|
|
| Groklaw's Believe It Or Not |
 |
|
Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 08:42 PM EDT
|
Somebody submit this to Ripley's Believe it or Not right away: Forbes has come out with an article attacking intellectual property rights!
Mr. Daniel Lyons of Forbes Magazine notoriety, has attacked the Free Software Foundation for enforcing its copyrights and the GPL license.
Why it's positively unAmerican!
Yup. It's true, Mr. Lyons. If you choose to use GPL code in your business, you must do so in accord with the license terms. If you don't like the terms, you should not use the code. Nobody will force you to use our code. You are free to write your own software instead.
If you steal the code, because it's free and so handy, and/or violate the license terms in other ways, the copyright owners will contact you and try to work things out, giving you the choice of either ceasing to use the code and replacing it with code you develop yourself, or releasing your code under the same terms as the code you stole. It's your choice. But let's be clear: if you steal someone else's copyrighted code, you are guilty of copyright infringement.
Should you fail to comply, you will be sued for copyright violation. The reason for this is that copyright law is the law of the land and you must respect it. The GPL is based on copyright law, and we should all respect the law and the rights of others, I'm sure you would agree. Even corporations must comply with the law, or there are consequences. Pleading that you can make tons more money by stealing other peoples' hard work isn't a legal defense, even if it makes moral good sense to Forbes writers.
"But...sputter...but...they won't just take my money instead and let me keep using the code I stole and let me continue violating the license if I grease their palm with silver?
Correct. They will not.
You see, that isn't how copyright infringement is solved. The infringement itself must cease.
Go figure.
And to your amazement and evident dismay, the GPL does work. Courts will uphold it and companies will have to comply with it one way or another, if they choose to use GPL code rather than spending the money and the time to develop their own code. The way to avoid the terms of the GPL is not to steal it and hide it; it's to write your own code. We realize that no company, not even Microsoft, can afford to hire the numbers of programmers who write GPL code today, so their code won't be as good as GPL code and it's not free either. It's a trade off and each company will have to make its own decision.
Companies that violate the GPL do get caught and have to pay for their misdeeds. You may feel outrage that corporations aren't the only entities that have enforceable copyrights, but that is the way it is. You will have to get used to it.
It's the American way.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 09:03 PM EDT |
| I knew there was a reason I didn't read that magazine. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bobh on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 09:12 PM EDT |
| Do they have editors over there? At one time, Forbes was a reasonably
well-written magazine. How does a piece that slings mud at someone enforcing
their own copyrights get past an editor at a business magazine?
If we ripped
off one of their articles (not that one, please) and posted it over here,
claiming that we had the right to distribute it as we please, their lawyers
would be on us like ugly on an ape.
Methinks their reporter, like poor Megan
McArdle, is a victim of a too-friendly lunch with a Waggener-Edstrom flak. This
guy got sold the whole Microsoft bill of goods; he came out of there thinking
that people who enforce copyrights are communists. You wonder what was between
his ears in the first place that he could be that gullible. And as an author who
gets paid for what he writes, you'd think he would understand that copyrights
are his friend.
Yes, the author is an idiot. But how did this get past the
first editor who saw it? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 09:24 PM EDT |
There was an extended thread on LWN on this article today, and several polite,
reasoned, well thought-out replies. I suggest reading some of them before
formulating your own. It looks to me as if Lyons may be deliberately setting
himself up as flame-bait hoping we'll be foolish enough to oblige. Lets not,
OK?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PS 2 PJ: - Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 09:36 PM EDT
- PS 2 PJ: - Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 09:40 PM EDT
- PS 2 PJ: - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:10 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Nick on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 09:26 PM EDT |
An object lesson for us all: When you get boiling mad over a piece of
FUD, wait until you calm down, and then write the response. The result
is well-written, controlled, and clever. And so much more effective than
a sputtering, how-could-you type of response that gets ignored.
Now Forbes and its supporters have no choice but to either defend the
article and thus trash a foundation of capitalism (copyright), or side with
capitalism and thereby reject the Forbes article. Heh heh.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Nicely worded - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 03:10 AM EDT
- Too late - Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 07:41 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: truenorth on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 09:41 PM EDT |
Has the GPL or any other open source license even been tested in open court?
