Open Source Viva Questions

1. What are Gnome and KDE, and are they compatible

Gnome and KDE are two large desktop environments. Both sit on top of the X server on
Linux and work with a window manager and framework services. The framework service
provides everthing from color and font preferences to communication !etween other
application services running on that desktop. "lthough Gnome applications can run in
KDE with the installation of the kde core li!raries and vice#versa. The two are
compati!le on an X level primaril. Gnome uses GTK$ for its G%& presentation while
KDE uses 't. &ronicall (ovell owns !oth technologies et has not pu!lished a roadmap
or an clue if full interopera!ilit is on the cards.
!. What open source mechanisms e"ist to #et so$t%are updates
)everal mechanisms exist toda. *or deliver of rpm !ased packages ou can use um or
red carpet. *or de!ian packages apt#get+ for gentoo+ ermerge and for *ire fox there is an
xpi installer. )ome users will onl use source in which a cvs update is all that is re,uired.
&. What are svn, bit 'eeper and cvs. ($ you have used any o$ these tools %hat
enhancements %ould you li'e to see i$ any
svn+ !itkeeper and cvs are commonl used revision control sstems in the open source
communit. *or all the advantages that these tools !ring+ like networked !ased code
commits and ease of editing there are a num!er of features that the professional
complementar tools provide. -ne such feature is a change set+ the a!ilit to edit a group
of files in our own working cop and manage that list of changes locall. .erges and
conflicts also var !etween tools and how revisions to a file are tracked can also have an
impact on tracking deltas in source code. &f ou are happ with the tools as is then that is
a good answer too.
). What is the latest version o$ the *inu" 'ernel, and %hat are the main
improvements +&.
The latest sta!le version of the linux kernel is /.0. .ost of the main distri!utions support
this version+ the odd#num!er !ased kernel releases used to represent a kernel in
development mode. The latest update version of the kernel is now at revision /.0.12.
"lthough developers would !e normall looking for a /.2 kernel to appear for
development work the /.0 kernel is still where most of the new development is !eing
carried out.
,. -ou.ve deployed your open source application, and it stopped %or'in#. What
tools can you use to debu# open source so$t%are
.ost of the popular open source pro3ects use a logging infrastructure to log to a
application log file or to the sstem log files. *irst look for an unusual messages there
!efore !umping the log level up if ou can. %se platform specific tools if possi!le+ like
the de!ug interfaces in net !eans and eclipse can generate ver ver!ose 4ava stack traces
allowing ou to pinpoint a line of code. &f not ou ma have to resort to the gnu
command line de!ugger gd!. &f the application has alread crashed+ or ou have run the
command gcore on a running process ou will !e a!le to point gd! at that core file. gd!
will !e a!le to show ou the stack trace of the last running thread and often the crash will
!e the result of accessing an invalid memor address like 5 6or null7. *or kernel level
issues there is a kernel de!ug tool called kd! although unless ou are working on the
kernel most companies wouldn8t necessaril expect that level of experience.
/. What open source components have you used
"lthough this should !e an eas ,uestion+ don8t get caught tring to guess a version of
Linux or "pache. The current corporate versions of Linux used are 9edhat Enterprise
Linux :.5 and )%)E Linux Enterprise )erver 15. Knowledge of the personal editions of
those distri!utions+ like )%)E 615.17 or *edora ;ore < or earlier should !e more than
sufficient. The enterprise editions primaril have kernels tuned for large scale sstems
and additional services such as clustering deploment and networking !ooting. &f ou
used 9edhat Enterprise edition don8t forget the onl shipped 9=") /.1+ 6!efore the
enterprise name was used7 9=EL > and now :. *or the other popular open source
components+ the latest sta!le version of "pache is /.5.<?. 4Boss is at :.5.: and .)'L is
at <.5./:. .an corporate emploees will pro!a!l !e at least one version !ehind the
latest developer release so descri!ing how the latest version works or doesn8t work with
earlier versions ma earn ou extra credits.
0. -ou.ve been as'ed to shortlist t%o open source components $or your companies
application. 1o% can you tell the di$$erence bet%een a stable relatively bu# $ree
pro2ect and a ne% ris'y alternative
"part from o!viousl downloading each and tring them out and seeing how long each
takes to configure there are other clues a!out how active and sta!le each pro3ect is. )ome
examples would !e to look at the pro3ect status on sourceforge.net or the home site for
the pro3ect. ;heck the forum and !ug postings if the have them+ are !ugs !eing fixed+
forum ,uestions !eing answered@ (ext look for the rate of change+ ou ma not !e a!le
to keep up with a pro3ect with a rapid rate of change and need to de!ug wh our
application stopped working when ou got the latest snapshot. *inall+ do the release
milestone or snapshot !inaries+ if not consider the pro3ect under constant or stopped
development.
