Slashdot Mirror

Massachusetts of any use?

From Groklaw's article on the subject:

"Some may contend that the decision is unfairly dictating a software preference. This is entirely wrong; the guidelines make it clear that any applications need only support an open, unencumbered document format. Your guidelines do not limit any vendor's ability to compete for state business because the required open formats are available equally to all, and participation in their development is equally open to all."

wow the shillboys are out in force today aren't they.

Meanwhile on planet eath (the universe I am living in) Steve ballmer said... I'm going to f---ing bury that guy (Google CEO Eric Schmidt), I have done it before, and I will do it again,". "I'm going to f---ing kill Google."

If I was Eric Schmidt I would hire a bodyguard. I have no doubt Ballmer has already hired a hitman.

A fairly in-depth look here

For some time now, I have been saying that MySQL is a lock-in scheme. It became obvious when MySQL switched from the LGPL license to the dual GPL + proprietary licenses. This does nothing to promote Open Source, rather, it forces proprietary developers to use MySQL under the proprietary license.

Another product that uses the GPL + proprietary lock-in licensing scheme is Qt, by Trolltech. They also use their GPL'd edition as a loss-leader, in order to promote sales of the proprietary edition of Qt.

Note that MySQL and Trolltech are both partly owned by Index Ventures. They also own a piece of Skype. See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505241 72943589

Index Ventures bought into Trolltech at about the same time that SCO ended its partial ownership of Trolltech. Prior to that, SCO Chairman Ralph Yarro, one of the engineers of SCO's attack on Linux, also sat on Trolltech's Board of Directors.

Any Linux supporter who isn't nervous about this rats nest, and who doesn't wonder about possible Microsoft involvement, given their connection with SCO, is being naive.

What it comes down to is this:

Even those who trust MySQL and Trolltech must realize that their GPL + proprietary licensing schemes lead to future lock-in, and should be avoided for that reason alone.

If you are a MySQL user, and you care about the future of Open Source, you should be looking at alternatives, such as PostgreSQL.

And if you are a KDE developer, and you care about the future of Open Source, you should be looking at porting KDE to other platforms, so you are not dependent on just Qt. Besides, Qt's licensing scheme is limiting your success. You can start by simply layering the KDE code (similar to what Apple did with Konqeror in order to create Safari), which is a good thing to do anyway.

And everyone should be watching out for long term hooks. Remember the early nineties, when the PC was an open platform, that used open, documented hardware interface standards. But then Microsoft introduced Windows, and "free" developer tools, which they gradually used to turn the open PC platform into one which would only run with Windows middleware. All the open PC hardware interfaces were turned into secret interfaces, requiring custom drivers that only worked with Windows.

Microsoft was able to take over the open PC platform because of what is called "network lock-in." This occurs due to the fact that Windows is middleware, which sits in between the PC platform, and the applications that run on top of it. The applications need Windows in order to talk to the PC hardware, and the PC hardware needs Windows in order to talk to the applications -- nobody can move away from Windows without losing access to everything else, hence the network lock-in.

Just like Windows, MySQL and Qt are middleware, with the same potential for network lock-in. Proprietary (non-GPL'd) applications that run on MySQL and Qt depend on them for access to the OS (Linux), and, because they use the proprietary licenses, they don't have the Open Source protection of being able to fork MySQL and Qt.

Think carefully about the future, people. Don't let the astroturfers, and slick salespeople lull you into a false sense of security. Pay attention to how your software is licensed. Pay attention to any dependencies your software has on other software. It's the start of the nineties all over again, and you currently have an open platform, with all the commodity benefits that will bring. You don't want to be foolish and short-sighted, and lose it again.

They already have. Only they backpedalled away from Microsoft Office XML.

The previous draft of the standard allowed the use of Microsoft's XML file formats. Microsoft even changed their XML licensing in response to Massachusetts initial concerns.