My sense is that social pressure and moral suassion has as much to do with
enforcing the GPL as does an overt legal confrontation.
This is not to imply that the Forbes article made any sense - I'm just curious
about some of the comments on it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- GPL is NOT the American way ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:00 PM EDT
- GPL is NOT the American way ! - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:06 PM EDT
- GPL is NOT the American way ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 11:35 PM EDT
- America - Authored by: pyrite on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 06:56 AM EDT
- America - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 08:09 AM EDT
- America - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 09:25 AM EDT
- America - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 10:06 AM EDT
- America - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 10:19 AM EDT
- America - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 01:09 PM EDT
- No taxation without representation - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 10:20 AM EDT
- OT: America - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 01:16 PM EDT
- America, Wealth, Greed and Science - Authored by: Clay on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- Groklaw's Believe It Or Not - Authored by: raindog on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:00 PM EDT
- Groklaw's Believe It Or Not - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:02 PM EDT
- Groklaw's Believe It Or Not - Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:05 PM EDT
- Groklaw's Believe It Or Not - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:12 PM EDT
- Groklaw's Believe It Or Not - Authored by: mitphd on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:38 PM EDT
- Groklaw's Believe It Or Not - Authored by: amcguinn on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 01:25 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: mflaster on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:01 PM EDT |
If you steal the code, because it's free and so handy, and/or
violate the license terms in other ways, the copyright owners will contact you
and try to work things out, giving you the choice of either ceasing to use the
code and replacing it with code you develop yourself, or releasing your code
under the same terms as the code you stole. It's your
choice.
You forgot to mention that the FSF first
specifically tells you which code is infringing... :-)
Mike
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
A while ago, SCO was actively sending out a barrage of press releases attacking
the open source community. Eventually, this all back-fired on them and SCO
suddenly went quiet – except for a few mumblings. Even Microsoft's antics got
heavily criticized by the press, the last couple of weeks.
Now - all of a sudden, starting with this past weekend, there is a barrage of
anti-open source rhetoric all over the press. This time, all the rhetoric has
the appearance of being opined by journalist affiliated with major, supposedly
reputable, publications. Some of it not coming from the usual wanks.
Then it dawned on me. This is actually SCO/Canopy and Microsoft's new strategy.
Because much of the press and public is seeing through SCO and Microsoft's FUD,
they now are of the opinion that public opinion can be swayed more easily if
they can generate the impression that it is not them pulling the strings. That
is, make it appear as though some “reputable” entity coincidentally shares their
view. And thus we have the recent FUD campaign.
Unfortunately for SCO and Microsoft, all this FUD has their signature of erratic
and maligned double-speak written all over it. It so parallels the opinions of
SCO/Canopy and Microsoft that you could blot out the names of the sucker
journalists and never skip a FUD beat.
Journalist generally do not attack people unless they have something to gain
from doing so (i.e. money or favors). So let's not kid ourselves. These
recent attacks has SCO/Canopy and Microsoft written all over them; and so the
FUD rolls on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:08 PM EDT |
Attention PJ!
Two issues
A. SCO change text of Linux distribution statement
B. You **may** still be able to buy SCO Linux
A. SCO change text of Linux distribution statement
===================================================
SCO, at some point, don't know when, changed the text of the reason for
distributing Linux. See
http://www.sco.com/support/download.html
==START QUOTE==
NOTICE: SCO has suspended new sales and distribution of SCO Linux until the
intellectual property issues surrounding Linux are resolved. SCO will, however,
continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers
consistent with existing contractual obligations. SCO offers at no extra charge
to its existing Linux customers a SCO UNIX IP license for their use of prior SCO
or Caldera distributions of Linux in binary format. The license also covers
binary use of support updates distributed to them by SCO. This SCO license
balances SCO's need to enforce its intellectual property rights against the
practical needs of existing customers in the marketplace.
The Linux rpms available on SCO's ftp site are offered for download to existing
customers of SCO Linux, Caldera OpenLinux or SCO UnixWare with LKP, in order to
honor SCO's support obligations to such customers.
