|
|
| FSF Seminars Explaining the GPL in NYC January 20, 21 |
 |
|
Friday, January 02 2004 @ 12:25 PM EST
|
This might interest you. We all have debated and seen debated various interpretations of the GPL. This is your opportunity to get your questions answered authoritatively.
The Free Software Foundation is hosting a two-day seminar on the GPL, "Free Software Licensing and the GNU GPL" on January 20 and 21 at Columbia University Law School in New York City. The seminars will be co-led by Daniel Ravicher, Senior Counsel to FSF, and Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director of FSF. The seminar is designed for, as the FSF announcement puts it, "lawyers, software developers and managers who run (or have clients who run) software businesses that modify and/or redistribute software under terms of the GNU GPL or LGPL, or who wish to make use of existing GPL'd and LGPL'd software in their enterprise."
If your boss has questions about the GPL, maybe he'd like to go or will pay to send you or the company's attorney. Or, if you are the boss or an attorney and/or programmer and have questions you really want answered, this is the chance to learn exactly how the GPL works in detail. They will be covering the GPL section by section. Of course, as we have discovered on Groklaw, you don't have to be a lawyer to be interested in the law.
There is also a lunch series, "SCO Without Fear", during the lunch break both days, described as conversations with Eben Moglen, General Counsel to the FSF, discussing the case and the GPL, from 12:30 to 2 both days.
On January 20, the seminar will be the section-by-section explanation of the GPL, "Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL". The following day, it will be "GPL Compliance Case Studies and Legal Ethics in Free Software Licensing," which will present the details of five different GPL compliance cases handled by FSF's GPL Compliance Laboratory. Details on the seminars can be found here and here. [Update 2008: the links no longer resolve, due to a reorganization of the FSF's website. However, you can read about the 2004 seminars in this press release. And here are the two missing pages -- first the detailed analysis of GPL and LGPL and the GPL compliance seminar from FSF Norway's site.]
The fee for the two-day "SCO Without Fear" lunch series is $250, or $150 for one day. Lunch is included. For those on a budget or those only interested in the SCO case and its relationship to the GPL, this is an option. People who have registered for the seminars at Columbia Law School, which costs $595 (for one day, $975 for the series, do not have to pay for the lunch series for the day(s) they are attending the seminar(s). FSF Associate Members and Corporate Patrons receive a 20% discount. Contact info is here. Yes, of course, I am crazy wild to go and learn. I just don't see how I can make it, so if you go, Groklaw would love to hear from you about your experience and what you learned.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: brenda banks on Friday, January 02 2004 @ 01:22 PM EST |
sounds like a good offensive plan
sco raises the doubts and FSF answers questions
hope we have people that go and report back.this sounds so interesting
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 02 2004 @ 01:25 PM EST |
Perhaps we (the FOSS community) should sponsor two places: one for PJ (for being
keen to learn) and one for Darl (to be educated)...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Friday, January 02 2004 @ 01:25 PM EST |
I would suggest everyone pooling money to buy a ticket for Darl McBride, But he
probably knows the subject too well already. If Darl went to the class, he would
have a harder time playing dumb to the press.
---
Norman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Friday, January 02 2004 @ 01:26 PM EST |
Hopefully the FSF has sent generous free vouchers to the press. They should
PERSONALLY attend some GPL/SCO/Linux event or functions. Good new years
resolution for them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sesostris III on Friday, January 02 2004 @ 01:27 PM EST |
Being a citizen of the UK rather than the US, the international applicability of
the GNU GPL is something I feel may be worthy of investigation. I'm not sure of
the details, but I did hear that the GPL might not be enforceable in Germany
(for instance). Maybe something to ask if anyone attends?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: msquared on Friday, January 02 2004 @ 01:49 PM EST |
FYI, another major Linux event is scheduled also in NYC
at same time on Jan 20-23,
http://www.linuxworldexpo.com/linuxworldny/V40/index.cvn
Maybe I will see some groklawyers there![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whitehat on Friday, January 02 2004 @ 02:46 PM EST |
I just sent the following e-mail message to johns@fsf.org (coordinator
for SCO without Fear event in NYC (with Cc: to PJ):
PJ has expressed a desire to attend the SCO without Fear 2-day
seminar in NYC. Surely, you are aware of her contributions to an
informed debate over the SCO legal matters.