Not to be hood-winked, lots of open source/open data/open information supporters took time to educate the drafters on exactly how Microsoft's format was not free. Take note of Groklaw articles regarding Mass., XML, and OpenDoc.

This is a huge win for open standards and democracy. The MA drafters' first priority has been citizen access to information and, once explained, they clearly understood that Office's formats are not "free" as in "freedom of the people to access government information."

Arguments about any quality or attribute of file formats other than free access to all citizens are not going to fly anymore in MA. Here's hoping other governments learn from this.

• The difficulty of preregistering copyright if you use Linux
• The inability to travel by air in the US if you're not willing to obey laws you're not even allowed to see
• The trouble you can get into if you behave counterculturally in redneck America

Xenix was sold to the Santa Cruz Operation, which changed hands a few more times, and we know how they wound up.

This was also covered on groklaw, yesterday.

Microsoft wants Windows running on every computer in the world, because they make more money that way. If a computer is running Linux that could be running Windows, then Linux is eating their lunch; so to Microsoft, Linux is competition.

On the other hand, the crowd of people who brought us Linux don't have a similar need to have every computer in the world running Linux. You could call Windows competition to Redhat, Novell, and other Linux companies, but they are a small part of the giant crowd of people that produce Linux and all the other FOSS that runs on it. There are some benefits to an expanded user base, as it expands the pool of potential contributors to improving the software. And it's gratifying. But the FOSS crowd do not share Microsoft's need to be the only OS in the world. Hence Microsoft is not competition for Linux.

Seen in this light, it's clear why Microsoft wants more "studies" as FUD fodder, and why OSDL has no interest.

What about things like Damn Small Linux, Linux On A Floppy, Polish Linux Distribution and all those non-commercial Linux distros? If I made a Tiny Linux Router distro for my own firewall, and make it available on my FTP, do I have to rename it, or shell out $200 to continue using the name?

Hi! I bold'ed the part you need to re-read from your own question...

Your list is incorrect.

1. Does it SAY Linux in the product name?
Y - Pay for a License
N - Don't need a License

2. The Linux Name has integrity and is not watered down

Everybody needs to stop jumping to conclusions and read what is actually trying to be done here.

There are several reasons why that approach won't work. This groklaw post covers the issues very thoroughly.

After several days of reading about this subject and totally wrong commenting on it myself, here the groklaw link:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200508160 92029989

This article links to
http://www.linuxmark.org/

This explains everything, so a lot of projects should pay, but at this moment they are just trying to make up for the cost of protecting the trademark by going after big players (>1mln US$).

I only disagree with one thing: A trademark does not garantee quality at the moment of rewarding the trademark. You only know that the product sucked when the trademark is revoked because of bad quality.

Exactly. Why not link to what the proposed change is actually about, rather than all this "bringing us into line with the rest of the world" crap which is so easily disproven.

It basically means that inventors are no longer the ones who get patents, it's whoever files for the patent. It means that inventing something is no longer a guarantee that you won't infringe on a patent for your own invention. It means that patents no longer protect innovation, they merely protect the value of payments made to the patent office.

Or something like that. Read all about it, it's nothing to do with following the rest of the world, it's nothing to do with efficiency, and it's nothing to do with clarity.

(and heavily criticized) here.

SlashDot, Check.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/19/ 1154231

LinuxMark, Check.
http://www.linuxmark.org/what_if.html

Hmm, something is missing. LINUS' words?, no, LKML, nope, Blog Entry, nada, maybe OSDL, Hmmm
http://osdl.org/about_osdl/legal/lldf

Why doesn't this cover the Trademark Maintenance Fees? Do they (OSDL) pay Trademark licenses?

Help me Linus, We need you to tell us why "you" don't pay your lawyers and why we should.

This whole thing is unfortunate FUD-food. I'm even having a hard time deciding on good vs evil on this one. Is the name worth 200 bucks to me, hmmm. The Distro OS is, The kernel only, I dunno man. Now every OS vendor has to pay or make up a new name. I think I'll call mine NewYorknix there, now I'm in the clear.