==END QUOTE==
I checked through the FTP site which is linked including direct links to the
directory above the various Linux subdirectories). I was not asked for a
password etc. I was not told at the start of the FTP site that I must be a SCO
customer (as it did for a while). I was NOT told at the start of the FTP site
that I should not be in Cuba, Iran, etc., (as it did for a shorter while).
The text merely says (note it says UNIX stuff)
==BEGIN QUOTE==
Welcome to SCO's FTP site!
This site hosts UNIX software patches, device drivers and supplements
from SCO.
To access Skunkware and Supplemental Open Source Packages, please
connect to ftp2.caldera.com
==END QUOTE==
I did find a file in a directory above Linux called something like legal notice,
which appears to be the same as the italicized/quoted 2 paragraphs from the web
page. I did NOT check what elements of Linux they are distributing.
B. You **may** still be able to buy SCO Linux
=============================================
Two links posted in previous discussion about whether you can buy SCO Linux as
of today.
I have not tried them all the way through to completion (so don't know if you
can actually buy), but somebody could if they want to.
NOTE: There is a $0.99 eLinux option - see below)
** IMPORTANT NOTE: The 2nd of the links in previous discussion, was found
directly from advice on SCO's web site. This is explained below:-
1. Go to www.sco.com
2. Click How To Buy
3. Click the link "To purchase a SCO product from a solution provider in
your area, click HERE." which is about an inch and half from bottom of the
page
4. You get to a form, "Find a Solutions Provider". Leave everything
unchanged (it says ALL or is blank in every field). Except change Supported
Platforms to "SCO Linux 4". Then click Search.
5. Among the results - PC Mall
(i) http://www.pcmall.com/
Search for SCO and you'll find SCO Linux 4
http://www.pcmall.com/pcmall/search/search.asp?search=SCO&CurDSN=simple&
calledfrom=1&incimage=on (includes SCO Linux 4)
Search for Caldera and you'll find 3 Linux operating system products
http://www.pcmall.com/pcmall/search/search.asp?search=caldera&submit1=Go%21&
amp;CurDSN=simple&calledfrom=1&incimage=on
==START QUOTE==
Caldera
SCO LINUX SVR V4 PWRD-UNITEDLINUX CLASS
SCO LINUX SVR V4 PWRD-UNITEDLINUX CLASS
PC Mall Part #104348
Mfg. Part #SB660-LX09-4.0 Linux $454.99
Caldera
Caldera OpenLinux with Support
Caldera OpenLinux with Support - A secure, easy-to-use Linux internet server is
here.
PC Mall Part #798617
Mfg. Part #1SRV01E0310SG Linux $679.99
eLinux
eLinux OpenServe - Caldera Install, No CD's and no manuals
eLinux OpenServe - Caldera Install, No CD's and no manuals
PC Mall Part #960334
Mfg. Part #OPENSERVE-CALDERA Linux $0.99
== END QUOTE==
The product pages are
http://www.pcmall.com/pcmall/shop/detail.asp?dpno=104348
http://www.pcmall.com/pcmall/shop/detail.asp?dpno=798617
http://www.pcmall.com/pcmall/shop/detail.asp?dpno=960334
They all say you should call if you want to know if it's in stock or when it
will ship. I didn't. If you want to, the number is 1-800-555-MALL
Alternatively may be somebody wants to try the eLinux OpenServe options as it's
only 99 cents?
6. There may or may not be others. I haven't checked. Somebody less lazy than
me is welcome to.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:26 PM EDT |
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/33993.htm
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:30 PM EDT |
Daniel Lyons must be one of those who think OSS does not believe in IP, which is
probably why he is outraged that we don't passively rollover when his favorite
corporations steal our code. He even states darkly that what we do discourages
the spread of Linux. However, it was never our intention to spread Linux in
particular and GPL code in general to those who have no respect for the GPL. We
can do very well without these characters and we will, thank you.
I would surmise that independent developers let alone corporations such as IBM
and SGI that have faithfully contributed GPL'ed code to OSS fully expect FSF to
defend the GPL, and would be rightfully alienated from OSS if FSF didn't.
I believe that Daniel Lyons is an idiot and I will tell him so to his face
should I meet him. Should he be so upset at my words that he jumps into the
Hudson, the world will be a better place for his action. In general, I see no
need to cater to the fragile egos of idiots.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dave on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 11:20 PM EDT |
PJ,
Nice response! I especially enjoy the way you harped on the American-ness of
defending the GPL. I'm sure Comrade Lyons will appreciate it, too.
