|
|
| New Open Source Groups Form in UK and AU and a Whole Lot of Lobbying Going On |
 |
|
Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 02:23 PM EDT
|
I guess the international FOSS world is beginning to see the need now for groups who can speak for open source, and there are two new ones, in the UK and Australia. SCO is certainly doing its lobbying for the other side in the US and Europe, with its unfortunate (according to BayStar, even) letter to Congress and Blepp's highjinks with his suitcase in Europe. And Microsoft has been lobbying for years to present its point of view. I heard from a US Groklaw reader, by the way, who wrote to his congressman about the SCO letter. I think you'll be interested in the letter he got back.
The reply he got included this: "As you know, the information technology industry is engaged in an ongoing conflict over software copyrights and intellectual property, including the use of open source software. . . .
"The SCO Group, a vendor which creates and sells proprietary software, is the owner of the UNIX operating System Intellectual Property. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the of the copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX System. SCO has claimed that its proprietary UNIX code was illegally copied into the free Linux operating system.
"As a result, SCO has filed lawsuits against IBM for incorporating copyrighted elements of the UNIX code into its version and Linux and Red Hat for conspiracy and copyright infringement. Subsequently, SCO has announced plans to make binary run time licenses for SCO's intellectual property available to end users. The License would give end users the right to use the SCP intellectual property contained in Linux. End users who purchase this license will be held harmless against past and future copyright violations of SCO's intellectual property in binary format in Linux distributions.
"I certainly appreciate your comments regarding The SCO Group and Open Source software. While there are no Congressional hearings scheduled or legislation proposed that would address this issue, please rest assured that I will continue to monitor this situation. In addition, I have enclosed a Congressional Research Service report about intellectual property and the Open Source movement for your information."
Does it make you feel safe to know this misinformed person is "monitoring" the situation? Attached was a research paper prepared for Congress regarding the issue of a so-called conflict between open source and proprietary software, a copy of which you can find here, reference RL32268, "Intellectual Propery, Computer Software and the Open Source Movement", by John R. Thomas, Visiting Scholar in Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth Resources, Science, and Industry Division. I wonder who decides who gets to write up such reports for Congress? That's where the spin can be spun, of course. Mr. Thomas seems to have been trying to represent both sides' point of view. But when one side misrepresents the other side, and the author doesn't know it is a misrepresentation, or fails to clearly say so, such a compilation of views can hardly achieve an accurate picture. At any rate, the dark side has been lobbying hard and are painting the story as a "conflict" between open and proprietary, as if it is impossible for the two to peacefully coexist. The Clash of the Titans, and all that nonsense. From the report: "Some commentators have expressed concern that these licenses may overreach, converting proprietary programs into open source software even if only a portion of that program was derived from an open source originals. Others have suggested that open source licenses may not be legally enforceable, which would allow users to obtain and assert intellectual property rights pertaining to software that was initially distributed as open source. This report considers the impact of intellectual property rights upon open source software. This report commences with an introduction to the open source movement in the software industry. Next, it briefly reviews the intellectual property laws, including copyrights, patents and trade secrets. After identifying issues of interface between open source software and the intellectual property laws, this report concludes with a discussion of possible legislative issues and approaches." Here is one part of the author's description of the SCO story: "In turn, SCO has in part asserted that the GPL is invalid. As part of its argument, SCO has reportedly pointed to section 117 of the Copyright Act. That statute provides that 'it is not [a copyright] infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided . . . that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only. . . . "Stated differently, the Copyright Act permits users to make a backup copy of their software without fear of infringement liability. "The GPL places limitations upon the ability of users to make copies of GPL licensed software, however. In particular, the GPL requires that individuals receiving copies of the software also receive copies of the GPL, and that persons making copies of the software be able to access the program's source code. The GPL then states that '[a]ny attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.' SCO has taken the position that because the GPL conflicts with the Copyright Act, the GPL is preempted and therefore unenforceable." Sound accurate to you? A followup letter was sent to this congressman, pointing out that SCO didn't sue Red Hat, but that it was the other way around, and that SCO's "ownership" of UNIX is very much contested by Novell, that proprietary software is never forced to be GPL by mistake, etc. We'll keep you posted. Here are the possible legislative proposals the report sets forth: "Possible Legislative Issues and Approaches "Given the wide recognition that intellectual property and the open source movement are of growing importance in the U.S. computer industry, the relationship between these fields is the subject of increasing attention. The policymakers of the 108th Congress have addressed the open source movement with respect to cybersecurity and other contexts. Should Congress choose to address this area directly, a variety of approaches are available. If the current interface between intellectual property rights and the open source movement is considered satisfactory, then no action need be taken. Indeed, growing awareness that intellectual property and open source software licenses can sometimes conflict may lead to more sophisticated treatment of intellectual property by members of the open source community, as well as continued refinement of the governing law in the courts. Another approach is to provide governmental assistance to the open source movement in identifying intellectual properties that might bear upon a particular open source software