|
Ken Brown Takes Off the Mask; and a Gilbert & Sullivan Parody |
|
Friday, June 04 2004 @ 11:58 PM EDT
|
Ken Brown takes off his mask and publishes a response to criticism of his "theory" about how Linux was written which reveals his true agenda: he wants to get governments to stop switching to Linux. If they must use anything, he wants it to be a BSD-style license, not the GPL, presumably so a certain proprietary software company can use the code without having to give anything back, something the GPL prevents. I have an alternative suggestion. Maybe government officials need to investigate instead whether a certain proprietary software company is legally misusuing its monopoly status by funding phony "research" about their competition. Are there no regulations on lobbying at all? After that, then maybe they could look into whether it's an anti-trust violation to use proxy companies to bring IP lawsuits of questionable merit to slow adoption of competitors' products.
His theory, it turns out, is that Linus can't be a genius, and therefore it couldn't be that he wrote Linux the way he says he did. No proof. Just assertions. I read what he wrote and ask, Is that all there is? That is the best you can do? Linus must be nearly a saint, then, if that is all they could dig up.
I thought about how or even whether to write anything about Brown's latest. What Brown wrote was so silly, it's hard to even know how to answer. I feel a little like an "American Idol" judge after a jaw-droppingly bad performance in the tryouts. What do you say? It seems almost cruel to say anything. And getting into a "conversation" with him, with his agenda, is a bit like accepting an invitation to appear on one of those shows where the interviewer abuses the guest by yelling at him and twisting beyond recognition everything the guest tries manfully to say, despite being repeatedly interrupted, mocked, and demeaned by the host. You have to wonder if it's worth it. How do you answer something as stunningly off, and Alice-in-Wonderland funny, as this: "Isn’t fair to question the character and ethics of individuals that espouse contempt for intellectual property? Isn’t fair to question their character, when the core of their business strategy is trust?" See what I mean? Maybe he only writes for the clueless. Trust is now a bad word? We should quesion someone's character because they trust? Linus, of course, has never expressed contempt for intellectual property. Brown read some comments on the internet that he attaches to Linux, as if the community is some monolith, with one view and all ascribing to it. For example, he read an Eric Raymond commentary on Newsforge on the Cisco source code theft in May, where he wrote “maybe the theft will be a good enough reason for Cisco customers to check out open source alternatives." He uses that comment to imply that the community expresses contempt for intellectual property? Ridiculous. Open source code is a protection against the kinds of privacy/security problems customers of the proprietary world struggle with. Here is what Raymond actually wrote, and you'll see it wasn't a celebration of the theft, merely an observation that closed source isn't a good idea: "The 15 May 2004 theft and publishing of the source code for Cisco's IOS router firmware could mean a wave of exploits against the critical router infrastructure of the Internet will be on its way. If that happens, it will be because Cisco ignored one of the iron rules of network security -- and experts the world over will be muttering 'if only IOS had been open source.'
"The iron rule is Kerckhoffs' Law, which states, 'A cryptosystem should be designed to be secure if everything is known about it except the key information.' Now that the source code of IOS is circulating in the cracker/phreak underground, we're going to find out if IOS followed that rule. If it didn't, we'll find out the hard way.
"What has this got to do with open source? Well, if IOS had been open source to begin with, we'd have a firm basis for believing that it passes the Kerckhoffs test: Open source keeps you honest that way. As it is, customers' first notice that it wasn't is likely to be chaos and havoc from router compromises.
"Claude Shannon, the inventor of information theory, restated Kerckhoffs' Law as: '[Assume] the enemy knows the system.' Here's Raymond's Reformulation for the 21st century: 'Any security software design that doesn't assume the enemy possesses the source code is already untrustworthy; therefore, *never trust closed source*.'
"Maybe the theft will be a good enough reason for Cisco customers to check out open source alternatives like XORP or FREESCO. And that's not just a good idea for router firmware, either. As the Netsky and Sasser worms pound on your Windows machines, ask yourself: 'Is there a better way?'
"Millions of Linux users already know the answer is yes." Does that sound like a celebration of intellectual property theft to you? Me neither. For that matter, what's to stop some unethical AdTI operative from placing a comment on the internet somewhere, as if he were a member of the community, making it legally offensive in content, and then quoting the comment to attack Linux? You really have no way of knowing who left comments online in most cases, do you? Astroturfing is real. Such comments have no place in any research studies. What to do with the intellectually-challenged or intellectually dishonest? After pondering the matter for some hours, I reached this conclusion: We need to learn never to speak to such people and not to answer their questions. He warns he will be continuing to ask questions for his book: "AdTI will continue to interview people within the open source profession about open source. It would be skewed and bias to only quote people that are anti-Linux or anti-open source. I have done this for years, and will continue to do so, regardless of what a source thinks of my theories." What he doesn't realize, I think, is that no one who watched this episode closely will ever talk to him again. If no one will talk to him any more, his "research" results will have no weight with anyone. That is, I think, the best solution to writers and journalists who obviously have a hostile agenda.
Keep in mind that he apparently sometimes uses others to post the questions. As in, "Hi, I'm clueless, can you explain to me how Linus used Minix to write the Linux kernel?" Then they hope someone gives an answer they can quote as being representative of "the Linux community" and their views. First, they decide what they want their research to find, I gather, and then they go mining until they find it, or create it by stretching something they get until it's useful to their purpose. There is no reason to help him with such an agenda.
This is a radical solution, but now that he has shown us his purpose, I think it is appropriate. If I reverse engineer his writing, I come up with this: Microsoft is worried about governments switching to GNU/Linux systems. They want to destroy the GPL or persuade governments to only use BSD-style licenses. AdTI apparently decided to do "research" and come up with an "independent" study, to persuade those in government not to use free/open source software under the GPL. To do that, they figured it'd work to put a cloud over Linus, make officials think they might be sued for intellectual property problems he allegedly created according to their "research", and hope that this would do the trick. The response is at http://www.adti.net/samizdat/brown.reply.june.04.html but it's OK with me if you don't go there from here. Or at all, for that matter. Here is why he says he published Samizdat: "Samizdat is a series of excerpts from an upcoming book on open source and operating systems that will be published later this year. AdTI did not publish Samizdat with the expectation that rabidly pro-Linux developers would embrace it. Its purpose is to provide U.S. leadership with a researched presentation on attribution and intellectual property problems with the hybrid source code model, particularly Linux. It is our hope that leadership would find this document helpful with public policy decisions regarding its future investment in Linux and other hybrid source products. . . . "The Samizdat report recommends that the U.S. government should invest $5 billion in research and development efforts that produce true open source products, such as BSD and MIT license-based open source. Government investment in open source development will accelerate innovation. However, increased investment should be in true open source, open source without any stipulations, other than attribution and copyright notification, not hybrid source." Trust me when I tell you, this is by far the least objectionable of all his statements. He also says Linux is a leprosy destroying the economy and that FOSS, or "the hybrid software model" "depends heavily upon sponging talent from U.S. corporations and/or U.S. proprietary software". He also says that if Linux is used in embedded devices, the "value" of hardware will go down. Maybe he missed the memo from Microsoft/Sun, the patent regime partners: they are saying the future is free hardware: "Now, President and Chief Operating Officer Jonathan Schwartz said, the company will be expanding that, seeking to position the company with a new business model.
"'In our world, you will subscribe to the software and the hardware is free,' Schwartz said, who was named to his post almost six weeks ago. 'Directionally, our expectation is that in fiscal 2005 you're going to see a rapid departure from selling hardware, software and services apart.'
"Schwartz isn't alone in saying that hardware will someday be 'free,' so long as customers sign up for multiyear software subscriptions and services contracts. "Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates has said he believes that, within a few years, hardware will be free and that software will be bought on a subscription basis, rather than as a one-time purchase that must be upgraded routinely.
"'Bill Gates and I agree that within four to five years hardware will be free,' Schwartz told Reuters, who will outline Sun's belief at a Sun conference in Shanghai this week that the network - the hardware, software, storage and its interlinks - is fast becoming a commodity." So, Brown is out-of-date and irrelevant. Eric Raymond has responded to the vision of the future of "free" hardware in an article entitled, "Free Hardware - A Trojan Horse?", by the way. Beware of suits bearing gifts, he says: "The devil in their Free Hardware story is, at least at first, in the details. Anyone who believes a vendor is going to give away hardware under a contract that allows the customer to immediately strip off the software and repurpose it probably still hasn't faced the truth about the Tooth Fairy. There are really only two scenarios here; either the hardware will be so cheap that the customer would get no gain from the deal, or (if it has real value) the lease contract will have a clause requiring that it be used only with the specified software."
I do note that Brown did not respond to any of the points raised by Eric Raymond, Dennis Ritchie or Richard Stallman, or Linus himself. He writes some incomprehensible things about Andrew Tanenbaum. No one reading his reply would be left with anything but the clear impression that he has no basis for his attack on Linus or Tanenbaum, in my view. Now he says the book won't be available until later this year. So, I gather they desire to incorporate reactions to their troll. Another good reason not to feed the troll.
I would like to share with you one thing I came up with while working on Grokline's history project. I was reading Dennis Ritchie's history of UNIX, and lo and behold, he mentions that UNIX was written on Multics and was influenced by it. Real giants know that knowledge comes from knowledge. It rarely happens in a vacuum, particularly in science.
When in doubt as to what to say, a little humor may be the best. Here is a parody of Gilbert and Sullivan, which someone left anonymously on Groklaw, which is one reason I never listen to people who tell me to block anonymous comments, and because not everyone reads all the comments, I wanted to reproduce it here. I hope you enjoy it.
***************************************
Gilbert and Sullivan parody
I am the very model of a modern hi-tech PR flak,
I'm very quick on defense but I'm even quicker on attack,
I'm educated in things literary and linguistical:
But history is not for me, I write the fictionistical,
I'll take your pay to publicize the high reflectancy of black,
But if I've interviewed you recently, you'd better watch your back!
In terms of obloquy and slander I can wax artistical,
But logic and integrity are to my mind most mystical.
(And logic and integrity are to his mind most mystical!)
(And logic and integrity are to his mind most mystical!)
(And logic and integrity are to his mind most mystical!)
I've never been deterred by inconvenient testimonial,
I twist their words to generate my document so phonial.
Though I know less of logic than a Lindon salesman smoking crack,
I am the very model of a modern hi-tech PR flak.
(Since he knows less of logic than a Lindon salesman smoking crack,
(He is the very model of a loony Luddite PR flak.)
I never learned the uses of the aneroid comptometer,
I need help reading numbers off a digital thermometer,
I couldn't tell the difference 'twixt a kernel and a general,
So far as I know, C is wet and Perl is just a mineral,
I couldn't write a kernel in six years and a sabbatical,
For someone else to try would be politically radical,
And even if he took a comp sci course in university,
I'm sure that Linus isn't even close to being smart as me.
(He's sure nobody's ever even close to being smart as he.)
(He's sure nobody's ever even close to being smart as he.)
(He's sure nobody's ever even close to being smart as he.)
I'm president of a prestigious research institutional,
We own three postal boxes and an address all confusional,
We're bound to please the people, and it's surely only rational,
The people that we please the most are those that pay the cash and all.
I know that only true proprietary thoughts are seminal,
I'll gird the globe to get the dirt on just one evil criminal,
Though I won't know where I have been or whether I am flying back,
I'll be the very global image of the new high-flying flak.
(I'll be the very global image of the new high-flying flak.)
(I'll be the very global image of the new high-flying flak.)
(I'll be the very global image of the new high-flying flak.)
I'm less concerned with morals than a Redmond sales executive,
I'll never take the pay unless I first know what results to give,
In short, in barratry research, defensive or on the attack,
I am the very model of a modern hi-tech PR flak.
(In short, in barratry research, defensive or on the attack,)
(He is the very model of a loony Luddite PR flak.)