3. What %eb service based technolo#ies are available $or open source developers
The original we! service technolog+ X.L over 9A; is used ! man open source
applicationsB most we! service support comes in the form of language specific !inding
tools such as )-"A for A=A+ 4"X#9A; or "xis for 4ava+ )-"Ap for Athon. =owever
several services do expose the 9E)T service method which uses regular get and post http
calls and is often easier and ,uicker to use.
4. What are the ris's and trade5o$$s bet%een usin# static versus dynamic libraries
%ith open source so$t%are
Dnamic and static li!raries are primaril used for ; and ;$$ !ased applications and
designed to provide different levels of compile and runtime !inding. Building with a
static li!rar means that our application included all the relevant code from the open
source pro3ect ou were using. This should mean that our application should run fine
our of the !ox+ however the downside is that ou ma forever !e linked to a !ug in the
li!rar code ou used so that if a fix is needed in that li!rar ou need to re!uild our
application too. )tatic linking is also treated differentl that dnamic linking ! some
licenses. The upside to dnamic linking is that ! separating the application to call the
li!rar code at runtime our own application is going to !e smaller+ ou will also !enefit
from !ug fixes made in that li!rar. The downside is that the application !inar interface
6"B&7 ma change which means in rare cases ou will have to release a new version of
our product anwa.
16. -ou.ve been as'ed to bundle 7ySQ* in your companies ne% product. 8he
license o$ the $inal product has yet to be decided but you read some%here that
7ySQ* is G9*. What %ould you do ne"t
&f this is for a commercial vendor and ou don8t know our companies licensing model
ou should defer this ,uestion to our internal legal representative or e,uivalent. There
are man conditions appling to software like .)'L that is dual licensed and what is
allowa!le on our own open source pro3ect ma re,uire a different license for our own
compan.
11. What is :ree and Open Source So$t%are
Generall+ the name descri!es software that is licensed with fewer restrictions than
proprietar licensing models+ such as Cper copC+ Cper useC o!3ect code onl licenses. The
term Cfree softwareC often refers to software that is licensed under the General Au!lic
License 6Cthe GALC7. C*reeC does not refer to cost+ as the GAL does not preclude charging
for distri!ution of licensed software+ !ut rather it refers to the lack of constraints on using
the software. =owever+ to prevent intermediates from imposing their own constraints+ the
GAL includes provisions precluding the addition of constraints.
The term Copen sourceC often refers to free software as well as software licensed under
other licenses generall considered to !e open source licenses. -pen source licenses
might include provisions regarding limits on constraints+ attri!ution re,uirements+ no#
warrant notices and other important provisions. -pen source software often has fewer
constraints on intermediate parties+ !ut possi!l more constraints on downstream parties
6!ecause an intermediate part might !e free to add constraints to the software as the
distri!ute it7.
The ,uestion of whether or not a particular license is to !e considered an open source
license has !een widel de!ated. The -pen )ource &nitiative formulated a set of tests that
the propose as a definition of an open source license7.
1!. *inu" is perhaps the most %idely 'no%n e"ample o$ open source so$t%are. What
are some others that people may not be a%are o$
The "pple .acintoshDs underling operating sstem is open source software. -ther
examples include the "pache Ee! )erver programs used ! man of the we! servers
running toda. The G(% operating sstem+ including its man programming tools+
development environments and programs+ is also free software.
1&. 8ypically, open source so$t%are user does not si#n a license a#reement and the
so$t%are does not have implied consent via shrin'%rap or clic'%rap notices, so ho%
can an open source so$t%are user be sub2ect to the license
)oftware is coprighta!le+ so most uses+ coping+ modification and distri!ution of
coprighted software re,uires some license from the copright holder+ otherwise the
userFcopierFetc. would !e a copright infringer+ unless a defense such as Cfair useC
applies. " license agreement might grant a license in exchange for licensee consideration+
in which case assent of the licensee would !e re,uired to form a !inding agreement.
=owever+ if a license does not impose an new o!ligations !ut simpl releases
o!ligations imposed ! copright law+ a putative licensee would have no reason to re3ect
the license.
