|
|
| Two FSF Seminars on the GPL in California August 24 and 25 |
 |
|
Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 02:09 PM EDT
|
I get email sometimes asking about the GPL seminar I attended last winter and occasionally people ask me if there will be more, so they can go. I just got a notice about two more that will be held in California in August, on the 24th and the 25th, at Stanford University Law School, so I'm sharing the notice with you.
I can absolutely recommend this seminar heartily. I learned a great deal, including some things that surprised me. I thought I knew the subject well, but I found out, for example, that the way to handle violations wasn't what I had imagined. When I went, it was predominantly executives wishing to learn how to appropriately use GPL software and lawyers from major law firms and from legal departments in large corporations, so I was quiet as a little mouse, but I surely absorbed what I needed to understand. I would recommend it to anyone wanting to know how the GPL works, including coders and journalists and executives, and I'm living proof that you don't need to be a lawyer to get something out of it. There are no pop quizzes. And you don't have to do anything but listen and learn. If your boss is in the fearful "The Company Shalt Not Use GPL" category, he or she needs to go to find out how a company can get set up to appropriately benefit from GPL software. Oh, and the food was great at the one I went to. It was a class event.
The two upcoming courses will provide a detailed study and analysis of
the GPL, review significant case studies and license violations, and
look at compliance issues in Free Software Licensing. The seminars
will be co-led by Daniel Ravicher, Senior Counsel to FSF and Executive
Director of the Public Patent Foundation, and Bradley M. Kuhn,
Executive Director of FSF.
On August 24, "Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL" will give
a section-by-section explanation of the most popular Free Software
copyright license, the GNU General Public License (GPL), and will
educate lawyers, software developers, managers and business people on
how to use the GPL (and GPL'ed software) successfully in both new Free
Software businesses and in existing, successful enterprises.
On August 25, "GPL Compliance Case Studies" will present four specific
case studies handled by FSF's GPL Compliance Lab. Attendees will have
completed either "Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL" or
another previous FSF licensing seminar, since those courses form the
building blocks for the more in-depth material.
Here's part of the notice, with details you'll need if you wish to attend, contact John Sullivan at johns @ fsf.org or 1+617-542-5942 or go to http://www.fsf.org and click on the link under GNUs Flashes to sign up online:
*************************************
FSF Seminars on the GPL and Free Software Licensing
"For more than a decade, FSF has urged projects to build a process whereby the legal assembly of the software is as sound as the software development itself."
- Bradley Kuhn, FSF Executive Director, May 2004
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is
offering two day-long seminars on Free Software licensing and the GNU General Public License in partnership with Stanford Law School on August 24 and 25, 2004. The seminars will be co-led by Daniel Ravicher, Senior Counsel to FSF and Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation; and Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director of FSF. They will be held on the Stanford University campus in northern California.
On August 24, Detailed Study and Analysis of the GPL and the LGPL will comprise a section-by-section explanation of the most widely used Free Software copyright license, the GNU General Public License, and will give lawyers, software developers, managers and business people the knowledge necessary to use the GPL (and GPL'ed software) successfully, with safety and predictability, both in businesses new to Free Software and in existing enterprises.
On August 25, GPL Compliance Case Studies will present the
details of four different GPL compliance cases handled by
FSF's GPL Compliance Lab. Each case
offers unique insights into problems that can arise when the terms of the
GPL are not properly followed, and how diplomatic
negotiation between the violator and the copyright holder can yield
positive results for both parties.
A continental breakfast and catered lunch will be served on both days.
Participants will get the fullest experience by enrolling in both courses, so FSF offers a discounted two-day package. However, those who have already taken the first course may certainly enroll for just the second day if they like.
Directions and information about lodging, travel, and other logistics will be sent following registration.
Registration Information
Book by August 1, 2004 for an early registration discount.
. . . .
Pricing
- Both Detailed Study and Analysis of the GPL and LGPL and GPL Compliance Case Studies (August 24 and 25)
- » $875 if paid on or before August 1, 2004 and $975 after August 1, 2004
- Single day (August 24 or 25) [1]
- » $495 if paid on or before August 1, 2004 and $595 after August 1, 2004
FSF Corporate Patrons
Companies that have signed up as Corporate Patrons of FSF receive two complimentary seminar tickets per year that can each be redeemed for a one-day pass to this event. Patrons also get reduced rates for additional participants. Please contact patron@fsf.org for more details on becoming a patron. If you or your employer is a patron and would like to register, contact John Sullivan at johns @ fsf.org or 1+617-542-5942.
