Violates Open Source License

from the this-could-be-interesting dept

With all of the other problems associated with the launch of the website, you’d think that some of those expensive government contractors would understand open source licensing and how it works. Apparently not. It would appear that the site uses DataTables, which is a free and open source plug-in for jQuery, allowing for much better data handling and display. But, as most people who understand open source software recognize, there are often conditions for such usage, including the need to retain the license information in the software. DataTables is available as both a GPL v2 and BSD license, and even the DataTables team notes that basically all you have to do is “keep the copyright notices in the software.”

But did not do that.

Oops. While it’s not exactly “blatant software piracy” as some consipiracy-theory sites are claiming, it is a violation of the license, and thus, a form of copyright infringement. SpryMedia, the company behind DataTables has responded by saying it’s “extremely disappointed”. While the almost always sensationalistic Russia Today is claiming that SpryMedia “plans to sue” that doesn’t seem to be supported anywhere else. So far, there’s just a tweet saying that it’s “excellent to see DataTables being used” and that “leaving the copyright header in place isn’t too much to ask :-).”

Open source developers don’t often sue over misuses of their licenses, though it does happen. Of course, a better solution than going to court would be for the government to fix the mistake, make a public statement about this and, potentially, donate to DataTables.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: sprymedia

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “ Violates Open Source License”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

TD Stands up for COPYRIGHT !!!

But only as a tool to incite hatred for the Government.

Good to see you stand up for people’s copyright, rights.

Way too much copyright theft, piracy and other ‘suspect’ activity, most of which is applauded by TD. Is this a sign that TD is changing it’s stance of copyright theft and piracy ?

What next TD standing up for peoples rights to protect their inventions with patents ??

Or is it you hatred for anything “US Government” trumps hatred of copyright and other creators rights ?

Just seems like an odd article from TD, but then I noticed it was about the US Government, at least we know your hatred for the Government is greater than that of copyright.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: TD Stands up for COPYRIGHT !!!

oh that’s right, when you are confused, and have nothing to come back with, you call “troll” and resort to ad hom. Fair enough, it’s expected, hell it’s encouraged here.

Of course if you can read this article and see in it, ‘TD’s LOVE for the US Gov. and it’s HATE of Copyright’ that is an issue for you.

It’s not my reading of this article, perhaps you might like to get someone to read it to you, or at least give you the ‘gist’ of what is going on..

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Yet another reason no one takes you seriously

“or someone not affiliated with a big company violates copyright or licensing terms, you consider them the lowest of the low,”

When the government or a company does it? ‘Eh, it’s no big deal’.

It’s got nothing to do with what I consider at all, I did not write this article, at least I am consistent.

It’s just I find it amusing that TD is willing to stand UP FOR COPYRIGHT, if the greater good of it is to enable them to attack the greater evil of the US Government.

And quite frankly, this IS NOT A BIG DEAL, but that is beside the point, the price of seeing TD stand up FOR COPYRIGHT rights is priceless.

It’s like how all politicians are stupid, evil, corrupt and bribed until they make a comment in support of TD’s biases, then they are hero’s and the next president.

PyRos (profile) says:

I work with the site Designers

I work with one of the site designers, quite frankly the federal site is a minor miracle that it was launched when it was. We had a not so small army of various developers etc under a deadline that is more or less 100% crunch time. So many corners were cut, UAT phase was more or less non existent and there was a major lack of testing in general.

This was all caused by a launch date being set in stone while requirements changed constantly. As such I have no doubt that the GPL was ignored, it simply was outside anyone’s radar as a needed item.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I work with the site Designers

As you point out, changing requirements is a big problem.

One of the principles of software project management is that it is a three legged stool consisting of cost, features, and delivery date. The true response from any competent project manager is, pick two. Whomever managed this project did not let the stakeholders in on this ‘secret’.

For more information please let me refer y’all to:

Managing Software Development Projects by Neal Whitten


Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering by Robert Glass

or continue in your dreamworld where things happen correctly and on time and within budget.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: I work with the site Designers

Agreed, in that ‘within the law’ would be one of the ‘features’. I stress ‘features’ but mean requirements and wonder if that was actually in the original “requirements”.

Not that we ever will, but I would love to see the documents, all of them from the .1 version to whatever the current version is.

I bet it is quite the roller coaster ride.

Does Vegas produce odds on things like this?

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I work with the site Designers

Did we even get 1? It isn’t good and it isn’t cheap. I’m not sure if it really counts as ‘fast’ either.

No kidding. We already paid a half billion dollars for what amounts to a poor-man’s Geocities site that is completely non-functional. (Not a “glitch”, either, as Obama and Sibelius keeping claiming. A complete, catastrophic, systemic failure is not a “glitch”.)

I wonder how much more this “tech surge” to fix it is going to cost us?

At a minimum, Sibelius should lose her job over this whole thing, if not prosecuted for malfeasance of office.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I work with the site Designers

“The true response from any competent project manager is, pick two.”

I am pretty sure you meant to say “INCOMPETENT” project manager !!!

a competent software project manager is able to deliver

if you can’t deliver all 3 don’t bother calling yourself a professional anything.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Don’t worry I have read those posts too, it’s amusing to see Mr Masnick tippy toe around Google, trying his best not to upset them. As opposed to the clear hatred he holds for the US Government.

When was the last time you have seen Masnick taking Google to task for their data collection and distribution ? or their Open Source violations with Android of their backroom software systems ?

We all know that’s not going to happen.

But this article is not about copyright, it’s about something much larger, it’s about how EVIL the US Government is.

Google can spy on your all they like, because they use that information to make money, and to profit from you, the US Government on the other hand only wants to try to help protect you, and find the baddies.

So Google is good because their model is based on greed, and the US Government is evil,, because they are just evil.

