|
|
| GPL Freedom Has Limits - Golem.de Interview with Netfilter's Harald Welte |
 |
|
Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 05:27 AM EDT
|
Golem.de has an interview, in German, naturally, with Netfilter developer Harald Welte about the GPL court case in which Netfilter recently won a temporary injunction against Sitecom Germany GmbH, the first court ruling involving the GPL. The interview brings us up-to-date on what happened and what comes next. Welte speaks to his hope that the case, and others he is involved with, will educate those thinking of violating the GPL that there are penaties for doing so. The freedoms of the GPL come with requirements too, requirements that will be enforced, in court, if necessary.
He comments on the Munich decision to switch to Linux, in the context of price being a factor. He, and you, might find it of interest to know that at the last minute, Microsoft reportedly offered the city of Munich a special deal, whereby it would have cost less to stay with Microsoft than to switch to Linux, some $12 million less, plus millions' worth of other offers and perks, and they turned it down. In an interview with vnunet.com, Wilhelm Hoegner, head of the information and data processing office of the City of Munich, tells why:
"What were the main reasons for the city's decision to change to Linux?
"The key aspect was the ability to control the release policy ourselves; in other words to free ourselves from reliance on the product cycles of a small number of software companies.
"Another important point, of course, was licence costs, and security also plays an important part. We are switching directly from Windows NT to Linux, since NT, which is non-secure, was followed by a number of systems from the same manufacturer, which were also open to attack." Evidently, price was absolutely not the only factor and not even the most important. Since that is the core of Microsoft's current FUD, I'd say things are looking bleak for them. I therefore agree with Eric Raymond's prediction that we can expect them to react, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them play the patent-threat card any time now, with SCO-like legal meanness possibly to follow. Isn't that what companies on the skids do? Try to monetize their IP when nobody wants their products any more? I believe they will try the patent stranglehold in the hopes of either parasiting on GNU/Linux systems by trying to get royalties so as to prolong the life of the company, a la SCO, or in the hopes of pricing their competition out of the market, also a la SCO. Guess who pops up then offering Brand X "open source" desktops? Think rising in the east. Judging from the Munich story, that won't help them either. People will pay more for security and for freedom. And they'll go through nuisance lawsuits too, if they have to. I believe we've seen how endearing the world finds it when you attack Linux, by watching SCO's UNIX business sink with every quarter. If Microsoft imagines they can win customers with tactics like that, they are mistaken. It will only deepen the disgust that is growing against this company not only in the US but worldwide. And folks won't buy from companies they don't like and don't trust. It's that simple. No one likes a bully. Microsoft imagines this is about money, about total cost of ownership, which is why they think they can prevail by churning out "research" by their paid help and "Get the FUD Facts" road shows. It isn't. It's about disgust with their software and with their business practices. How do you fix that? Not with IP lawsuits, that's for sure. I think it'd take a heart transplant, and throw in a kidney, while you are at it, since I recall a scripture says the kidneys represent your deepest self. Nothing less fundamental and drastic can cure what ails Microsoft. People are fed up. Asking the world to stick with their products now is like a politician asking his ex-wife to vote for him after abusing her for years. It's conceivable, if he convinces her he's totally changed his ways, but otherwise not likely. Maybe not even then. Golem.de has graciously allowed us to translate the Welte interview in full, and doughtnuts_lover has done so for us, with some editing by me to make it more colloquial. Feel free to do better. Golem.de is not responsible for any errors we've made. Enjoy. **********************************
Interview: The Freedom of the GPL Has Limits
Golem.de Talks with Netfilter Developer Harald Welte
In mid-April 2004, Harald Welte won the world's first legal ruling based on the GPL (General Public License). The developer of the Linux firewall, Netfilter, won a temporary injunction at the district court of Munich against router producer Sitecom. Sitecom uses Linux in its devices but hadn't provided source code as required by the GPL. Golem.de spoke with Harald Welte about the legal proceedings against Sitecom and about protecting free software.
golem.de: What is the status of the proceedings concerning the GPL violations?
Harald Welte: Well, actually the only GPL suit which so far went to court is the Sitecom case. There was a temporary injunction which we easily won at the Munich district court. Sitecom filed an objection against that temporary injunction. This was at oral proceedings on May 19th, 2004. Sitecom lost its objection.
golem.de: That means that there will be a trial soon?