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:26 AM EDT |
Pls. put all corrections in this thread. Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Collect my mistakes here, please - Authored by: bbaston on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:53 AM EDT
- Collect my mistakes here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:06 AM EDT
- Collect my mistakes here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:45 AM EDT
- Collect my mistakes here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 10:52 AM EDT
- Collect my mistakes here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:00 PM EDT
- URL for Brown's Latest Statement, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:06 PM EDT
- Internet is a proper noun - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 09:04 PM EDT
- Quesion -> Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 08:30 AM EDT
|
Authored by: bbaston on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:36 AM EDT |
Thanks
---
Ben
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO, {;)}
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold, hairysmileyface,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Gong Show not American Idol - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:55 AM EDT
- OT and Links here: M$ patents - Authored by: bbaston on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:54 AM EDT
- OT: the ms monopoly - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:10 AM EDT
- OT: Illegally gained and maintained MS monopoly - Authored by: grouch on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:41 AM EDT
- Wrong Wrong Wrong - Authored by: grundy on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:44 AM EDT
- OT: the ms monopoly - Authored by: perrye on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 04:15 AM EDT
- OT: the ms monopoly - Authored by: micheal on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 05:50 AM EDT
- OT: the ms monopoly - Authored by: bruce_s on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:50 AM EDT
- OT: the ms monopoly - ms did NOT earn it. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:44 AM EDT
- OT: the consistent immorality of ms - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 08:14 AM EDT
- OT: How did M$ obtain its monopoly - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:54 AM EDT
- OT: thanks all - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 11:05 AM EDT
- OT: the ms monopoly - Authored by: fxbushman on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:03 PM EDT
- Microsoft is still a criminal - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:12 PM EDT
- The problem is not the monopoly - Authored by: billyskank on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 08:54 AM EDT
- SUN Solaris going open source? - Authored by: skuggi on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:25 AM EDT
- Why speculate and guess when the evidence exists? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 05:23 AM EDT
- Proof that Microsoft fears FOSS adoption - Authored by: WojtekPod on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:22 AM EDT
- MS Patent Licensing - Authored by: SmyTTor on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:24 AM EDT
- ADTI tobacco promotion for Philip Morris - Authored by: doughnuts_lover on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:57 AM EDT
- ..hi Bill!: "chief software architect" ;-) and Ex-CEO Kumar breaks ties with CA. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:35 PM EDT
- laura Didio in the Great White North - Authored by: tangomike on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- More background on ADTI's astroturfing - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:23 PM EDT
- OT and Links here - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 07:23 AM EDT
- OT and Links here - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 01:13 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:39 AM EDT |
All I could think while reading Brown's most recent blather was "How in the
world does this guy sleep at night?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ltlw0lf on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:50 AM EDT |
This Ken Brown is a moron, and everyone knows it. Unfortunately though,
Congress too are morons, so they are more than likely to pick up on this. I
know myself that most government employees in IT will stand up against any push
by Congress to outlaw Linux as we use it all the time, and love the fact that we
have yet to see a BSOD (or kernel panic) on our Linux servers while the Windows
servers have to be rebooted regularly when Exchange dies. Our organization
(within the government) is now phasing out Exchange in favor of Cyrus-IMAPd and
Netscape.
What kills me is his statement that everyone says Linux was created from
scratch, but to him, that means Linux was created in a (preverbial) vaccuum,
"from a blank computer screen." Microsoft didn't even create their OS
from scratch! They bought a DOS operating system from another company, licensed
it as MSDOS to IBM, and were smart enough to avoid a contract which locked them
into IBM so they could sell their OS to clone vendors too. Then, they borrowed
a ton of code from various places to build WindowsNT. So, calling Linus on this
is like the pot calling the kettle black...there are only a few companies
(Apple, Xerox, AT&T, etc.) that created an OS in a vaccuum (and I'd argue
that those companies didn't create them in a true vaccuum), and Microsoft can
not genuinely say that they have created Windows or MSDOS from scratch either.
So, I think I should now go off and write a book called "Samizdat: Bill
Gates stole MSDOS from Seattle Computer Software company, and Windows from
IBM." Though unlike Mr. Brown, I'll actually take the time to do quality
research, since there is plenty of evidence of both. And then I'll use this
book as a basis to getting Congress to vote Microsoft out of the government
computer business.
Better yet, I'll just work with others within the government to build enough of
a groundswell that the GAO will take notice and produce their own studies as to
why Microsoft should not be allowed to do business with the government, (being a
convicted monopolist should be grounds for removal, but apparently that isn't
sufficient.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:53 AM EDT |
Gates says hardware will be free. I suspect Sun, Intel and IBM think in a few
years software will be free.
I don't know but has hardware not been droping in price while software
(Microsoft) been increasing in price. Is not this predicted by almost any model
of a monopoly?
DOS was $10 per copy, and a 386 cost $200 now a Pentium 4 costs $100 and
DOS(windows) costs $100.
Why has software increased in cost and hardware decreased in cost. A 3Ghz
Pentium is far more capable than a 25 Mhz 486.
It seems that Moore's Law has only one beneficary, Microsoft.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:54 AM EDT |
As always, I do one last check of groklaw before wrapping up my work day (it's
now nearly ten PM where I live, and grandmother's need their rest :o). Perusing
groklaw and other news sites is how I unwind before heading off to sleep.
How nice it is tonight to end the day with laughter.
I enjoyed this one tremendously. Thanks
brooker: TLOLTKFTLIBSP (the little ol lady that keeps forgetting to log in
before she posts)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:55 AM EDT |
Any chance we'll get IBM 167 before Monday? I'm bursting to see it
P.S.
I noticed a number of prn spam comments posted on Groklaw posted on June 4th.
If we are to have a free, open, and productive dialogue, I respectfully request
that leaders in ADTI and SCOX community condemn and discourage these attacks.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:55 AM EDT |
So, Brown is out-of-date and irrelevant. Eric Raymond has
responded to the vision of the future of "free" hardwawre in an article
entitled, "Free Hardware - A Trojan Horse?", by the way. Beware of suits bearing
gifts, he says:
"Hardwawre" should be "hardware."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Dan M on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:58 AM EDT |
IIRC it was Mr Feynman who stated "This isn't right. It's not even
wrong".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:02 AM EDT |
KB himself has admitted that his target audience isn't us. His target audience
is (US) politicians, who are notorious for their lack of knowledge of Things
Technologickal.
The most effective method for discrediting his "work" in
their eyes is to force a retraction, viz. by an affected party suing him for
defamation (libel).
If Linus sends him a certified letter requesting he
retract the false statements he (or AdTI) has made, and he declines to do so, he
can be sued for libel in the US.
Law.com's dictionary has this to say about
libel:
libel
1) n. to publish in print ... an
untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation,
by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of
others. ... It is a tort ... making the person or entity ... open to a lawsuit
for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie.
... [It] must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly
identified as an opinion. ... [It] need only be obvious that the statement would
do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to
sue for general damages for damage to reputation....
Libel per se
involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a
proof of intent to get an award of general damages. ... Most states provide for
a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the
correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. ...
The rules
covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or
governmental person) are special. ... The key is that to uphold the right to
express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious
to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:15 AM EDT |
I don't mind seeing the government pay for research but for
companies to ultimately profit from my tax paying dollars
only to sell it back to me? No thanks. It's been going on
for years and I think people will surely have enough of this.
At least I hope so.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:18 AM EDT |
On one hand they claim their intent is to get the government to spend BILLIONS
of dollars on "true open source" that free for anyone and everyone to
take:
"The Samizdat report recommends that the U.S. government should invest $5
billion in research and development efforts that produce true open source
products, such as BSD and MIT license-based open source. Government investment
in open source development will accelerate innovation. However, increased
investment should be in true open source, open source without any stipulations,
other than attribution and copyright notification, not hybrid source."
But on the other hand they allege "hybrid source" Linux is evil,
wicked mean and nasty precisely because it supposedly allows just that to
happen:
"Noone can ever truly accrue any value from owning hybrid source software,
because everybody (and anybody) has the rights to every line of improvement in
it."
So how exactly will the owners of "true open source" accrue any value
from owning it if the government spends $5 billion taxpayer dollars for code
that lets anyone take it without stipulations? Actually it sounds like what ADTI
is promoting (letting proprietary software take "true open source"
code) should be considered "hybrid source." I think the best term to
describe this is "corporate welfare" by advocating the taxpayers spend
money to do R&D for Microsoft where MS can take that $5 billion dollars in
development and sell it in their proprietary "hybrid source" software.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rweiler on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:21 AM EDT |
Ken Brown's motive isn't hidden in any way since he uses almost the same
language as Microsoft employees. It isn't just that he thinks the Government
shouldn't use Free Software, he also thinks that the government should pass laws
preventing government funded software from being released under the GPL,
including software developed at Universities. While Ken doesn't state it very
clearly, his objection to the GPL is that it prevents monopolists or would be
monopolists from extracting monopoly rents from software that they didn't write,
but are able to 'embrace and extend'. By an amazing coincidence, that's exactly
the problem that Microsoft has with the GPL. There is no hidden agenda here at
all.
---
Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: grayhawk on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:21 AM EDT |
I would like to know how Mr. Brown would answer to the fact that at our college
the software engineering students are required to write an OS from scratch
within one semester (48 hours of class time) on a regular basis and that their
results will determine whether they pass or fail that course.
They are not allowed to copy another persons work and all such developments must
be original work and not from some existing operating system like Minix, Linux,
Dos, etc. Very few fail this course.
These OS's aren't as sophisticated as Dos, Linux, Minux et al. But then what
can you accomplish in one semester (3 months) when your time is also spent on
other projects and courses. They are required to boot the system, work with the
installed hardware and make a system a functioning computer.
Maybe Mr. Brown should come and take this course before writing anymore fiction
that he tries to pass off as reality.
---
All ships are safe in a harbour but that is not where they were meant to be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:25 AM EDT |
I'll try and avoid politics in this, as far as I can...
Anyway my point is I don't think government should be doing _unnecessary_
activities (and I think more or less everybody can agree on that, but they just
differ, sometimes radically, on what is necessary/unnecessary as a government
function)
Personally I think software development is an unnecessary activity of
government, except to the extent it is necessary to perform other core
government functions.
(I realize not everybody is going to agree with that, for example some people
might advocate government creating software products for non-government use,
e.g., as government involvement in the software market as a nationalized
industry)
Anyway if you accept two premises about how government should be doing things (I
suspect most but not all people would accept these)
(a) as efficiently as possible - to reduce burden on rest of society
(e.g.taxes), or to allow government to spend more on other activities (e.g.
social programs)
(b) software development is an unnecessary activity of government, except to the
extent it is necessary to perform other core government functions.
Then the obvious conclusion, is government should be doing the software tasks
that it must do, in the most cost-effective, and efficient way possible.
I can imagine that there may be cases where buying a closed source system may be
the best fit. I can imagine that there may be cases where using BSD or GPL
software and paying for services may be the best fit. I can imagine that there
may be cases where government developing new software might even be the best
fit.... I think each case needs to be evaluated individually.
Now I also realize that are lots of arguments about the long terms merits of
each approach. For example, issues about vendor-lock-in, etc. These need to be
addressed in the evaluation process that government uses when selecting systems.
Let the best and most cost-effective product/service win, based on a fair
overall evaluation.
Requiring government to select products/services based on arbitrary criteria or
license choice (as Brown suggests) would seem to me to run contrary to public
interest (if you accept my two premises), and simply be pandering to special
interests and pork-barreling.
Finally as to government developed software...
IANAL but it is my understanding that U.S. Federal government can not claim
copyright.
I do not think this should preclude them from contributing to BSD or GPL
projects (but the government contributions when standing alone will be public
domain)
But I also think there is a reason for this. Federal government development
belongs to all of society (we all paid for it), and should be available to use
by all of society (even people we might dislike or in ways we might dislike) as
freely as possible.
In fact, I would go so far as saying, unless there is a very good reason for it
in a particular case, government should be required to make its public domain
works available to the public at large (and not prevent their public use by
imposing an unnecessary veil of society). Federal work belongs to all.
I don't have a problem with closed-source vendors take public domain government
work and building on it. Nor do I have a problem with GPL or BSD authors taking
public domain works and building on it. Let 'em race and see who can build the
best. The original public domain work remains public domain. And this is no
different from other government works that have been used over the years in many
different and innovative ways (including ways that I may not personally like) -
including movies of WW2, CIA World Fact Book, SBA reports, census data, and so
on.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:25 AM EDT |
Ken Brown’s valueless (but nonetheless bought and paid for) opinion aside, while
I doubt SCO can even consider doing so now at this late juncture, Darl DID make
comments that BSD wasn’t safe litigation either, as this article from November
of last year spells out:
"SCO To Expand Its
Lawsuit Beyond Linux"
Even living in Ken Brown’s warped world wouldn’t
protect you from being safe from the clutches of the feverish minds in Lindon……
Scott
--- LINUX - Visibly superior! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Andy on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:32 AM EDT |
AdTI has no problem publishing a report, whether sources do, or
do not want to talk with us.
I'd think that, in order to be
considered a source someone would have to actually talk to the
interviewer.