product. For example, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office could, upon request by a recognized open source software publisher or organization, conduct a search of pending patent applications and issued patents in order to determine whether these patents might bear upon a particular open source software program. This capability would allow members of the open source community to become more fully informed of intellectual property rights. It should be noted, however, that a number of patent research firms already exist that could conduct such a search for a fee, at least with respect to issued patents and published patent applications. More far-reaching legal reforms are also possible. For example, one recognized source of legal uncertainty for the software industry concerns the enforceability of open source licenses. A legislative statement concerning the status of these licenses in terms of the federal preemption doctrine might allow software firms to make decisions concerning research, investment, and other commercial activities with more confidence. The allegedly viral nature of open source software presents another source of concern. One possible legislative response is to allow a proprietary software publisher that discovers its product contains an open source component a fixed period of time to eliminate the open source component. If the publisher removes the open source component within the stipulated grace period, then the software would remain proprietary. Any possible legal reform would be well-advised to recognize that the U.S. software industry is increasingly characterized both by rapid innovation and by a distinct community of knowledgeable users who wish to 'opt out' of the intellectual property system. The possibility of intellectual property rights, and their attendant license fees and royalties, may provide a significant incentive for firms to innovate and to distribute software. On the other hand, some computer users believe that these incentives are unnecessary, and further hope to maintain a non-proprietary environment of software distribution and development. These two trends have sometimes led to conflicts between exclusive intellectual property rights and open source software. Striking a balance between promoting innovation, on one hand, and accommodating the demands of software developers and users, on the other, forms an important component of contemporary software policy." New groups have been formed now in the UK and Australia to represent the interests of the FOSS world. In the UK, there is the Zope UK Association, which is "the first trade organization for open source software companies within the UK, has the main aim of promoting open source in general and Zope, Plone and Python technologies in particular":
"Aidan McGuire Director of Blue Fountain Systems and the main sponsor of the event said 'Open source is growing in importance as an alternative platform for computer software development. It is important that companies who are promoting this route have a central representative body to present their views to both the Government and other key organisations.'
"Seb Bacon from Zope developer Jamkit added 'The association will provide a technical centre providing commentary, guidance and advice on all legal and regulatory developments of relevance to Zope, Plone and Python service companies.'
Paul Everitt co-founder of Zope Corporation and Director of Zope Europe Association commented 'One fundamental principle underlying the association is to provide a forum for the exchange of non-competitive information" He added "It is only by sharing information that we can hope to extend the use of Zope as an application tool into general business use.'
"Ian Cottee (aka Zobbo) Technical Director of Blue Fountain added 'As Zope moves more and more into the mainstream it was good to meet and talk to others who share our challenges and concerns.' . . .
"Andy Robinson CIO for ReportLab said 'ReportLab wholeheartedly supports the formation of a UK association for Zope and Python companies. These technologies and the applications layered on them are entering the public eye, and there will be great synergies for the firms involved by working together.'" "Working together." How different the free and open world is, eh? The proprietary world sees competition in business like warfare, and consumers are the victims, their interests sacrificed on the altar to the company's drive to "win" the battle and "own" the market space. Anyway, after reading this report and the letter from the congressman, I discern that statements like the recent Green Hills attack on Linux and security are not happening in a vacuum. The context, in my opinion, is Microsoft's worry that it is going to lose government business to GNU/Linux systems. So there is a whole lot of lobbying going on, and SCO is part of that bigger picture. In Australia, there is a new organization to act as spokesgroup as well:
"A newly formed, Australian-based open source advisory group aims to deliver expert advice and information on free and open source software (FOSS).
"Dubbed an open source 'think-tank', the Open Source Expert Group (OSEG) was formed primarily to advise the Australian Computer Society (ACS) on open source issues. While sponsored by the ACS, the group says it will also operate independently, acting as a repository for information on open source for all types of users. "According to its charter, OSEG will represent 'Australian open source stakeholders' and 'stimulate debate on, and provide advice to, the Australian community on open source issues'"
And speaking of Australia, you might find this position paper on the FTA of interest. And to keep our public record complete, we need to include the news that governmental agencies in AU are said to be untouchable by SCO.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
Please make corrections here, so I can find them fast. Thanks, everyone, for
your eyeballs and editing skills.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
I couldn't be this misguided congressman has his "knowledge" from MS
lobbyists? Nah..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
Why am I suddenly happy that there seems to be more Linux presence up here in
Canada?
My MP may not be technically inclined, but at least he has his facts straight.
He may be on the fence as far as picking sides, but at least he knows both
sides. Seems this US Congressman only has one side of the story.
The Linux effort in the US has GOT to get their Congreesmen (and women) to at
least see both sides of the story and at the least be informed when they turn to
the "Dark Side" that is SCO.
(Another thing to be wary of is who is lining your Congressman's (or woman's)
pockets ... as much as we would like to think they would never bow down to
corporate pressure, that is an ideal and not a reality.)