Welte: Not for sure. At the moment, Sitecom still doesn't know whether they'll appeal that judgment. That will be decided by Sitecom after they have the judgement of the Munich district court in writing. Then it will be decided whether Sitecom will appeal. If at that time Sitecom doesn't want to appeal, we'll require that they provide us in writing a final declaration that they are acknowledging the temporary injunction as a binding decision.
If they don't provide us such a declaration, then there will have to be a trial. But this actually would only prolong the matter needlessly.
golem.de: Why Sitecom? Did this company behave particularly uncooperatively at the beginning?
Welte: No, we treat everybody the same. There isn't any preference or discrimination. It's just that from the time you become aware of copyright infringement, you only have 4 weeks to apply for a temporary injunction. And if your opponent isn't willing during those 4 weeks to sign off that they won't and don't use free software contrary to the license terms, then we have a choice, either to let the 4-week time period run out, hoping that later during trial we'll get what we want, or we can apply for a temporary injunction at the last moment in time before the end of the 4 weeks. And with Sitecom it went that way.
golem.de: You mentioned during your speech that some people have criticized the rather low-key proceedings in the Linksys case (Cf. http://tinyurl.com/2azwp [ed.]) What do you say about that criticism?
Welte: That Linksys case was handled by the FSF, and there was some criticism about the very slow pace before there were any visible results. Though Linksys had released some source code, it wasn't complete. It was only a standard kernel which also wasn't configured -- there were all kinds of parts missing. So it wasn't what the license required, and negotiations were pretty protracted.
golem.de: You mentioned that there is hardly a week where you are not informed about a copyright violation of your software. How much of your working time are you devoting to legal matters to protect free software?
Welte: Unfortunately too much. I'm an engineer and would much prefer programming all day long. During the last few months during which I have been actively involved in this, I'd say that about a quarter of my time was spent on it. We were busy with 16 cases, some still ongoing. Some of them are settled. For example, Fujitsu Siemens, Belkin, Asus were all settled out-of-court. There are still other cases which are currently in negotiations, and it all takes a lot of time.
The idea is to publicly make known some high-profile cases in order to put the opposition, those thinking of violating the GPL, on notice that we are serious and that we mean what we say and will enforce the license in court if you violate its terms. The idea is that then it will prevent having to handle lots of little cases, once the word is out.
golem.de: Do you think that copyright violations are particularly prevalent in your particular area, since components like Netfilter are deployed in so many different devices?
Welte:That's absolutely correct. Netfilter is in widespread use. If you include the whole range of DSL and WLAN routers, access points and VPN devices, there is an incredible bandwidth of network equipment where packet filters are deployed. Therefore Netfilter is affected pretty heavily. Nevertheless I would say that the Linux kernel itself, thus the actual core of the kernel like memory management, is used even far more often.
I know many products where I for myself can do nothing because Linux is used but not a packet filter and I'm only the author of the packet filter.
golem.de: But if Linux is deployed in so many other products, why is it only you who is suing? Apparently others don't.
Welte: There is actually another well-known case which many may have heard about. That's the case of Kiss Technology (Cf. http://www.golem.de/0401/29222.html [ed.]) which specializes in DVD players and which is now accused at least of using software taken from the MPlayer project.
In the end you simply have to recognize that you are taking a chance. In the court of first instance, I'm taking a chance of nearly 10,000 Euro (currently about $12,000 [ed]) if I lose. And there aren't many free software authors willing and in a position to take such a risk.
golem.de: Did options for legal protection as offered for instance by FSF Europe with their Fiduciary Licence Agreement play a role in your considerations when you thought about proceeding against copyright violations against your software?
Welte: That's right. There is the Fiduciary Licence Agreement (Cf. http://www.golem.de/0302/23832.html [ed.]) whereby you can provide FSF Europe with some rights. But I don't know of any prior cases. I would be very happy if something develops there.
It's a fact that we frequently obtain donations to FSF Europe during extrajudicial negotiations -- even in the 4-digit range -- where we agree with FSF Europe that these monies will be set aside for enforcing the GPL.