Seriously, We need you guidance Mr. T.

An Annual Fee is applied to each sublicensed trademark. The fee is set according to two factors: A) the for profit/non-profit status of your company or organization, and B) the aggregate gross revenue you expect to earn in the next fiscal year for goods/services associated with the mark in question. Marks grouped in a brand are treated as a single mark.

Non-Profit Tier
Annual Fee = US200

For Profit/Other Tier 1
[This is a "grandfather clause" for written sublicenses executed prior to August 1, 2004] Annual Fee = 0

For Profit/Other Tier 2
[Total projected annual gross revenue between zero and US 100,000] Annual Fee = US 200

For Profit/Other Tier 3
[Total projected annual gross revenue between US 100,000 and US200,000] Annual Fee = US 500

For Profit/Other Tier 4
[Total projected annual gross revenue between US 200,000 and US 1 million] Annual Fee = US 1000

For Profit/Other Tier 5
[Total projected annual gross revenue over US 1 million] Annual Fee = US 5000 So if you're making over 1 million dollars a year off of Linux, and want to have the word "Linux" in your product's name, you need to pay $5000. For non-profit projects, it's a meer $200. There are administrative costs, legal costs, etc. Again, from the Groklaw article (quoting maddog):

"We need LMI to be self-funding, and following trademark laws in the 200 countries of the world is very expensive."

Speaking of abusing someone's good name, Jeremy Malcolm, the attorney in charge of sending out the licensing letters in Australia, has a long history of voluntary and pro bono work for the Internet and open source communities. This includes serving on the boards of the Internet Society of Australia, the Western Australian Internet Association, Electronic Frontiers Australia, the Society of Linux Professionals (WA) and the Australian Public Access Network Association. He also received the Community Award in the 2004 AUUG Australian Open Source Awards for outstanding contribution to the understanding of para-technical and legal issues surrounding open source within the Australian context. He isn't a Scientologist and never has been, by the way, although he believes in freedom of religion for all.

Excellent point:

Speaking of abusing someone's good name, Jeremy Malcolm, the attorney in charge of sending out the licensing letters in Australia, has a long history of voluntary and pro bono work for the Internet and open source communities. This includes serving on the boards of the Internet Society of Australia, the Western Australian Internet Association, Electronic Frontiers Australia, the Society of Linux Professionals (WA) and the Australian Public Access Network Association. He also received the Community Award in the 2004 AUUG Australian Open Source Awards for outstanding contribution to the understanding of para-technical and legal issues surrounding open source within the Australian context. He isn't a Scientologist and never has been, by the way, although he believes in freedom of religion for all.

Don't you hate it when the mainstream media doesn't bother to check their facts? Why do what they do, then? The community stands for ethics, does it not?

- Groklaw article

As much as we techies usually investigate things, we kind of dropped the ball on this one.

This is just outrageous. If you read the groklaw article this is pretty serious move in the wrong direction. I cannot believe even they are trying to justify these actions.

It is a dark day in the history of Linux.

First RedHat now Linus and groklaw. Who's next to be corrupted by this?

Where can I turn for a free OS? Obviously anything with Linux in the title out.

I checked out FreeOS but most of their stuff is Linux or some very arcane OS.

I'm fast running out of hope. Where can I turn now?

Actually, reading deeper, you might fall under "Fair Use."

From Groklaw again:
Examples of Fair Use.

If you are a journalist interested in writing articles that include the term "Linux," you do not need a sublicense. If you are printing up pencils, stenciling T-shirts, or distributing coffee cups with a legend on them like "Linux®is the greatest!" or "Even my Mother uses Linux®!" this is normally considered "fair use".

But I'm not a legal expert, so you might want to invetigate on your own.