Day One: Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL
August 24, 9 am to 6 pm
Attendees should have a general familiarity
with software development processes. A basic understanding of how
copyright law typically applies to software is also helpful.
The course is of greatest interest to lawyers, software developers and
managers who run (or have clients who run) software businesses that
modify and/or redistribute software under terms of the
GNU GPL or LGPL, or who wish to make use of existing GPL'd and LGPL'd software in their enterprise.
Register by August 1 for lower tuition.
The course will include the topics listed below, along with ample time
for questions and discussions.
- Free Software Principles and the Free Software Definition
- Preamble of the GNU General Public License (GPL)
- [ Section 0 ] Definitions
- [ Section 1 ] Grant for Verbatim Source Copying
- Derivative Works: Statute and Case Law
- [ Section 2 ] Grants for Source Derivative Works
- [ Section 3 ] Grants for Creating Binary Derivative Works
- The Implied Patent Grant in GPL
- [ Section 4 ] Termination of License
- [ Section 5 ] Acceptance of License
- [ Section 6 ] Prohibition on Further Restrictions
- [ Section 7 ] Conflicts with Other Agreements or Orders
- [ Section 8 ] International Licensing Issues
- [ Section 9 ] FSF as GPL's Stewards
- [ Section 10 ] Copyright Holder's Exceptions to GPL
- [ Section 11 ] Disclaimer of Warranties
- [ Section 12 ] Limitation of Liability
- Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
Day Two: GPL Compliance Case Studies
August 25, 9 am to 6 pm
Attendees should have completed the course Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL, as the material from that course forms the building blocks for this material.
This course is of greatest interest to lawyers who have clients or
employers who deal with Free Software on a regular basis. However,
technical managers and executives whose businesses use or distribute
Free Software will also find the course very helpful.
Register by August 1 for lower tuition.
The course will include the topics listed below, along with ample time
for questions and discussions.
- Overview of FSF's GPL Compliance Lab
- Violation Case Study A
- » Explains how FSF deals with sometimes belligerent violators.
- Violation Case Study B
- » Explains how smoothly violations can be resolved and the process that an otherwise friendly violator can expect.
- Violation Case Study C
- » Problems faced regarding kernel modules for device drivers for government-regulated hardware, and cases where both an upstream provider and a downstream distributor are in violation on separate matters.
- Violation Case Study D
- » Violations from a company committed to doing Free Software has occasional GPL violations or near-violations.
- Good Practices for GPL Compliance
[1] Those who enroll in GPL Compliance Case Studies will have already completed Detailed Study and Analysis of the GPL and LGPL.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- link correction - Authored by: yellowsnow314159 on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 06:32 PM EDT
- OT Mean Linux machine going in at Nasa - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 07:18 PM EDT
- OT And this press release from Seagate and Linspire looks interesting. - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 08:31 PM EDT
- SCO Moot Court - Authored by: s21mag on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 09:58 PM EDT
- SmallFoot - Authored by: _Arthur on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 10:54 PM EDT
- OT -- attempt to praise PJ unobtrusively - Authored by: bbaston on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 11:05 PM EDT
- OT Alms for the Blind - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 12:27 AM EDT
- More FUD - GPL NOT enforcable in Germany - Authored by: hgp on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:08 AM EDT
- OT: Novell and Canopy settlement - Authored by: MikeA on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:10 AM EDT
- OT - another patent tragedy (Creative vs Doom 3) - Authored by: red_guy on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 05:05 AM EDT
- Open source in the press - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 09:11 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 06:07 PM EDT |
| Will Eben Moglen be there ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John M. Horn on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 06:07 PM EDT |
Unfortunately I won't be able to attend either of these. Does anyone know if
there are any Web sites with detailed information on all aspects of the GPL? It
is easier to carry the torch when you're able to point to a site with the
answers to the tough questions that will likely be asked.
John Horn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
Is there a possibility that groklaw, or another organization, could could get a
webcast of this or other OSS seminars?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cheros on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:49 AM EDT |
I think it might be even more attractive if there were some case studies of
companies doing it right, rather than focus on the negative aspects as in the
case study list of day 2. What product they created, what steps they took to
ensure compliance, and what market success the product has.
There's enough fear out there already, courtesy of sponsored badgering.
Having said that, sounds a great initiative - and learning to navigate through
accidental infringements is a good start. I hope the GPL will be compared
against other licenses out there.