I personally wouldn't want to use the Fiduciary Licence Agreement now, but I think that for authors who don't plan to deal with enforcing rights,
maybe for economic or time reasons, this is certainly an option they could
consider.
golem.de: Did you deliberately choose the GPL license rather than a BSD license or a similar license, and if so, why?
Welte: Yes, freedom! It matters to me that software which I have written will be available in source code for users, even if the software is changed. Under a BSD license, someone could build a product on Netfilter and produce and sell it without providing source code.
I think especially for security-related software, it's important that source code can be looked at to make sure there aren't any back doors built in. Just a few days ago, there was a Netgear router which had a back door built in. If I have source code, it is much easier for me to recognize whether there is a back door built in or not. And if there would be a back door built in, I can simply take out the back door, recompile and load that image into my device again, which I now can use without the back door.
I understand that not every human in this world is a C freak capable of programming a kernel, but at least in theory, all are in a position to do this or to hire someone who will do it for them.
golem.de: In those cases where there were out-of-court settlements, were there real code modifications by manufacturers that in the end flowed back into the Netfilter project?
Welte: Yes, above all there is the US Robotics case where a so-called connection-tracking Helper for DirectX was built into the code. While we didn't integrate this code officially into the project, and that code hasn't become yet part of the kernel, it is sitting in our CVS repository. First, we have to evaluate whether the code meets our quality requirements.
but it's vital that these modifications flow back into the project.
golem.de: Do you think that companies which have agreed to out-of-court settlements are now more open regarding the idea of free software? Are they seeing an advantage that code is freely available, apart from cost aspects?
Welte: I think that Linksys is profiting from it quite a lot. I know many people from the free software community who are buying Linksys routers precisely because they are able to modify them. Now I don't just buy a finished product which I plunk down somewhere in a corner, but I buy something which I can modify and explore, where I can delve into protocols and interfaces, and I can work creatively with the technology.
For Linksys - I think it's working out very well -- there are now many community-based projects which offer their own firmware images, also small mini-Linux distributions. A real community developed around their device, and I think that this had a very positive effect for Linksys, looking at it from the marketing angle.
I also believe that, above all, there is now an awareness that it's not about freeware or public domain software
but about free software and that the GPL also has terms and obligations. Some have to learn this the hard way. I know of some companies -- I don't want to mention any names now -- where their engineering departments knew that there were GPL license violations and informed their superiors. But it never made it to the appropriate decision-making level or to their legal departments.
There is even a case where we know that the engineering and the legal departments had knowledge but the decision-makers simply turned a blind eye. I think that the only way to prevent such behavior is by means of legal action, so as to create an awareness among executives on the highest level that there are rules you have to abide by.
golem.de: So at the beginning GPL software or free software was seen more just as free-of-charge software?
Welte: Right, typically cost aspects are considered first. Whether that's the way it should be is another question but it just is a very important feature. For example, during the discussions about Munich switching to Linux, that cost angle came up. Sad to say, not all people in this world prize freedom as highly as I wish they would.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 05:31 AM EDT |
| Put all my mistakes in a heap right here, please, so I can find them. Thanks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 05:51 AM EDT |
The interview on vnunet also contains this;
"Will the BS2000 machines stay?"
"Yes. We already have a heterogeneous landscape anyway. Unusually for the
IT sector, we never relied to any great extent on Microsoft servers and used
Novell or Unix systems with Oracle databases, for instance. They will also
stay."
There's a robustness in diversity that monocultures lack, and a willingness to
buy "outside the brand". That's going to be MSofts biggest competitive
landscape. MS don't need to do anything in organisations where every piece of
software in MS, and (as would you would imagine), pretty well every piece of
Intel based tin is from a single supplier too.
--
An intersted bystander
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: micheal on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 06:18 AM EDT |
| "And there aren't many free software authors willing and in a position to
take such a risk."
I think it would be benefical if a program author
could assign the rights to enforce the copyright license (GPL) to another
company (such as OSDL) and the OSDL would be willing to enforce those rights.
Note that this assignment does not have to be mandatory (or even strongly
suggested).
---
LeRoy -
What a wonderful day. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skuggi on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 06:22 AM EDT |
Going Linux is not about money, this is all about the soil
the products grow in and ripe. Who wants to have someone
able to push a button and your whole crop dies or cripples
just because the big brother wants to make the same kind
of corn you raise. Microsoft has been worst to the one it
should support, developers of products for their platform.
