Slashdot Mirror
Ask FSF General Counsel Eben Moglen
Columbia Law School professor Eben Moglen has been the Free Software Foundation's (pro bono) general counsel since 1993. He's also involved with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and has been mentioned on Slashdot a number of times because of his participation in these groups and some of the worthy causes they support, as well as other freedom-related matters. One question per post, please. We'll run Prof. Moglen's answers to 10 of the highest-moderated questions as soon as he gets them back to us.
What would you consider to be your biggest "win" so far?
How about loss?
I am sure a lot of us here think we know, but it would be interesting to hear it directly from you.
thanks for fighting the good fight.
Sent from your iPad.
Whats your view on rms's pressure to have people prefix Linux with GNU?
MODS: I think this is a valid question. Maybe he will have something interesting to say about it.
moo
No GNU no Linux...
OK, have you contacted Castle Technologies about their alleged GPL violation?
If that's the case, you are probably not free to comment on the current proceedings, so a simple "yes" or "no" would be more than enough...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
There have been several documented cases of companies "stealing" GPL code and incorporating it into their closed applications (not excluding embedded solutions and so forth). As far as I know, all of these have been settled out of court to the satisfaction of everyone involved. If such a case ever actually makes it to a court of law, do you consider the foundations, ideology and licenses that make up free/open software sufficiently complete and foolproof enough to successfully make a legal stand? Would you be willing to make that stand?
Here's a question...how do you feel about the new Ninnle distribution of Linux?
What would you offer as the best legal advice to make Linux and other GPL projects more palitable to large businesses and other investors, other than the fact the source code is completely open and free for modifications?
--CypherDragon
One issue that I know has come up for me is how the GPL applies in situations where I'm using GPL software but I'm not actually modifying it. For example, I write a Java application, and it is reliant on a JAR that is GPL'd. Do I then need to GPL my software? I haven't changed the JAR in anyway, I'm just redistributing it with my software. The end user could just as easily download the JAR themselves, it's just a convenience for me to offer it in my package.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
You work as a pro-bon loywer which means that you essentiallie work for free.
This is similar to those of us who code Linux applications ---- we work for free out of matter of principle and consider it as a way of donating to a charity organization since Linux is good for everyone.
My question is: Is your life effected by your day job (where you get paid) and your "night" job (in which you are the legal counsell for the GNU organization)?
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
What do you feel is the greteast challenge in enforcing the GPL vs. other more conventional copyrights?
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Where do you see the law and society heading? With companies trying and succeeding in buying laws which protect their markets (RIAA / MPAA, MS) and IP laws covering more and more ground (State Street, SBC), at what point will the law makers have an epiphany and start to reverse these bad laws, or should we hope that we end up with a reactive court to over turn these laws?
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
What do you think about the applicability of the ideas and organisational methods of the free software movement to things other that software?
For example free designs of things (products, buildings etc)...
Check out MKDoc a mod_perl CMS
Was there ever a time when you had to bring some FSF geeks in to court for their expert testimony? How did you manage to clean them up for the courthouse? Was there any beard trimming and/or suit shopping?
Since you've been doing work for the FSF pro bono since 1993, have you felt it was worth it?
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
It seems to me that the FSF arrangement for licenses has a big leg up on other open source arrangements, because it is clear who (the FSF) holds the ability to sue a violator of the license. What's your view of the oft-discussed problem of how to figure out who has standing to sue a GPL violator if there are lots of folks who have contributed to the GPL'd work? Is the only solution the aggregation of rights in an entity like a foundation or trust, the approach the FSF has taken?
What do you see the greates challenges are to Freedom of Speech given the Patriot act and Patriot II?
I understand that several copyrights to free software have been given to FSF; have you ever considered sueing to profit from violations of these copyrights?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
I'm writing because I cannot understand some parts of the "FSF's Position on Proposed W3 Consortium 'Royalty-Free' Patent Policy", at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html .
First, it is quite clear that you believe that software exercising patents with "field-of-use" licenses cannot be distributed under the GPL. However, it is not clear whether you believe that such software could be distributed as free software at all. Paragraph two seems to say that it could not, but it also appears to conflate GPLed software with free software, so I am not sure this is what the author meant. Paragraph three equivocates by saying "licensing under other free software licenses does not imply free", without saying "licensing under other free software licenses implies not free".