I'm also trying to come to terms with the second paragraph,
which asserts that the U.S. Government better protect the intellectual property
it owns by taking out patents, which are designed to restrict who can use it --
because obviously, we wouldn't want the citizens of a country to have unfettered
access to the results of research and development that their tax dollars paid
for! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:34 AM EDT |
Looking at the influence (or lack thereof) of some the other studies from ADTi,
I wouldn't worry too terribly much. The politicians all should know by now that
they're just a bunch of paid hacks (ADTi, not the politicians. I think).
It's clear that Ken Brown's true attack has nothing to do with facts, but with
ideas. He's actually a bit clever in a way, to get everyone riled up about
outrageous factual claims and conclusions to get an even larger base of quotes
to twist, and while everyone gets bogged down in the minutia, he winds up with
little challenge to his claim that the GPL will destroy the computer industry.
That's all he cares about, and that's all the decision makers will care about as
they don't have the time or know-how to dig into the facts. I can sum up what
you'll hear from Ken Brown if he ever is interviewed by a congressperson or news
agency.
"How do we know where open-source code came from?"
"Who's in charge?"
"How does an industry survive on a free product?"
Forget about all the junk about how many lines Linus can code per day. Senators
and TV viewers don't care. In the off case that this book actually inspires
legislation, those three questions are about all you'll have to answer. I'll
throw out some keywords and responses to help out those that aren't used to
creating pro-Linux FUD.
"How do we know Microsoft isn't stealing code from Linus?"
"What happens to Windows users if something happens to Microsoft?"
"How does your company know if Microsoft is getting bribed by your
competition to poison your software?"
Then there's the argument that operating systems are a natural monopoly since
competition breeds incompatibility which hurts productivity. That's a real
minefield, because you can either wind up with a government regulated Microsoft
or Linux with government oversight (which wouldn't be too bad, basically a
subcommittee meets once a year to make sure Linus isn't charging too much for
the kernel. Oh yeah, and Windows is outlawed as an OS, but allowed to be a
window manager.) It's not that far-fetched, and I think it's where IBM, Novell,
et al, want to go tomorrow.
All computers required by law to run a *nix variant? It'll save the computer
industry from having to spend billions of dollars on reinventing the wheel every
year, and allow them to start building real machines.
(Not that I think government-mandated *nix is a great idea, but the arguments
for it will help crush the FUD coming from Microsoft. Everybody needs to just
parrot everything I said and the Linux community will become just like every
other political power broker. Enjoy.) (I'm joking.) (Some.)
^_^;[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: billposer on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:49 AM EDT |
He writes some incomprehensible things about Andrew
Tanenbaum.
I've posted an analysis of one of Brown's comments
on Tanenbaum
here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:50 AM EDT |
It makes it seem like we have something to hide. Respond and have what we say
twsited around; remain silent and be accused of hiding our dirty laundry. Since
it's a lose-lose situation, we might as well answer, so we can point out how
absurdly he twists what we say. --- Give a man a match, and he'll be
warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his
life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:06 AM EDT |
Another reason this is interesting is because the Ritchie, Thompson kernel
was 11,000 lines of code over a number of years, and the Torvalds kernel was
32,000 in under a year.
In my junior year of high school me and my
classmates each wrote a video game as a final project in our Computer Science
class. The games easily streched into the thousands of lines. That is to say
the code produced by me and my friends was easily 11,000 lines of code in two or
three weeks. By Mr. Browns measure, our combined coding skill was equal to a
number of years of Ritchie and Thompson skill. Or maybe the # of lines has
nothing to do with anything, even when comparing two kernels.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tizan on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:11 AM EDT |
If it was not causing the damage that it has or still may...
I would suggest ignore this guy to oblivion, to debunk Mr Brown's stuff is
glorifying it...his arguments are not really worth it.
Really the beauty of the GNU license works at different levels from big business
to the hacker or the lonely user...it allows you to make money with software but
prevents you from preventing your neighbour to try and do the same (which is
good for competition).
Its legal in all the countries i know of (anyway is there a country in the world
who has said that GNU license is illegal under their constitution ?)...and you
don't fear to share software with your neighbour as long as you stick to the
licensing agreement...i.e let your neighbour know how and where you got it (what
the license is) and who holds the copyright !
Why would anybody who is for fair competition in business or sofware be against
this license ?
---
tizan: What's the point of knowledge if you don't pass it on. Its like storing
all your data on a 1-bit write only memory ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:12 AM EDT |
One thing Brown probably doesn't realise is that the
'lyons book' wasn't (to my knowledge) being passed around
on the internet - it's basicly pre-internet - for Linus to
have obtained a copy (as he presumes) somehow a hard copy
had to find it's way to Finland. Besides it describes the
V6 swapping kernel for a pdp11 - not a VM kernel for a 386
It was also written in a DIFFERENT version of C than Linux
- that's right the language changed quite a bit between
then and now (for example "a =+ 1" was replaced by "a +=
1", and structure elements lived in their own name space -
this 'feature' was used instead of 'union's etc etc)
If Brown really thinks that Linux was derived from V6/the
Lyons book he probably ought to show that the original
version was written in that old C dialect (which of course
he can't) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ted Powell on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:12 AM EDT |
I am the very model of a modern hi-tech PR
flak,
Here, and in about eight other places, the appropriate
word is "flack" (press agent), not to be confused with "flak" (German acronym
for antiaircraft guns, or the bursting shells fired from same). The latter word
does have the colloquial meaning, "abusive criticism", but "flack" fits the
context much better.
I never learned the uses of the aneroid
comptometer,
On the other hand, the author does appear to have
read
The Castle of Iron !
--- "Circular logic will only make you
dizzy, Doctor!"
--Perpugilliam Brown [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: grubber on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:23 AM EDT |
The piece is not even grammatically correct, as a "professional" writer should
know. Top 3 errors I saw:
3. "No one" is two words, not one.
2. He says,
and I quote:
Meanwhile, we should also very plainly ask, “who[m]
are we trusting?”
Does he not know whether this should be who or
whom? Does he think it should be both? He's not quoting anyone, so what exactly
does the [m] mean? (of course it should be whom. who does not make any sense at
all)
1. And the top quote, and this is a GEM! I am not making this up!
Search and you'll find it yourself...
To write Samizdat, I worked
with (and quoted) many individuals directly or indirectly familiar with Linux
development. AdTI will continue to interview people within the open source
profession about open source. It would be skewed and bias to only quote
people that are anti-Linux or anti-open source. I have done this for years, and
will continue to do so, regardless of what a source thinks of my theories.
[Emphasis mine]
What exactly has he done for years? His paragraph
appears to say that, for years, he has been quoting only people that are
anti-Linux or anti-open source. And, he has no remorse and will continue to do
so. (Oh, the joys of pronoun-antecendant agreement, this -> what?!)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ettc. - Authored by: superluser on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:00 AM EDT
- Top 3 Errors... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 04:31 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:31 AM EDT |
Until the lid was blown off the lying tobacco industry, lobbyists backed by
lying pseudo-scientific papers kept law makers at bay. Only after
tobacco industry insiders exposed the conspiracy did the effect of the
industry lobbyists fade...they disappeared.
Brown is proceeding to divide and conquer the FOSS community. He wants
GNU fighting Linux. He wants Stallman fighting Torvalds. He wants to create
the mayhem. This is dirty politics but it does work inside Washington.
Brown is using divide and conquer to tar the image of the FOSS community
based on discrediting their leaders. The idea is that poor leaders have sub
standard followers.
The aim is to destroy the GPL and give Microsoft control. Brown is very
effective at making his talking points. Everyone else better keep their mouths
shut or talk around Brown but not to him. Brown's only obvious weakness
is his basic ignorance of software. His book might be a blockbuster like all
those tobacco reports on the medical benefits of tar and nicotine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:35 AM EDT |
This finally makes sense.
In order to create a secure Windows, Microsoft needs to embed the linux kernel
and security systems. But since these are GPL'd they can't. Is that it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:41 AM EDT |
"The Samizdat report recommends that the U.S. government should invest $5
billion in research and development efforts that produce true open source
products, such as BSD and MIT license-based open source. Government investment
in open source development will accelerate innovation. However, increased
investment should be in true open source, open source without any stipulations,
other than attribution and copyright notification, not hybrid source."
MMMM... How interesting. Isn't this exactly the complaint that MS was making
about the NSA's contribution of SELinux?
Of course, without this ridiculous "hybrid source" term.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:42 AM EDT |
[M]aybe they could look into whether it's an anti-trust
violation to use proxy companies to bring IP lawsuits of questionable merit to
slow adoption of competitors' products.
Professional Real Estate Investors v.
Columbia Pictures, 508 U.S. 49 (1993):
This case requires
us to define the "sham" exception to the doctrine of antitrust immunity first
identified in Eastern Railroad President Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight,
Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961), as that doctrine applies in the litigation context.
Under the sham exception, activity "ostensibly directed toward influencing
governmental action" does not qualify for Noerr immunity if it "is a mere sham
to cover . . . an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships
of a competitor." Id., at 144. We hold that litigation cannot be deprived of
immunity as a sham unless the litigation is objectively baseless. The Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to characterize as sham a lawsuit that the
antitrust defendant admittedly had probable cause to institute. We
affirm.
[...]
We now outline a two-part definition of "sham"
litigation. First, the lawsuit must be objectively baseless in the sense that no
reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits. If an
objective litigant could conclude that the suit is reasonably calculated to
elicit a favorable outcome, the suit is immunized under Noerr, and an antitrust
claim premised on the sham exception must fail. Only if challenged litigation is
objectively meritless may a court examine the litigant's subjective motivation.
Under this second part of our definition of sham, the court should focus on
whether the baseless lawsuit conceals "an attempt to interfere directly with the
business relationships of a competitor," Noerr, supra, at 144 (emphasis added),
through the "use [of] the governmental process -- as opposed to the outcome of
that process -- as an anticompetitive weapon," Omni, 499 U.S., at 380 (emphasis
in original). This two-tiered process requires the plaintiff to disprove the
challenged lawsuit's legal viability before the court will entertain evidence of
the suit's economic viability. Of course, even a plaintiff who defeats the
defendant's claim to Noerr immunity by demonstrating both the objective and the
subjective components of a sham must still prove a substantive antitrust
violation. Proof of a sham merely deprives the defendant of immunity; it does
not relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to establish all other elements of
his claim.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: robmyers on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:49 AM EDT |
Note that Brown's efforts have shifted to creating new terminology for
proprietary software vendors to use (Sun are currently Microsoft's glove
puppet for FUD), and trying to change the meanings of words. So "Open
Source"
becomes asset-stripping (BSD) licenses, and value-creation licenses
(GPL)
become (shudder) "Hybrid Source".
This is very dangerous. It's Newspeak,
but if "Open Source" can
marginalise "Free Software", can Microsoft's lobbying
dollars can pay to shove
the evils of "Hybrid Source" down people's (well,
policy-maker's) throats?
On the plus side, obviously Sun can't use an
evil, hybrid-source license
like
the GPL for Xolaris and Java. They'll have to
use an asset-stripping one, which
will allow Microsoft to cherry-pick their
code. But at least they won't see the
reduction in value of their intellectual
property that they would if they went
GPL. ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:57 AM EDT |
PJ -
I know Linus abhors (or at least chooses to ignore) the thought of legal action
involving the likes of these people, but in this circumstance, I truly believe
that it is important to the community as a whole, that Linus take action.
We see that MS is attacking OSS everyday on /. and other OSS sites in the form
of ads. We see clandestinely funded organizations using the legal system to
spread FUD. We see clowns like Ken Brown writing this garbage in FULL knowledge
that he is incorrect and misguided. We see MS patenting its file formats and
the double-click.
Microsoft is afraid of Linux. They will use every possible venue to destroy
commercial application of Linux. They cannot attack directly, so they do this.
It is time that Linus take up the banner and fight back. We need a unified
front (voice) telling everyone who will listen that this is crap. No one can do
this properly except Linus. He needs to C&D Ken Brown and AdTI. He needs
to demand a retraction. Every expert to whom KB spoke says that he is wrong.
Linus, please, you cannot ignore your enemy when it is a force like MS.
-dave
sorry i'm anonymous (loftis(...)qwest=net)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jkondis on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:59 AM EDT |
Telling Ken B. about Claude Shannon and other thinkers in information
technology??? You cast pearls before swine!
"If I reverse
engineer his writing, I come up with this: Microsoft is worried about
governments switching to GNU/Linux systems. They want to destroy the GPL or
persuade governments to only use BSD-style licenses. AdTI apparently decided to
do "research" and come up with an "independent" study, to persuade those in
government not to use free/open source software under the
GPL."