= Ch =[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:13 AM EDT |
(1) December 12th Order, instructs SCO to:
2. To respond fully and
in detail to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 as stated in IBM's Second Set of
Interrogatories.
These interrogatories read:
INTERROGATORY No. 12:
Please identify, with specificity (by file and line of code), (a) all source
code
and other material in Linux (including but not
limited to the Linux kernel, any
Linux operating
system and any Linux distribution) to which plaintiff has
rights; and (b) the nature of plaintiff's rights, including but not limited
to
whether and how the code or other material derives
from UNIX.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
For each line of code and other material identified in
response to
Interrogatory No. 12, please state whether
(a) IBM has infringed plaintiff's
rights, and for any
rights IBM is alleged to have infringed, describe in detail
how IBM is alleged to have infringed plaintiff's rights
.
(2) March 3rd Order, instructs SCO to:
1. To fully comply within 45 days of the entry of this order with
the court's previous order
dated December 12, 2003. This is
to include those items that SCO had difficulty in
obtaining
prior to the Court's previously ordered deadline of January 12,
2004.
...
4. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity all
lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to.
(3) Harrop
declaration
22. Further SCO has not purported to have identified in
discovery, nor has it certified that it has identified, all of the source code
in Linux to which SCO claims any "rights.". Indeed, at the time that IBM
propounded its discovery requests, the question of copyrights SCO has in source
code in Linux was not at issue in the litigation. At that time, there was no
copyright claim in the case at all: SCO had not even brought its narrow
copyright claim.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 02:34 AM EDT |
Somewhat off-topic subject here.
I've been waiting to see a transcript
of the July "Linux Show" interview with Ken Brown. I figured, why wait?
Here is a
link to my first partial transcript where Rob "Roblimo" Miller talks about
hiring Ken as a spokesperson for OSS (yeah, right!). I'll have a few more clips
in the next few weeks as time allows. For now, the following is a clip where
Eric Raymond and Ken Brown clash over Ken's misrepresentation of Eric's
quote:
Ken Brown (KB): But here's my other
question, and I'll leave you with this... now, the question of attribution,
alright, lotta people have been round and round in circles about it. Eric
Raymond, you know, he's had some comments about this as well, I mean, does Linux
owe any attribution to Minix? I mean, that's my point --
Eric
Raymond (ESR): Andy Tanenbaum says not...
KB: That's my
point.
ESR: Andy Tanenbaum says not.
(background noise,
many people talking at once)
KB: Wait a
minute...
ESR: Andy Tanenbaum says not.
KB:
...what does Eric Raymond say?
ESR: Ok, Ok... you want to hear
what I say? OK? I have looked into the history, ok? There's only one person
on the planet who knows more about the history of UNIX than I do, and that's
Peter Salus. And you should hear what he has to say about this. So I'll tell
you what I say - I've looked into this. I've talk to Linus Torvalds, I've
exchanged e-mails with Andy Tanenbaum. Andy Tanenbaum says that the theory that
Linus owes attribution to Minix is ridiculous. Linus Torvalds
-
KB: No he doesn't. He doesn't say that! He doesn't say that!
He doesn't say that...
ESR: Andy Tanenbaum says it's
ridiculous. Linus Torvalds says it's ridiculous. I've looked at the code and
the history, and I say it's ridiculous. And the only person who knows more
about the history of UNIX than me, Peter Salus, also says it's
ridiculous!
KB: Listen... you can look on Tanenbaums site, you
can look on Tanenbaums site... and you can look on the interview Tanenbaum just
did with a computer magazine, and he says there's traces of Minix in Linux. You
can look on Tanenbaum's site, also, and he says Linus did a sloppy job of
attribution, and you can look in your book, Eric Raymond, you can look in your
book, and you say in your own book that Linus got [inaudible] from
him.
ESR: Ken, the difference is we know...
(more
noise)
ESR: Ken, the difference is... what Peter and Andy and
Linus and I know, that you don't, is that there is a difference between re-using
ideas and stealing code.
KB: Never said stole. I never... you
know what? You guys, what you guys don't understand about me is that I wanna
talk about this stuff. I don't just hide in the corner and say something. I
never said stole. I never say stole antying. What I said was there's an issue
of attribution and appropriation of IP, and I did say very specifically that I
had a problem with Torvalds going on and on that he didn't have any source code,
and he didn't have anybody's stuff, and he wrote that product from
scratch.
ESR: And Andrew agrees that that's
true.