The impact of the proposed policy on the free software community obviously depends greatly on whether it could prevent us from implementing some standards at all, or only under the GPL. Which is it? (Since most of the document focuses on the GPL, I assume it is the latter. But it should be stated explicitly, and the hints to the contrary should be cleaned up.)
Second, who exactly would be prevented from distributing software exercising such patents under the GPL? Those in jurisdictions in which the patent applies, or everyone?
Third, why exactly are "field-of-use" patents incompatible with the GPL? The addendum intended to clarify this matter does not succeed. Step 4 in its example says,
But C's patent equally prohibits folks from taking a (hypothetical) GPLed search engine and adding URL parsing code. So by that argument, nobody can distribute a GPLed search engine, either. What really is the criterion that prevents distribution under the GPL? Is it that the author "knows" that others will be "tempted" to modify the software such that it no longer meets the "field-of-use" restriction? Is it that the author has accepted the patent license himself?And how does this differ from the situation of distributing GPLed software that cannot be used in some jurisdictions? If I distribute cryptographic software under the GPL, it will end up in the hands of people in repressive countries who are not allowed to use (never mind redistribute) it. This would seem to imply that such software cannot be distributed under the GPL.
I hope you can answer these questions and update the text on your web site.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
Sir,
Does RMS refer to you as the "GNU/General Counsel"?
Trolling is a art,
As an undergraduate in computer science I have found licensing and intellectual property issues so interesting that I have chosen to go to law school. I would like to advance many of the causes that you support. What advice would you have for an aspiring lawyer who wants to promote freedom and the public domain? What steps would be necessary to support my family and still fight for the cause? How best can a lawyer help society without selling out to big money?
I would guess that as a law professor he was more interested in the license than the operating system.
Most of the people that are widely considered enemies of digital freedom -- the RIAA, the MPAA -- are using the law as a bludgeoning tool. Does it make sense to fight back using the law as well -- in a sense adopting the same tactics as the "bad guys" -- or should be consider other alternatives before resorting to lawsuits and pre-emptive legislation?
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
As our society advances further in technology, how do you see your role and the roles of the orginizations you work with changing?
How much time do you spend weekly working on this pro bono work?
How does this time compare to the time you spend teaching, doing research?
Is your hours spent x typical lawyer wage (curious what that is also) considered a charitable contribution?
I'm assuming here that you follow the legal issues that interest you outside of the US. Which country's laws do you wish applied in the US ? It has been said that the US has the appearance of the 1st ammendment with none of its actual manifestations (similar comments have been made about egalite, liberte, fraternite in france), do you agree ?
And pushing my luck... why is a company able to claim rights assigned to individuals ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
As we move to the so-called "PostPC" era, there is more and more embedded software, compared to traditional desktop and server software. Often this embedded software, which controls toasters, VCRs, and all kinds of gizmos, is shipped in ROM. If not in ROM, it is shipped in ways which are very difficult, or impossible for the end-user to access or change. What is the role of the GPL in this case? If someone ships GPL'ed code in such a device, it is hard to even know that. And if so, what value is having the source, if you can't change it? It seems like slashdot is reporting more and more cases of GPL violations for embedded software -- is the FSF seeing this also?
Given the failure of the DOJ and other cases against Microsoft (no meaningful penalties, technically incompetent judge overseeing DOJ case, requirement to support Java in IE endlessly held up in court) and the continuing wide-spread abuse of IP law to monopolize cyberspace (patents on obviously invalid claims -- decades of prior art, etc.), do you think Free Software (and it's more "popular" spin-off Open Source) has any chance of long term surival in the United States or it is just a matter of time before it is crushed?
I've noticed a scary trend in "de facto" internet law: Sites are shut down, projects stopped, and ideas silenced because of scary notices from lawyers. Lots of the time, these cease and desist letters don't actually have much to stand on, but they're so cheap to send, and so effective, that any business with a site it doesn't like and a lawyer on salary would be crazy not to do it. The effect of these letters is chilling (so to speak): sites that are probably legal are shut down without the benefit of a trial, and the "precedent" affects the way other laymen interpret the law. I've seen numerous mostly-serious posts on slashdot proclaiming "Wouldn't this be a violation of the DMCA?" when referring to any sort of activity the MPAA or RIAA, etc. wouldn't like. (Speaking of the DMCA -- it has built-in provisions for making precisely this kind of judge-free takedown by an ISP!) This trend seems to be a serious breakdown of the legal system, and I don't like it.