My only comment is that you should be careful to point out the difference
between using software and creating and distributing a derivative work.
Ultimately, I think that confusing the two is the purpose of much of this
anti-GPL FUD. Microsoft, SCO and friends aren't really trying to scare off
companies like Linksys that are creating derivative works, since those companies
are the ones who are most like to understand the GPL.
The point is to scare others into believing that using, as an end user, GPL'ed
code can put their business at risk. This is absolutely false, and so I believe
it's important to point out that the GPL explicitly grants them the right to
*use* the software, with no strings attached. There are no licenses that
generous in the propietary world.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ljdursi on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 11:24 PM EDT |
Here was my response to Forbes. I don't know if it was really appropriate to
the format, but I wrote it an a letters-to-the-editor style.
In
a recent article (``Linux's Hit Men'', Oct 14), Daniel Lyons discusses
Linksys's
violation of the license under which Linux is distributed.
Linksys produced a
router that sold 400,000 units using a modified version
of Linux. The ability
to use an existing, well-tested, software base
rather than having to create
everything from scratch, was a competitive
advantage for Linksys, who could get
a product to market faster and
less expensively.
Like most software, the
code they used was copyrighted. Linux is
distributed under a license that
permits modification and re-use, so
long as the modifications are also
distributed. Linksys knew this,
and made a buisness decision that the benifits
of using and licensing
that code outweighed the costs. In the event, however,
they chose to
distribute their product without honoring the license under which
they
used the software, and this has caused some legal attention. Of
course,
this would have been the case whether the software in question was
Linux,
or code licensed from a software company such as Microsoft.
Mr. Lyons
seems to suggest that open-source software is more problematic
in this respect,
but this is clearly false; the GPL is much clearer and
less litigation prone
than most commercial licenses.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stevem on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 12:29 AM EDT |
| http://www.divisiontwo.c
om/articles/barbieOS.htm
I can just see the headlines:
Barbie
Declared a Commie by Forbes
SCO sues Barbie, "Barbie is Unix
Derived"
Ballmer says Barbie is Viral
'Tis a silly
world.
:-)
- stevem
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 12:42 AM EDT |
My reply went something like this:
Dear Mr. Lyons,
Stripped of your prejudices, your article should read as follows:
A couple years ago, the management at Broadcom made a really bad business
decision, reasoning that the copyrights of GPLed software could be easily and
safely violated. Sources say that Broadcom's management believed that open
source software was easy to exploit because of Broadcom's belief that the code
had been written by communist hippies who would be unable to tell whether their
code had been stolen. Broadcom's internal memos show that company executives
reasoned that even if the "loser's who write free software learn that we
have violated their pinko commie license, they'll be too busy smoking pot and
reading 'Das Capital' to do anything about it."
As a result of this attitude, the supposedly competent management of this
multi-million company failed to do their due diligence and never showed the GPL
to a company IP lawyer for vetting. When Cisco bought Broadcom, the Cisco board
was so clueless about open source (despite the fact that it's been a major
issue in computing press for the last five years) to ask about the license
issues involving Broadcom's premier product and make sure that the conditions
of the license had been properly met. "Besides," they reasoned,
"that hairy guy put his stuff in the public domain, so what's he going to
do? Sue us?"
In fact, the "hairy guy," otherwise known as free software guru
Richard Stallman, is currently threatening to sue Cisco. If the clueless execs
at Broadcom had ever actually READ the GPL, they would have understood that the
license does not in any way put GPLed software into the public domain. Instead,
the license demands that the source code for any GPLed software be made easily
available to third parties, who are also allowed to use and distribute the code.
Ownership of the code still lies with its author, and that author has the same
rights that are granted to any copyright owner, including the right to attach
conditions to the use of the copyrighted material. So unless Cisco/Broadcom
either makes the source code to their applications available or removes the
offending code, they'll probably end up in court.
