They need to be careful where they get code that they believe to be open source and be sure the code doesn't have licensing provisions that could cost their employers money in the future

Guess what Mitch and Mark? That's true for ALL software development - both open source and proprietary.

Actually it's not true for software developed from scratch.

were concerns, requiring the developers to involve ADP's legal department in the development process

Gee, did you ever involve the legal department when you were working with proprietary stuff in the development process? Or maybe their involvement was limited, kind of like at Microsoft where they consistently violate others' IP.

I interpretted the cited remark as pertaining to copyright and copyright licencing, rather than patents.  Of course this is an issue for proprietary software too, but businesses pretty well understand what they can (and, more to the point cannot) do with with proprietary software.

ADP developers avoid code that is licensed using the General Public License, which governs the terms and conditions for modifying and distributing Linux and other open-source projects. The reason: The license requires developers who modify GPL code to make the modified code public, effectively giving up their intellectual property.

No.No.No. Only if you distribute that code.

I agree that this is an irritatingly persistant error, regardless of whether the writer is misinformed himself, or just expressing his point inaccurately.

But wait a minute Rankin - aren't you the same person who earlier in the article was noted as making this statement at a conference recently:

Developers also need to give back to the open-source community by donating code so that other organizations can use it, he said.

Actually there's no contradiction between those two quotes.  Firstly the second statement can reasonably be interpretted as a statement of the licencing conditions of much FOSS (subject to the earlier correction, of course), rather than as expressing the author's view about what ought to happen.  But even the latter interprettation would allow companies benefitting from FOSS to contributing some code back, while keeping other code proprietory.  Stallman wouldn't approve, of course, but most of us consider the IBMs and Novells of this world to be good guys

I can only guess that you want everyone else to give their code back to the community, where you can then pluck it and use it for your own purposes? But then, once it is inside your organization, it becomes the "most holy" IP that you can't afford to give up?

Well you are, of course perfectly entitled to "not give up" the source when distributing non-copylefted FOSS, of which there is plenty.  It isn't bad-mouthing the GPL to say "it doesn't suit me."

It seems that I interpret this article in a rather different way from you.  It isn't saying "proprietary software is better because FOSS has these problems".  It is saying "FOSS isn't a free ride".  And it's correct.  FOSS isn't a free ride.  FOSS comes with its own set of management issues.  They may be less odious than with proprietary software, but they're also less well understood by business, which is why they need to be explained.

As for Wagner, probably the most relevant writing I found of his was about the whole MOG - PJ Hunt deal. Apparently, his only problem with MOG is that she didn't uncover anything really good.

Are we reading the same article?  It seems to me that he just described her as

• bad manner[ed]
  
• sadistic
  
• incompete[nt]
  
• sleazy
  
• mean spirited
  
• unfit for polite company
  
• [a] con-m[a]n
  
• [a] bull[y]
  
• [a] fail[ure as a journalist]