I think developers are beginning to understand where the
save haven is for development, and it is for sure not in
Redmond.
-Skuggi [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 06:42 AM EDT |
Those proprietary companies which were caught in violation of the terms of the
GPL always had the option of writing their own code, using the GPL'ed code as a
ready reverse engineering reference. But doing even that much was too much
effort for these violators. Parasitism is alive and well in the Open Source
ecology. Disgusting. I am not sure what these quick buck artists give back to
the Open Source community except for the back of their hands.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbeadle on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 06:46 AM EDT |
Thanks,
-jb [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 07:00 AM EDT |
The most effective way to prevent parasasitism is to knock the bejezus out of
the profit motive. Someone puts up a black list of the unrepentant violators,
and we each decide for ourselves, our employers and our clients that we will not
do business with that individual violator until he cleans up his act. Every
potential violation must be forced torecord not only with the author's
enforcement of the terms of the GPL in a court of law, but with the Open Source
community's enforcement of the terms of the GPL in the marketplace and the
business environment.
Those companies that violate the terms of the GPL alsao compete unfairly with
those companies that don't. And I wouldn't mind seeing the directly impacted
competitors also enforcing the terms of the GPL in the courts. The words need to
go out that the GPL is enforceable, and that the authors are not the only ones
who have stasnding to enforce the terms of the GPL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: entre on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 07:01 AM EDT |
This article speaks more for a shift to GPL and free, not as in beer, code than
any so far. PJ has noticed the locomotive momentum is picking up real speed now.
Enjoy the ride, Report the FUD and EEE. Her hints of IP lawsuites from those
whom have the most to lose are, I am afraid, a sure bet.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MathFox on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 07:06 AM EDT |
| I was at the NLUUG (Dutch Unix Users Group) conference in May where one of the
speakers, Kees Agelink from Capgemini, spoke about the TCO of using Open Source
software, compared to using a Closed Source platform. He based his talk upon the
Gartner TCO numbers.
From the notes I made during the talk:
- TCO of
servers+desktops is € 4270 per employee for a specific Windows
solution.
- TCO of servers+desktops is € 4036 for a Linux solution with
the same amount of computers.
- With Linux it is possible to consolidate
servers to get a TCO of € 3835 per employee.
The above numbers are
averages over medium sized (100-1000 employees) companies. Numbers may differ
depending on your specific situation.
The cost of migration is between 250
and 500 euro per employee and it will take around a year (8 months with
consolidation; 15 months without) to earn back the investment.
The Gartner
TCO includes the direct cost (Hardware, Software, IT staff and overhead) and
indirect costs (loss of productivity due to downtime and system administration
done by the users). ---
When people start to comment on the form of the
message, it is a sign that they have problems to accept the truth of the
message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linux TCO - Authored by: Peter Smith on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 07:17 AM EDT
- Linux TCO - Authored by: MathFox on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 07:32 AM EDT
- Linux TCO - Authored by: bbaston on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 08:23 AM EDT
- Linux TCO - Authored by: MathFox on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 08:58 AM EDT
- Linux TCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 11:38 AM EDT
- Linux TCO - Authored by: raindog on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 12:33 PM EDT
- Linux TCO - Authored by: MathFox on Sunday, June 27 2004 @ 06:13 AM EDT
- License TCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 09:10 AM EDT
- Interesting reading: 'Doctor prescribes Linux' - Authored by: doughnuts_lover on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT
- Linux TCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 27 2004 @ 03:00 PM EDT
- Linux TCO - Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, June 27 2004 @ 03:24 PM EDT
- Linux TCO - better hardware options - Authored by: prl on Sunday, June 27 2004 @ 06:05 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Peter Smith on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 07:13 AM EDT |
This golem.de interview is so very important.
Part of the MS/SCO FUD has been to paint Open Source as software thieves. I have
pointed out in the past how unlikely this is because our work is openly
displayed for examination by all and sundry. Software theft would quickly be
spotted and gleefully exhibited by our opponents. (and despite their best
attempts they have failed to do this!!) On the contrary, I said, the real
problem with theft would be in the proprietary domain, because the source is
hidden and the theft is all but impossible to detect.
This interview confirms that copyright violations are indeed much more likely to
occur in proprietary systems.