1). What are the main le#al issues that can arise %ith $ree and open source so$t%are
licensin#
The first issue is who the copright holder is and the second issue is what license & might
have to use+ cop+ modif or distri!ute the software. Then+ the next issue might !e what is
allowed under the licenses & might have. Ehere the copright holder is known and
amena!le to additional non#exclusive licenses under different terms+ such licenses might
!e negotiated. *or example+ where a compan wants to incorporate particular software
into their product and distri!ute that product on a proprietar !asis 6e.g.+ per#cop
licensing+ a prohi!ition on reverse engineering+ etc.7+ the compan might sign a license
agreement with the copright holder that grants the compan more rights to !e
proprietar than under the availa!le open source license.
Ehen a compan decides to release its own software under an open source license+ there
are issues of which license to use+ and whether to create a new license.
Large companies also need to have some process for tracking and evaluating open source
licenses that might appl to software their emploees are using. )ince much open source
software can !e o!tained at no cost+ tracking software licenses in a purchasing
department will miss most open source software.
1,. ;an you #ive some e"amples o$ actual issues you<ve %or'ed on that deal %ith
$ree and open source so$t%are
EeDve advised a num!er of clients on the scope of various open source licenses when
the looked to see whether the would have a license to do what the contemplated doing
with this software. " common license is the GAL+ and weDve reviewed what the client is
doing in comparison with whatDs allowed under the GAL+ and then advised them how to
compl with the license+ and whatDs availa!le to them under the license.
-ther advice weDve given related to negotiating proprietar licenses from open source
authors to o!tain a license that is different from the standard license.
1/. When closed source and open source so$t%are are combined, is the resultin#
combination deemed open source or closed source
Ehen talking a!out licensing free and open source software+ thereDs a paradigm shift
re,uired. &tDs not a matter of la!eling the code open or closed. Ee need to go !ack to
copright principles. &f & take someone elseDs program and modif it such that itDs a
derivative work+ then in order to distri!ute or make copies of that derivative work+ & still
need permission.
&f clients want to keep their added code separate+ such that the can have a proprietar
license+ than the need to ensure the are not creating a derivative work of the open
source software unless the have a license that allows proprietar redistri!ution.
Essentiall+ we would advise a client not to make modifications to a copright holderDs
software unless the client is a!le to compl with the copright holderDs license
re,uirements. Ee often advise clients on what activities count as a derivative works.
10. (s open source so$t%are in the public domain
(o. Au!lic domain works are works in which no!od can assert copright rights. Eith
open source software+ the authors+ emploers or assignees retain the copright and have
the right to sue for copright infringement+ 3ust as with software licensed under
proprietar licenses.
13. 7any companies %ith lar#e investments in so$t%are development are enterin#
the arena o$ $ree and open source so$t%are. 1o% has this arrival o$ lar#e corporate
interests a$$ected the development o$ open source so$t%are
&t gets taken more seriousl !ecause the stakes are larger. Ehen ou talk a!out larger
development+ more care needs to !e put into making sure that the issues are resolved
ahead of time.
14. Do you $oresee an increase in liti#ation as open source becomes ever more
prevalent
.ore copright litigation can definitel !e expected .
!6. What are some o$ the =bi# cases= that have de$ined and are de$inin# boundaries
in the $ree so$t%are and open source so$t%are areas
The );- v. &B. lawsuit is a monumental case+ so it gets considera!le coverage+ !ut that
case is onl tangentiall related to free and open source software licensing issues.
-ne case where actual terms of the GAL were at issue is the .)'L v. Arogress
)oftware case+ in which m)'L released software under the GAL. Arogress )oftware
allegedl distri!uted the plaintiffDs software without source code and while redistri!ution
is permitted under the GAL+ the source code must !e provided as well. %ltimatel+ the
parties settled. %nfortunatel+ thereDs not a lot of case law in this area !ecause so man of
these commercial issues get worked out prior to trial.
!1. What are the issues $or companies that use open source so$t%are
;ompanies need to identif what open source software the are using and whether the
are in compliance with all the licenses. &f a large compan !us open source software to
run their desktops in#house+ and the do not sell that product+ there is pro!a!l not a
danger of violating the license. -ften+ however+ companies are at risk if the incorporate
open source software tools into a product the end up selling. ;ompanies will need some
mechanisms and procedures in place to keep track of what free and open source software
is !eing used. To keep a!reast of compliance issues+ in#house counsel should look to the
companDs program managers and engineers and ask what the included in an given
software product.