I think, a lot. Here's a nifty little FFT code. Hey FFT's are kind of generic, right? This one's only 40 lines of C. I'll just copy and paste this one little function. Nobody'll ever know.

Or maybe nothing so complex as an FFT. Maybe it's a little code for charting. Who knows. Developer picks it up a snippet off the net somewhere, and it appears in your code base.

Then there's "derived works". Developer uses some working code snippet as a starting point, transforms it, specializes it, does a lot of work to it, but it's still derived work. I don't think developers think of it as plagiarism. Just "freedom". ;) But developers don't always protect the best interests of the company.

Copying code is never an accident. It is always on purpose, whether done in ignorance or not.

Labeling C and V with "copy" and "paste" may have made such accidents easier...

There is no excuse to simply copy someone else's code without some kind of permission, be it a charting tool, be it a CFD library. If the code is under a BSD-ish license, it's fine to use it. If it's GPL-ish, the developer wants me to honor his conditions and, so, that's what I'll do.

Developers should care about freedom, but also for respecting the will of the developers that built their materials.

If it's BSD the developer also still wants you to follow the license and abide by it's terms. The BSD still has terms that need to be followed.

Which basically says do anything you want with it (and depending if there is a third term, you may not use my name to advertise it)

No, the terms are specific:

> Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Fail to do either of these things, and you run into the same problem you would have by not complying with the GPL.

We may be splitting hairs here. The point is that you are free to use BSD code in your closed application without incurring the risk of being asked to choose between removing the code or open-sourcing the whole thing, which is the fear of some.

I imagine they don't mind complying with BSD terms.

"Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder> All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the <organization> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. "

--

Provided you properly credit the authors of the code you use, which you should be doing anyway, how do you run into problems by using BSD'd code in GPL'd code?

> Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

Like I said, copy and paste BSD code into your GPL code, and you run into the same problem.

> Provided you properly credit the authors of the code you use, which you should be doing anyway,

Exactly. Even the BSD license has provisions which you must do or you don't have the rights.

I'm not suggesting these rights aren't onerous or difficult to comply with. Rather, you can't just lift BSD code without following the license.

>"But developers don't always protect the best interests of the company."

Then you should either hire better developers, manage them better, or get some sort of "my employees are shit" insurance (which I doubt exists).

Any reasonable charting code is far more complex than FFTs, of which there are basically only two ways to straightforwardly implement. Of course there are lots of complications you can add such as cache-awareness which change that picture, but that's probably not 40 lines of C (though 40 lines is far more than necessary for a simple FFT)

I think we're getting a bit hung up on semantics. It happens all the time if you mean "accidental" in the sense that companies don't usually say "Hey! Screw the GPL! Let's pirate GPLed software!" The Software Freedom Law Center says:

"As we have worked to bring individual companies into compliance, we have encountered numerous violations resulting from preventable problems such as inadequate attention to licensing of upstream software, misconceptions about the GPL’s terms, and poor communication between software developers and their management."

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-gui...

On the other hand, if you mean "accidental" in the sense of some programmer saying "Honestly, I didn't mean to call that GPLed code. My finger must have slipped!" ... then I hope I don't have to point out that isn't realistic.