Manager at Nokia, and will wait for his reply.
–
Matthias Kirschner
Support Free Software! Join the Fellowship!
Comments
I agree; speaking as a software engineer, the biggest requirements in the aerospace and defense sectors are about testing and software reliability.
For example, NASA requires complete MC/DC for critical code. But that has absolutely nothing to do with licensing.
Most proprietary software does not qualify either. And its closed-source development model makes it only harder to assess its quality, because it is hard to ask for multiple third-party code reviews.
In fact, many times tenders for aerospace or the military ask for delivering *also the source code*. I wonder how any type of free software licensing scheme can hinder that.
As far as other points go: the GPL states that “this program is distributed without any warrant of any kind”. But indemnities can be offered as an additional service on top of the original license (like the GPL). This is not unalike to what happens with most EULAs.
For a notable example, check the Microsoft SQL Server Enterprise 2008 edition EULA, which is a critical component of many systems. Item 23, and the “Limited Warranty” section (points G and H, specifically) are quite clear.
You can find it here: http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/UseTerms/Default.aspx
Yes, it looks like FUD. Does FSFE have a page we can send to people making this mistake? http://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware.html mentions it in passing, but it’s a bit of a footnote. Or should we just send David Wheeler’s one about OSS?
[...] Original article available here: Nokia Spreading FUD? [...]
[...] @glynmoody: #Nokia spreading FUD? – http://bit.ly/etRkae "this very much looks like #FUD to sell the proprietary #Qt licenses"; mind you language [...]
The first problem is that many people don’t understand that Free Software is not a matter of price but freedom of software.
The second – and more serious argument – is that the model of Free Software cannot apply to mechanics software development because of the significance of its application on human life.
Although this second argument its not so justifiable as it seems I believe that the Free Software Community should answer. Also the creation of quality Free Software about architecture, design and aerospace could be a bomb to the foundations of mega corporations that now are monopoly on the market.
I only remember the proprietary Java license mentioning similar restrictions:
“You acknowledge that
Licensed Software is not designed or intended for use
in the design, construction, operation or maintenance
of any nuclear facility.”
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u2-license.txt
[...] Nokia spreading FUD? At the moment this very much looks like FUD to sell the proprietary Qt licenses. But perhaps Nokia knows about specific problems for Free Software, so I have sent this question to Knut Yrvin, Open Source Community Manager at Nokia, and will wait for his reply. [...]