The rate is on a sliding scale.
Check the LMI Fees Page to see where you fit. Based on your description, I'd say you're either non-profit or for profit tier 1, which would be $200.

The Groklaw article others have referenced mentions it, too.

How about Groklaw? They have a writeup with pretty much everything there is to know.

I assume you're talking about this:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200508160 92029989

Very interesting read, IMHO.

But, really, why is /. suddenly pimping so many M$ infomercials these days? What's up with that? There is a world of difference between providing facts supporting of a minority view and giving free hand to a shill.

That intro can't have honestly been written by someone who knows anything at all about DiDio's history. What's next? Another TCO comparison written by Enderle to support DiDio? We haven't heard any guff out of him for some while.

DiDio often is written off by the Linux camp as being pro-Microsoft...

... she offers excellent, neutral advice ...

I've both read the CDDL and legal analysis of it. Various laywers and other members of the legal community disagree with you.

The CDDL *requires* the originator and contributors to automatically give patent grants, for good, to that CDDL code and its deratives - non-revocable.

Have you looked at the differences between the Mozilla license and the CDDL? This comparison chart is a good place to compare them side-by-side. Note the total omission of the Mozilla license's 3.4 - which discusses exactly the kind of patents that Sun may have licensed from SCO or Microsoft or whomever and hidden in "open" Solaris.

To quote people more practiced at interpreting legalize than I:

Specifically, marbux spotted a way that it would be possible for developers co-developing Open Solaris to someday find themselves blocked from distributing code by a Microsoft patent infringement claim, while leaving Sun, because of their cross-licensing deal with Microsoft, free to continue to distribute the contributed code.

I've both read the CDDL and legal analysis of it. Various laywers and other members of the legal community disagree with you.

The CDDL *requires* the originator and contributors to automatically give patent grants, for good, to that CDDL code and its deratives - non-revocable.

Have you looked at the differences between the Mozilla license and the CDDL? This comparison chart is a good place to compare them side-by-side. Note the total omission of the Mozilla license's 3.4 - which discusses exactly the kind of patents that Sun may have licensed from SCO or Microsoft or whomever and hidden in "open" Solaris.

To quote people more practiced at interpreting legalize than I:

Specifically, marbux spotted a way that it would be possible for developers co-developing Open Solaris to someday find themselves blocked from distributing code by a Microsoft patent infringement claim, while leaving Sun, because of their cross-licensing deal with Microsoft, free to continue to distribute the contributed code.

I think I called it just fine. So... 'thptt' to all my detractors! :)

Read Maddog's comments here. or on Groklaw.
This is being done by/for Linux International, Linus and the entire Linux community, and all this bashing of Jeremy is unjust. Take off your tinfoil hats long enough to find out the truth before inserting your foot in your mouth and running down paranoia lane!

If people are leaving Slashdot for other sites where the readers can moderate the postings instead of being force-fed crap like this by the editors, I am less than surprised. I find myself other places more often, too. This is not news that matters. It isn't even news.

(What is going to really piss me off, of course, is when they post the inevitable dupe)

Criticism of a previous Didio study related to Linux TCO...

Laura Didio whines that slashdot does not like her...

Quote from wikipedia by Didio: "The thing about Linux is, you can talk about a free, open operating system all you want, but you can't take that idea of free and open and put it into a capitalist system and maintain it as though it is some kind of hippie commune or ashram, because if you can do it like that, at that point I'm like, 'Pass the hookah please!'". And on another occasion she followed up: "I'm all for open source, and competition serves everyone's interest. But if Linux is really to take its place alongside Windows... then the vendors in this space cannot act like a bunch of hippies in a '60s commune or ashram. There really is no such thing as a free lunch." ... does this sound professional to you?