Get the information out there and in their heads, then we can worry about
getting them on Linux's boat.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
Fundings of microsoft can be seen here regarding congressmen:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000115&Name=Microsoft+Cor
p
and a pdf file from anti gpl lobbiests:
http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/articles/issue24/lu24-Freestyle-Crown_copyleft.pdf
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft funding, and an important pdf - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 03:48 PM EDT
- Microsoft funding, and an important pdf - Authored by: tyche on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 04:16 PM EDT
- Microsoft funding, and an important pdf - Authored by: tyche on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- Microsoft funding, and an important pdf - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:13 PM EDT
- Microsoft funding, and an important pdf - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 11:09 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 04:39 PM EDT |
A license is a contract through which the publisher allows
recipients to use and modify the software, subject to
certain conditions.
I thought a license was a license? A license grants
rights, any "conditions" wrt copying were set were set
through copyright law
only. You may take or leave the
code, but if you take it you use it on the
terms of it's
license. A contract implies a negotiated deal. Am I
mistaken?
Ed
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 04:55 PM EDT |
I agree that the congressman is sadly misinformed, and I hope that the Groklaw
responses will set him straight.
However, my impression of Thomas's report, RL32668, differs from PJ's.
The report is balanced, and fairly presents the GPL. There only seem to be a
few cases where the SCOG position is presented without adequate rejoinder from
the FOSS side, and nowhere is the SCOG position blindly accepted without
comment.
The worst omissions are the failures to mention that Novell claims that SCOG
owns no copyrights in SysV source code, and that SCOG admits that the UNIX
trademark is not owned by SCOG.
If the congressman had given any sign that he had read the report, I would not
be so worried.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dracoverdi on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:04 PM EDT |
I wrote a letter to my senator (Diane Feinstein) at about the time SCO
sent their letters to congress. I wrote about the SCO case, the importance
of free software, and even included a link to the GPL. Recently, I got a
response, which, sadly I can't find now. It explained how important it
was to defend intellectual property rights from pirates at home and
abroad. It mentioned music file sharing and piracy in foreign countries and
closed by thanking me for sharing my concern about this important issue.
One particularly sad point made in the response was that she, Feinstein,
realizes how important it is to keep on top of issues like this because
technology plays such a significant role in California's economy.
I haven't replied, what could I possibly say? If they think I was concerned
before, they should see me since I got this letter.
If anyone else decides to write their congress person, I would recommend
saving your original text and the response when it returns (it takes months)
for reference. I submitted mine through this weird email-like thing on her
website so I don't have my original "letter" and, of course,
Feinstein's staff
responded by snail mail - which is probably smart because email is open
ended - which I either misplaced or threw out in disgust (I can't remember
which). The point to keeping both messages would be to underscore how
disconnected the response is - possibly on Groklaw.
If I ever write anybody else about this subject I will point them to Groklaw as
well. Politicians in particular might by interested in how many people care
about this subject.
---
Pizza is an acceptable breakfast.
Just think of it as a large pepperoni danish[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: billyskank on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
These people talk about it as if a piece of GPL code
infiltrates a
proprietary application just like the way I catch a cold, and it
makes the
proprietary application open-source as if from the
inside. One morning the
CEO of Verybigcorp wakes up to find
his company's application is suddenly
open-source and being
downloaded by bearded geeks wearing sandals
everywhere!
A piece of GPL code gets into a proprietary application
because the owner of the proprietary application puts it
there. The
owner of the GPL code owns the copyright on it
- the precious
intellectual property these corporate types
love so much, and so they
get to say how you use the code. By
licencing their code to you under the
GPL they are saying, if you
want to use my code in your program then your
program must
also be licenced under the GPL. If you can't abide by these
terms then you can't use my code! Go and write your
own code,
or
get some other code distributed under a different licence.
Nothing
ever gets automatically converted into open-source
software by the GPL. If
GPL-ed code makes its way into a
proprietary application then the owner of
the proprietary
application is in breach of copyright and must remove the
GPL-ed code from their application. Their application does not
automatically become open-source! In what way is this different
to
breaching copyright on any other piece of code that is
distributed under a
different licence to the GPL?
It's just not that hard to grok, is
it! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- GPL FAQ - Authored by: stephenry on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:17 PM EDT
- GPL FAQ - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- See www.fsf.org - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 07:44 PM EDT
- Thank you for puting it so plainly - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:19 PM EDT
- No, but open source marketing should be ... - Authored by: zapyon on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- Open source software is not viral! - Authored by: Philip Stephens on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 06:08 PM EDT
- Something for nothing... - Authored by: sbungay on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 06:10 PM EDT
- Open source software is not viral! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- It's rather funny.. - Authored by: dopple on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- Open source software is not viral! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 25 2004 @ 10:36 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Eric E Johnson on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:09 PM EDT |
Seems like explaining the GPL to lawmakers could be fairly
straightforward:
The GPL is to proprietary software as open
public meetings are to back room deals.
In this sense the GPL
isn't new, or at all threatening. Our entire democratic framework is built on
the idea, isn't it?
Open meetings are painful, contentious, and usually
come up with a result that is relatively fair. Back room meetings are easy,
make the people involved feel good, and are usually profoundly unfair to at
least some of the people not invited. If the past is our guide, we apparently
need both approaches for government to function, and the same thing is almost
certainly true of software.