I plan to make a small financial contribution to enable PJ to travel to
NYC. I will also publicly encourage others to do the same (via postings
on groklaw.net and in other places). Meanwhile, you might consider
extending a formal invitation to PJ to attend as a member of a
discussion panel, thus relieving her of paying the attendance fee. She
is by now well known in the open source community, and will be a
valuable addition to your program.
Respectfully
Finn J Nielsen
I would strongly encourage other groklaw.com readers to also
contribute to this worthwhile purpose. If you have not already opened
a groklaw.com account for yourself (if you are lurking as
"anonymous"), please sign up today, then make a contribution to
cover PJ's travel expenses.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PSaltyDS on Friday, January 02 2004 @ 03:42 PM EST |
I just PayPal-ed $10US to send PJ to the seminar. Let's get some more people
involved in sponsoring her!
PJ, since I have completely jumped the gun now, are you really interested in
going and representing this community at these seminars if we can raise the $$$?
Please apply my $10 to this purpose including ticket, transportation, meals,
and accomodations. If it turns out you can't go, or not enough is raised, just
use my $10 for Groklaw in general. Hope you get to go and report live from your
laptop!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 02 2004 @ 03:44 PM EST |
The first "details" url
(http://www.fsf.org/licenses/NYC_Seminars_Jan2004.html) doesn't work -- Page
Not Found, says the server.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cbc on Friday, January 02 2004 @ 04:35 PM EST |
http://www.fsf.org/press/2004-01-02-nyc-seminars.html
plain
text
http://www.fsf.org/press/2004-01-02-nyc-seminars.txt
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, January 02 2004 @ 04:52 PM EST |
The summit happened in December. Delegates discussed putting the UN in charge of
the Internet, as opposed to 'a private US agency'. Also, they talked open source
versus proprietary software:
'Mr. Samuel Guimarães, executive
secretary in Brazil's foreign ministry, told the meeting that open-source
(free-to-share) software is crucial for poorer countries, since it would permit
them to freely develop their own technology, instead of purchasing
it.'
No word from the proprietary side. I'd have loved to hear what
wisdom Diplomatic Dan Lyons would have shared, given the opportunity (after all,
his soapbox is powered by Linux - an irony I'm not sure he has the capacity to
appreciate).
Here's the
link.
Thanks again,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 02 2004 @ 04:52 PM EST |
Aside from the SCO FUD, there seem to be substantive problems about the
interpretation of "derivative works" under the GPL, which as yet
have no definitive resolution. Witness the issue of non-GPL linux kernel
modules, and also the issue of distributing "combined" works like
the Linksys router with the binary-only wireless kernel module as
"firmware".
And the whole divisive issue about KDE and pre-GPL QT in the past.
It seems these are muddy issues to which the answer is not clear, but hopefully
the FSF seminar will bring out the ambiguities, rather than just present the
FSF's (RMS's) hard line interpretation. In the final analysis, the meaning of
the GPL is no longer up to the RMS or the FSF to declare what it is. (They can
certainly give their opinion on what they hope it means...)
In real life, issues are not abstract, and one needs some actual situation to
provide context. It would be nice to see some of the issues of such not 100%
clear situations analyzed after they have been resolved (past "GPL
violation" situations that were resolved) I guess they all were, since it
never came to court?
Something like a set of case studies or prior GPL settlements would a useful
archive for seeking guidance in future disputes, and for what is safe to assume
about GPL and what is not.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: scott_R on Friday, January 02 2004 @ 06:11 PM EST |
A potential danger I see is related to this, and might be a good topic for PJ
and others to check into. Can the FSF/Linus/others legally be
"selective" about GPL'd derivatives? In other words, if two
companies, A and B, link to code in that "grey" area (I'm from the
States, but I like the British spelling better, not that ya care), but company A
is regarded as a fair, honest company, while company B is seen as trying to
"steal" code, can the FSF legally challenge company B while allowing
company A to continue?
Seems to me that this might cause all sorts of legal headaches, even if company
B were blatently trying to abuse the GPL.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Beyonder on Friday, January 02 2004 @ 08:58 PM EST |
I guess a lot of people still don't understand copyrights and
"derivative" works. It's really rather simple. People just like to
make it more complicated than it needs to be...
First of it, it's not GPL that defines what "derivative" works are.
