Hacker News Reader

Comment by dbaupp | Hacker News Reader

And Akamai would probably not be using OpenSSL if it were GPL (maybe because of a business decision within Akamai, or just because OpenSSL would never have become so popular).

View on HN

Why not? They're using Linux and it's GPL. Undoubtedly they have made kernel modifications as well.

They're not distributing the code outside of their company, so the source license in this case is entirely irrelevant.

We could make a different argument if they were using AGPL'd code...

They run FreeBSD don't they ..?

Based on job descriptions, it would appear they are mostly a linux shop with some solaris. [0]

[0] http://jobs.akamai.com/search/?q=linux&locationsearch=

I think this is a widespread misunderstanding about GPL, and I am afraid it is the reason why businesses typically have a GPL-aversion.

I haven't worked for Akamai for more than a decade, but at that time, I can assure you that not only were there lawyers who thoroughly understood the GPL, but there were many, many engineers who would not have remained silent for a breach of the terms. Assuming that culture to have continued -- and I see no reason why it would not -- Akamai should be up there with Red Hat in terms of license compliance.

I haven't been there for almost two years, even then, I'm sure most engineers wouldn't have stood silent if an OSS license was being violated... unless their managers made them afraid for their jobs and careers for doing so. Oh, and getting permission to submit a simple patch made to an otherwise completely GPL'd piece of software was always an exercise in frustration. Send the necessary info to legal. Wait 3-6 months for them to say no. Lather, rinse, repeat. It was pretty damn bad while I was there.

Now, my current employer... Email your manager: "I wrote this entirely in-house and would like to open-source it." Manager: "OK, let's talk to Legal" Legal: "OK, get at least one other person to verify that it doesn't contain any trade secrets and sign this." Upload to github. Done.

And submitting patches upstream - just a matter of code-review and sending it out. Now that's OSS-friendly.

Can't distribute, actually. We have internal combinations of GPL'd software and OpenSSL, which has Eric Young's advertising requirement. The GPL forbids us from distribution that combination with the extra requirement, and OpenSSL's license forbids us from distribution without that requirement.

So we're stuck: we avidly use and consume free and open source software, but can only give back code by carving off bits here and there.

Some GPL project have added an OpenSSL exception to their licenses specifically allowing OpenSSL to be combined with their project.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com