Slashdot Mirror

Ummmm excuse me... but MySQL won a lawsuit on just this point a little over a year ago. Part of MySQL had ben incorporated into another companies proprietary database program.

Judges early opinion

Before someone says that they're just a small band of impoverished but brave open source developers who can't afford to pay lawyers....well, tough.

Actually, then they are still likely to be represented by the FSF, or FSFE in this case, probably.

That's probably because of the clause required, advocating the great folk of BSD up until 1999. So up to a point, the GPL was more free (liberty) on a democratic standpoint. This and the popularity to those hobbyists is definitely more popular with Linux. The community is larger because they (linux community) have had since '91 to get out and BSD has been a newcomer to the field of '99. I for one would have definitely chose the GPL given the choice between the two.

Anyways, I project the BSD license as starting to gain recognition as this sort of info finds its way to the surface, and turning more towards public domain as we progress to the future. Afterall, isn't it required for us to act in such a way while all joining hands around a fire singing kum ba yah as opposed to worldwide destruction by nuclear forces...

See the website of this group at http://www.wsis-pct.org/

The Working Group is holding a workshop "Free Software, Free Society" with a group of top speakers, including Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU Project, and Lawrence Lessig.

UCSD violated the GPL license and my copyrights on the jaxml Pyhon module during ten months. It was very difficult for me to make them comply, which they finally did.

They suck !

The (perceived?) problem exists, and is preventing certain software from being released as GPL.

In particular, the ActiveMath system, developed in the University of Saarland and the DFKI.

I've been working in this project for one year, but I've been trying to convince them to release it as GPL for more than two years. Consistently and repeatedly, the answer has been that they wanted to do so, but "the GPL is incompatible with German law". The lawyer they consulted, some Professor at the Uni whose name I don't remember now, also wrote a lengthy analysis which I couldn't read since it was in German. But everyone here insists on that indeed the GPL is not valid in Germany.

I planned to raise this issue in the round table Suggestions for encouraging the creation of Free software for researchers at the end of the Libre software and research track in the Libre Software Meeting in Metz, so if other people want to discuss it there, I'd be very interested.

Below I reproduce the content of the email I sent to activemath-dev on Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:49:41 +0200, with what I know about this issue:

>[copyleft doesn't agree with German law]

Do you have some exact quotation? Like an email or something?
Many GPL programs are produced in Germany.

Seems like the only clash is the "no warranty" clause (points 11 and 12), that would be illegal in Germany ("Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen"). (This doesn't mean that you become a criminal by releasing your software with such a clause. It's only that said clause does not apply.)
This just means that we can't reject responsability, just like any other software publisher in Germany.
AFAIK, the rest of the GPL is perfectly applicable in Germany:
http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/ 2000-November/000043.html

However, it seems to be the case that, when distributing something free of charge and with the source available for inspection, that responsability is greatly reduced:
http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/art3.html

More information can be found in the other pages at the "Institut für Rechtsfragen der freien und open source Software":
http://www.ifross.de

To avoid the dangers of not having the "no warranty" clause, some people use some "Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen" (AGB), which put some mechanisms in place to shield the software publisher from sueing. There is a peculiarity in German law that allows anyone to ask for a fee to a publisher when warning them of some infraction, such as trademark infringement. Thus one of the points of these AGB is to allow downloading only to people that abide to them by means of a password-protected download area, and then requiring for access an agreement that the person obtaining the software renounces to use the files to look inside for infringements.
However, this restrictions cause conflict with the GPL, as they are certainly restrictions on the freedom of the users, and can easily make the software non-free:
http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/ 2001-May/0010

The (perceived?) problem exists, and is preventing certain software from being released as GPL.

In particular, the ActiveMath system, developed in the University of Saarland and the DFKI.

I've been working in this project for one year, but I've been trying to convince them to release it as GPL for more than two years. Consistently and repeatedly, the answer has been that they wanted to do so, but "the GPL is incompatible with German law". The lawyer they consulted, some Professor at the Uni whose name I don't remember now, also wrote a lengthy analysis which I couldn't read since it was in German. But everyone here insists on that indeed the GPL is not valid in Germany.

I planned to raise this issue in the round table Suggestions for encouraging the creation of Free software for researchers at the end of the Libre software and research track in the Libre Software Meeting in Metz, so if other people want to discuss it there, I'd be very interested.

Below I reproduce the content of the email I sent to activemath-dev on Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:49:41 +0200, with what I know about this issue:

>[copyleft doesn't agree with German law]

Do you have some exact quotation? Like an email or something?
Many GPL programs are produced in Germany.

Seems like the only clash is the "no warranty" clause (points 11 and 12), that would be illegal in Germany ("Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen"). (This doesn't mean that you become a criminal by releasing your software with such a clause. It's only that said clause does not apply.)
This just means that we can't reject responsability, just like any other software publisher in Germany.
AFAIK, the rest of the GPL is perfectly applicable in Germany:
http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/ 2000-November/000043.html

However, it seems to be the case that, when distributing something free of charge and with the source available for inspection, that responsability is greatly reduced:
http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/art3.html

More information can be found in the other pages at the "Institut für Rechtsfragen der freien und open source Software":
http://www.ifross.de

To avoid the dangers of not having the "no warranty" clause, some people use some "Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen" (AGB), which put some mechanisms in place to shield the software publisher from sueing. There is a peculiarity in German law that allows anyone to ask for a fee to a publisher when warning them of some infraction, such as trademark infringement. Thus one of the points of these AGB is to allow downloading only to people that abide to them by means of a password-protected download area, and then requiring for access an agreement that the person obtaining the software renounces to use the files to look inside for infringements.
However, this restrictions cause conflict with the GPL, as they are certainly restrictions on the freedom of the users, and can easily make the software non-free:
http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/ 2001-May/0010

EUCD is the european drective that is the equivalent of DMCA in the European Union.