KB: Tanenbaum.... Tanenbaum, I talked with him, you can
look on his site. He tells you very specifically on his site that, listen, that
Linus did a sloppy job with attribution. You can go on and on with this! I
mean Eric, you write it in your own book that that's what Linus did, I mean, I
don't understand this!?
ESR: Because you distorted my
quote!
KB: How did I distort it?!? I printed the whole thing!
The web guy [inaudible]
ESR: (angrily) You took it out of
context and misinterpreted it! You made my quote say something I don't
believe!
Copyright questions about this quote?
See
this
reference about fair use.
---
Collaborative efforts synergise. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 03:40 AM EDT |
PJ, thanks for posting this info... /me scurries off and makes plans...
---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." --
Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: k9 on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 04:27 AM EDT |
Here (sub
req'd).
Some quotes :
- If you can't beat them, join them. That seems
to be the reaction of a growing number of companies to the rise of open-source
software - a trend that has threatened to subvert the economics of a large slice
of their industry.
- Commercial software companies that decide to compete
head-on with new open-source rivals face one overriding problem, though: the
potential loss of significant revenues when they open up a proprietary
product.
The transition can be intensely painful, warns Jack Messman, CEO of
Novell, a long-struggling software company which has sought to reinvent itself
as one of the biggest distributors of Linux. Eventually, though, most software
companies will have to embrace open source to some degree, adds Mr
Messman.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jig on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 07:56 AM EDT |
it costs quite a bit to attend in person. I would be interested in seeing and/or
buying a record of the preceedings, preferrably video. i don't need to be there
to ask questions just yet.
you'd think a GPL conference would offer such. possibly for free-as-in-beer. if
not, then they'd offer it to attendees, with all materials GPLd, of course (if
you disagree with the use of the license for publications, then lets just say
freely distributable).
you've heard that some financial planners and tax estate lawyers are patenting
their strategies using a ninth circuit ruling allowing the patenting of biz
strategies. wouldn't it be interesting if the gpl were patented? a licencing fee
to use a license... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Greebo on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 09:38 AM EDT |
| Hi,
Has anyone seen this article yet by
the CEO of Green Hills Software, Dan O'Dowd?
In the article Mr O'Dowd makes
the claim that :
Linux is being selected for defense systems because
of the perception that it is more secure than Windows. However, this
conventional wisdom is unsupported by quantitative data. In fact, the U.S.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) security vulnerabilities
database lists more vulnerabilities for Linux than Windows in the last ten
years.
I think the Database he is referring to is here, and i was keen to prove him
wrong, so i checked for myself.
And this is what i found. Searches using
the keywords Windows and Linux for 'All Entries' does indeed turn up more
results for Linux than Windows.
Windows (all entries) = 523
Linux (all
entries) = 620
If you try and narrow the search for vulerabilities that give
root access Linux still turns up more hits :
Windows, root access (all
entries) = 62
Linux, root access (all entries) = 212
So on the face of
it Mr O'Dowd is right. Linux is less secure than Windows!
Now, before i get
flamed bad here, let me just say that i think this is wrong. We all know from
experience that Linux has less problems, but i am not of a technical enough
nature to explain away the differences of why this database says Linux is less
secure.
Maybe someone else here can explain this, 'cause i sure would like
to prove this guy
wrong.
Greebo ---
-----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT : Is Linux Less Secure than Windows? - Authored by: ff5166 on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 10:12 AM EDT
- OT : Is Linux Less Secure than Windows? - Authored by: TLP on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 10:25 AM EDT
- OT : Is Linux Less Secure than Windows? - Authored by: MathFox on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 10:30 AM EDT
- OT : Is Linux Less Secure than Windows? - Authored by: yellowsnow314159 on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 10:42 AM EDT
- Configured how? In what environment? Against what threat? - Authored by: k9 on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 10:46 AM EDT
- Reason for count - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 10:52 AM EDT
- Apples and Oranges? - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 11:01 AM EDT
- One very big difference - Active X - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 11:37 AM EDT
- OT : Is Linux Less Secure than Windows? - Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 11:41 AM EDT
- Mr. O'Dowd should complain to NSA - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 11:41 AM EDT
- OT : Is Linux Less Secure than Windows? - Authored by: paul_cooke on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 01:10 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 12:53 PM EDT |
"...it was predominantly executives wishing to learn how to appropriately
use GPL software and lawyers from major law firms and from legal departments in
large corporations, so I was quiet as a little mouse,..."
what little mouse? Mighty Mouse? Well, I think you're now the 800 pound gorilla
:) thanks again for all the hard work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