Exactly! I think when one comes to understand GNU/Linux,
one also understands that the magic is in the license. If the BSD market
was growing at anything like the rate of Linux, M$FT would surely be
attacking BSD as well. They BSD is not nearly as much of a threat to M$FT,
1) because the license does not inspire nearly the amount of motivation that
GNU/GPL does, and 2) you can't go swiping GNU/GPL code willy-nilly, as M$FT
has proved willing to do with BSD code.
Programmers that simply want to work
on a free OS project could work on either BSD or Linux, both very advanced
operating systems. Programmers who feel that anyone using their code should
play by the same rules that they do choose Linux. This, I believe, explains the
faster development of Linux over BSD, and it helps to explain why Linux seems to
have achieved "critical mass". In fact, one can understand why even large
corporations such as IBM would be willing to contribute so much to
Linux.
M$FT understands this. They know that they can compete against
BSD, (you never have to worry about competing with a platform whose code you can
swipe with no limit). However, they are worried that they will have a much
harder time competing against Linux because they can't simply swipe the code all
they want. At least not legally anyway. (!) I'm sure they would prefer that
neither Linux nor BSD existed; having a choice, their clear preference would be
to compete against BSD.
Truly, the magic is in the license, and I give
credit to M$FT for having figured this out.
Consider that
M$FT/Caldera/The SCO Group/AdTI/etc are NOT claiming that BSD infringes on
anything, even though the odds of some random schmuck inserting proprietary code
into BSD is just as high. --- Don't steal. Microsoft hates competition. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MIT license - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:53 AM EDT
- OSI and FSF - Authored by: artp on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 10:11 AM EDT
|
Authored by: robmyers on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:59 AM EDT |
For a good example of a hybrid of Open Source (BSD) and proprietary code,
look no further than Windows. Its networking code was shown to have come
from BSD.
Ken Brown says hybrid source is bad. Clearly he wants government to boycott
Windows, the best known example of hybrid source.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Vaino Vaher on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:25 AM EDT |
I have always thought that Microsoft was overrated. Their campaigns are not as
cleaver as we are lead to belive. Their product launches are not as well
orcestrated. Their product plans are not as well thought out. Their emplyees may
be hard-working, but they do not excel. etc, etc.
Look at the people they have choosen to fund and support! Would a superior and
admirable business machine use a Ken Brown or a SCOG as hit-men? Would they want
allies as fumbly as BSA? Would they use the Irish president as proxy to argue
for software patents in EU?
In my opinion Micdrosoft surrounds themself with punch-drunks and pitiful
misfits! One could argue that those are the only ones lured by MS's $$$'s. But
if a company can't attract more reliable (and credible) allies than that, is
that company really worth fearing?
I can't remember a single case where a credible and well-respected professional
(or citizen) has stood up for Microsoft, and defended their case!
Lets out-smart them, lets out-compete them. Lets out-innovate them. Lets
out-inform them!
Our fear of the enemy is the only obstacle![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:30 AM EDT |
You say:
> "We should quesion someone's character because they trust?"
I think you misunderstood (or misrepresented ?) Ken Brown's opinion. I think he
wants to say: "if you want to trust Linus Torvalds, you should ask yourself
a certain number of questions about his standard of values." Note that I
prefer trusting Linus Torvalds than Ken Brown... but it is not a reason to
deform the latter's opinions (however despisable they might be).
Loïc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: futureweaver on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:33 AM EDT |
The level of anti-Brown ranting in comments here is, frankly, becoming
tiresome. Comments should usefully add to what PJ has written, and many now
don't. I say this not because I'm any fan of ADTI, but because I'm getting bored
with reading similar comments again and again.
Whether you like it or
not, what think-tanks say is taken seriously by policymakers. ADTI is a
particularly poor example of the species, but I assume they are not without
influence. The antidote is better material, and a willingness for the
open-source community to speak within that. One example is AEI-Brookings's "Govern
ment Policy toward Open Source Software", published about 18 months
back. You may or may not agree with it, but it is a much more serious
contribution than the rantings of ADTI. And it is the sort of thing policymakers
pay attention to. To gain any attention, the open-source community needs to
participate in this debate. Commercial open-source advocates - IBM, RH, and so
on - will, but their perspective is only one within the community. We can expect
to see much more from think-tanks, and not all of it will be as easy to knock
over as ADTI. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:48 AM EDT |
"Microsoft Corp. last week said it will pay $23.3 million to settle an
antitrust lawsuit filed last year by now-defunct rival Be Inc." [currently
reduced to a couple of lawyers]
"n its February 2002 lawsuit, Mountain View, Calif.-based Be alleged that
Microsoft had entered into anticompetitive agreements with PC makers,
effectively blocking Be's efforts to have its operating system sold alongside
Windows on systems.
Microsoft denied the charges, and it didn't admit to any wrongdoing as part of
the agreement to settle the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in
Baltimore. The settlement terms, other than the payment amount, will remain
confidential, Microsoft said."
So M$ really are clearing the decks! I wonder what they're up to?
Incidentally, Be/Palm isn't going to open source BeOS because rumours have it
that quite a bit of BeOS has made it into the latest iteration of the Palm OS.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Vaino Vaher on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:49 AM EDT |
I also think that Ken Brown tries to play some chords of the Not-Invented-Here
tune, but with a patriotic beat.
- Linus is not American
- His OS competes with the Great American OS
- Those foreigners are all the same: Sadam, Bin-Laden, North Korea and the
Finns.
- And all the other free crap: OpenOffice is developed somewhere in East Europe,
isn't it? Yet another Comunist plot to destroy the Microsoft Tax (which has
brought in countless billions to the Great American Economy).
Those sentiments appeal to enough US congressmen. Because they are interrested
in votes, not progress.
So Ken Brown may accomplish something after all. Unless You inform your local
congressman. If he belives hecan earn votes by supporting OSS he will be on our
side.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jae on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:52 AM EDT |
He confuses Linux 0.01 with a full-fledged current-day Unix. This is *not* a
mistake, he knows what he's doing.
He knows that his target audience will *not* see through this confusion. Of
course you might license the Unix source code, and not write it yourself.
Because that is obviously not possible in a mere 6 months by one person.
Comparing Linux 0.01 to Coherent? *We* see that that's idiotic. Browns target
audience will not. At least, he's banking on that. How to counter that, I have
no idea. How do you explain this to someone how *would* fall for it without
running the danger of sounding condescending?
Yes, my social skills in that respect are weak, aka "I don't suffer fools
gladly".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 04:01 AM EDT |
A MAJOR GAS-COMPANY has announced that by 2005 it will
start giving cars away for FREE, under signature of a
3 or 5-year contract that binds you to only fill up
at their gas-stations.
Naturally said cars and stations will be fitted with
electronic provisions intended to prevent you from
filling up at the competition's stations. What these
provisions are no one can tell.
Rumour has it there will also be provisions to prevent
these cars from being used as getaway cars, for aimless
cruising the neigbourhood, to transmit their live and
dead contents, and whereabouts and heading at any moment
in time when the engine is running.
Cynics have already coined it 'personal black box'.
BJ
---
__
|Warning:
|Encountered Proprietary Standard and/or Patented Protocol.
|Choose method of payment[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: geoff lane on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 04:03 AM EDT |
I suddenly realised that KB is just writing in an old tradition that is
characterised by those books that try to explain that the pyramids could not
possibly have been built by uneducated and primitive egyptians.
The author cannot imagine how something is done, hence nobody else could.
Where did Imhotep steal the ideas that allowed him to build the first pyramid?
Ken Brown would claim that Imhotep didn't invent the idea of a pyramid and in
any case couldn't possibly have moved all those rocks all by himself.
Well, Duh! Man, meet straw.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 04:29 AM EDT |
True Open Source vs. Hybrid Source
ADTI's argument here is very
misleading. Applications can be proprietary,
yet run on a GPL licensed OS --
that's because the application source code is
separate from the OS source code,
and the application is a separate entity
from the OS. The LGPL takes care of
this separation for code libraries.
Also, the fact that code can be
multiple-licensed is completely ignored by
ADTI. Tell Easy Software Products
(CUPS) that you can't accrue any value from
owning what ADTI
refers to as
hybrid source software. Apple licensed CUPS software for use in
OS X, even
though CUPS is available under the GPL. Because of their separate
license,
Apple is allowed to make proprietary changes without releasing the
source code
to their changes.
ADTI seems to be going to extreme lengths to re-define
well
established terms. Rather than help clarify the issues at stake, this
word play
makes things much more confusing.
Linux is Inherently
Unstable
The only catch with the GPL is that you have to make the source
code
available for any improvements you wish to distribute. A company can make
proprietary changes for use inside of the company
without having to provide
the source code.
Typical Microsoft business practice is the "embrace and
extend" technique.
Take an existing standard (even better if a BSD license
implementation
already exists), and then make undocumented "enhancements" to it
to ensure
that users are locked in to the Microsoft solution. The GPL prevents
this from
occuring, due to the requirement of providing source code along with
any
distribution of the GPLed work. Is ADTI suggesting that consumers are
better
off being subjected to vendor lock in due to proprietary
extensions?
Reasonable Doubt
MINIX was an integral part of
Tanenbaum's textbook on Operating Systems.
Is it not reasonable to assume that
a student will take ideas from this material
and incorporate them into their
own OS (if they are driven enough to write
one of their own)? The accusations
made by Brown are akin to accusing
Brown of plagerism because he used
appropriate grammar after having
consulted Rules for Writers (Diana
Hacker).
It is true that Linus was running the MINIX OS when he wrote Linux.
It is also
true that the OS he was running when he wrote Linux was irrelevant.
Brown
clearly has little understanding of the software development process. A
compiler takes a text file (which can be created on any OS) and
turns
it into assembly code which then gets converted into machine code.
It is
entirely possible to write code from scratch to access an existing
filesystem.
The filesystem itself is just a collection of data structures. All
that's
needed is documentation on the format of those data structures.
Is it
likely that a student (Linus Torvalds) with no operating systems
experience, a
non-Unix licensee, without any use of Minix or Unix source
code, could build a
functioning kernel in six months -- whereas it took you
(Tanenbaum) three years
to build Minix?
Tanenbaum said yes, and he's a well respected
professional in the Computer
Science field. Brown is an English major. Brown
expects us to believe his gut
feelings (in an area which is not his expertise)
over the opinions of a
Computer Scientist who is in a position to provide a
much better informed
opinion.
Ken Brown also seems completely oblivious to
the difference between the
Linux kernel, which is what Linus Torvalds wrote,
and a Linux distribution. A
Linux distribution contains a ton of GNU utilities
and applications, none of
which was written by Linus. GNU had pretty much
everything except a Kernel.
Combining Linus' work with the GNU project
resulted in Linux OSes.
Issue #2
Why do accounts continually assert that
Torvalds "wrote Linux from scratch"?
Because he did? This is
continually asserted because Linus and others
actually do care about the
copyrights/Intellectual Property of others.
There's no way Linus wrote the
Kernel without some reference material. Intel
has lots of documentation on the
hardware, which covers all of the details
which must be addressed by OS
designers. I would suspect that Linus also
relied on books for various
standard algorithms and data structures, as well
as documentation on the
compiler he was using. Brown's notion of "from
scratch" is completely
unrealistic. No modern operating system has ever
been written in such a
vaccum, so why hold Linus to such an absurd
standard?
Linus did not have
access to UNIX source code, and comparisons of MINIX
and Linux show that MINIX
code wasn't used as the basis of Linux. If Linus
didn't use UNIX code or MINIX
code (or any other code) as a staring point,
then he wrote Linux from scratch.
As such, the accounts of Linus writing
Linux from scratch really are
believable.
Question #3
If Linux was based on Minix, doesn’t it owe
rights, attribution to Prentice
Hall? Does it owe attribution or rights to
anyone else?
The only code which is similar is code which implements IEEE
or POSIX
standards. Linux was written on a MINIX system, which by itself does
not
make it a derivative of MINIX. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tintak on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 04:54 AM EDT |
I understand what you are saying about ignoring worthless input to the closed
source versus FOSS debate PJ, but in Brown's case the material is just too funny
for words.
My favorite part was an addition to the very end of the document, where he tells
us a bit about himself. It ends....
"He is reportedly "not the sharpest knife in the drawer," but
nevertheless is able to converse with many intelligent people, and is accepted
at fine restaurants and hotels around the world."
Perhaps we should start referring to him as 'Plastic' Brown. Priceless!
---
Darl's folly.