This is a most powerful answer to the MS FUD artists and proxies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 08:31 AM EDT |
| If TSG is supposed to be the seller of Unix source licenses one might expect
some evidence of the product to appear on their web site.
While there is
plenty of mention of Linux, Unixware and Openserver, there seems to be nothing
about a product which TSG is currently suing everybody within range.
How can
SCO show any loss at all when the Unix rights bought from Novell (and
originating from AT&T) seem not to have survived as an identifiable Unix
source product at all?
BTW, here is an interesting list of
documents relating to the transfer of "Unix" from Novell.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 08:56 AM EDT |
It never costs less to stick with Microsoft. You've already paid tons of money
to them. Even if they let you go once or twice (depending on how long you've
used and licensed Microsoft - could be more) for free you've already paid. Plus
they get you for the rest of the Microsoft software and you're locked in again
for who knows how long to the same specific vendor. Gates said it best in an
interview and it seems like that is really what they do now. Get you addicated
then they can do/charge whatever they wish. Kinda like the banks and their
ATM's i.e. started out for free and now they charge up to 2-3 dollars a pop.
This is money you pay for making their paperwork easier. Kinda ironic.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 09:31 AM EDT |
From a "freedom to grow" point of view, the GPL is one of the
"most free" licenses out there:
If you add to GPL'd software, you have to share with others, who can add
further, and who have to share back with you.
From an free-as-in-unencumbered point of view, plain old "public
domain" is the most free. It frees users from any responsibility to anyone
but themselves and their customers, which can save a boatload of money.
No wonder places like MS prefer either public domain or "nearly public
domain" licenses like BSD.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 09:32 AM EDT |
From: Sun seeks redemption in software licensing
http://www.newsforge.com/trends/04/06/21/1838213.shtml
("Contract law is not well-meshed with Open Source licensing
practices," said the anonymous representative with whom I spoke.)
Where have we seen this before? SCO wanting to go the state court instead of
federal?
Someone has to explore that region of law between contract law and copyright
law, I call "the fence." SUN is riding it and it has a very
interesting view. It hurts, but it must be done.
The more this is played out (in the market, in the programming arena, and in the
courts,) the more stable the market place becomes. And I believe this is good in
the long term. It is in the short term we have to grin and bear it. And I
believe it is worth all the stability in the computer marketplace. I also
believe it was Microsoft's strength to play on the weakness of the market.
Stengthening the market on true democracy and diplomacy weakens Microsoft's
influence and shows their immaturity.
Or should I dare say, the immaturity of one, Steve Ballmer? I believe Steve
Ballmer is responsible for much of Microsoft's stupidity. I believe Bill Gates
eventually became the sock puppet of Steve, because Bill Gates was a stupid
"geek" in Steve's preppy eyes. Go look at that 1975 picture of
Microsoft and judge for yourself.
(http://www.lishost.org/~tk421net/gallery/pictures/microsoft.jpg)
(My view of "preps" and "nerds" is best reflected by the
movie "Revenge of the Nerds - Steve was one of those 80's prep types - and
his personality was probably best reflected in the movie "Pirates of
Silicon Valley", although I will admit I do not know the man personally. I
had a Commodore VIC-20 and C-64 back in the 80's so my animosity of Microsoft
goes way back)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
OK, I read the article. What are the limits on GPL
freedom? Am I missing something here? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 11:05 AM EDT |
The straightforward way to avoid the proprietary code of U.S. companies is for
countries to repeal intellectual property treaties with the U.S.
Yes, you would have to weigh the pros and cons of such a step. But it would be
in the best interests of the world's countries to wean themselves off the U.S.
economy, anyway.
Another way would be for the World Trade Organization to assume that software
patents are invalid unless proven otherwise.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
Would they dare?
The industry learned the hard way in the 80's that
lawsuits end up costing you your business, and not in the
way you think it means.
Lotus got tied up in a suit with Borland over a
spreadsheet. I don't remember who won, but it is
immaterial. Neither are in the spreadsheet market at all
now, so they both lost. While they were distracted with
the lawsuit, Microsoft took over the market with Excel.
There are some big boys now basing their markets on free
software. If Microsoft decides to pursue patent suits,
what will stop IBM and others from using their extensive
patent portfolio from suing Microsoft?