My question is: In your opinion, what can be done to change the way the system operates so that spurious legal threats aren't so economical? What can someone like me do, besides donating to the EFF or going to law school?
Take a look at his picture.
If you could wish away one of the several crappy laws that are of concern to the /. crowd, EFF, FSF, etc. which would it be? DMCA? Patriot Act? the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension? Something Else? And why that one? I guess what I am really asking is: which of these crappy laws past in the last several years do you think is the most damaging?
my pet machine
If free software / open source / etc. is seen as the saviour of the computer world, what do you see as the route or force to act towards making a better legal profession?
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
I've heard talk of a new version of the GPL, which will fix shortcomings of version 2 (e.g. that it is unclear whether use of dynamic linking and/or CORBA-style binding to a GPLed work constitutes a "derived work").
However, a large amount of existing software is distributable "under the terms of the GPL, version 2" (and *not* under "version 2, or at your option, any later version"); for instance, the Linux kernel. Any future software, licensed under a GPL v3, would presumably be incompatible with such existing software.
Can the FSF do anything to make the GPL v3 backward-compatible with such software?
Also, would you consider the following part of the FDL to be a bug?
A DTD only describes the syntactic structure of a document, which may provide nowhere near enough information to understand the file format. [I sent an email to the FSF about this but it seems to have got lost in the ether]
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Prof.Moglen, as someone that is an expert in _winning_ legal battles, battles which inherently depend upon influencing the opinion and perception of the court, do you believe that those that argue that the emphasis of the Free Software Foundation upon "Freedom" is foolish and that it is better to pander to perceived audience of knaves that are less scared by the term "Open Source"?
Sir,
Simply stated, what is your reaction to the Eldred v. Ashcroft decision. How do you think it will affect the legal climate for furthering the position of Free Software? Is this really and indication, as Mr. Lessig has noted, that any hope of the US government developing a more generous and insightful public policy position on the future of IP rights is effectivly on hold? What, if anything, can be done to further this cause other than writing to Congress and/or supporting the EFF?
-- People who think they know it all, really annoy those of us who do!
My boss' boss (who is quite sharp technically as well as an attorney) thinks that the GPL is stupid because it doesn't read like it was written by a lawyer. He doesn't object to the principles and methods involved-- he's just disgusted by the unlawyerly writing. He says it was written by an amateur, not a lawyer, giving the impression that everyone using it is an amateur, and not serious about their work. What would you say to that?
314-15-9265
I'm a single guy, no dependants. I just had to update all my benefits info at work - if I die, who gets my employer-supplied insurance money.
So how would I go about making the FSF a beneficiary? You might want to put that info on the web site.
Right now, the only organization I have listed is the NRA - they make it pretty easy to set this sort of thing up.
www.eFax.com are spammers
The GPL currently has a "hole" in its wording that allows GPL'd web-based programs to in effect be used/hosted/run without being under the enforcement of the GPL (requiring the changes to be released to the public).
I know because I am the lead developer on a web-based GPL'd game, and we were advised of such by the GNU folks (many thanks for them answering our concerns). They suggested waiting for GPL3 (please PLEASE hurry!), or using the Affero GPL, which we cant, since it isnt compatible with the GPL, and portions of our code are from another project that is GPL'd.
What isn't clear (and what I hope you can answer) is what the law would say about a company that took a GPL'd web project (like mine), modified it, hosted it, and provided that service to the general public without providing the source to those modifications.
Is there any legal recourse to developers in that situation, because it has actually occured, and until now, we were under the impression that we were basically powerless until GPL3.0 comes out..
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Did I violate the FDL? (If I did, I must apologize to V. Alex Brennen.)
What I've come to think about is that it seems the FDL requires that the full license text accompanies every copy. When you're making single-page excerpts, it is of course very inconvenient to include a four-page license... But is it really necessary to include the whole license, or is it sufficient to include a short copyright notice referencing the FDL?
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Stupid question. He uses Ninnle Linux, of course!
Didn't you just post flaimebait in this same article?
Guess the mods don't know a troll when they see one.
What is this their 100th "?"/"linux?" troll post?
Mr. Moglen,
Your campaign seems to have the momentum of a run-away freight train. Why are you so popular?
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Do you see a contradiction in RMS's pressure to have people prefix Linux with GNU (credit where credit is due), and his assertion that the BSD license isn't (wasn't?) "Free" because it forced you to include copyright notices (which is also "credit where credit is due")?