"Somebody said it couldn't be done, and he knew it. So he tackled this thing
that couldn't be done,... and he found that he couldn't do it!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jonathan Bryce on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 04:56 AM EDT |
The "free" hardware model already exists in mobile phones,
which are getting more and more like handheld computers
with a wireless modem attached.
The way it works is that you get the phone free in return
for agreeing to sign up with the mobile phone co for
(usually) a year's service. You can leave before then,
but you still have to pay the rest of the year's line
rental. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: CnocNaGortini on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 05:05 AM EDT |
The question of whether to answer a fool reminded me of a couple of
proverbs
(from the Bible's Book of Proverbs, written thousands of
years ago). I looked it
up, and found it in a block of sayings that
seemed to me to be wonderfully
appropriate (and amusing) in this
context, so here's that whole block, with the
ones specifically on
answering fools highlighted:
As snow in
summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool.
As the
bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not
come.
A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's
back.
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like
unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in
his own conceit.
He that sendeth a message by the hand of a fool cutteth
off the feet, and drinketh damage.
The legs of the lame are not equal: so is
a parable in the mouth of fools.
As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so
is he that giveth honour to a fool.
As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a
drunkard, so is a parable in the mouths of fools.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Hydra on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 05:30 AM EDT |
For that matter, what's to stop some unethical AdTI operative
from placing a comment on the internet somewhere, as if he were a member of the
community, making it legally offensive in content, and then quoting the comment
to attack Linux? You really have no way of knowing who left comments online in
most cases, do you? Astroturfing is real.
The term
'astroturfing' isn't new to me, but in order to be sure of the meaning I
looked it up in The on-line
hacker Jargon File (version 4.4.7)
Play the Alanis Morissette song
"Ironic" while you read on!
astroturfing: n.
1. The
use of paid shills to create the impression of a popular movement, through means
like letters to newspapers from soi-disant ‘concerned citizens’, paid opinion
pieces, and the formation of grass-roots lobbying groups that are actually
funded by a PR group (AstroTurf is fake grass; hence the term). See also sock puppet,
tentacle.
<
p>2. What an individual posting to a public forum under an assumed name is said
to be doing.
This term became common among hackers after it came to
light in early 1998 that Microsoft had attempted to use such tactics to
forestall the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust action against the company.
The maneuver backfired horribly, angering a number of state attorneys-general
enough to induce them to go public with plans to join the Federal suit. It also
set anybody defending Microsoft on the net for the accusation “You're just
astoturfing!”
Source: the specific
entry on Astroturfing in the Jargon File version 4.4.7.
I don't
think any term could be more appropriate than 'astroturfing' :) Thank you
PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NemesisNL on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 05:31 AM EDT |
quote:"Yet Tanenbaum vehemently insists that Torvalds wrote Linux from
scratch, which means from a blank computer screen to most people. No books, no
resources, no notes -- certainly not a line of source code to borrow from, or to
be tempted to borrow from."
From scratch means no such thing. It doesn't mean forget verything you learned
and invent the weel over and over again. If it did we would all be living in the
stone age and cart and horses would be what I'd see when looking out of my
window.
Science never happens in a vacuum. If scientist could only create theories by
forgetting everything they ever learned we would be in big trouble. So if I
wanted to create a theory on the creation of the universe I'd have to start out
by proving the earth is round and not disc shaped?
Using ideas and theories provided by others is NOT the same as copying source
code line by line. If you want proof for that the just look at how hard it is
for SCO to provide line by line copying examples showing unix code in linux.
Wake up Brown. Shoolchildren with no knowledge what so ever are about the only
group of people that can not see through your desception.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: entre on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:12 AM EDT |
Hey Ken,
It is intellectually false to try to prove a negative.
Linus could not in Ken Brown's mind write an OS so therefore it is true?
He did not take logic in college I see.
Rebuttal:
On the Radio Shack Model 1 and 111 in the late 70's and early 80's, there
were THREE other operating systems besides the TRS-DOS being sold with
the systems at Radio Shack.
NEWDOS-80
DosPlus
LDOS
and they were projects by small groups inspired by a single person to start.
For those publishing houses that care, please add to Ken Brown's resume
the following: Clueless Historian, actor, shill, PR man for hire, Proud Idiot.
-------------------
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: micheal on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:18 AM EDT |
I agree we should not be answering AdTI type questons. However, I think it is
important that we keep debunking their articles. The AdTI web site has a large
number of links to AdTI articles as well as to non-AdTI articles (the number of
links is inflated by pointing to publication of their press releases). At least
some of these articles have "inaccuracies", too.
Should groklaw get into analyzing more of ADTI's articles so that non-technical
people can also become aware of AdTI's FUD? The problem is that if we get into
non-FOSS or non-tecnical articles we risk starting flame wars amongst
"groklawsters".
(Disclaimer. I am a fairly liberal Democrat living in Massachusetts.)
---
LeRoy
Retired computer programmer/physicist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:40 AM EDT |
Suppose I'm a car dealer and would claim that in the future oil will be free and
cars bought . Or that if i was in the oil bussiness I would predict that cars
are
going to be given away with packs of cereal. Nobody would believe either
simply because these markets are well known.
Bill Gates isn't some visionair. This is not what he sees for the future. It
simply is wat he wants and history shows us that what he wants isn't by
default the best thing for us all.
Gates his target audience are the people with the strings around there arms
and legs Like Mr Brown. If Gates ever had some vision it is long gone by now.
retep vosnul[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eggplant37 on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:51 AM EDT |
I thought about how or even whether to write anything about
Brown's latest. What Brown wrote was so silly, it's hard to even know how to
answer. I feel a little like an "American Idol" judge after a jaw-droppingly bad
performance in the tryouts. What do you say? It seems almost cruel to say
anything. And getting into a "conversation" with him, with his agenda, is a bit
like accepting an invitation to appear on one of those shows where the
interviewer abuses the guest by yelling at him and twisting beyond recognition
everything the guest tries manfully to say, despite being repeatedly
interrupted, mocked, and demeaned by the host.
C'mon, PJ,
don't hold back, just say it: Ken Brown is the William Hung of authors. He
can't do proper research; couldn't properly quote a source to save his life;
starts writing a book by outlining his assumptions first, then finds facts to
fill in the blanks; and tiptoes on the border of libel in his
writing.
It's not libel when it's the truth, you know. Oh, and Brown
can't dance or carry a tune.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rben13 on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:56 AM EDT |
It seems pretty clear that what Ken Brown is doing is establishing material that
opponents of open source can reference when beseeching members of governments to
use any alternative to free open source software.
I especially like the part where he implies that Linus committed some terrible
sin by using the GPL'd gcc compiler to create Linux without wanting to call his
project GNU/Linux. By that bit of twisted reasoning, I guess most of the
software used on Windows should be preceded by the word Microsoft... Hmmm, makes
you think.
It's also interesting that he continues to claim that no one could have written
Linux in such a short time. The guy knows nothing about programming. One of my
best friends wrote an operating system in the early 80's in a similar amount of
time. In this case he was using DOS as a model. Like Linus, he was working
with a pretty clear specification.
Ken Thompson was creating the Unix kernel under much more difficult
circumstances than those Linus worked under. He was working with computers that
were far slower and more cumbersome to use. He was inventing and adapting many
of the properties of UNIX we have come to take for granted now. Linus, on the
other hand, was working from a known set of interfaces and with a far more
sophisticated tool than Thompson had. The C compiler that he used, for
instance, wasn't something freshly minted by Dennis Ritchie, it was a tool that
had evolved from Ritchie's original work and included a significant library of
functions that were well debugged and optimized. When Thompson worked on UNIX
he was using a C compiler and limited library that, however well-crafted,
weren't as good as the tools Linus had.
The sad thing is that we'll continue to see references to Brown's work for a
long time to come. Microsoft allies in government will use it to bolster
arguments against using GPL'd software. My guess is that this and other works,
yet to come, will form the basis of a legistlative attack on the GNU General
Public License. Don't be surprised to see a bill introduced that will forbid
the use of GPL software by U.S. Government agencies.
AdTI and it's backers have a lot of experience with this sort of game. They are
well aware of the fact that people believe what they want to believe and that
they will sieze upon the most illogical and poorly framed arguments to reinforce
their positions. Drape those arguments in psuedo-research, attach a prestigious
sounding name, and you've given them a nice shiny new weapon.
These are just the opening shots from Microsoft and other companies that feel
threatened by FOSS. It's going to be a long and ugly fight.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mossc on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:19 AM EDT |
"The Samizdat report recommends that the U.S. government should invest $5
billion in research and development efforts that produce true open source
products, such as BSD and MIT license-based open source. Government investment
in open source development will accelerate innovation. However, increased
investment should be in true open source, open source without any stipulations,
other than attribution and copyright notification, not hybrid source."
To the best of my knowledge the term "open source" is trademarked.
Ken Brown is clearly trying to redefine the term and cause confusion. If that
is not a trademark violation I don't know what is.
Between this example and the fact that TSG continually misuse the Unix trademark
I find it striking that those screaming the loudest about respecting
"intellectual property" rights are the most flagrant violators.
ok, just found this on opensource.org.
"Unfortunately, the term "open source" itself is subject to
misuse, and because it's descriptive, it can't be protected as a trademark
(which would have been our first choice). "
Nevermind....
Chuck
p.s. what's all this fuss about violins in television
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:46 AM EDT |
I would love to hear the parody sung - any volunteers? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ruidh on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:52 AM EDT |
If the Government funds a research project which develops a new protocol
standard, why not publish that under a BSD-style license? That gives no
advantage to either open source or closed source.
Open source can compete with proprietary software without Government props.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:57 AM EDT |
"AdTI did not publish Samizdat with the expectation that rabidly pro-Linux
developers would embrace it. Its purpose is to provide U.S. leadership with a
researched presentation on attribution and intellectual property problems with
the hybrid source code model, particularly Linux."
I trust that those working for the U.S. government making software deployment
decisions are cynical enough to see through this. When you accuse your opponents
of being rabid, that should be an obvious enough red flag.
(BTW "hybrid source code model"? I haven't seen this neologism before.
One of Brown's?)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rharvey46 on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 08:18 AM EDT |
It appears, according the the article and/or ADTI, that they want Linux and
other open source projects to be licensed under licenses that permit proprietary
vendors to use the source code without requiring distributing the source, and
potentially without even attributing the binary to the vendor/license of choice,
meaning that proprietary vendors can use others' source code without limits.
I believe it was ADTI (but am not sure) that also claimed that programers steal
others source code without permission/copyright (including that it is not
permitted frequently to write the same code for more than one company).
To conclude, according to these interpretations
1) You are allowed to use others source code (plagorism) without identifying the
code, license etc
2) You are not allowed to use others source code (stealing) if you do identify
the code, license etc
3) You are not allowed to use your own source code if you do not identify the
code, license etc, but distribute or use it in your own software (proprietary or
open source)
This definetly does not add up to something that is reasonable. I am sure that
various proprieatary software vendors have copied/borrowed code without
permission. Just look at almost any piece of code that uses open or industry
standards or source. In addition, this can be done extremely innocently (since
some things are published).
It would be very dangerous if someone ever ends up saying - to any programmer -
in court that they can not use the source! This would affect the entire
industry. To some extent, every programmer DOES take/borrow someone elses source
code/ideas etc; it is part of good programming practice to do so. If a
programmer did not use someone elses source code/ideas, there would be NO reason
to trust the programmers' code. This is also a good reason for Open Source - it
improves programmers work in almost every way.
Note that I am not advocating that programmers' take all of the code for one
system and use it for themselves, merely that small sections will (and should)
be used - because this assures quality, quantity, reliabilty and abbiding by
standards. Only if the original source code is licensed for distribution and
distributed according to that license is large scale use of that code permitted.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 08:24 AM EDT |
Apologies is someone else has already referenced this - I didn't see it
anywhere though.
In a report dated May 31, 2002, our very same friends
published a report in
which they state that open source is less trustworthy than secret code. They go
on to imply that any government agency switching to open source for
security-critical application is "uninformed".
Of course, this flies in
the face of real-world experience with security-critical software (encryption
software, etc.). More to the point, it shows that ADTI has been pursuing this
agenda for some years now.
Surely organisations that publish such policy
papers are morally (if not legally) obligated to reveal where their funds come
from. How else can one assess their objectivity and/or bias?
Last comment:
according to the ADTI web-site, they are having Brown's work reviewed. However,
this is an internal review - if they were genuinely interested in their
credibility, they should have a disinterested third party review the work.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 08:35 AM EDT |
I mean, Why not start a contest. The goal would be for a SINGLE programmer to
write a simple kernel from scratch.