What the executives of Broadcom and Cisco seemed not to realize, (probably
because they have been reading magazines which rant mindlessly about the GPL
rather than informing their readers) is that the GPL (and other open source
licenses) were written academics, lawyers, and businessmen who are sober and
well-educated. Like any license from a major computer vendor, these licenses are
based on ordinary copyright law and they are just as enforceable as any other
license.
A company which wishes to use GPLed software should assume that the license is
valid and they should handle the GPL like they handle any other licensing issue.
This means that the license should be shown to a lawyer and that appropriate
policies for the use and distribution of GPLed software should be created.
In fact, Cisco and Broadcom should be counting their lucky stars right now.
They're fairly lucky in that they have only violated the GPL license and not a
proprietary license from SCO, MS, or IBM. Unlike their corporate cousins, who
are usually out for blood, the lawyers who handle the GPL's license are usually
willing to settle for a nominal fee.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- This is silly. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 05:04 AM EDT
- Nominal fee? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 11:30 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: mec on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 12:45 AM EDT |
Wow.
Speaking as a follower of Ayn Rand and a professional capitalist, I gotta say
that PJ is writing straight from the center of my beliefs here. What a great
reply.
Would Howard Roark write free software?
Some PR notes (as if I know anything about PR, so just laugh at the parts you
don't agree with):
PR is always intended for the people who don't know enough about the issue yet.
So it helps to start at the beginning and cover all the really simple, obvious
stuff:
(1) The Free Software Foundation owns the copyrights to the code in question.
They either wrote the code directly, or they received valid, written copyright
assignments directly from the authors.
(2) The FSF has just as much right to choose its license terms as any other
copyright holder, and just as much right to legally enforce those license terms
as any other copyright holder. In return, customers are just as free to accept
or reject FSF products as they are free to accept or reject any other software
products.
(3) Just so there is no confusion, the FSF has had a policy since its inception
20 years ago that it accepts contributions of code *only* after the contributor
has executed a copyright assignment. If the contributor works for an employer,
then the FSF also requires a copyright disclaimer or copyright assignment from
the contributor's employer.
(4) As far as I know, nobody, not even SCO, has ever accused the FSF of
incorporating other people's work without permission.
(5) Some organizations have violated the FSF's license terms in the past. The
FSF prefers to work quietly with the offender to resolve these violations.
I wish I could say that the FSF provides specific notice of the offending lines
when someone violates the GPL, but I don't have actual knowledge of that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 01:31 AM EDT |
Old SCO, and possibly Caldera, appear to have played a part in creating the UDI
spec, possibly a major part. For example the Project UDI site is "hosted
by Caldera" and there are press releases relating to this project.
The UDI reference implementation and spec are BSD licensed.
The intent appears (in fact was explicitly stated) as being to allow drivers to
be developed once and then used with multiple operating systems. Closed source
UNIX operating systems (e.g. UnixWare OpenServer, etc) and Linux are both
explicitly named.
However, particular drivers are licensed under a particular license.
UDI drivers developed on Linux, can not be taken back to a closed source
environment unless dual licensed by the copyright holder, as these particular
drivers will be GPLed. At least that is or was the view point of Alan Cox as
stated in a public post to the Linux Kernel Mailing List.
Thus you can see a potential pain here for SCO/Caldera.
They help develop the UDI spec, with the intent of people creating drivers for
multiple operating systems, but then they can't use the UDI drivers for the
bulk of their operating system sales.
Additionally if you accept what appears SCO's theory of derivative works, is it
at all possible that they might feel entitled to help themselves to native Linux
GPLed UDI drivers????
What is interesting:
- The announcements of UnixWare 7.1.3 and Open Server 5.0.7 was in August 2002
- UnixWare 7.1.3 appears to have appeared approx October 2002. With many new
features - including a whole lot of USB support - all supported thru UDI
- OpenServer 5.0.7 appears to have appeared approx Dec 2003. With many new
features - including a whole lot of USB support - all support thru UDI.
Additionally in the case of OpenServer, they **threw away** their older non-UDI
implementation of USB.
Detailed links and time line to follow shortly.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 01:35 AM EDT |
| Here's the today-posted, amended S-3 form from SCOX (via SCOX message board, via
stdsoft0).