What do you think of teh feasibility of Free (like in free speech) something-else-than-Software ?
http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html http://gnuart.net/ http://gnuart.org/ http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp.html
If anything, it's only remotely comparable to Rambus - and here there was no deception. It would be one thing if someone thought something was BSD licensed because of a confusing README and it turned out to be GPL'd...but the Linux kernel? Not a chance.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I really want to know to, as I am looking to do the same thing.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
What are your thoughts on such quirks of various copy right laws of various countries?
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
I've recently been doing some contract development work for other companies. These companies, so far, have all been very friendly to GPLing the work they hire me for that extends existing GPLed work.
However, when I'm preparing contracts I never know just how to specify that wholly original work we do for them will be "Work-for-hire" under whatever license they choose, but code based on and extending GPLed software will be placed under the same license.
I've browsed through the GNU site, in hopes of locating some example contract language that would make this clear to new customers and make it a legally binding aspect of any agreements made, but alas, I could find no help in this regard.
I should point out: my clients know that the GPL is an enforceable copyright, and don't have a problem with that--our work with GPL'ed software is usually the reason they come to us...this isn't a question of companies wishing to steal GPLed software. It is a question of how to make those terms compatible with an agreement that covers both GPLed work and non-GPLed "work-for-hire". Usually we are doing a bit of both types of work, and we'd like the contract to reflect that in a clear and comprehensive manner.
Seems like this would be a common problem for developers, and I was surprised that I couldn't find any documentation about adding this kind of clause to a contract.
What can be done (or should anything be done) about companies that use GPL'd software to create "derived works", and then attach very un-GPL EULAs to them restricting third-party distribution (such as Lindows is currently doing right now)?
Microsoft's anti-GPL offensive this summer has sparked renewed speculation about whether the GPL is ``enforceable.'' This particular example of ``FUD'' (fear, uncertainty and doubt) is always a little amusing to me. I'm the only lawyer on earth who can say this, I suppose, but it makes me wonder what everyone's wondering about: Enforcing the GPL is something that I do all the time. Because free software is an unorthodox concept in contemporary society, people tend to assume that such an atypical goal must be pursued using unusually ingenious, and therefore fragile, legal machinery. But the assumption is faulty. The goal of the Free Software Foundation in designing and publishing the GPL, is unfortunately unusual: we're reshaping how programs are made in order to give everyone the right to understand, repair, improve, and redistribute the best-quality software on earth. This is a transformative enterprise; it shows how in the new, networked society traditional ways of doing business can be displaced by completely different models of production and distribution. But the GPL, the legal device that makes everything else possible, is a very robust machine precisely because it is made of the simplest working parts. The essence of copyright law, like other systems of property rules, is the power to exclude. The copyright holder is legally empowered to exclude all others from copying, distributing, and making derivative works. This right to exclude implies an equally large power to license--that is, to grant permission to do what would otherwise be forbidden. Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits. But most proprietary software companies want more power than copyright alone gives them. These companies say their software is ``licensed'' to consumers, but the license contains obligations that copyright law knows nothing about. Software you're not allowed to understand, for example, often requires you to agree not to decompile it. Copyright law doesn't prohibit decompilation, the prohibition is just a contract term you agree to as a condition of getting the software when you buy the product under shrink wrap in a store, or accept a ``clickwrap license'' on line. Copyright is just leverage for taking even more away from users. The GPL, on the other hand, subtracts from copyright rather than adding to it. The license doesn't have to be complicated, because we try to control users as little as possible. Copyright grants publishers power to forbid users to exercise rights to copy, modify, and distribute that we believe all users should have; the GPL thus relaxes almost all the restrictions of the copyright system. The only thing we absolutely require is that anyone distributing GPL'd works or works made from GPL'd works distribute in turn under GPL. That condition is a very minor restriction, from the copyright point of view. Much more restrictive licenses are routinely held enforceable: every license involved in every single copyright lawsuit is more restrictive than the GPL. Because there's nothing complex or controversial about the license's substantive provisions, I have never even seen a serious argument that the GPL exceeds a licensor's powers. But it is sometimes said that the GPL can't be enforced because users haven't ``accepted'' it. This claim is based on a misunderstanding. The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover those activities by license. Almost everyone who uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and accepts none. The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no one can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. After all, the GPL requires each copy of covered software to include the license text, so everyone is fully informed. Despite the FUD, as a copyright license the