P.S. The analogy isn't a new one. I believe
someone else posted the idea here of legislation as an example "open source"
several months back, and I thank them for sharing their thoughts!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:10 PM EDT |
This whole SCO v ??? thing is obviously a US matter, but does anybody know to
what extent open-source software contributions are of US origin. General reading
shows that people in many countries are interested in open-source and make
contributions to it, but is the actual quantity of US originated material
disproportionately large compared to its population?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zapyon on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
It's frightening to see what lobbying can do to the perception of open source
by non-IT people, especially politicians. I think it is very important to have
"lobbying", i.e. planned information campaigns targeting decision-making people
in the economy and politics -- else it might happen that one day some uninformed
politician pass a law that makes open source illegal (something I believe some
closed source software companies are working on for some time now).
Andreas
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Lobbying - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:28 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: zapyon on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
publishing all such letters -- sent to and received from -- senators,
congress people or their analogues in other countries?
I think I have
seen some reports on communication with politicians here (including on this page
;-) and it might be very good to collect them under their own sub-project for
easy access (and statistics on who got informed and what could be achieved).
Regards
Andreas
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
Lookng at the site at opensecrets.org, it seems IBM doesnt make any
contributions.
Are there any more sites available, with regards to companies funding
congressmen[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:31 PM EDT |
write letters to your conressmen an senators.
1. Be polite
2. Explain that the GPL is simply a licence to use work already copywrited by
individual and that only the holder of the copyright can apply the GPL to their
work.
3. Ask them to find out how much open source software is in use in government
agencies and how much would it cost taxpaying registered voters to replace it.
4 Ask them to start an investigation into the realities of open source software
and to get legal opinions on the GPL.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stephenry on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:33 PM EDT |
Can I suggest an idea...
Microsoft have a long and public history of anticompetitive, and sometimes
illegal, behaviour. Although these facts are documented throughout the internet,
there is no place where the interested reader can go and find the definitive
history of all their misdeeds. Groklaw could concentrate on compiling a detailed
list of all the actions Microsoft have taken in the past against their
competitors; carefully illustrating why such actions are detrimental to the
welfare of their customers and -more importantly- how such actions cannot occur
*by definition* under open source.
This plan would not simply be a counter to Microsoft's FUD because it in itself
would not be FUD. Instead, all the facts used would be indeed facts; previously
being proven in a court of law or through other means. It's time that
Microsoft's history caught upwith them, and used against them.
I, for one, would be willing to lend a hand in such an undertaking.
Any thoughts?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:38 PM EDT |
CARL LEVIN
MICHIGAN
-
COMMITTEES:
ARMED SERVICES GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SMALL BUSINESS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510-2202
November 13, 2003
Dear Mr. XXXXX
Thank you for contacting me about the Santa Cruz Organization Group (SCO),
Inc.'s litigation over the intellectual
property rights for the Linux operating system. I appreciate hearing your views
on this matter.
Currently, there is a debate over the intellectual property rights of open
source software producers. Open source
software refers to a computer program whose source code is made available to the
general public to be improved or
modified as the user wishes. Linux, an operating system developed in the 1990's,
is one such open source program.
As you may know, in March 2003, the SCO Group filed a lawsuit against
International Business Machine Corporation
(IBM) arguing that IBM has contributed UNIX code owned by SCO into the free
Linux operating system. SCO is also
reportedly contemplating additional legal action to protect what the company
claims is its copyrighted code. The case
is scheduled to go to court in 2005, with a resolution that may take years. SCO
Group has also said that the company
expects commercial users of Linux versions 2.4 to pay SCO a licensing fee for
the right to use the SCO code contained
in Linux.
I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. However, United States Senators
are extremely limited by the law to
intervene in legal matters. Thanks again for writing.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
CL:mk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
This is a classic case of what is necessary to do business in this country. It
is necessary to buy the hearts and minds of our government and that is the
responsibility of Red Hat, IBM and Novell if they choose to be in the Linux
business.
If Groklaw wants to be a publisher, it would be better served by producing
sample letters for its readers to copy and send to their congressmen/senators
than any attempt to document Linux. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rob_B on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
From the CRS Report, "Congress might also assist individuals in identifying
intellectual property that pertains to software that has been identified as open
source."
Sounds like he's proposing an open season on open source. Is it really
Congress's responsiblity to help companies hunt for infringements? And if it is,
why not have Congress start assisting individuals in identifying intellectual
property that has been incorporated into closed source?
Does anyone have any ideas on how to find out who funded this report?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 06:02 PM EDT |
| Nice to see new FOSS advocacy groups, the more the better, but there are already
several such in Europe. See, for example, Open Forum Europe. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 06:06 PM EDT |
Some of you may know about the litigation threats over the JPEG image
compression standard. One of these 'buy-em-and-try-em in court' companies by the
name of Forgent Networks bought up Compression Labs, the company that originated
the standard, solely with the intent of forcing people to license their
‘Intellectual Property’ or litigating them in court. Does this sound familiar?