Amended S3 Form
If I
read this right, SCOX have just, or are in the process, of selling a huge chunk
of their shares on the open market. The likes of Vultus and Angel Partners are
selling their entire contingent of their ownershop of SCOX.
stdsoft0 points
out some interesting parts of the SCOX S-3, too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 06:34 AM EDT |
Here is copy of my response to the author via the forbes
website. Done after i'd calmed a bit. But somehow i doubt
he'll read it.
------------------snipity-----------------
Subject:Wrong end of the stick.
It seems to me that the FSF is doing exactly what its supposed to do. i.e. stand
up for those of us who release their works under thier liscence.
Let me put this in the of context a journalist and writer. If you created a
book, say in microsoft word. And then made that file freely available, but still
under your copyright. This is with the previso that others deriving from the
work make it as available as a word document too. And, of course continue to
attribute you as a co-author.
Imagine then that a publisher comes along, and publishes a derivitive of that
work, expressly ignoring your wishes in keeping the original source document
availble. You ask politely, and they publish their version of the source
document with obvious chapters and apendicies missing.
They could have made their work a separate work, that is bundled with, and
refered to from your work, but they did not.
You would eventualy get a lawyer involved. Escpecialy if you have released a lot
of documents in this way, and want to see fair play. If you want to ensure that
you, and the other co-authors (who are abiding by the liscence) do not get
ripped off.
Note: Choosing a development platform is not an arbritry task, they made a
concious decision to ingnore the liscence terms, they are in the wrong.
So, it seems to me, that unless you have a different agenda other than fair play
(i.e. slagging the FSF) you have got the wrong end of the stick.
Tim
Senior Engineer
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 08:34 AM EDT |
Does this mean what I think it means? From: http://finance.yahoo.com/mp#scox
quote "Deutsche Securities initiates coverage with a Buy rating and $45
target, as firm views SCOX"
The last pre-market bid was "Pre-Market (RTM/ECN): 19.00 3.47
(22.34%)" From: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=scox
hmmmm....wonder what they think they know?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 08:38 AM EDT |
A IT survey showing SCO has little impact on Linux use.
http://www.silicon.com/news/500023/1/6414.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 09:00 AM EDT |
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000104746903033257/a2118764zs-3
a.htm
Would someone more familiar with SEC filings kindly translate this for me -- is
SCO actually covering $30K in filing expenses just so their officers and cronies
can dump 130,934 shares of stock with none of the profit going back into the
company?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wild - Authored by: mec on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 01:09 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 09:26 AM EDT |
More opn the Forbes article for the IT press.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3880
"Is Forbes going to go around making excuses for other companies that
violate the provisions of their licenses (more rabidly: Has Forbes made a
conscious decision to approve of theft)? Why does Forbes refer to fairly routine
attempts to enforce software licenses as "the dark side" of the open
source movement? Isn't it more reasonable to refer to the people who violate
licenses they've agreed to as "the dark side of commercial
software"?
"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 10:04 AM EDT |
First of all, you have two completely separate historical events confused. The
English Civil War was fought in the mid-17th century – the era of Oliver
Cromwell and the Parliament that rose to power as a result. The only English
war underway at the time of the American Revolution – late in the 18th century,
about 120 years after the English Civil War – was one of the series of wars
fought between England and France throughout the 18th century culminating in the
Napoleonic Wars. The Hanoverian Dynasty (George I to IV) faced no
military-civil war challenges. Far from it; most of what became the British
Empire was acquired during the Hanoverian Dynasty – virtually all of it by
military conquest.
The American Revolution was the last-choice response of the Colonists to a
laundry list of problems that the British Government – most especially the King
– was unwilling to negotiate which included, but was not limited to:
1) Granting of monopolistic contracts to businessmen in England without
permitting Colonial businessmen to compete
2) Limitation of commerce, particularly the requirement that transatlantic
commerce be conducted ONLY on English-owned (not Colonial-owned) ships.
3) No direct representation in Parliament, and very little indirect. This
amounts to divorcing the Colonists from British citizenship, since the hallmark
of such citizenship is direct representation.
4) Being considered throughout the Government as “second class.”
5) Taxes, tariffs and levies, specific to Colonial businesses and citizens, on
all commerce between England and the Colonies (sugar, tea, etc., etc.), over and
above any other taxes levied on the Colonists.
