[twtw]

I found this excerpt from their S-1 interesting:

> We use open source software in our platform that may subject our platform to general release or require us to re-engineer our platform, which may harm our business.

> We use open source software in our XM™ Platform and expect to continue to use open source software in our platform in the future. There are uncertainties regarding the proper interpretation of and compliance with open source software licenses. Moreover, we cannot assure you that our processes for controlling our use of open source software in our XM™ Platform have been or will be effective. Consequently, any of these circumstances could result in reputational harm and harm to our business and results of operations. In addition, if the license terms for the open source software we utilize change, we may be forced to re-engineer our platform or incur additional costs to comply with the changed license terms or to replace the affected open source software. Although we have implemented policies and tools to regulate the use and incorporation of open source software into our XM™ Platform, we cannot be certain that we have not incorporated open source software in our platform in a manner that is inconsistent with such policies.

Can someone more familiar with these filings comment on whether this is typical, or is this corporate speak for "we are violating the GPL and hope no one can prove it?"

[whoisjuan]

From all the S-1s I have read, this seems like a typical disclaimer. More than anything is a guidance on the use of OSS and the risk that comes from using non-propietary technology (which includes releasing software written on top of the questioned technology). The way I see it, it's more of an indication on potential future litigation (e.g: Google vs Oracle), not so much of the cost of re-writing software, although I'm sure this is included because it seems like the reasonable thing to do if you're using software with a license that is potentially harmful to your business' economic interests.

This is why companies care about OSS licenses and sudden changes in those licenses. It's not out of pettiness. Automattic dropped React just for this very reason.

[sah2ed]

> This is why companies care about OSS licenses and sudden changes in those licenses. It's not out of pettiness. Automattic dropped React just for this very reason.

I believe the blog post [0] by the Automattic CEO where he announced plans to drop React played a significant role in causing Facebook to re-evaluate [1] the React license terms, considering that at that time, WordPress powered more than 25% of all websites.

[0]: https://ma.tt/2017/09/on-react-and-wordpress/

[1]: https://code.fb.com/web/relicensing-react-jest-flow-and-immu...

[sbr464]

Sorry, but your info is a bit out of date. The latest Wordpress Gutenberg uses React.

[snorremd]

I even suspect Automattic's initial choice to not use React because of the open source license + patents clause was a direct catalyst for Facebook to change the React license, thereby allowing Automattic to use React. Wordpress drives a substantial percentage of the world's websites, so it was probably in Facebook's interest that React was used in project Gutenberg.

[Maxious]

FWIW Pivotal's S-1 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1574135/000104746918...

> Our use of open-source software could subject us to possible litigation or cause us to subject our platform to unwanted open-source license conditions that could negatively impact our sales.

> A significant portion of our platform incorporates open-source software, and we will incorporate open-source software into other offerings or products in the future. Such open-source software is generally licensed by its authors or other third parties under open-source licenses. There is little legal precedent governing the interpretation of certain terms of these licenses, and therefore the potential impact of these terms on our business is unknown and may result in unanticipated obligations regarding our products and technologies. If an author or other third party that distributes such open-source software were to allege that we had not complied with the conditions of one or more of these licenses, we could be required to incur significant legal expenses defending against such allegations. In addition, if we combine our proprietary software with open-source software in a certain manner, under some open-source licenses, we could be required to release the source code of our proprietary software, which could substantially help our competitors develop products that are similar to or better than ours.

> Our products are based in large part on open source provided under the Apache License 2.0. This license states that any work of authorship licensed under it, and any derivative work thereof, may be reproduced and distributed provided that certain conditions are met. It is possible that a court would hold this license to be unenforceable or that someone could assert a claim for proprietary rights in a program developed and distributed under it. Any ruling by a court that this license is not enforceable, or that open-source components of our products may not be reproduced or distributed, may negatively impact our distribution or development of all or a portion of our products. In addition, at some time in the future it is possible that the open-source cores of our products may be distributed under a different license or the Apache License 2.0 may be modified, which could, among other consequences, negatively impact our continuing development or distribution of the software code subject to the new or modified license.

[sbr464]

It seems to be boilerplate now, included in the __template__s1.docx legal Dropbox, judging from the same appearing in recent years.