GPL is absolutely solid. That's why I've been able to enforce it dozens of times over nearly ten years, without ever going to court. Meanwhile, much murmuring has been going on in recent months to the supposed effect that the absence of judicial enforcement, in US or other courts, somehow demonstrates that there is something wrong with the GPL, that its unusual policy goal is implemented in a technically indefensible way, or that the Free Software Foundation, which authors the license, is afraid of testing it in court. Precisely the reverse is true. We do not find ourselves taking the GPL to court because no one has yet been willing to risk contesting it with us there. So what happens when the GPL is violated? With software for which the Free Software Foundation holds the copyright (either because we wrote the programs in the first place, or because free software authors have assigned us the copyright, in order to take advantage of our expertise in protecting their software's freedom), the first step is a report, usually received by email to . We ask the reporters of violations to help us establish necessary facts, and then we conduct whatever further investigation is required. We reach this stage dozens of times a year. A quiet initial contact is usually sufficient to resolve the problem. Parties thought they were complying with GPL, and are pleased to follow advice on the correction of an error. Sometimes, however, we believe that confidence-building measures will be required, because the scale of the violation or its persistence in time makes mere voluntary compliance insufficient. In such situations we work with organizations to establish GPL-compliance programs within their enterprises, led by senior managers who report to us, and directly to their enterprises' managing boards, regularly. In particularly complex cases, we have sometimes insisted upon measures that would make subsequent judicial enforcement simple and rapid in the event of future violation. In approximately a decade of enforcing the GPL, I have never insisted on payment of damages to the Foundation for violation of the license, and I have rarely required public admission of wrongdoing. Our position has always been that compliance with the license, and security for future good behavior, are the most important goals. We have done everything to make it easy for violators to comply, and we have offered oblivion with respect to past faults. In the early years of the free software movement, this was probably the only strategy available. Expensive and burdensome litigation might have destroyed the FSF, or at least prevented it from doing what we knew was necessary to make the free software movement the permanent force in reshaping the software industry that it has now become. Over time, however, we persisted in our approach to license enforcement not because we had to, but because it worked. An entire industry grew up around free software, all of whose participants understood the overwhelming importance of the GPL--no one wanted to be seen as the villain who stole free software, and no one wanted to be the customer, business partner, or even employee of such a bad actor. Faced with a choice between compliance without publicity or a campaign of bad publicity and a litigation battle they could not win, violators chose not to play it the hard way. We have even, once or twice, faced enterprises which, under US copyright law, were engaged in deliberate, criminal copyright infringement: taking the source code of GPL'd software, recompiling it with an attempt to conceal its origin, and offering it for sale as a proprietary product. I have assisted free software developers other than the FSF to deal with such problems, which we have resolved--since the criminal infringer would not voluntarily desist and, in the cases I have in mind, legal technicalities prevented actual criminal prosecution of the violators--by talking to redistributors and potential customers. ``Why would you want to pay serious money,'' we have asked, ``for software that infringes our license and will bog you down in complex legal problems, when you can have the real thing for free?'' Customers have never failed to see the pertinence of the question. The stealing of free software is one place where, indeed, crime doesn't pay. But perhaps we have succeeded too well. If I had used the courts to enforce the GPL years ago, Microsoft's whispering would now be falling on deaf ears. Just this month I have been working on a couple of moderately sticky situations. ``Look,'' I say, ``at how many people all over the world are pressuring me to enforce the GPL in court, just to prove I can. I really need to make an example of someone. Would you like to volunteer?'' Someday someone will. But that someone's customers are going to go elsewhere, talented technologists who don't want their own reputations associated with such an enterprise will quit, and bad publicity will smother them. And that's all before we even walk into court. The first person who tries it will certainly wish he hadn't. Our way of doing law has been as unusual as our way of doing software, but that's just the point. Free software matters because it turns out that the different way is the right way after all. Eben Moglen is professor of law and legal history at Columbia University Law School. He serves without fee as General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation. Copyright © 2001 Eben Moglen Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
With all the problems with software patents and broad interpretation of copyright laws and contributory copyright infringement related to projects that support free communications, why not a step-by-step easy-to-follow blueprint for free software projects incorporating a non-profit for liability reasons (say choosing the state of Delaware)?
d related writings or commentary by Richard Stallman included here by
Obviously people can donate code to the Free Software Foundation, but that seems both to centralize liability risk in one organization (why should FSF take the fall for infringing a bogus software patent?) and also to provide less protection to the authors while they are writing free software.