6) Military malfeasance, including but not limited to billeting of soldiers in
private homes without recompense.
7) Denial of Colonial self-governance.
Note that many of the “other Colonies” were not even colonized at the time of
the Revolution, and most of them were taken by force of arms. Even so, it took
the "other Colonies" at the minimum an additional 100 years to
achieve the beginnings of independence. Yes, for the most part, that
independence was granted by Britain — the Commonwealth of "free and equal
states" giving allegiance to the Crown having been made in the 1920’s.
Nevertheless, in most cases, the British treated both colonists from England and
the indigenous population as second-class, just as happened in America. In
fact, Australia was infamous as a dumping ground for financial, criminal and
political prisoners, thus making the populace, by definition “inferior.” Don’t
forget India, Ireland and South Africa, all of which suffered major upheavals
(“The Troubles,” Boer War, Zulu wars, Gandhi) in the course of achieving
independence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
Hi,
I posted the orginal message here...and I've been looking at different links
and they seem to suggest that Deutsche Securities did initiate coverage to a
"buy" with the target set at $45.00. Makes a person go hmmmmmm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
| S/He who writes the code gets to choose the license. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vonbrand on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
Somewhere (here, or at lamlaw.com, or maybe elsewhere?) I read it is technically
not "stealing", but "missapropiation". I.e., you don't
lose the code, it is just being used without you allowing the use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
Yes, there IS a social statement inherent in the GPL. Using it is something
akin to saying, "I wish to contribute this work to the common good."
And this is certainly an ethical judgement and action. As much as we can, it
insures that your work can contribute to peoples freedoms in the future.
However, it also has some remarkably practical side effects. The floos
development model has produced some astonishingly good code, like Linux and
GIMP. It also insures that useful bodies of code will remain available for as
long as they are useful and productive for users, like mozilla and Open Office.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
securities.stanford.edu/1017/ISHP01/20020719_r01c_0120333.pdf
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rick Bradley on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
I sent the following comment to the author (via the "Send Article
Comments"
interface) this afternoon. Enjoy.
Subject: a Marxist awakening
Comrade Daniel,
Upon reading your article on the legal matters surrounding the GNU GPL I
thought at first you must be mistaken about the specifics of that license and
the motives of its authors. I took a look at the hallowed License itself, at
<http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html> and found that my deepest fears
and
secret doubts had been realized there.
One thing I noticed is that the GNU General Public License is in fact a
"License", as the name indicates. It seems that without complying
with
the terms of the GPL no person or organization is legally allowed to
exercise any copyrights to GPL'ed works, as all copyrights are otherwise
reserved! The GPL is not a public domain grant, but rather a LICENSE
to those who wish to abide by its terms!
But, wait it gets worse:
The GPL seems to gain its enforcability from the capitalist intellectual
property law, just as do the licenses employed by capitalist and monopolistic
proprietary software vendors(!). I see that *even from the outset* the GPL was
designed to be enforced through copyright law, and it is enforceable. I
thought perhaps the GPL was unenforceable, or ineffective -- that the FSF's
goals were pure and their means lofty. I see now that anyone who would mistake
the enforceability of the GPL as ineffective or incidental is ignorant, perhaps
willfully so.
Your article rests on what I considered until now to be the well-established
fact that the open source and Free software movement is a latter-day hippie
branch of the Communist Party, spending equal time singing Joni Mitchell songs
and pressing Debian ISOs into palms outside airports. This reader was thankful
for this article and I found myself shocked (*shocked*!) that the FSF actually
enforces its copyrights instead of noting between tokes that Broadcom is
harshing its collective mellow.
Your article forced me to abruptly wake up and smell the lawsuits -- for which
I thank you most assuredly!
After reading your article I surfed the web in a frenzy and found to my dismay
that the open source and Free software community is large, growing, and
exceedingly diverse. Evidently, activism and code contributions pour in from
around the world from not just stoner hippies but pencil-necks, Fortune 500
middle-managers, and even patent attorneys. I was astounded to uncover just
how much money worker-hostile companies like HP and IBM are pouring into open
source projects.