The contest would provide the following:
(1) a specification of the functionnalities to implement (posix calls,
filesystem, ...).
(2) some technical documentations. Preferably similar those that available to
Linus 10 years ago (posix docs, PC infrastructure, ...).
(3) a few 'OS design' documents (After all Linux followed a course on OS design
so he had such documentation).
Of course, the programmers would not be allowed to take code from other existing
kernels (minix, linux, bsd, ...) but they can use them as development platforms.
The best way to define (1) would be to look in the old Linux kernel (see
kernel.org). I do not want to do it myself because I do not want to be
'tainted'.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 08:47 AM EDT |
The only point that Brown has is that the viral aspect of the GPL may have more
negative value than its positive value to society:
Positive GPL Viral Aspect-
Forces users of GPL code to contribute modifications back to GPL'd codebase,
thereby expanding the GPL'd codebase a supposedly a higher rate than otherwise.
Negative GPL Viral Aspect-
Users unable to build proprietary or secret applications using GPL'd code.
-------------------
The viral aspect of the GPL is a kind of extortion forcing the programmer to
give back software in exchange for use of GPL'd code. This makes GPL'd code
less useful for many proprietary businesses. I.e. don't use the GPL unless...
Perhaps we should trust more in the altruism of programmers to contribute to
open source without the extortionate viral aspects. It would increase the
overall productivity of the software industry by allowing free use of non-viral
open source software in many more projects.
For the record, I am also against all software patents. I believe that a
software community/industry which would allow the free and unfettered use of
both ideas and software is in our best interest.
Unfortunately, it is too late for many GPL'd projects, but it is not too late
for new projects which may be started under less restrictive licensing schemes.
-anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 08:51 AM EDT |
The essence of Mr Browns writing is "is a country allowed to release
software which companies aren't allowed to include in their closed
products".
This is a question one can answer with yes or no without being bad by character.
So if one wants a definitive answer on this matter one has to try to discuss
something different and put that answer over to the original topic.
Mr. Brown talks about copyright and the infringement of copyright. In this
context he calls Linux is inherently insecure.
If I look at companies writing and selling closed source products I frequently
see millions of dollars being paid for copyright infringement. Are these
companies infringing on purpose hoping to get through on court or are they doing
it without purpose? Can be any product be called secure in the aspect Brown
calls Linux insecure? No. This is an insecurity any company and product faces.
At the end you have to trust someone. And if it is the judge to rule fair.
So there definitely is insecurity with Linux. Mr Brown now tries to fix this to
the license Linux is covered by. But as shown before it isn't a question of
license but of copyright. And it isn't a problem of Linux but of software
development itself.
On the license side Mr Brown tries to show that the GPL is harmful for it could
cause trouble for companies improperly including software by fault. So it is
possible that a company uses GPL-licensed software in their products by fault.
What about the copyrights of the GPL-licensed software? Are these companies
able to improperly use a licensed software without infringing the copyrights of
that software? Are their products inherently insecure for the companies could
use GPL-licensed software by fault? Yes, they are.
If you look at GPL-licensed software you see two attributes attached to them by
Mr. Brown. The first is they are inherently insecure for they can improperly
include copyrighted software and second they lower security of companies which
are secure against faulty copyright infringement but not against faulty license
misuse. As shown before both attributes are wrong.
So what is Mr. Browns intention? For him open source is ok, if anybody could
use it for any purpose; free source is not ok, as it can't be used within any
software; closed source is ok, for if it wasn't, why should the GPL not be ok
then. The only real difference between open and free source is if it's allowed
to be included into closed source.
Mr. Brown tries to stick criminal behaviour and bad character to this
difference, to proof that GPL-licensed software is bad.
But Mr. Brown does mention patents within his argument. he doesn't question
them. It is possible to hold rights on something any other person could invent
himself. The first one wins.
The ideas covered with patents are ideas anybody could have. That is one value
of patents, to attach an idea to somebody and have others license their own
thoughs.
Mr. Brown shouldn't have mentioned patents. What he declares wrong with
implementation of software he claims to be right with the ideas behind. He
claims software should be free to be included anywhere, even be enclosed with
closed products. It's all about the license for the GPL doesn't touch
copyright. So why doesn't Mr.Brown claim free non-revocable licenses for anyone
on patents? The licenses wouldn't touch the invention, so the merit of having
invented something would be kept intact.
So instead of speaking of pits and downfalls of GPL-licensed software he should
keep an eye on patents.
cb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ta bu shi da yu on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:03 AM EDT |
I hate to point this out, but the parody doesn't flow very well at all. It's
really not like the original :([ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:06 AM EDT |
..reminded me of something:
There are really only two scenarios
here; either the hardware will be so cheap that the customer would get no gain
from the deal, or (if it has real value) the lease contract will have a clause
requiring that it be used only with the specified software.
Now...
Is it just me, or does this sound just like the rules imposed on the CueCat?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:40 AM EDT |
This is the first I've heard of free hardware and it sounds like a dream of
microsoft's to turn the computer industry into their lackeys.This Ken Brown guy
is so focused on getting paid he would probably write about the virtues of child
porn if someone offered him a few bucks to do it. Would it surprise anyone to
find out he is the guy who ate worms on the playground for a nickel each?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Free hardware - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 11:44 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:41 AM EDT |
We all know that the Brown book is, to put it mildy, wildly inaccurate. It's
been debunked and criticized by nearly every person who he interviewed [and by
many more who weren't interviewed :) ]. But we need to remember that *we* aren't
the intended audience for this book. The intended audience is politicians and
policy makers and members of the various government bureaucracies that help to
enact laws. It's doubtful that they'll read this and come away with the same
sense of outrage that most of us have. They'll probably take it as gospel, and
possibly use this as some new crusade to undertake to protect us from the evils
of IP theft and FOSS in general.
What I'm wondering is: What would it take to hire someone, either an individual,
or some other think tank, that would publish a report which refutes Brown's
"thesis" [and possibly exposing his sloppy methods of gathering
"data" to back up his thesis]? The rebuttal should use actual data and
facts that show that the open source movement actually puts money into the
economy, the security of open source, etc., in other words, things we already
know to be true, but things that Brown's intended audience probably know nothing
about.
It's all well and good to come here [or to slashdot, or other similar sites] and
point out the fallacies in Brown's statements, and maybe even have a good laugh
at his expense. But we *need* to be pointing out these fallacies to Brown's
intended audience, the policy makers that the people who have financed Brown's
book hope to influence. We are deluding ourselves if we think these policy
makers will somehow see through the intentional inaccuracies of Brown's report,
and make the necessary informed decisions. It's time to counter the FUD with
facts, and make the facts known to the same people that Brown and his backers
are trying to influence. Our freedom to choose what software we wish to use
depends on it.
pinroot --- not logged on[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
If this Brown character would get his way, and US government would *only* allow
BSD/MIT/etc licensed software to be considered for government duty, then it'd
effectively kill off any choice in software altogether.
Just think about it:
Samba: GPL
GCC...heck, take anything GNU, including Gnome: GPL
Apache: GPL (compatible)
KDE: GPL/LGPL
I can go on for a while, but basically anything which can be considered part of
any opensource software solution is "GPL encumbered".
Fact of the matter is that it's pretty hard to create an entirely GPL free
product, certainly in a reasonable timeframe. So just because Brown seems to
encourage BSD/MIT style licenses for government use doesn't take out the sting
of effectively killing off broad use of open source software in US government if
he gets his way. Sure, you can deploy it here and there, but building e.g. an
entire webserver (defined as: hardware, OS+utilities, webserver software) out of
(their definition of) open source software will be rather hard, if not
impossible. GPL stuff is simply too deeply entrenched in the free software world
to get around it.
Correct me if I'm wrong[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:45 AM EDT |
How about we collect all this information debunking the
adti "research" in one concise, politician-ready document
and forward copies to our elected representatives in a
pre-emptive move, so that they are made aware of the
questionable (to say the least) nature of the adti book
before they even receive their copy!
I suggest this title:
"What Are They Tocque-ing at the Tocqueville Institution?"
It's a title that will stick in their minds and associate
the Tocqueville name with ridicule. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 10:56 AM EDT |
A few days ago I made a entry on my slashdot journal about this and about why
free hardware will have to come for MS.
http://slashdot.org/~Yaa%20101/journal/73178
In short I think the only reason to give away free hardware is to make DRM
juridical valid.
I have a feeling they know they can never ever tell you what you can and cannot
run on your property.
If they give it for free it is their property!!
That is in my opinion the only reason why hardware will be free...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JRinWV on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 11:00 AM EDT |
I don't think (IANAL, thank god!) that Mr. Brown's product meets the definition
for libel (slander is oral and won't apply here at all).
However, expert advice that is not accurate and that falsely recommends a
certain commercial action to the benefit of one business, sounds like fraud to
me.
If someone tells you that this car is a real creampuff, brand new, technically
superior, safer that other cars, and you buy it on that advice, only to discover
much too late, that it wasn't new, had been wrecked by a previous driver, was
shoddily repaired, and those shoddy repairs caused an accident which kills
family members, well, that's fraud, and it's actionable. A lawyer/engineer
friend of mine handled just such a case against one of the largest auto dealers
in my home state!
If someone knowingly lies about software, states flatly that one type (open
source) is inferior to another, not as secure, not as safe, not as functional,
and thereby induces you to purchase software which in fact is actually the
inferior type (closed source) which proves to be faulty, insecure, and unsafe,
when you could have obtained cheaper, stronger, and safer software from the open
source industry, you have a cause of action.
What about it, you lawyers? Fraud committed by publishing, knowingly false
information about products, with recommendations to buy the known inferior
product, for money secretly provided under the table?
Sound like a class action which could be joined by every member of the open
source industry?
By the way, if we call it the open source industry, it makes it harder to call
us communists. The open source community would then be the user community, just
like the Windows community.
How about it, PJ? Sound actionable?
JR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pacer on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 11:21 AM EDT |
Are there any funds, people, organizations capable or "providing the
government" with a paper detailing, essentially, the truth behind the Open
Source situation and Linux in particular that could be used to contradict AdTI's
Samizdat?
It seems to me there is plenty of evidence out there to contradict this
ridiculous paper and the ridiculous Ken Brown.
The base way to fight fire is with fire, concentrated and distilled in the same
way.
P.S. I hope I was polite enough and did not repeat others... (G)
P.P.S. I am serious, if there has not already been papers regarding this,
should they not be written?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 11:39 AM EDT |
As an interested Windows user throughout this whole mess, I've found it quite
the story to follow. From the beginning when SCO initially launched their
(quite honestly, laughable) lawsuit against IBM, to where it stands today, there
hasn't been a dull moment.
I've got nothing against Linux, infact I've begun experimenting with Mandrake to
try and get to learn it. Mostly for my own curiousity, but also because I do
believe that the desktop market will grow for it. Unlike the fanatics of
Slashdot, I don't believe it's going to kill off MS. MS is too big to be
destroyed, and *nix is too integrated into the 'Net to be replaced. Somehow,
the two will co-exist. MS will adapt, and Linux will evolve.
From what I've seen so far of Linux, it looks pretty good. It's not perfect,
but then again Windows is not either. I look after a small network at work
(roughly 20 users), and the majority of problems I run into are not due to
Windows, but the users on it. These people can't figure out how to use Windows
properly. And lets be honest here folks, using Windows is not exactly rocket
science. If these people can't follow Windows, I don't want them anywhere near
Linux :)
I do like some of the things I've seen/read about in Linux; being able to
restrict what a user can do to the system configuration is something I dream
about some days at work. Being able to upgrade a machine without rebooting it
I'm sure is something that many would find extremely useful, though I've
personally never cared that much about it. I want the users to know I'm in
charge of their system, and when I say their system needs a reboot it needs a
reboot :)
Yes, MS "improves" things every year with each new version of their
software, "forcing" users to upgrade. But lets be honest folks, they
(along with every other company in the world, including IBM, RedHat, SuSe, etc)
are in business to make money. And their way of making money has been fairly
successful. I doubt you would find a single person or company in the world who
wouldn't love to be in the position that MS is in financially. Whether they've
gotten there by completely legal means is something I'm not qualified to decide.
However, I doubt you would find a single successful company or individual who
hasn't bent or broken a rule at some point. Like it or not (and I don't), it's
the way things are done. And MS got caught, more than once. But anybody who
thinks that IBM, Intel, or any other company who have been/are in the position
of being an industry leader haven't done the same thing at some point is
deluding themselves.