One can use the Apache model which was incorporated in Delaware, but Apache does not seem have any restrictions in their articles of incorporation related to not selling software. I haven't actually ever found the FSF bylaws or certificate of incorporation anywhere on-line.
It would be nice to have a detailed process to follow that is a no brainer -- use these words in the articles of incorporation and bylaws, pay some specific (well chosen) corporation that specializes in forming corporations to file the papers ($500), keep up with annual reports and your annual fees for your registered legal agent ($100-200), and you are up and running with a reasonable liability shield if anything innocently infringes.
I'm thinking of something like this for a free software related organization I'm starting, with wording chosen to ensure the materials stay free:
The organization's purpose is [details snipped...]
To that end, the organization may engage in any legal activity, subject
to the following restrictions intended to ensure free licensing of the
results of all the organization's efforts (with "free" intended to mean
"free as in freedom" in the same way as the Free Software Foundation's
current or future similar definition of "free" licensing for software or
other creative works of various types -- e.g. public domain, GPL, LGPL,
GFDL, Python 2.0.1 license -- for detailed examples see:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
an
reference). The restrictions are:
1) that any copyrights the organization creates itself, or whose
creation it directly supports in whole or in part, or which it receives
as donations or otherwise comes to hold, must only be licensed under
free licenses, and
2) that any patents the organization creates itself, or whose
creation it directly supports in whole or in part, or which it receives
as donations or otherwise comes to hold, must only be licensed under
free licenses,
3) that any trademarks the organization creates itself, or whose
creation it directly supports in whole or in part, or which it receives
as donations or otherwise comes to hold, will only used to support and
distinguish endeavors which require the free licensing of all the
resulting copyrights and/or patents, and
4) that copyrights, patents, and/or trademarks held for any reason by
the organization may not be voluntarily transferred from the
organization without contractual guarantees that future holders will
abide by these restrictions, and that the organization is required to
enforce these guarantees to the maximum extent feasible.
5) that in the event of the likeliehood of an involuntary transfer of
copyrights, patents, or trademarks from the organization such as from
the result of a judgement against the organization, the organization
must take all legal and feasible steps to prevent the transfer or to
make a voluntary transfer to an appropriate non-profit organization as
under section (4) or if appropriate place the item in the public domain.
These restrictions may not be removed by future changes to these
articles of incorporation.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Two ways to look at this.
One you are letting people use GPL software, but don't want release the code. You could claim this is like distributing it as you are given direct access to the program. This might be a licensing hole.
Second is you are providing a service using GPL software. You are explicitly not distributing the software, you are just using it internally to provide a service. You shouldn't have to distribute it.
There are at least those two interpretations.
I understand the first, but I agree with the second more. Just because I let you view documents from a GPL web server doesn't mean I should have to give you the source.
I think that the FSF is very important and I want to assist but I have my own situation to deal with as well. I would like to make a difference and am seeking the most effective way to do that.
You are donating your time/knowledge. What are other ways to help?
Specifically, What is the single best thing a supporter can do to help. In other words What does the FSF need most that we might be able to supply?
o Money
o Volunteers (with what skills?, to do what?)
o Publicity
o Subject Matter Experts (what subjects?)
o Something else I can't imagine?
Thanks.
boyfoot_bear [with teak of chan]
What attempts have been made to both translate the GPL to other languages, and then verify that the translated version still makes sense?
a translated version of the GPL would be really helpful to those of us who deal primarily with non-english-speaking customers (they all speak spanish here), particularly when they ask about the licensing terms for Free Software we install for them. Instead of telling them to believe us about the license, we'd like to hand them a copy they can read, understand, and then hand to their legal department for them to also read and understand. However, even while there are unofficial translations available, they're still unofficial and thus don't instill much confidence in people.
In this specific case, it was not LGPL. If it were LGPL, it would be very clear. In this case, it becomes a matter of confusion because it's not clear to me that his product is being incorporated into mine or that I'm somehow modifying it.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I've been a fan of and advocate for Free Software since the early 90's. When the term "Open Source" was coined I, like RMS, briefly considered using it out of convenience but then decided it would be better to use the term "Free" and explain what what it means it whenever possible.