The Anti-EUCD fight is not finished in France as the law project has been proposed on December 3rd. It will be voted in february.

The FSF Europe/France is fighting it. Their aim is to propose arguments to deputees to reject the law. Yes, it is Free Software lobbying.

The main problem is to inform the mainstream of the danger of this law: the approach is that the law kills the "private copy" autorisation.

The prime source of information about software patents in Europe is the patents mailing list on the AFUL web site (french free unix user group).

Some information is also available on the APRIL web site (french association for research in free software).

In particular, to date, all the big (poll-wise) candidates to the french presidential election have expressed their opposition to software patents, see in french Haro sur les brevets and Tous les candidats dans l'opposition.

And of course the EuroLinux web site and FFII web site (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure ) have links to a lot of ressources and interesting readings.

We, european citizens, are seeking ways to get other european countries take position against the current proposed european law that opens the gates of unrestricted software and ideas patenting.If you're willing to help the cause, please contact your local free software association and try to get some activism in place together with the established assiociations like the FSF Europe. If you are French or German you can even make a tax-deducible donation, it may help the cause too.

--
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>

Large corporations, and I apply this to all, be they software producers or makers of automobiles, sell the marketing devices, the glistening sounds of a thousand adverts, TV plugs by some favourite celebrity (who function in much the same way) or the latest buzzword that they have implemented as a feature.

To this end people should stop and think beforebuying from a large corporation. Those of less knowledge, for which they should not be faulted (it is hard to hear a few voices speaking sensibly through a multitude babbling incoherently), should be encouraged, by those who do have the knowledge of FS, to at least try the alternatives. If they do not like it, fair enough, but if they do they will have rid themselves of ties to a system built on gossamer ideals and joined a community that believes in support for products that have depth and produce benefits that far outweigh their costs.

Finally, though these products cost nothing to 'buy', if the user finds they are beneficial, it seems only fair to reciprocate and give something back. Whether its a small donation of money or a random hardware part, help with coding a project or a writing the docs, or even just a plain ol' thanks, each and every return pushes the community forward.

~D

fsf-europe

debian uk

Is this something like what you are looking for: EFF europe?

You may want to link the original article posted in Advogato: here.

FSFE is providing also French and German versions with other translations (Spanish/Portugese/Italian) in the way.

You may want to link the original article posted in Advogato: here.

FSFE is providing also French and German versions with other translations (Spanish/Portugese/Italian) in the way.

People, the problem here is not that everybody will feel bad about SourceForge (the site) containing non-free components; if you feel that it's OK and that it really doesn't matter then the FSF Europe article is not really aimed at you (well, it is in the sense that it tries to explain why it is a Bad Thing(tm)).

The problem here is with people that hosted their free software projects in SourceForge (and we all are in debt to VAfor that) not only because it was a very good platform to host a project on but also because it was free software... if the version of the software that is used on SF.net is not free software than it raises several problems for some people (myself included).

I hope this is not the case, but there seems to be a trend on releasing free software, make ppl use it extensively and then close the source when tested. I'm not saying that SF is one of those situations (VA maintains a free version AFAIK), but still, ppl are nowadays more aware of this kind of drifting, and that makes them suspicious.
People seem to forget that the FSF/FSFE view on things is pretty clear and documented... I don't know why people seem surprised when articles like that one are submitted. I for one totally stand behind Loïc's words, and share his concern.

Having one of the most known free software development centres running on a proprietary version of a platform isn't really very flatering for free software as a whole... 'see, they don't even use their free software to host their bloody code!'-type of comments come to mind.

fsmunoz

People, the problem here is not that everybody will feel bad about SourceForge (the site) containing non-free components; if you feel that it's OK and that it really doesn't matter then the FSF Europe article is not really aimed at you (well, it is in the sense that it tries to explain why it is a Bad Thing(tm)).

The problem here is with people that hosted their free software projects in SourceForge (and we all are in debt to VAfor that) not only because it was a very good platform to host a project on but also because it was free software... if the version of the software that is used on SF.net is not free software than it raises several problems for some people (myself included).

I hope this is not the case, but there seems to be a trend on releasing free software, make ppl use it extensively and then close the source when tested. I'm not saying that SF is one of those situations (VA maintains a free version AFAIK), but still, ppl are nowadays more aware of this kind of drifting, and that makes them suspicious.
People seem to forget that the FSF/FSFE view on things is pretty clear and documented... I don't know why people seem surprised when articles like that one are submitted. I for one totally stand behind Loïc's words, and share his concern.

Having one of the most known free software development centres running on a proprietary version of a platform isn't really very flatering for free software as a whole... 'see, they don't even use their free software to host their bloody code!'-type of comments come to mind.

fsmunoz

So, what can we (EU citizens) actively do?

I've already signed the EuroLinux Petition

Maybe a membership with FSF Europe?

What else? Find politicians that'll listen?