Bonum Certa Men Certa

Why Adobe Does Not Like Free(dom) Software

Adobe binary



Summary: The real motives behind Adobe's moves and its "open source" point-of-view

Heise runs the article titled "Why Adobe likes open source," but unlike the headline, there is much disdain for open source inside Adobe. About the company's evil side we wrote for example here, along with examples of the negative impact of Adobe on GNU/Linux adoption and on Web standards.



“Black Duck is a purely proprietary software company with proprietary data.”Regarding the article from Heise, Groklaw writes: "This should help you to understand, when you see figures on license adoption showing the GPL being less used, that it isn't developers who are not choosing it; it's vendors and corporate types, who have their own agendas, not necessarily including freedom for you or the code."

Another one to watch out for is Black Duck, which despite some decent work is also harming Free software; Black Duck is a purely proprietary software company with proprietary data. There are reasons to be wary of it [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

Also regarding the Heise article, one reader wrote to us remarking on "Adobe and the viral GPL license." Quoting from the article: "Tamarin, the JIT compiler for the ActionScript runtime, is under the Mozilla licence simply because it went to the Mozilla foundation - which does have drawbacks; "The good thing is it’s a BSD-style licence, the bad thing is they have some things written into the licence that may not be universally applicable and our lawyers get very uncomfortable."

"What license exactly is Tamarin under," asks our reader, "what is 'written into the licence' that has drawbacks?"

Also from Heise: ""If you want to make money selling open source software use GPL," Adobe will not use it because of customer concerns about inheritance issues when GPL and LGPL licensed libraries are used in customer applications. There’s a specific exception in the GPL for Java, but it’s not specified for other languages – so Adobe adds its own exceptions to licences to ensure that inheritance doesn’t expose customers to the full force of the licence."

Our reader asks:



Quoting further: "There are good commercial reasons for this, says McAllister; "We have been frequently contacted by customers who have asked us not to use the GPL. They are under a mandate not to allow influx of GPL. Companies don’t like it, but they’re not necessarily scared of it." The same is true of Adobe itself, as McAllister notes, "We only allow it in under very tight scrutiny.""

Our reader asks: "What customers specifically ask Adobe not to use GPL code? What are their names?"

Lastly, from the article: "LLVM has a very open licence if you’re not using its GCC-based front end, which has let Adobe modify and distribute the compiler without sharing all its changes. McAllister is happy with that; "We did modify the LLVM code but LLVM grants a uniform exception to anybody’s code being exposed. It's the weirdest thing I've seen in my life, but that's the LLVM model.""

"I don't understand this bit," says our reader, "LLVM is more 'open' because you can distribute the compiler without sharing the changes?"

Moreover, from Heise: "the LLVM Project does distribute llvm-gcc, which is GPL. This means that anything "linked" into llvm-gcc must itself be compatible with the GPL, and must be releasable under the terms of the GPL. This implies that any code linked into llvm-gcc and distributed to others may be subject to the viral aspects of the GPL..."

"That's not playing nice with 'open source'," argues our reader, "they said viral." Microsoft's Craig Mundie once said: "This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization making use of it." Adobe and Microsoft may not be so different after all, but they happen to be competitors. Both pretend to be friends of "open source" while in practice what they do is a tad dubious and very much contradictory to their stated intent (PR).

On the positive side, to Adobe's credit, they do oppose software patents.

"Let me make my position on the patentability of software clear. I believe that software per se should not be allowed patent protection. […] We take this position because it is the best policy for maintaining a healthy software industry, where innovation can prosper." —Douglas Brotz, Adobe Systems, Inc.



"Software patents harm the industry, with no corresponding benefit" —Adobe, Douglas Brotz, JamessHuggins: Adobe Systems Statement on Software Patents



Comments

Recent Techrights' Posts

The Better the Understanding or the More Nations Understand the Threat Posed by Microsoft, the Faster It'll be Eradicated
We believe that the thing to advocate is self-hosting and Free software... A lack of simplicity or absence of alternatives is a form of vendor lock-in
A Week of Sunlight
They say transparency is like sunlight to a vampire
"Linux" Sites That Went Astray
there are even worse things than shutdowns
Links 16/06/2025: Climate, Wildfires, Breaches, and Monopolies
Links for the day
Links 16/06/2025: Summer in Finland and Misunderstandings
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, June 15, 2025
IRC logs for Sunday, June 15, 2025
Gemini Links 15/06/2025: Rainy Season and OpenDocument Format (ODF)
Links for the day
Links 15/06/2025: Military Games, Parade, and Actions
Links for the day
Links 15/06/2025: Windows TCO, Openwashing, and Wars
Links for the day
Gemini Links 15/06/2025: "AI Fatigue and Crappiness"
Links for the day
When Abusive Law Firms (Working for Microsofters Against Us) Assert That Someone Writing in Social Media About Himself is Confidential Information
There was no reason to throw "GDPR" into 2 SLAPPs; they know it, but the goal was to increase the cost of a Defence and lessen the incentive to challenge the SLAPPs
Microsoft Attack Dogs Against Watchdogs and Guard Dogs in Software
Last year Microsofters hired attack dogs or "guns for hire"
Slop Cannot Replace Domain Expertise
All this "AI" hype (it's not even intelligence, it's all a misnomer, as many of us have insisted all along) will fizzle and be written off as a failed experiment
IBM's Fresh 'PIPs' (Action Before Layoffs)
At times like these, even once-reputable employers resort to PIPs and other procedures/tricks for denial of workers' rights
Microsoft is a Problem Not Just for Denmark
Every country should consider what Denmark is doing, why Denmark is doing it, and then do the same
The Slopfarms' Self Detonation
If more sites like BetaNews go under, then maybe we can still salvage some of the Web
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, June 14, 2025
IRC logs for Saturday, June 14, 2025
Links 14/06/2025: FDA Changes Priorities, Cassette Data Storage From The 1970s
Links for the day
Gemini Links 14/06/2025: Steam Next Fest and Thoughts on Gemini
Links for the day
Site/Datacentre Maintenance Next Week
speed things up
Bulgaria: GNU/Linux Near 10%
The Bulgarian market seems to be changing
I Never Spoke to BetaNews. But BetaNews Wants to Ensure I Never Will, Either.
Sometimes just the reluctance to talk about it can say a great deal
Throwing Money at Lawyers Can't Stop Us (It Never Did)
Even just trying to censor things can result in the opposite of the desired outcome
Online Search or Large Search Engines Aren't Working Anymore
business models that directly compete with interests of Web users
Holidays and Breaks
I've hardly taken any long breaks since I got married
Danish OpenDocument Freedom
"year of Linux"
Links 14/06/2025: Wars and L.A. Distortion Effect
Links for the day
BetaNews Has More or Less Died After Experiments With LLM Slop, Is Linuxsecurity Next?
It doesn't seem like BetaNews knows what it's doing, let alone what it talks about
Gemini Links 14/06/2025: Historic Ada Design and GeminiSpace.Club to Expire
Links for the day
Links 14/06/2025: India Plane Crash and Middle-Eastern War
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Friday, June 13, 2025
IRC logs for Friday, June 13, 2025