Collection of Laura Didio quotes, compiled by Groklaw, on the subject of Didio insisting that she'd seen the linux-sco code comparison and it contained clearly copied code. This was posted, mind you, on the day that the judge ordered SCO to either provide the evidence linux contained copied sco code or drop those accusations from their lawsuit, and SCO resonded by dropping those accusations. In other words, the evidence never existed. There was never any copied code and SCO has as good as admitted so in court by their refusal to specify what the copied code was when the court ordered them to.

Laura Didio has made it clear she is not someone worth giving the slightest bit of attention or media press to. She has in the past shown a complete lack of any idea of rigor in compiling or presenting a study, as well as a willingness to both mislead and outright lie. This is not someone who knows how to do journalism, or how to do an informed study. This is someone who knows how to do one thing and one thing only, and that is shill for Microsoft when Microsoft pays them to. Right now she is shilling for Microsoft. Microsoft press releases released from Microsoft itself may occasionally contain good points or true statements, such as "Microsoft is a company located in Redmond". However, even when this is the case they don't get printed on the front page. Why should Microsoft press releases released through the front of Didio be treated any different?

So much for Darl's open letter!

(before you mod me troll, back off of the mouse, and try to see the humor in the above comment!)

Except that it doesn't work that way. Our patent system (flawed as it may be) works on rewarding patent to the first to invent, not the first to register for patent.

That's true now, but not for long if the Patent Reform Act of 2005 passes into law. You can read more about it in this Groklaw article.

Ah, Congress...always finding a way to mak things even worse.

Well, to all the people here who have been jumping down Mr. Malcom's throat, groklaw.net has an excellent article here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200508160 92029989 that explains precisely why a trademark is being filed. Seems that most of the flames here on this topic have been morbidly misinformed. Alas, I have come to expect this often here.

Actually, that's exactly how first-to-file works. Say you invent X, but you haven't patented it yet. Someone else can claim to have inveted X and file. Then, becuase they were first to file, they have the rights, not you. Scary eh?

The original poster quotes the European System, but congress is trying to move the US system to be the same. Take a look at The Patent Reform Act of 2005. Groklaw, of course, has a good analysis of what would happen in this case if we had first-to-file.

Groklaw had a story about this the other day. I'm willing to bet that *they* got the facts right.

Not for long. According to this GrokLaw article, Congress is working on a "Patent Reform Act 2005" which includes "first-to-file" provisions.

Refering to the groklaw article concerning an eFax lawsuit that threatens some FOSS:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200508091 4234645

I was thinking about the old dial up BBS. If a modem was used (circuit based network) to dial a BBS (packet switched network) and the BBS used caller ID to access a user account in some fashion (I think many did - some would only allow you to call from one specific number), it seems that something could be used as prior art to invalidate their (silly) patent.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,208,638.WKU.&OS=PN/6,208,638&RS =PN/6,208,638

Don't laugh. Darl McBride actually mentioned this animation in his Long Live Unix letter. He was making fun of the "First you have to config it, then write some shell scripts, update your RPMs, partition your drives, patch your kernel, compile your binaries and check your version dependencies..." part, but he raised this obviously humorous animation as a serious criticism of Linux.

the final two paragraphs you quoted are not from the email, but are PJ's comments on the matter... please give proper attribution NEXT TIME... for our regular readers, here's the link to the proper article he quoted from...

Maybe it'll be just what's needed for a huge evacuation from the MS dependency...

What are the chances of Microsoft making a secure anti-virus or a secure anything? Remember their last "security push?" 1 month of "emphasis on security" isn't a magic wand to fix 20 years of code; nor will it change the underlying corporate culture. It was all for the media. And they ate it up, being too lazy (or too addicted to free meals - see the story on groklaw about that) to bother telling the truth. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200508121 9304040 or, for those too lazy to click, Microsoft is offering free pizza:

Speaking of FUD, I have a copy of the email Microsoft sent out to journalists inviting them to lunch.

