Someone made a vague implication that my post about licenses were shots fired from someone who doesn’t ‘do’ but is only an ‘observer.’
This is quite inaccurate, though I don’t blog about it here and I don’t talk about it anywhere for one simple reason. I can’t. I signed a paper, years ago, that agreed the work I did for them would be private. I would neither reuse the code (which I can’t anyway) nor would I discuss it. In fact, I had to make a phone call to ask if I could blog about it in general. I understand why someone might assume I’m not speaking from experience, but that just makes an ass of you and me.
This isn’t about me refuting or dismissing allegations from someone who, for whatever reason, dislikes me and likes to make their hate public. No, this is about the interesting predicament about what happens when you can’t release information about your code.
Here’s your scenario. The front end is an open system, a plugin say, that one installs on WordPress. It’s GPLv2 (or later) compatible because it’s distributed code I want to put on WordPress.org. That right there is a requirement. Alright, so I have one half of a product that is GPL and Open Source. The other half lives on a server somewhere in the world and does all the backend work. The plugin? It just passes API data too and fro as needed.
I just described Akismet.
You and I know very little about how Akismet works on the backend. And here’s the thing, that’s how it should be. We have a lot of information on how to interact with the Akismet API but none about how it actually calculates what is and isn’t spam on the back end. I repeat – this is the way it should be.
Look at what Akismet does. It magically identifies spam. While it’s all well and good to be open source, the very first thing that would happen if they opened up all their code is we would see spammers read it and subvert it.
But then again, we have things like SpamAssassin, an open source product I use on my email servers. Does this mean SpamAssassin is too dangerous to use? Does it mean it should be avoided? No, absolutely not! While it’s far from perfect, SpamAssassin does a phenomenal job at catching and stopping spam. But at the same time, it’s imperfect and being public, it’s more likely to be subverted by clever spammers. Thankfully the things it checks for are parts of email that a clever server admin can protect from and, all in all, it’s useful.
If we accept the fact that having a code base open or closed actually has very little impact on it’s usability, then why do we lock down our systems? That’s easy. Security and profit.
Profit is the easy answer. If a system is closed then you can’t download it and install it for yourself. This means if you want to use it, you have to pay. Again, we can look at Akismet and VaultPress, which I would wager actually are built on open source code, as examples. They don’t have to be free, after all. There’s nothing wrong with being closed, either.
By making a system a closed system that no one sees the backend code for, we create a product where only people who have access to the source code can easily infiltrate. This, of course, offers no assurance that it will never be hacked, only it raises the bar and makes it harder to deal with when it does get hacked. But at the same time, it is harder to hack an unknown than a known, and it does make things somewhat safer.
Of course, if I told you all the ATM code in the world was not only open source but freely distributable and it was out there right now, how would you feel? That probably filled you with a little dread, thinking about how much trouble we already have with card skimmers and ATMs. If we have people who already know how to jack in, how much worse could it be if they knew how to encode software into the fake cards they make, and use them to backdoor your accounts?
Have Your Cake And Eat It Too
Just because the code you work on is open source doesn’t mean you can talk about it in public. Just because the code is closed doesn’t mean you can’t.
I’m not talking about licenses here, though, I’m talking about contracts. I signed a paper about certain code I’ve written that prevents me from discussing it. So while I’d love to tell you everything about everything I’ve worked on, I can’t. But that’s not a bad thing. I’ve been privileged to work on the open and the closed, and it’s given me a greater appreciation and understanding of when we should and shouldn’t open our work. And this comes down to understanding the nature of the risks involved.
Things like ATMs, financial trading, and mortgages should be secured and private. Why? Because the risk is much too high. A license? Well a worst case scenario is that someone figures out how to backdoor a free license for themselves. Another is they figure out how to use someone else’s license to gain access to their information. Those are pretty bad. So if you want to make your license API open but the code behind it not, I support that call.
But. I do think you should have a way to manage your licenses and updates. That’s just business sense.