Are we really and truly seeing the beginning of the patent wars?
"Forgent is committed to developing all of its assets
and technologies to maximize shareholder value. We believe we will prevail in
this litigation as the '672 Patent is valid, enforceable and infringed," said
Richard Snyder, chairman and CEO of Forgent. "It's unfortunate that despite the
many opportunities these companies have had to license the patent, they have all
declined to participate, leaving us no alternative but to
litigate."
Forgent JPEG Lawsuit Link
I see a really bleak future ahead.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
WalMart is Fortune 500 company #1. If WalMart shoppers ask to buy Linux or
computers that contain Linux in significant numbers, they will get more involved
in stocking and offering it. WalMart is far more important to the US economy
and thus our government than M$ is. Cast your vote for open source software at
your local WalMart![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
Speaking of the viral nature of GPL?
Lets see:
1. Visibility
Patents may be hidden in a far away office, the holder of a patent can hide for
years, then suddenly jump out (see JPEG patents). GPL-ed source code is easy to
detect, there is a file called 'copying' among the files, and most of the source
files also contain a header.
2. Affordability
Should you discover shit in your pie (part of your solution is patented), you
may be required to pay a hefty sum of money, or be denied from using your OWN
code by the patent squatter. With GPL, you only have to disclose your source
code containing the borrowed code. Isn't that fair?
3. Scope
Patents cover simple ideas, GPL covers tangible lines of code. It is much
simpler to drop code and do it another way than dropping an idea.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Affordability oopsie - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 08:57 PM EDT
- Patents vs. GPL - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 09:05 PM EDT
- Patents vs. GPL - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 09:12 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 06:21 PM EDT |
SUMMARY - We need policies to suggest to a political party.
BACKGROUND - We are about to have an election in Canada either in the spring or
the fall. The leader of the natural ruling party has managed to make himself
and the party look pretty corrupt and inept (he protesteth too much). The leader
of the naturally opposing party has to live down previous policies that make him
look a little to the right of Attila the Hun. That means that we stand a chance
of having a minority government with the moralistic left wing party holding the
balance. This is the party that cares about issues like national soveriegnty
and Canada's ability to control its own legislation in the face of international
treaties that attempt to reduce that control.
THE HEART OF THE MATTER - I would like to write a letter or two to the New
Democratic Party to suggest policies that will foster innovation in Canada and
warn against policies that do the opposite.
SOME IDEAS -
Software patents - Most of what I have read makes them sound generally evil.
Interoperability - Can interoperability be legislated?
Music and movies - It is important to many Canadians that we have our own
cultural industry. What changes to copyright would enhance the ability of
Canadian ARTISTS to gain an audience and earn a living? Naturally these folks
are interested in getting votes and not losing them. The party doesn't want to
espouse policies that are cursed by every musician in Canada.
I think this is our one chance to leverage real change this decade. HELP! What
should we be asking for? What are the best arguments?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 06:52 PM EDT |
We don't have software patents so that won't be a problem and everyone in
America will still have fast easy access to FOSS software. Maybe it would be
better to just move all the tech companies up here, except MS, SCO et al.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
The GPL is based on the logical premise that you don't have any right and any
power to license the use of anything that you don't own. If you are going to be
showing your code to the rest of the world, the most obvious and in fact only
way to assert your ownership of your code is through copyrights registration - a
mechanism that is recognized by world-wide agreement, by the way. Given those
facts, there is no way that anyonwe who is informed about both copyrights law
and the terms of the GPL would in good faith perceive a conflict between the GPL
and copyrights law.
Darl McBride's argument is bizarre for the following additional reason: (1) the
most restrictive license is any of the proprietary vendors' EULA including
Microsoft's. The Darl has no problem with Microsoft's EULA; (2) one of the most
liberal licenses around is the BSD license, which is practically a license to
steal code from the owner. Again, the Darl has no problem with the BSD license
either; (3) in terms of restrictiveness, the GPL is in between the extremes of
the Microsoft EULA and the BSD licemnse, actually much closer to the BSD
license. So logically, the Darl should have no problem with the GPL either - and
yet, the Darl is screaming like a castrated pig over the GPL. But then, we all
know that the Darl and SCOG's are trying to steal the IP of all of the
legitimate copyrights holders who contribute to Linux, starting with the
unfortunate who contributed the Berkeley Packet Filter.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: m_si_M on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
I already mentioned this somewhere else:
The European Parliament will be newly elected this year. So, all of EU readers
of Groklaw, mail your candidates/parties and make clear that your vote depends
on their position toward software patents. The EP was on our side and I suppose
most of the MPs were offended by the ignorance of the Commission. But we need to
keep them on track.
I mailed the four major parties in my country recently and got one reply up to
now, in which the front runner stated clearly that "there should be no
patents granted for pure software [...] trivial ideas or basics of computer
science".
---
C.S.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
I have written a number of letters to my representatives and senators about
various issues. I have always gotten replies, but not one of the replies has
ever really been a reply. I'm pretty sure all of the replies were canned
responses that were chosen on the basis of keywords found in my original
letters. I doubt the staff that sent the replies spent more than a few seconds
looking at any of my letters.