It’s much more aligned to TD’s ‘charter’ to incite hatred for anything “US Government” than to incite hatred for a poor struggling commercial company with the goal to monetise the information.

I am just commenting on what I see, I have no idea of TD’s real motives and biases, but from what I see.

All I see here is that this is another ‘vector’ to attack the US Government, but to do so you have to stand in support of copyright, it’s a dichotomy for TD.

But if you take away from this the hatred of the US Government behind it is a story standing up FOR COPYRIGHT, and the COPYRIGHT owners RIGHTS, so that’s a good thing really.

So TD appears to have got the story right, if but for all the wrong reasons. Well done TD


btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

All I see here is that this is another ‘vector’
> to attack the US Government

The US Government deserves to be ‘attacked’ when it displays gross incompetence at a level heretofore unrivaled in human history, as it has done with the whole Obamacare rollout catastrophe.

The taxpayers of this country deserve far more for their $500 million than they got.

Today, Obama was in the Rose Garden crowing over the fact that his health care web site has received 40 million hits in the three weeks it’s been live, like that’s some wonderful accomplishment. Whoop-dee-shit. The Drudge Report received that many today and it’s still functional. So is Amazon. So is Facebook.

Weird how all those folks managed to design and implement high-traffic web sites with no problem… and yet none of them were consulted or contracted to do the Obamacare site. No, that was contracted out to DC power brokers and lobbyists as paybacks for political favors and the result is a half billion dollars wasted on 10-year-old tech that failed the moment the “on” button pushed.

Someone should go to jail over this, and you’re whining about the government being criticized for it?

Piss off.

Anonymous Coward says:

FWIW, the copyright holder in order to proceed in any legal claim against the USG would have to do so by first filing a claim with the Court of Federal Claims (a court notorious for siding with the USG on infringement matters except in the most egregious of circumstances). Any such lawsuit is governed by the provisions of 28 USC 1498, which in the case of copyright limits damages to either the holder’s actual money damages or minimum statutory damages. Since the code here is provided as freeware, it would be a bit difficult to present a winning argument for actual money damages. This leaves statutory damages, but in this circumstance the likely outcome would be a maximum award in the amount of $750 (the statutory minimum). IOW, this is an interesting situation that will obviously be rectified with some form of an apology for the oversight, but as a legal matter it is deader than a door nail.

Spointman (profile) says:

Re: Re:

A reasonable argument could be made that every time the appropriate .js files were accessed or downloaded, there was a separate case of infringement – roughly the same logic that the music industry used when prosecuting distributors. Given how frequently the site has been accessed in the last week or two (I forget when it launched), that would add up to a healthy chunk of change.

I’m not saying they should sue, mind you — just that it’s not a trivial case with a maximum payout of $750. As has been frequently said, in a lawsuit, the only winners would be the lawyers.

Arthur Moore (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Good point.

I can see one of two things happening when the contractor’s lawyers hear about this. They could fix the issue, or they could laugh in the face of the software devs.

If they try the second then they’re just begging to be sued for several hundred million cases of infringement. With a statutory max of $150,000/infringement. You’re talking the entire national debt right there. If you’re talking minimum that’s still at least $75 billion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

No that would not be a reasonable argument at all, these kinds of licenses (such as the GPL) specifically separate the “OUTPUT” from the software from the actual code.

and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Such an argument certainly can and has been made in the past, but it runs squarely into the statutory limitation specified in 17 USC 504(c)(1) that in pertinent part provides “…an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work…” As you may surmise, the argument has not gained traction before federal courts.

Trails (profile) says:

FWIW I've had this issue crop up on me

I’m not associated in anyway with, but as part of the build for a site I’ve worked on, we apply javascript minimization, in order to improve site performanc. This will reduce the size of javascript includes by stripping out comments and whitespace and minimizing internal function names and variables (doTheThing: function(){…} becomes a1:function(){…}, etc…)

It’s a bit of a trick to get some of these minimization tools to leave copyright notices in and unless someone looks it can go unnoticed for a long time.

PB says:

This may sound snarky, but it is also the truth of my own experience. Corporations like these contractors take, take, take, but they almost never give back. Even just acknowledging the license/terms under which something has been essentially freely given/provided to them.

I was directly involved in a similar licensing/notification matter for an Apache product being distributed as part of a proprietary software package. Fortunately, in that case, once I pointed out the license violation, the issue was escalated to the legal department and eventually corrected. All that needed to happen was for the appropriate license to be cited/included with reference to the included library.

That organization was relatively enlightened, especially once legal was formally aware of the problem (they couldn’t “unsee” it). Other places I’ve worked… not so much.

And even at that organization, they loved deploying a burgeoning wealth of high quality, trusted “open source” software in order to cut their costs. But they hardly if ever gave back.

Anonymous Coward says:

I don’t know what’s wrong with the government, but the folks writing above are correct. In 50+ years of experience I have learned that development projects move at their own pace, and finish when they’re finished. Corporate management has never and will never understand this. They want everything scheduled to the second and costed out to the penny. It never happens. The only way I will quote a development job is to give it my best guess, based on experience with similar projects, then double the cost and move the time to the next unit of measure. If I guessed $5,000 and 3 weeks, I quote $10,000 and 3 months. I’ve been surprisingly accurate, even when they didn’t hire me. That’s also why big development firms prefer cost-plus contracts. They KNOW the thing is gonna run WAY over in both cost and time. So they bill by the hour and let costs fall where they may. Nobody can EVER predict all of the problems that crop up, especially when the client keeps changing the specs on you. Government projects, especially, have one project manager who is subject to political pressure to “just add this one little feature” a hundred times, or “lets shift the focus this way”, which ends up screwing everything up. The trick there is to add a fixed amount of money, or a requirement for a requite, for every specification change they force on you.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...