My presumption that the GPL was pulled from a page of Marx and Engels,
representing the will of the new proletariat was at best manure. Coming from a
corrupted pen such a philosophy could even have been fungible with the PR
outfits of those proprietary software companies carping the loudest about not
being able to use GPL'd software wholesale in their own products. Where I
thought the Worker had gained control of the means of production I see now that
we are all just capitalists!
Placing this clarion call between a dreaded Microsoft advertisement and the
Oracle sales push made it clear to me that we Workers should -- nay, MUST --
reorganize now, now that our Free Software movement has been exposed as a
capitalist front! The very placement of your message was a message in itself:
"Into the breach!" it screamed from the page!
In my research I noted with surprise that even the Free Software Foundation(!),
what I thought a fairly progressive lot judging by Mr. Kuhn's (and Mr.
Stallman's) frequent comments, has never made any representation that they
will
not enforce the GPL! It's clear to me now that even a casual observer can
tell
that the GPL is designed explicitly to be enforced -- woe to mine eyes upon my
first reading of the GPL today! This is not the stuff of flower children,
it's
the stuff of IP attorneys -- and has been so from day one. Oh how we have been
duped!
It turns out that IP law is just as enforceable for open source and Free
software as for any proprietary work. Just as Linksys wouldn't dare to cry
"foul" if it were caught shipping Windows XP DLLs, shipping GPL code
in
violation of license turns out to be no different. The FSF is just as much an
oppressor as Microsoft -- using the tainted capitalist weapons of copyright
against another. How can these laws apply so equally??? And Richard Stallman
knew this from the start. Evil trickster.
How could it be that Workers toiling in the capitalist sweatshops secretly
working for Our Cause could fall prey to capitalist oppression levied from the
very followers of Marx which sent them forth? Cannot our Free code be used by
all workers everywhere, toiling under the capitalist whip? Is there no
exception which will stop this foul capitalist copyright law from applying to
all, bourgeoisie and proletariat alike?
Thank you Comrade Lyons for exposing this great injustice -- the Workers of The
World will carry forth your message to the Halls of Revolution! We have no
time now to waste.
Workers Unite!
Comrade Rick
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
Given the disdain that Mr. Lyons has shown, in his article, for intellectual
property rights, I think that Forbes might want to keep an eye on their own
intellectual property when Mr. Lyons is around.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mac586 on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 09:49 PM EDT |
| LinuxDevices
has a summary with commentary from Bruce Perens.
Perens says the
Linksys case underscores the importance of large companies being careful when
outsourcing free software development. But, he adds, "This is nothing new.
[Disputes over software licenses] go on every day with proprietary software --
but there, the stakes are so much larger."
"If this were a Microsoft license
violation," Perens continues, "Cisco would be in huge hot water. This is very
small in comparison. Violating commercial licenses often costs companies
millions of dollars. We're just asking them to go forward following the GPL. We
don't ask for money, just future compliance."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 07:18 AM EDT |
| Companies that violate the GPL do get caught and have to pay for their
misdeeds. You may feel outrage that corporations aren't the only entities that
have enforceable copyrights, but that is the way it is. You will have to get
used to it.
It's the American way.
First, I agree with you that
the Lyons article was awful. :)
However, I feel obliged to point out that
the FSF is NOT enforcing their copyrights. They are enforcing the GPL,
and using their copyrights as leverage to do so. This is different from the
typical enforcement actions of proprietary companies because the GPL is
different from typical proprietary licenses.
As far as I can tell, the FSF
offers the infringer two choices:
(1) Come into GPL compliance by
distributing your code. This may be bad for your competitive advantage, but
that's your problem.
(2) Stop distributing the GPL code in an infringing
manner--i.e. stop shipping your product. Again, this may not be attractive from
a business point of view, but that's your problem.
Conspicuously absent is
choice (3), "Pay us a bunch of money to license our IP/code/whatever, and we
will leave you alone". The proprietary companies believe that any problem
should be solvable by throwing enough money at it, but the FSF cares about the
freedom of the GPL more than they care about money.
I agree that enforcing
the GPL is in the best tradition of capitalist America, but I wouldn't call it
"the American way". The modern American way is to leverage the system to your
advantage, and the party with the most $$$/influence often wins.
It's no surprise that the principled stance of the FSF does not sit well with
some folks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