So along we come to SCO, who sees Linux beginning to grow and wipe out it's
market, and they decide to skip the hard work (you know, like actually improving
their product) and just stake a claim against Linux. And say that Linus et al
are the ones who did the dirty stuff against them. All I can say is puh-leeeze.
While Groklaw at times meets the rhetoric that comes from SCO/Darl McB, at
least Groklaw backs up a lot of what they say with facts (something I'm sure
Darl would love to put a stop to). I'm not saying Linux is guilty or innocent
against SCO's charges, but so far they've backed up any charges against them
with facts. Something SCO has not been able to do even once.
With regards to the whole K. Brown thing... I found his original story to be
quite the tale. Reading some of the quotes he used, and then the entire quote
in context proved quite telling. Even I, a casual observer of Linux users
through places like Slashdot and Groklaw, knew what kind of response he was in
for. How he could not have expected it is beyond me. His reply to the (well
deserved) criticism that has come out I found quite hilarious. He can act
outraged if he wishes, but in my opinion he's getting no more than he deserves
for such a lousy attempt at attacking Linux.
I know people have immediately jumped on the "MS is behind this!"
bandwagon, but it doesn't seem to me to be something MS is involved in. I'm not
saying they wouldn't use it in any way if they thought it would help them,
they'll use every opportunity they can to beat a competitor (as would most any
other company). But this just seems too sloppy to be a direct MS job.
The whole "Samizdat" thing just feels like it has the epileptic puppet
hand of SCO behind it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tfield98 on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 11:40 AM EDT |
I'm not a troll; I wouldn't know Linux if it bit me on the butt, but I'm a
contributor to the site, programmer since 1965, and I'm enjoying the show,
watching SCO crash and burn, and the fantastic power of this honorable on-line
community as it demonstrates the power of on-line communities on this (and no
doubt, other) issues.
BUT, two things:
1. Is Ken Brown a moron? His writings, as noted by so many here, are SO BAD
(read, 9th grade reading & thinking level at best, an ill-informed about the
issues on which he writes), that either he's a moron, or, as a shill, he's
absolutely brilliant at dumbing down his writing. If the later (which I
suspect), I'm impressed. If he's a shill, then there's no use in pointing out
how stupid, illiterate, or illogical he is. He got paid to be that way... and
he's good at it...
2. The trust model? No doubt this has been addressed elsewhere (can someone
point me there?), but how does the trust model work? What incentive does Joe
Programmer have to be absolutely certain his code contribution is
"clean" (non-infringing)?
Sure, if his contribution is found dirty by the gatekeepers, his code (and
reputation, to some degree) are out the window. (Is that the gatekeepers job?
Can they do it well?) But, wouldn't a corporation, as a legal entity, with
massive capital investments be more diligent at policing their own, proprietary
code to avoid infringements? (Or, would the opposite be true: that behind closed
doors they'd be tempted to steal others' work?)
I'm sure there are counter-examples of corporations deliberately (or
accidentally, due to lack of attention) writing infringing code. I'm not looking
for anecdotes [of which we have many (good ones) here and in the world already]
-- Seriously, though:
Do you want to bet your company, future, product, reputation on what is
perceived (rightly or wrongly, but certainly by many outsiders like myself) as
the open source anarchy where ultimately NO ONE takes legal responsibility for
legal transgressions (or am I wrong about that?)... or, would you rather invest
in a corporation that has legal standing and has a vested interest in protecting
themselves by behaving according to the law? (Corporations have, many of us
would agree, an absolutely dismal track record for behaving honorably, I know...
so maybe they aren't to be trusted...)
Frankly, it doesn't really matter what most of us think. IMO, what matters is
what the banks and politicians, who control the money think. And, the challenge
is to convince these conservative, closed-minded money-communities.
Start by convincing me, a sympathetic techie who is still coming up to speed on
these issues.
Signed,
Tom, someone standing on the fringe, stunned by the eloquence and vision of Eben
Moglen's Harvard address. He convinced me that these issues (patents included)
are enormously more important to the future of commerce, business, and, yes,
even freedom of thought than I had thought. If you haven’t watched his
presentation, go now: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/p.cgi/speakers.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
On one hand ADTI says this about the history of Unix:
"Both Ritchie and Thompson had exceptional familiarity with MULTICS-- and
then wrote UNIX from scratch"
But on the other hand their defition of scratch is:
"from scratch, which means from a blank computer screen to most people. No
books, no resources, no notes -- certainly not a line of source code to borrow
from, or to be tempted to borrow from"
So what Brown should be saying if he had any credibility is:
If Unix was based on Multics, doesn’t it owe rights, attribution to MIT? Does it
owe attribution or rights to anyone else?
I don't think it does, but for ADTI to be self-consistent they'd have to be
asking about the origins of Unix and be saying that SCO couldn't have rights to
it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
The true market for Ken Brown and his band of FUDsters is Congress. Lobbyists
point to their 'Think-Tank' papers as well thought-out, impartial research to be
used in support of their requested legislation. Until such time as someone
points out to these elected officials that the 'research' completely ignores the
facts and is nothing more than propaganda bought and paid for by corporate
interests, it will continue to receive attention from lawmakers. I would
suggest that people write their congressional delegation, and detail the corrupt
history and fraudulent 'research' of these clowns. Maybe then it will get the
attention from lawmakers it so richly deserves. Absolutely none.
Forgot to log-in
Roadfrisbee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ta bu shi da yu on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:15 PM EDT |
I've submitted my critique of his rebuttal to K5 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:19 PM EDT |
Interesting thread pulled loose from the google-search sweater:
http://www.dcfund.net/index.html
"The Democratic Century Fund
Thank you for your interest in the
Democratic Century Fund, LLC, a hedge fund investing in emerging market
countries. DCF is managed by the Emerging Markets Group, with offices in West
Lebanon, NH, and Washington, DC."
"...This web site contains
public information about DCF, the Emerging Markets Group and its principals, and
research by the firm, as well as press by or about the firm and its
senior managers..."
heh.. Actually, as with AdTI.net, most of the
links generate 404-Not Founds...
Not that I find this surprising.
http://www.dcfund.net/principals.htm
Daniel Mahony
Chairman, EMG Fund
Management
investor@dcfund.net
Gregory A. Fossedal
Chief
Investment Officer
foss@dcfund.net
Kenneth Brown
Director and
Vice President
kenbrown@dcfund.net
Note to Ken Brown: you can't
hide.
Anything that you've said, or done, that's in any way public, will
be found and revealed for all to see.
t_t_b --- Ken Brown/AdTI:
Remember, kids, don't feed the trolls [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
I'm a little slow here. Gates and Schwartz are both prognosticating that
hardware will (and should) be free.
If I'm not mistaken, the creation and manufacture of a physical object entails
quite large cost, especially where computers are concerned, as they require
clean rooms, vibration damping, and other technical feats.
If I were to propose that computers and other hardware were to be given away for
nothing, I would be stamped a radical, communist, idealist, dreamer, or just
plain insane.
It's nice that hardware prices are dropping, but that's just the economics of
the market place in play. Saturation, with little or no need for continuous
improvement, even though such improvement is available, dictates the price of
available stock. Too high, the stock sits on the shelf, and we all remember
what happened to Compu-Smart.
On the other hand, a product with little overhead, such as software, being
largely an implementation of ideas with absolutley no physicality, should not be
available for no charge?
I can only conclude that several years ago, while I slept, the planet entered a
subspace distortion and was whisked away to an alternate dimension where the
laws of logic do not apply. It is okay for software vendors to suggest that
hardware be free, when the people who code software are willing to give it away,
or sell for a small fee. It is not okay for the actual manufacturers of
hardware to recoup their costs of manufacture and distribution of the physical
component.
Next thing you know, it will be illegal for kids to sing at a campfire - oh,
wait.... RIAA have already done that...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Free Harware? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 01:31 AM EDT
|
Authored by: edumarest on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
...Ah, the power of language. Ken Brown's asserts that Linus did not have the
capability and ability to write the code alone for Linux. Wrong!
Where was Linus at this time? He was an advanced student at a major university.
He already had education and experience with software and hardware because he
had been studying it for years; this gave him the capability to write the
software.
Linus also had the ability to take his education and put it to use. But in my
opinion Linus has the critical ability to solicit and manage the worldwide
community of programmers to help further what he started. He is a great
manager.
He also had access to a fine library at the university which has (had) many of
the available books for the students to use. It likely had most of the available
books on Unix, Minix and other operating systems. Many professors maintain a
personal library which may have included bootlegged copies of books.
He also had access to his professors and fellow students for their ideas and
assistance. I personally have met only a few really poor teachers and
professors; most are pleased to lend a hand where possible.
So it is only my opinion but I believe Linus started the kernel for Linux on his
own and had no need or desire to steal anything. If any of his code even
remotely copied Unix then I am certain that soneone would have raised the issue
of plagiarism. A university environment frowns on that and it could be grounds
for immediate dismissal. His code has been reviewed from day one.
Go, Linus, go.
---
...if you cannot measure it then you cannot troubleshoot it, you can only
guess...
SuSE 9.0 on hp pavilion ze 4560us[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:28 PM EDT |
"AdTI will continue to interview people within the open source profession
about open source. It would be skewed and bias to only quote people that are
anti-Linux or anti-open source. I have done this for years, and will continue to
do so, regardless of what a source thinks of my theories."
I believe this statement works on its own, It sounds like Mr Brown is admitting
his bias, just thought it was funny ;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:56 PM EDT |
I read the parody and immediately thought of
Pirate
s Of Penguinance. I was surprised that it didn't turn up in a search. It
starts out like this:
Modern SCO Executive
(Apologies to Gilbert, Sullivan, and most of humanity)
(Send brickbats
to: Rick Moen and Karsten Self)
[The scene: Major-General Darl
McBride has stepped up to the fo'castle
of HMS SCaldera, which has just fought
its first skirmish against the
dread Pirates of Penguinance. He prepares to
hold a press conference^W^W^W^W
address the
troops:]
McBride:
I am the very model of a
modern SCO executive.
Our market share is minuscule; our losses are
consecutive.
But from our labs deep in U-T, you very soon will surely
see
The ultimate, the pinnacle, in high-technolo-barratry.
"Live
free or die" philosophies are very well, but still, you see:
Our contracts
and our trade secrets make Unix seem our property.
Never mind what we
really own (a question not rhetorical):
We have thirty thousand
contracts, though most are quite historical.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
I suspect one of the intentions of Ken Brown and Microsoft is to draw out the
Linux community into more legal battles. I think perhaps they are hoping someone
will take their response to this FUD too far and have something actionable they
can take to court and then present to the world as an "example" of how
Linux users have no respect for the law. The biggest weakness (*AND STENGTH*)
of the Linux community is that the actions of anyone who pushes Linux can easily
be projected onto the rest of us. For this reason I would urge everyone to calm
down and take a cautious, measured approach to responding to him. If we do it
right, he will have to make more and more wild claims about Linus/Linux and
perhaps, just perhaps, we can draw THEM out and expose them for the unethical,
anti-capitalist schmucks that they are.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
There is a "survey" associated with the new Ken Brown item on the adti
website. Near the end it says "Multiple submissions reporting on errors in
"Samizdat" are encouraged."
While they are encouraged, they apparently are not allowed. When I tried to do
an additional entry on another incorrect point, I was informed that I was only
allowed one. :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ruurd on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
I don't think Ken Brown is an idiot. He's dangerous. What
actually happens is that our energy is deflected towards
technical and factual rebuttal of his theories, while the
real danger to open source is his accusation that 'hybrid
source' will destroy the IT industry.
We would in fact better focus on rebutting this falsehood,
because this is what will be on the first pages of his
report: '(L)GPL will destroy the IT industry'. And that is
what Ken Brown and his backers want politicians to read
and to believe. And if we do not actively start
'astroturfing' our politicians to prevent that goal of the
AdTI report, we actually may end up in a lot of trouble
later on.
---
--
Ruurd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: odysseus on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 08:06 PM EDT |
First he says:
"Both Ritchie and Thompson had exceptional familiarity
with MULTICS-- and then wrote UNIX from scratch.
Completely different
from Linus, who says he started with
nothing and had no experience. "
Then 2 paras later he says:
"Why do accounts continually assert that
Torvalds
"wrote Linux from scratch"?"
So, Dennis and Ritchie could
write a kernel "from
scratch" after being exceptionally familiar with MULTICS,
and Brown finds nothing wrong about that (in fact it's a
great achievement),
but Linus couldn't possibly have
written Linux "from scratch" with his
knowledge of Minux
without having stolen something???