I have pretty much given up on trying to communicate with my government.
Elected officials have figured out they can win elections if they have enough
money to spend on media campaigns, and that they can get that money by doing the
bidding of those who make large election campaign contributions.
The U.S.A. is in a rut, and wll stay in that rut as long as the majority of
voters don't take the time to pay attention to what their government is doing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 07:28 PM EDT |
It is important that the FOSS community not allow its
opponents to define the terms and the language of the debate.
The term "viral nature" has already latched on to OSS. Whether you
like it or not, such key phrases can do much harm, and it is very difficult to
combat it by citing section and para of the GPL.
What we need are equally valid phrases we can use them
and paint and frame the debate to protect our rights.
Someoen whine's about "viral nature"?
- Retort with "Reciprocal Rights" instead of "viral nature"
Someone whine's GPL's "viral nature" prevents them from using it in
their prop. product?
- Retort "My work is not for you to pirate and sell"
Only the language of money and property works. Dont let
the opposition set the terms of the debate. This is important in the public
discourse.
-J
P.S My comeback phrases are not that good; I just used them
as examples. Let groklaw rack its collective brains and
come with sharp retorts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
It seems we are seeing more lies spread to our elected officials by The evil Dr
G's villanous cohorts.
If we can attempt to impeach a president over a lie to congress, why can't we
require all these lobby groups to swear an oath before telling their stories to
the ear of the nearest congressperson.
Clinton would have been impeached for claiming The SCO Group was Santa Cruz
Org.
I hear the sound of a Hatcher, hatching a plot to misslead congress about the
ownership of Unix ......
Where is the Open Group's letter of protest to congress ?
This is just my tinfoil covered opinion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
PJ stated:
"The proprietary world sees competition in business
like warfare, and consumers are the victims, their interests sacrificed on the
altar to the company's drive to "win" the battle and "own" the market
space."
Excellent observation. As ESR once said, "Proprietary
software is harmful, not because it is a form of competition, but because it is
a form of combat among the citizens of our society."
I'd like to add
to that - I think this applies to almost all segments of our society here in
the United States.
One particular one which I find somewhat disturbing
is the "who can have a big car, and act like a big bully" trend I have seen
among SUV drivers.
My choice in commute vehicles is a small, 16-year
old Japanese compact. I love this car - it's in pristine condition (86K
miles!), and it's perfect for my needs since I drive 15 miles/day on average. I
can afford a nicer car, but why? This car gets 30+ mpg, and as long as I
maintain it, it will easily do 250K miles. I pay no bank interest, which means
I don't make some fat-cat in Detroit, Chicago, or Manhattan rich.
It's
also not very fast, at least compared to modern cars. It takes me longer to get
up to speed anywhere I go. It's bloody amazing how much abuse (read: combat)
people dish out because of their impatience. The real bad behavior, the
tail-gating, etc. comes from SUV drivers.
Don't ask me why, but when
they get a car 1/2 it's size on front of them, you are all of the sudden some
sort of serenghetti "game." It becomes the hunter and the hunted. No offense
ladies, but soccer moms in SUV's are statistically more likely to tail-gate me
than any other group breakdown (perhaps, I think, it's because they drive SUV's
more often, statistically speaking.
'Tis I have the last laugh - when I
fill up my vehicle with gasoline nowadays it's very infrequent, and not so heavy
on the pocketbook ($10/week). When I see the SUV drivers filling up their
35-45 gallon gas tanks, I calculate they are paying about $80-$100 (@
$2.15/gallon here in CA). Per WEEK. Or about $400 per month. Talk
about working for your vehicle!
(sorry about the OT - I am bored on a
Saturday, and the weather isn't good, otherwise I'd be outside).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 08:30 PM EDT |
Why not form the equivalent of the AARP for FOSS? GROKLAW seems to have the
attention of enough readers to start such.
Is there such an organization now that already has SOME clout in Washington
D.C.? Tell me, because my checkbook awaits.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 08:37 PM EDT |
Intellectual Propery, Computer Software and the Open Source Movement
http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CRS_Index_2004.asp
they repeatedly use the term intellectual property law.this is very dangerous
for us to ignore this term.i am writing letters to my reps and senators about
this and addressing several points in it.but maybe this needs to be OCR'd so
that we could copy and paste sections as needed?
---
br3n
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw
"sco's proof of one million lines of code are just as believable as the
raelians proof of the cloned baby"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 09:06 PM EDT |
It's vitally important these lawmakers are made
to understand the difference between open source
and software piracy.
As we know, they are entirely different worlds,
but to them it seems they are one and the same.
The great workings of FUD.
BJ
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
It's been about 20 years since I took intro business law. But I seem to recall
something about this concept of "latches."
As I remember, the idea is, you can't just let somebody violate your civil
rights until you decide it's convient for you to prosecute. I think the idea is,
you can't allow somebody to think you are giving them sort of right; only to
turn around and sue them later.