Everyone would lose, but it is almost like the MAD
doctrine. Microsoft is on the Rubicon right now. I hope
saner heads prevail for their own sakes.
If Groklaw used their impressive research capabilities on
this subject, and wrote an article on the dangers for
everyone, maybe some sanity might shine through. This
isn't only dangerous for free software, but for the whole
North American software industry, which will lose it's
preeminence if full blown patent wars break out.
Derek [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 11:38 AM EDT |
I have to disagree. Microsoft is not anywhere near an area I would refer to as
“the skids”. They are finding themselves in a time where they are losing their
customer lock-in, they will adapt themselves.
It’s been a long time since Microsoft found itself having to compete with
another OS. If Microsoft knows anything, it's that their customers are
important. That's who spends money on their products.
I don’t think you are going to see Microsoft take a SCOish approach to IP, lest
they suffer SCO’s fate (50% business revenue loss in 1 year is the result I
refer to) They will alienate their users and spur competition by doing something
like this. You won’t see it until Microsoft has lost their dominant position. I
agree with PJ that Microsoft has set itself up to protect against FOSS the only
way they can, with IP.
It's going to be a trickle in approach with their IP. You'll start to see
Microsoft release code 1st for free and then for a fee later on, and NEVER under
the GPL. Not the OS mind you, but enough little pieces to allow some
interoperability without giving up their flagship platform and customer selling
point. The goal being to weed their way into something that looks opensource but
has to be paid for.
How you ask? Microsoft doesn't bet on anything but sure winners, so they get
others to try out the strategies for them. Look at SCO: Lets sue the world and
see what happens approach. Sun's up next: Lets open source Solaris and see what
happens. We’ll probably see someone else try something less than Sun as a hybrid
approach, someone who is threatened by Linux but hasn’t embraced it yet.
Microsoft already knows they cannot kill Linux; it's way too late for that. They
have to outmaneuver the Open Source community if they want people to actually
pay for IP licensing and not get into thousands of legal battles suddenly.
Microsoft will adapt to what its customers want.
People will look for any alternative to Microsoft if they are unhappy enough. If
people are being driven towards Linux, killing Linux won’t solve that problem,
people will just find something else to use (OpenBSD anyone?)
People want alternatives for various reasons. Some for low cost, others for
freedom, still others for security, etc… Microsoft will address the issues they
can address. I submit people who switch for the cost alone are people Microsoft
simply can't win back without changing the company in very fundamental ways.
Don’t ever underestimate Bill Gate’s ability and willingness to adapt, it’s why
Microsoft is the leader today.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whig on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 11:56 AM EDT |
<i>Asking the world to stick with their products now is like a politician
asking his ex-wife to vote for him after abusing her for years. It's
conceivable, if he convinces her he's totally changed his ways, but otherwise
not likely. Maybe not even then.</i>
Well, Jeri Ryan did say that her ex-husband Jack Ryan "no doubt would make
an excellent Senator." But she didn't withdraw her allegations that he took
her to sex clubs and tried to get her to engage in sexual activity in front of
other patrons. Anyhow, he ultimately withdrew from the race.
<a
href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/25/il.ryan/index.html">
;CNN story</a>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
"I therefore agree with Eric Raymond's prediction that we can
expect them to react, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them play the
patent-threat card any time now, with SCO-like legal meanness possibly to
follow. Isn't that what companies on the skids do? Try to monetize their IP when
nobody wants their products any more?"
PJ here and
obviously Eric Raymond are two voices indulging in a healthy paranoia which is
necessary for the survival of the open source and free system. The future does
not have to be as bleak as they suggest. But bleak it can be since SCO is just
a minor blip in a world campaign waged on many fronts. As one who almost daily
points the finger at the sinister forces behind SCO, we find it helpful to set
aside the tinfoil helmet and idealize where we would like to be in the end.
Then from there work forward to see how we might get there. [e.g. It is easy to
envision the Middle East as literally and figuratively the tourist Mecca of the
world. There are antiquities, geological,cultural and religious diversity and
beaches that ideally situate it in a future life more reasonable and peaceful
than the present. The trick is getting all sides to buy into the vision, then
work on a method.]