Oh, yeah, and the
claim:
"Another reason this is interesting is because the
Ritchie,
Thompson kernel was 11,000 lines of code over a
number of years, and the
Torvalds kernel was 32,000 in
under a year."
is comparing apples with
oranges, how big was Linux
v0.1 before anyone else made contributions? About
12000
as I remember?
John. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Einhverfr on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
The following contains excerpts from Ken Brown's reply and my reply to them. As
to my credentials, I run a consulting firm specializing in open source software
(http://www.metatrontech.com). Most of the excerpts are paraphrased, and only
the questions or in places where the wording are the qotes direct.
First, let's look at his definition of "Hybrid Source":
'"Hybrid source code" is a phrase coined by former Tocqueville
Chairman Gregory Fossedal. The term refers to any product with a license that
attempts to mix free and proprietary source code at the same time.'
By this definition, he is arguing basically that Linux contains improperly
attributed proprietary code. Yet he fails to back this up to any real extent.
I *do* agree with him regarding the dangers of hybrid models (such as that of
MySQL AB), and in most cases, they do not lead to products which are long-term
viable. Note that Brown does NOT say anything about the GPL here, nor do I.
The GPL is, however, often a means that companies, such as MySQL AB, use to keep
their proprietary code proprietary.
As to government funding of MIT and BSD-based projects, I do agree that barring
licensing issues, that government research is best released under these
licenses. However, I would not go so far as to bar research under the GPL, etc.
(I am actually a huge fan of the GPL in a commercial setting, but that is
another story.)
Regarding the value of free software and embedded devices, Brown has this to
say:
'Software is also embedded in hardware, chips, printers and even consumer
electronics. Should embedded software become 'free' too, it would be natural to
conclude the value of hardware will spiral downward as well.'
In this statement, Brown shows a startling lack of understanding of the
economics of the embedded device market. Linux is doing very well in embedded
environments because it reduces the cost of development for the total software
of a device by spreading the R&D costs among a much greater audience. This
does NOT reduce profit margins except by encouraging competition.
Take TiVO for example. Their units are far more affordable because they run
Linux. Are the modifications to the kernel available from them? Last time I
checked, they were. Does this mean that TiVO's don't have value? No. It just
means that they can charge less and *still make money.* It also means that the
R&D for the software is not as centralized.
Then Brown talks about the alleged copying from Minix into Linux:
'[Tannenbaum writes] “MINIX was the base that Linus used to create Linux. He
also took many ideas from MINIX, including the file system, source tree, and
much more.”'
If I understand things rightly (and IANAL), practical ideas are not the subject
of copyright law, but rather of patent law. Whether Linus took practical ideas
from MINIX and used them in Linux is not a copyright issue. If the best
allegation is that "Linux organized its source tree and file system based
on the way it worked in MINIX" then unless Tannenbaum or Prentice Hall owns
patents on these methods, this is a non-issue.
Now for his questions:
' Question #1
Is it likely that a student (Linus Torvalds) with no operating systems
experience, a non-Unix licensee, without any use of Minix or Unix source code,
could build a functioning kernel in six months -- whereas it took you
(Tanenbaum) three years to build Minix? '
Iirc, the Linux kernel was not very functional after 6 months. I think QDOS
(Quick and Dirty Operating System, the predicessor of MS DOS) was written in
much less time and was less buggy (of course it was basically a file system, a
badly designed shell, and an interface to BIOS).QDOS was basically the prototype
for MSDOS 1.0 after it was aquired by Microsoft.
Both QDOS and Linux started out as hobbyist projects.
' Issue #2
Why do accounts continually assert that Torvalds "wrote Linux from
scratch"?'
Simple. Because the interfaces are not quite compatible. This is why BSD
flavors require special libraries to run Linux binaries. Depending on your
perspective, maybe he got the interfaces wrong, but he was not allowed to look
at the standards drafts.
Brown goes on to try to prove his point bringing in Stallman:
'Meanwhile, an associate of mine asked Richard Stallman, who started with the
Mach Kernel, why his GNU team could not build a kernel as fast as Torvalds. Mr.
Stallman provided AdTI with a credible, believable set of reasons why building a
kernel was not a simple task.'
Simple answer is that Linuz was better at rallying the troops than Stallman.
Linus had more help. Nobody denies that. My question is why does Brown assert
that nobody else helped work on Linux before version 1.0? Actually Linus was
the sole developer until 0.1 I think.
And now the attempted character assassination:
"We also included this interview to resonate the character of Mr. Torvalds.
The GNU team contributed their GCC compiler, a complicated product with over
110,000 lines of code to the Linux project. Without the compiler, it is very
likely that the Linux project would not have succeeded. The GNU team only asked
that the product be called GNU/Linux, a very simple request for helping to make
him famous. But Torvalds silently, but deliberately let the naming idea
die."
Ever hear Stallman speak on this subject? Stallman argues that the bundling and
dependency of a functional Linux-based OS on the GNU utilities (like cat, ls,
info, etc.) are the reason why it should be called GNU/Linux. He states that
the kernel is called "Linux." So here Brown is (deliberately?)
misrepresenting Stallman.
For what it's worth, I think this is a silly argument. Linux is a registered
trademark of Linus Torvalds, and those entitled to use that trademark can do so
how they see fit provided that Torvald agrees. If I sell Linux-based systems, I
am NOT required to use the trademark. If I want to I can call them whatever I
want as long as I am not infringing on someone else's trademark.
' Question #3
If Linux was based on Minix, doesn’t it owe rights, attribution to Prentice
Hall? Does it owe attribution or rights to anyone else? '
Not necessarily. Depends on what is meant by "based on."
The architectures of Linux and Minux are different enough to argue that any
influence was limited to certain ways of doing things (particularly
administering the project). I seriously doubt that any code was copied or even
that MINIX code was "paraphrased" in Linux.
'There is far too much boasting about stealing, reverse engineering, and illegal
copying espoused by some within the open source community.'
?????????
I have seen some people who are new to open source coming into it by the lure of
free (gratis) software being an easy and cool equivalent to pirated proprietary
software. But I have also noticed that these people quickly discover that
piracy isn't cool here. Stealing and illegal copying are not generally boasted
about.
Reverse engineering is a very different story. The IT industry depends on
contradicting forces of interoperability and vendor lock-in. The first is
solved by reverse engineering. But if reverse engineering was Brown's cause,
why does he pick on Linux and not on Samba? Because Linux looks a bit like an
improved version of UNIX? But Samba's whole reason for existance is
interoperability with Windows networks, and the entire project is one very large
reverse engineering story regarding Windows networking protocols. I personally
have no problem with reverse engineering provided that the intent is
interoperability.
Finally, this trailing remark is strange enough wonder whether this whole thing
is a joke:
'[Brown] is reportedly "not the sharpest knife in the drawer," but
nevertheless is able to converse with many intelligent people, and is accepted
at fine restaurants and hotels around the world.'[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:05 PM EDT |
it's OK with me if you don't go there from here. Or at all, for that
matter
Groklaw started out by offering excellent details behind
SCO's claims. Then PJ started editorialising, which is fine, your site, your
perogative.
Recommending people do not talk to Brown reeks of "something to
hide" (which I'm sure there is not) - can you imagine the
headline:
Linux's Legal Advocate Instructs Members to "Keep Quiet" about
IP Claims
What would MS/SCO/whoever's behind this current attack make
of that?
PJ, you've taken on a mantle; with that comes a certain
responsibility - and you've taken it on yourself.
To change from
editorialising to responding to an article which you recommend your readers
ignore, is something even ESR in his lowest days would not have done.
ESR
took his position as a pretty-well-respected member of the community and decided
to trash it; PJ seems to be determined to go the same way, and take the F/OSS
community with her.
Please, PJ, remember that the great stuff you've
contributed could end up in court, but that this article could also end up
there. You, of all of us, have a legal background, and should understand that. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:07 PM EDT |
Link --- Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:09 PM EDT |
Best argument Stallman could find against Open Source :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:33 PM EDT |
At the end of Brown's article:
Innovation can only work properly if
innovators properly credit the work of others, especially if the innovator has
decided to introduce the product into the marketplace for commercial
gain.
So no room for the (new) BSD license, then, nor the MIT
license.
Exactly the two licenses he starts out by advocating.
Thanks for
such a simple self-contradiction, Brown. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:49 PM EDT |
The reason the GPL was written in the first place, was to
prevent anybody from stealing our "intellectual property".
We in the open source community also have the right to
protect our "intellectual property", this is something the
fud'ers always ignore. They talk about how important it is
to protect their "intellectual property", but they ignore
our right to do that as well.
Mikael [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 11:57 PM EDT |
I noticed Ken Brown's wife Erica is a lawyer at Mintz Levin according to his bio
on
IJCLP.
After some more searching I came
upon older article (2002) by one
of the partners at what I think is the same law firm. Jim Gatto writes "Open
Source: Not Yet a Closed Case". After reading this
article
it looks to me
like maybe Ken did not make his article from scratch. In the article Jim
makes statements such as:
Open source licenses come in many
varieties. The GNU GPL license is among the most open, providing some of the
most extreme benefits and drawbacks, depending on your perspective. Other
licenses such as the BSD and Sun Community Source License try to strike a better
balance ...
The material is so similar that one might think that
Ken might have written (copied) portions of his before the interviews.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 08:46 AM EDT |
I would guess that the injured parties would prefer to critique and correct this
work out in public in the light of day for the world to see, as is being done
here, but the following may be of interest......
AdTI (http://www.adti.net/) now has this up on its home page.....
AdTI review announced
In light of significant interest in Brown's controversial study, Samizdat, the
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution has asked former chairman Gregory Fossedal to
conduct a review of the report and the debate. Mr. Fossedal encourages criticism
and comment from readers. To participate, please take our survey, here.
which leads to ......
Report "Samizdat" inaccuracies
A due-diligence review on behalf of the directors of the Alexis de Tocqueville
Institution. If you would like to report more than one inaccuracy, please submit
one entry and then use a fresh form -- multiple entries are allowed.
Required questions are denoted by (*)
Have you located any inaccurate statements in Kenneth Brown's report,
"Samizdat"?
Yes
No
Please enter the page number of "Samizdat" on which the inaccuracy
occurs: *
Please quote exactly the section of Samizdat that you wish to report is
inaccurate: *
Please enter any information you wish to supply which demonstrates that the
section of "Samizdat" you cite is incorrect.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cheros on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 09:49 AM EDT |
Given that the DoD should be absolutely paranoid about security I'd be surprised
if MS still had a willing ear, by proxy or not.
Just 2 secs of Google digging:
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/20/cz_eb_0620linux.html, "The Feds
Love Linux"
Washington Technology:
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/1_1/daily_news/19461-1.html "DISA
finds widespread open-source use in DoD"
There's more, but I'd have to shoot you ;-).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
Brown claims he can't understand how Linus wrote a 32000 line kernel in under a
year. The actual fact is: he didn't.
Anyone can check this by downloading one of the early Linux versions from the
web (for example, version 0.10, at
http://oldlinux.mtc.dhs.org/Linux.old/Linux-0.10/sources/system/linux-0.10.tar.Z
)
and counting the lines of C code. There aren't that many files, and they're
not that long.
I counted approx 2100 lines of C in the kernel, plus another 1400 from the block
device drivers and 1600 from the character device drivers. Boot, init, file
system code add some more, as do header files. I'd say the total would come
out in the same region as the 11000 Brown claimed for the Unix kernel.
Took me a couple of hours to figure this out. I posted a correction to the ADTI
site, in the interest of helping them do their due diligence research (since
they have already shown that this isn't where their strengths lie :-).
And, one more thing. I remember reading the Usenet list when Linus mentioned he
was planning to write a free Unix-like OS. Not many of us were in a position to
help, but we all wanted an open alternative to Windows 3.1. Yes, this was 1991.
Unix was king, AOS/VS, VMS, etc were contenders and Windows was a joke. Having
a Unix OS on your 386/486 was a great draw. When, a few years later, I loaded
Linux 0.97 on my 486, it completely blew away the "corporate standard"
Win3.1 in terms of throughput and functionality. I had X11, TCP/IP (remember
winsock?) and all the GNU Unix utilities on my 486! I have no doubt that this
was what motivated Linus to write Linux. By the way - he didn't write the GNU
utilities. They're a big part of the Linux functionality, and I hope Brown's
not claiming *they* are "stolen IP".
Mr Brown needs to come down to earth and realize that it's entirely possible for
ordinary people to create extraordinary things, without either divine or satanic
intervention. Just because he's not capable of writing an OS doesn't mean that
others aren't.
Peter[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|