Here's a snip:

Why spend 10 bucks on a burger at Moscone when you can have a slice on Microsoft? Come join the Microsoft Embedded group at Moscone Pizza (across the street from the Moscone Center) on Tuesday, August 9 from 1pm - 4pm for lunch and discussion on the Windows Embedded operating systems. Product managers Mike Hall and Dan Javnozon will be available to provide demos of Windows Embedded developer tools and answer questions about Microsoft's strengths in the embedded space.

For instance, did you know... .

- Microsoft embraces shared source, and makes more than 2.5 million lines of source code broadly available to customers, partners, developers, governments, academicians and other interested individuals. In fact, more than 275,000 developers have downloaded Windows CE Shared Source

- Microsoft offers a shared success model that translates to low up-front investments for device makers, in addition to faster time-to-market. The Windowsembedded motto? "We don't make money until you do."

- Windows Embedded designs, on average, get to market 43% faster, on average, than embedded Linux designs - 14.3 months with embedded Linux vs.. 8.1 months with embedded Windows; 14.2 engineers with embedded Linux vs.. 7.9 engineers with embedded Windows (Embedded Market Forecasters, November 2003)

- Windows Embedded designs, on average, cost 75% less to bring to market than embedded Linux designs. (Embedded Market Forecasters, November 2003)

I'll be in touch to gauge your interest in setting up a one-on-one briefing with Mike or Dan during the lunch.

A little nauseating, don't you think (love the carrot -- a one-on-one -- which is hard for journalists to turn down), to set up camp across the street and trash talk Linux at LinuxWorld?

Burns also mentions that the Microsoft Linux Lab session was well attended. I believe that falls into the category of keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. If I had been there, I'd have attended that session too, even though I would prefer that Microsoft never be given a platform at any FOSS conference, personally. Shared source is not Open Source even, and it for sure isn't Free Software, and don't ever kid yourself about it. It's Brand X, and there is no reason to settle for so little.

FWIW Groklaw had some commentary on this a few days ago.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200508092 21240129

It's not working on the Windows version Firefox either. I even tried IE *shudders* No luck.

The patent office is in fact asking if it's OK if they only support IE for the time being. All I can say is, I'm glad it's not my government doing this.

I don't think I'd give any money to these folks. http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&si d=20050808123259231&title=Anderer's+Realm+raises+a +fresh+%249+million&type=article&order=&hideanonym ous=0&pid=347656#c347665 http://www.groklaw.net/search.php?query=Mike+Ander er&keyType=phrase&datestart=&dateend=&topic=0&type =all&author=0&mode=search

I don't think I'd give any money to these folks. http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&si d=20050808123259231&title=Anderer's+Realm+raises+a +fresh+%249+million&type=article&order=&hideanonym ous=0&pid=347656#c347665 http://www.groklaw.net/search.php?query=Mike+Ander er&keyType=phrase&datestart=&dateend=&topic=0&type =all&author=0&mode=search

Sun really has contributed some significant things to FOSS. OpenOffice is hugely important, for example. And not as code per se, but as standards, things like NFS are wonderful.

Probably much of the problem comes from the erratic behavior of Sun itself. Johnathan Schwartz in particular has, on alternating weeks, either sucked up to the FOSS community or belligerently insulted FOSS. And their patent issues are still looming, and not at all FOSS friendly, e.g.:

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200502021 40308780

Plus the whole matter of Sun being one of the major semi-backdoor funder of the SCO lawsuits really hasn't won them any love among FOSS users. A few million dollars spent on trying to kill Linux through deception and spurious lawsuits doesn't spread the love.

Our good old Groklaw had a rather extensive discussion of the differences between MPL1.1 and CDDL. The short story is that more than the one word was changed. The medium story is that the changes may actually contain a trap around patents.

For the full story, take a look at:

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200412050 23636236

Granted, this particular piece of information is new, but neither me nor I believe any other regular readers of that site are surprised.

All computer geeks may join, and you can define your own rank. And: "please note that as we are Smellies, you are allowed to be *very* rank." :-)