The most optimistic view is that they will not react
in any sinister way. Maybe they will content themselves to be less than a
monopoly and be glad for what they had and the advantages that remain. Maybe
they will compete with price and product. At the very worst they could put out
a formidable Open Source product of their own and sell and service it with their
world wide infrastructure. As long as they see a powerful, prosperous role for
themselves, they will not stoop to a cataclysmic scorched earth policy. One
reason that sustains this optimistic view is that they may have lost too many
hearts and minds already. Further bullying and underhanded tactics might turn
more powerful governmental forces against them. [They have funded SCO and
twisted think tank studies. Imagine what else they have been into like
elections, stock moves and such!] They also may have gone much too far legally
in just this SCO caper. It may be time for them to stand down and be reasonable
lest they inspire drastic if not mortal consequences. It should be clear to
them that the world will not stand for a totalitarian regime over software. If
they can't share some power and wealth, they will be bypassed.
So hope
for the best but prepare for the worst. If monopoly patent battles are up next,
bring it on. The system will be destroyed before there is any resolution. As
we can see, the courts will not be able to handle it all. The patent system
will be declared a failure. There will be paralysis and a frontier, free-for-all
system that benefits nobody. Stability will arise from foreign
shores. ---
webster [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 01:05 PM EDT |
| ..I found a good commentary to
http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/06/21/1838213,
here:
http://trends.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=38752&op=&threshold=0&c
ommentsort=0&mode=thread&tid=147&cid=9393
..a new
Groklawyer? Enjoy her or his text below:
The author talks about Sun's
confusion over licenses but
does little to clarify things. In fact the
overall
impression leaves the reader with the wrong understanding.
Licenses are a grant of rights which would otherwise be
reserved by a rights
holder. A patent license allows
actions which would otherwise infringe on
specific rights
reseved for patent holders. A trademark license or
copyright license work the same way.
However, if a license is going
to add more restrictions
than allowed by copyright law (i.e. no copying,
redistribution, public display, etc.) a straight license
grant is not going
to work. Any additional terms (you
can't resell it, you can't use the media
as a frisbee, you
can't disparage the product, etc.) are going to require a
contract to be enforcable.
Thus the industry has come to view
licenses as contracts,
because in the commercial world they usually are. And
yes,
a contract requires several things including a) that the
terms of the
contract be viewable by both parties before
agreement, b) that there is an
active affirmative sign of
agreement by both sides, c) that consideration be
exchanged, d) that both parties be adults, e) tons of
other crap. So-called
clickwrap license may not be as
enforcable as software companies like to
pretend. If
nothing else they are a contract of adhesion. Such
contracts
are strictly limited in what they can require of
a signee and in court the
signee is assumed to have not
read the contract!
But in any case,
the GPL is quite enforcable. The Sun
employee is probably not a lawyer or
didn't bother to
understand that the GPL is a plain copyright instrument
based only on the Berne convention so it is enforcable in
most countries of
the world no matter what little
variations in copyright and contract law.
(And if you
insist on viewing the GPL as a contract it still works
because
duplication or redistribution can be viewed as
acceptance of the terms --
those actions are not legal
without a license. This is the same way it works
as a pure
copyright instrument.)
..on 2004.06.26 3:50
(#93931), (s?)he adds:
Two points I forgot to address. Sun's Java Desktop is
shipped as one product. But it is comprised of many
components which are
individually copyrighted. Those
components need not have the same licensing
terms. However
the aggregate also has a copyright (a compilation work)
which is owned by Sun. This can have its own license. But
the important
things are a) the individual licenses need
to allow for them to be mixed on
the same media and on the
same computer b) the aggregate license can't
conflict with
any of the individual licenses. This is important because
the GPL specifically says that it does not allow
additional restrictions to
be added. If Sun is trying to
add additional restrictions and is not clear
that these
only apply to components which are not covered by the GPL,
they
are infringing on the copyrights of the GPLed
components. I have not read
this license so I can't tell
if I think that is the case or not. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Vaino Vaher on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
I have not yet read the peer comments, but one sentence seems to stretch the
limits a bit:
Isn't that what companies on the skids do? Try to
monetize their IP when nobody wants their products any more?
In the
best of worlds we would see MS on the skid. In my opinion we are not quite there
yet!
It is also false that nobody wants their products any more. They
do have more than 90% market share, don't they?