These days, I've noticed quite a backlash against the Free Software Foundation and RMS specifically, which saddens me greatly. There is a vocal minority that insists on spreading mistruths about the GPL, claims that the FSF stands for things they don't, and tries to drive a wedge between the GPL and other free software licenses like the BSD license. Much of this is probably due to the personality of RMS, though some of it is certainly a result of the infighting and quibbling that seems to plague any "intellectual movement".
Do you ever secretly wish that RMS would just "cool it" for the sake of the Free Software movement, and do you have any ideas or comments on how to get folks to focus on the basic principles of Free software without getting hung up on details?
I've often heard that one of the weaknesses of the GPL is that is basically unproven in court. Some folks say that this is because it is so well crafted that most violations are cut and dry and there is little or no need to go to court. Although I don't know enough to either agree or disagree with that, I'd like to see some judge throw the book at someone for GPL violations. Note that I'm not talking about any particular revision of the (L)GPL, but the extended concept of forcing people who use GPL based software to make the changes available.
What are your thoughts on the necessity of having a ruling, surviving appeal, and generally working its way into our legal culture? Will it give us pro-GPL folks a "big stick" for thwacking violators? Is it even necessary? Has it already happened and I missed it?
He didn't smell of anything noticable when he did a talk here. No-one else commented on anything like that either.
How do you rationalize the FSF's policy of threatening lawsuits and demanding payment from software companies who make mistakes, for example by accidentally not uploading sources for a few programs to their servers? Wouldn't a friendly request to comply with the GPL, followed by a more firm approach later if required, be more conducive to a cooperative free software community?
(That's what our company does when people violate licenses on our GPL code..)
My question is how you foresee the swing of the pendulum in the future. Do you think that the cycles will get smaller until a balance is reached, or do you see the cycles growing larger and larger until it causes a fracture and/or revolution in our society?
What role will the conflict over electronic media play in the balancing of individual rights?
Of course it would also be interesting to hear your views on the cyclical nature of individual rights as well.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
What you think about licences of Creative Commons? Are they really free licences for software, documentation and art?
It seems, that at least NoDerivs- and NonCommercial-licenses are non-free. After that only these licences are left:
Juhapekka "naula" Tolvanen - http://iki.fi/juhtolv
Do you believe this claim is correct in all US jurisdictions, or do some state laws allow licenses like the GPL to be revoked by the copyright holder?
You get to do the Digital Millenium Copyright Reform single-handedly. What does it look like?
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
If a GPL case does ever make it into court would "jury nullification" help?
What is the ideal outcome, in your opinion, for copyright? I am not just referring to the length of time, but also whether you would like to see it abolished or not.
The reason I ask this is because I wonder how anyone could legally prevent GNU software from being distributed as closed source without copyright.
Professor Moglen,
... please feel free to answer only one.
First I would like to say I took both of your upper level law courses at Columbia. Both of these classes were memorable, thought provoking and fun. You really changed my view on many things especially the way our society functions.
On to my questions. I know your opinions about patent law (for slashdot readers: he thinks it should be abolished). Yet patent law provides a very exciting field of work for a young lawyer that is proficient in technology. Can you suggest any other similar fields for such lawyers? Especially for lawyers that are not quite bright enough to become supreme court clerks?
My other question has to do with encryption. I agree with your belief that encryption is integral to free speech, and allows one to escape totalitarian governments. But you probably read the new proposed patriot act, which makes using encrypion to commit a crime a seperate offense that is punishable by a significantly long prison term. Do you think if that law is passed it will chill the sue of encryption. Esepcially since computer crimes are new and vaguely defined, and one can easily imagine unkowingly commiting one.
A third question about the american legal system. Is there any hope of a judiciary that is both independant and free and able to render decisions free of fear and outside pressures after what happened in the bush case, the microsoft case and the terrorist detention cases? Oh, might as well add the pledge of allegience case.
Maybe I put in too many questions
If any slashdot readers are columbia law students I highly recommend mr. Moglen's upper level courses. But beware rumors of him being an easy grader are just false.
You should check out Mr. Moglen's article about this very issue.
Can you describe the official position of the FSF in regards to linking to GPL'd code? For example, everyone seems pretty clear about static linking requiring the derived work to be GPL'd, but your past statements and those of RMS have differed in regards to dynamically linked works. Linus has recently been vocal about his view that binary-only kernel modules for drivers are a GPL violation. Can you clarify the FSF's position as to if/when dynamically linking a non-GPL program or module to a GPL'd library or kernel violates the GPL?
"As flies to the wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for sport." - William Shakespeare, King Lear
You call yourself a geek? It's 3.1415926535...