For example, if you let somebody walk across your property everyday for ten
years, you can't just change your mind and sue the guy - in fact you can't even
stop him from walking across your property, because you effectively gave up that
right by not taking action sooner.
I'm very foggy on this, can anybody help me out?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: icebarron on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 10:18 PM EDT |
This is a very helpful link...see
BC.EDU
Thank you, I now_believe_ that someone is
catching on FINALLY
Dan
"One method discourages
rent-seeking costs by" reducing the credibility of weak
lawsuits.
Attribution goes to:Michael J. Meurer
Associate Professor of
Law at Boston University School of Law[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: icebarron on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 10:50 PM EDT |
Check this link...intresting
carries the same ideas into many fields...
The
EE_Times
What would have happened to the NET if this had started out
earlier?
Dan
If you can't innovate...litigate...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 11:46 PM EDT |
1) The author appears likely to be a lobbyist in disguise.
Once, Congress had a formidable Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
but lobbyists hated it (especially huge defense contractors whose missiles
usually blew up). Now, Congress receives its briefings from the lobbyists,
on tobacco, FOSS, National Security, etc. The lobbyists really like this.
2) The author absolutely attempts to draw a fence around the GPL with
two strategic intents. First, his backers obviously intend to make the GPL
illegal. Second, his backers fully intend to allow the remainder of the FLOSS
community to work all hours of the day and night for free without any
legal protection. They intend to steal all FOSS for their proprietary SW. If
you doubt this: first, there is no real fence, it is a debating technique and,
second, the author clearly identifies the framers of the GPL without
explaining their direct involvement with the GPL. I anticipate that other
policy papers will split the GPL and its framers from the rest of FOSS. This
is classic divide and conquer played at a professional level: submit or be
crushed! This is an example how TSG is way out of their league and are
puppets.
3) The author clearly and exhaustively paints TSG as a small, legitimate
software vendor who happens to own all UNIX. He KNOWINGLY lies on many
points. Two examples, he states that TSG sued Redhat and that TSG always
based the IBM suit on copyright infringement (when I still cannot determine
what role TSG intends for copyright law). These lies are boldfaced and
stand in stark contrast to the many literature references that add authority
to the paper. Unfortunately, any image of authority is a shallow debating
posture. If I lack the authority of a lobbyist, my final observation should
level the field: the author always states the TSG position as I have heard it
from none other than Darl and the author never presents IBM's, Novell's,
or Redhat's positions. This is active lobbying for a company that was
nearly out of business before Microsoft gave it tens of millions.
4) Everyone who studies the FOSS issues knows the GPL is NOT viral. The
author repeats lies from unnamed sources when he says that inclusion of
GPL'd code contaminates the new code. Everyone knows the proper remedy
is to merely rewrite the GPL'd code and redistribute. It is as though the
author wanted to reinforce this old lie when it has been proven to be a lie.
The author paves the way for TSG to testify they did not knowingly distribute
their proprietary SW under the GPL when the record proves they knew. But
TSG did the opposite of this viral claim when they distributed their code
under the GPL.
5) The author and Congress do not understand that some FOSS Projects
are the works of tens of thousands of people over decades. Thousands
of individual businesses have knowingly contributed. No one person
or business working in isolation could ever achieve what successful FOSS
projects achieve. No one person or business working in isolation could
legitimately justify the risks and time involved in many FOSS projects. BSD
UNIX is FOSS and supplies vastly more UNIX code than AT&T's versions.
Many of us know how AT&T lifted the BSD code for use in AT&T releases.
What TSG owns is warehouses of worthless code and documentation for
extinct versions of AT&T UNIX, sans any trademarks, trade secrets, patents,
or copyrights...period. Novell owns a few copyrights in parts of SVRx. But
a UNIX branded operating system is like an encyclopedia of software routines
with tens or hundreds of thousands of overlapping copyrights. Just review
the peripheral drivers to see the many hands involved. Get it right: FOSS
does not need proprietary software but most tech businesses would crumble
without massive infusions of FOSS tool chains, protocol stacks, interpreters,
etc. The threat is not FOSS stealing proprietary crap. The reality is that FOSS
provides vastly superior products.
6) The most antagonistic position impugns the character of the whole FOSS
community as professionals: the author states that FOSS projects might not
perform source code management at the same standard of conduct as the
proprietary businesses. Gawd, what an insult! If FOSS operated at or below
the level of the typical proprietary business, there would be NO Internet or
global information society. FOSS is so superior that the smarter businesses
are learning FOSS techniques. NOT ONLY IS FOSS BETTER, FOSS PROJECTS
ARE MANAGED MUCH BETTER. It is the cathedral versus the bazaar views
of the commons.
7) In the last two months, Internet articles quote Bill Gates as predicting
that hardware will be effectively free in ten years and also that businesses
will not need programmers in ten years because .Net will enable business
people to write their own business software. These people intend to cook
the goose and they already own plenty of gold. $53 billion is plenty. These
people would rather kill off the American software community than have
to compete with it. They would devastate the American economy.