Finally, here in
Europe the Irish sock puppet is working so hard to push through a devastating
software patent bill similar to the one you suffer under in the US. All for the
benefit of their masters treasure chest.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
Does anybody have the exhibits/affidavits to IBM-186 (memo on discovery)?
Or failing that, a list of what they are?
Thanks
Quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jkondis on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
"He, and you, might find it of interest to know that at the last minute,
Microsoft reportedly offered the city of Munich a special deal, whereby it would
have cost less to stay with Microsoft than to switch to Linux, some $12 million
less, plus millions' worth of other offers and perks, and they turned it
down."
Imagine that. Now *this* shows what happens when a monopoly is responding to an
upstart competitor. We will be seeing more such price drops to customers
looking into Linux, I'm sure.
When companies have to consider competition in their pricing model, it ends up
totally affecting their pricing strategy. A company that can respond to a
competitor by slashing prices 50% is obviously overcharging for the product to
begin with. But with gross profits of 75-80% on their OS and Office products,
they can afford it.
Their actions are an admission by Microsoft that they are a monopoly. Only a
monopoly could afford a tactic like that. Why not offer the price cuts to
everybody else?
---
Don't steal. Microsoft hates competition.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 04:59 PM EDT |
PJ stated:
"...I'd say things are looking bleak for them. I
therefore agree with Eric Raymond's prediction that we can expect them to react,
and I wouldn't be surprised to see them play the patent-threat card any time
now, with SCO-like legal meanness possibly to follow."
I'm not
so sure I agree with this statement, but I could be entirely wrong.
For
years now Microsoft has been diversifying into other arenas of business (gaming
boxes, ISP services, etc.) and will continue to do so until it finds a
profitable niche. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they don't seem to be too
successful in diversifying and competing on a level basis, which could lead to
the situation PJ describes.
If Microsoft starts breaking out the
patents, you'll see many others do so too. This is exactly what we want. We
need to see absolute chaos break-out among the software industry in order to
illuminate the problems with the patent system. At the same time, the US will
suffer on a competitive level and you'll see countries like Germany, The UK,
Taiwan, etc., start to dominate. By keeping the patent system as it is, there
couldn't be a worst, or better, thing to happen to the US on the high-tech
front.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
Its a pity there isnt an easy way that we can donate money to help cover this
mans legal costs.
While donating to the FSF is one thing it sure would be nice if there was an
Open Source Defence Legal Fund clearing house where developers like him could
register that they are fighting an Open Source related law suite and where we
could pick exactly which law suite we would like to chip in on.
I for one would send him a bit of cash just on principle if I knew that the
money would be ear marked for _his_ legal costs.
If large companies knew that such a fund existed and that if they took the piss
that the single bee that is a small open source developer could turn into a
swarm of angry bees all willing to put a sting in as well theyed be a lot more
reluctant to try it on I reckon.
Maybe such a fund would work such that the fund would help with legal costs, and
perhaps take a small piece of any monetary winnings, which could then be
invested to provide an ongoing cash flow to make such law suits much more potent
and realistic. Any donated money that wasnt needed for the specific case would
go back into the pool for the next case that went along. (Returning the money to
the donaters would needlessly drain funds into administrative tasks)
As i said I realize that the FSF do this somewhat already, but they restrict
themselves to projects that use the GPL and sign over their copyright, and i
personally would like to be able to donate where these conditions may not be
met.
If anybody does do this this ive got a few hundred euro to put in the pot. PJ,
you seem to have a magic touch with things like this. Maybe you could talk to
the people you know about putting something like this together? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 12:18 AM EDT |
One thing I've never understood is why these people don't
make use of one of the BSD-licensed packet filters around
(and probably a BSD OS, rather than porting to Linux).
Ideas, anybody? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tizan on Monday, June 28 2004 @ 01:25 AM EDT |
When i go out to buy something, I like to be quoted a fair price. If its too
high for my budget ...i just say too bad and turn around...But if the seller
starts lowering the price and tell me i'll get a soda too etc... I know that the
product is worth much less and i'm being cheated...and i consider the seller to
be dishonest to quote me a fair price in the first place and i can never trust
such a business person.
Well sounds to me that's what M$ was doing with Munich and even if its much
cheaper and much better product in the end....its dishonest not to give your
fair price and best offer in the first instance.
---
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