Secondly, it's not FSF or OSS or anyone else who defines it either, as such.
Thirdly, it is not the GPL, FSF, OSS, whatever that makes
"derivative" works "hazy" or "vague".
It's copyright law. And that's been covered to death here, if you've been
reading (RTFWP). Even copyright is a tad vague, and often left to a judges
discretion (precendence anyone?).
There's been a lot of coverage on this, even recently in the news about
copyright issues, what constitutes "fair use", what defines a
"parody" or "spoof".
I read one recent case where a music artist sued someone over their illegal
copying and out-right sampling of their works because they had made basically, a
"parody". The basic arguement the judge made (in the end) was that
yes, in order to parody something, you need to copy a good deal of the original
material. or some such (IANAL!) and I don't remember it that well, so I'm
paraphrasing like crazy here.
The point is, it's not GPL that causes the vagueness, it's copyright law. GPL
doesn't step on copyright laws toes in this regard either.
Linus also explained this recently too, and there was a much-heated debate on
kerneltrap.org about it as well, where he set down his view in stone about the
whole issue.
And frankly, I agree with Linus on this, his arguements are sound, and what's
more, they make sense.
The reason people have trouble with the GPL is because they just don't get it
(Hi Darl!), they keep tying themselves up in knots over non-issues.
The kernel is GPL, drivers and modules, not necessarily, makes sense. the line
is clearly drawn.
Use GPL code? Then you must publish it. It's that simple. It's not any more
"viral" than copyright law is.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Captain on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 11:09 AM EST |
| link [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 12:36 PM EST |
"In the world of computer operating systems, Linux is like those colonial
upstarts back in 1776 that wanted to be free and democratic. Linux is a free
Unix-type operating system originally created by Swede Linus Torvalds with the
assistance of developers around the world. The source code for Linux is freely
available to everyone."
http://webtalkguys.com/10304.shtml
--Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 01:16 PM EST |
My company has developped a 'Linux Enterprise Strategy' (finally). They seem
to have calculated machine and software costs only, resulting in cost reduction
when Linux is used. They don't seem to bother about the GPL at all. My personal
boss is of the kind that had Linux downloaded years ago (when you still needed
to compile it on your machine).
Thus, thank goodness, there's no need for me to answer him questions or to
attend such a course (which would be impossible anyway because nobody would let
me fly to the states - costs, remember?)
The question for me is: is this really necessary? Maybe due to the issues in the
states. Over here in Germany there's almost nothing about SCO vs IBM at work,
except for when I ask IBM business personnel about the case. The answer always
is; Forget about it, they've got nothing. Looks like IBMers are not allowed to
say much more.
I would suggest some people from RedHat and Suse go and attend that course,
because each and every time I meet these people together they start arguing
about GPL aspects (like IBM having contributed code to the Suse Enterprise
Server without making the sourcese accessible - cured as of today).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 01:29 PM EST |
The SCO Group Announces Changes to Legal Team
Kylie Minogue to
replace Kevin McBride at helm of SCO's linux litigation team.
LINDON, Utah,
Jan. 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc.(NASDAQ-SMALL:SCOX) ,
(Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX operating system and a leading provider of
UNIX-based solutions, today announced the appointment of Kylie Minogue as Chief
Legal Counsel and Dance Choreographer for the Company's ongoing legal battle
with IBM. Additionally, the Company announced that Kevin McBride, SCO's former
Counsel, will fill in for the Princess of Pop during her current world tour and
all other musical commitments while the IBM case goes forward.
"The SCO
Group will benefit enormously from Miss Minogue's experience and counsel, and we
are pleased that she has accepted this important role in an era of increasing
emphasis on strong corporate governance and new-wave electronic beats," said
Darl McBride, President and CEO. "Miss Minogue has already drafted our next
Motion, and we will be presenting our 'Motion to Do the Locomotion' to the Court
in no less than 30 days."
During the Company's recent Q4 conference call,
Kevin McBride expressed his delight about the switch in roles. "Kylie and I have
the same initials, so trading places will be easy," he told Forbes reporter
Daniel Lyons. "Like Kylie, I love to perform. Give me twelve good men and true
and I'll give you a night to remember. I can really strut my stuff when I've
got a few beers in me," he said. "And I can fit into all of Kylie's corsets,
which is probably why I got this gig."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