8) There are planned, organized, well funded attacks on FOSS. The FOSS
community want Bill Gates and Microsoft to leave them alone. We have
next to nothing to do with them. We as a community are not corrupted by
their $53 billion. Left alone, we are building the global infrastructure. FOSS
is peaceful and productive.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Hydra on Sunday, April 25 2004 @ 05:23 AM EDT |
Others have suggested that open source licenses may not be
legally enforceable, which would allow users to obtain and assert intellectual
property rights pertaining to software that was initially distributed as open
source.
Now, I don't know if this popped up here before,
but at least in Germany the GPL was held up in a case against
Sitecom:
News.com: GPL gains clout in German legal case
A
snippet:
April 22, 2004, By Stephen Shankland
A
German court has required a company to comply with the terms of the General
Public License, giving some legal weight to the increasingly important document
that governs Linux and innumerable other open-source programs.
The
case involves netfilter/iptables, open-source networking software for tasks such
as firewalls for protecting a network from unwanted traffic. Harald Welte, one
of the main netfilter authors, sued a Dutch company, Sitecom, alleging it used
the software in a wireless network product without abiding by the terms of the
General Public License (GPL).
[...] [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Paul Shirley on Sunday, April 25 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT |
| That the GPL conflicts with the right to make backups is an interesting
claim.
In reality the GPL restrictions only kick in when you give someone
else a copy - but a backup is by definition made for yourself. Under the
terms of the GPL there are no restrictions on how you copy or how many copies
you make for yourself, either as an individual or a corporate entity, as
long as you dont give them away.
By distributing a backup it ceases to be a
backup and becomes a copy triggering the GPL.
There is no
conflict for backups. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 25 2004 @ 09:24 AM EDT |
I feel so much safer now, after reading some of the CRS report RL32268,
"Intellectual Property, Computer Software and the Open Source
Movement", by John R. Thomas, now that the "Members and Committees of
Congress" understands the "fundamental concepts of modern computer
software technology" and have the accurate picture of the Open Source
movement.
However, I immediately stopped reading after this:
"An understanding of the fundamentals of modern computer software
technology will assist in an understanding of the open source movement. Software
programmers typically write software programs using a high level computer
language such as Basic, C++, or Java. By using the words, symbols and numbers
that make up these high-level computer languages, the programmer tells the
computer what to do. For instance, the command "ADD(X, Y)" instructs
the computer to add the value of the variable X to the variable Y. A computer
program written in this high level language is said to be in "source
code" form."
* The command "ADD(X, Y)" looks like assembly language and
is more similar to the assembly language instruction "MOV X, 2"
[Lou97, p. 3] than a a high level computer language like Java "int y =
x;" [JLS00]
* Assembly language is not modern. The first assembly language, Short Code, was
invented in 1949.
Even high level computer language is not all that modern.
FORTRAN, the first high-level computer language, was invented in 1957. [Boz03]
Since 1967, when Simula 67 was invented and Object Oriented Programming was
born, "modern" software is not developed much differently today.
* BASIC is not the high level computer language most typically associated with
open source. Not even Java.
Linux is written in C [Lin04] and Mozilla is written in C++ [Moz04].
* High-level computer language software is not made up by words, symbols and
numbers, but by tokens such as identifiers, keywords, literals, separators and
operators. [JLS00] There's actually a difference.
* Also, I think the way most programmers think about programming is not just
telling the computer what to do, (like entering commands in a terminal window),
but rather instructing the computer how to do something (actually more like
writing an instruction manual).
[Lou97] Compiler Construction Principles and Practice, Kenneth C. Louden, PWS
Publishing Company
[JLS00] The Java Language Specification, Second Edition,
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/
[Lin04] http://www.kernel.org/
[Moz04] http://www.mozilla.org/
[Boz03] http://mbinfo.mbdesign.net/1937-1960.htm
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 25 2004 @ 11:25 PM EDT |
ACS is the last body I would have expected to support open source. (Boring suits
and sales last time I looked.) An advantage is that government may take them
seriously but I will be interested learn if any open source people do.
The referenced web page (www.linuxworld.com.au sponsored by Mircosoft, the
article credited to Computerworld last seen lining my cat's litter) mentions
that other groups are supporting OSEG. They include Linux Australia probably
good if true and AUUG Australia Open System Group) definitely good if true.
So I'd be waiting for more independent sceptical accounts.
M.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
"The GPL places limitations upon the ability of users to make
copies of GPL licensed software, however. In particular, the GPL requires that
individuals receiving copies of the software also receive copies of the GPL, and
that persons making copies of the software be able to access the program's
source code. The GPL then states that '[a]ny attempt otherwise to copy, modify,
sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate
your rights under this License.'
I don't know why all the
whining over the few restrictions on copying under the GPL. Most proprietary
software products do not allow any copying beyond that necessary to
install and use the program, and to make a backup copy. The only reason I can
think of for the objection is that they want to be able to
steal freely copy GPL code themselves, then distribute it as
proprietary software prohibiting all copying, modification and redistribution by
users.
---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