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
That is some of the worst english I think I have ever seen. "Interesting" only for the grammar issues....
Prof. Moglen has already thoroughly answered this question, so we should not be wasting a question in the interview on asking it again. All he will do is either point to the same answer or summarize the same answer. I therefore ask the moderators to mark the parent down as redundant.
How does the FSF intend to deal with the issue of software patents, particularly in light of Caldera's recent demands?
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
Many questions on the applicability of the GPL to a particular distribution scheme hinge on the legal question of whether the work is a derivative of some GPLed work.
What do you consider are the key considerations in determining if a work is derivative or not?
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
The FDL is a very complex document which most lay people find very difficult to grasp. Are there any plans on cleaning up the language in this license to make it more readable like the GPL?
Are there any plans currently to draft a license for artistic assets like graphics, music and sound effects and if not why? In many programs there are often artistic assests which are distributed with programs. Games are an obvious example but even in every day programs there are icons, sound effects and other UI elements associated with a program. Using the GPL and/or FDL for artistic assets seems a bit like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole as this isn't the purpose these licenses were created for.
G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
I recently purchased an ATI card that has TV-out. This functionality used to be somewhat supported by the gatos project. However, apparently it has recently been allowed/forced to rot. The gatos devel list gets asked about this functionality every few days, and the developers apparently have NDA info from ATI on how to accomplish this, but there seems to be a spirit of fear on the list that has silenced activity in this area.
I can echo this sentiment. Even if I thought I was legally in the "right" I wouldn't risk getting involved in a legal battle just to get a component on my $40 video card to work.
What advice would you give gatos devopers (or developers of similar code)?
Recently on LKML, an opinion was expressed that Linus is an editor for the Linux kernel and holds a compilation copyright on the kernels he releases. As such, he has standing to sue any violator. I think this argument has a lot of merit.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
The FSF has an extensive article about what you can do to help the GNU Project, along with a section specifically mentioning the FSF.
The GPL allows for redistribution of the software. However, I have noticed several significant organization in the Linux / Free software community use their trademark to restrict redistribution of the software. While I understand the nature of trademarks and names, I'm wondering if the FSF sees this as a problem. Is the FSF even aware that this is happening.
There have been GPLed servers for many years now. I don't know why this is suddenly considered a problem.
The GPL has never encompassed usage restrictions. The restrictions of the GPL only happen on distribution. If you don't distribute, then you have no restrictions placed on you at all.
But perhaps the answer to this is "public performance" rights. If the running of a program on a server can be made a public performance right, then you may have the legal levberage necessary to prohibit it.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Many FSF/Gnu projects require copyright assignment to the FSF. IE, it's not acceptable to merely release your work under the GPL license to have it included into the main package. The reasons are obvious, it houses all the copyright ownership in a single more defensible place.
But in actuality, I wonder if it'll make a difference. Specifically, I know the FSF requires some documentations from employers to double check the submissions were written with consent of a company that sponsored the work. However, there are problems with how things "really work" in the real world:
1) submission authors are never bugged again in the future to ensure that they aren't working for a new company.
2) many Gnu packages accept small patches without assignment ("if it's less than 6 lines of new code, we'll just apply it"), just not large ones.
The reason I bring this up is that I'm not convinced that the paperwork and bureaucracy overhead even amounts to the level of protection that is needed. It certainly hinders development in many cases as well by slowing down progress with paperwork.
Do you have any comments on the above that will enlighten me into the legal field of copyright assignment (of which I admit I know very little).
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
If your distribution occurred in the US, your use may well have been a Fair Use under US Copyright Law. Since the GPL gets it's strength from Copyright, it follows that any area not regulated by Copyright is not regulated by the GPL. Thus you may make Fair Uses
If you apply the four factor test to your distribution: you distributed a short portion of a work (tends to find in favor of fair use) verbatim (tends to find against fair use) for non-commercial purposes (tends to find in favor of fair use) and in a way that has no effect on the market for the underlying work (tends to find in favor of fair use). Most of these elements tend to find in favor of fair use.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Yeah, but you are comparing his smell to the smell of your rotten teeth, so I'm afraid you aren't a very good indicator.
Creative Commons might have what you are looking for. Licenses for other artistic works like music, books, etc.
This may not relate to GNU directly, but it definately hinders Open Source: What is your opinion on the current Patent process - For example Amazon patented "On Click Buy", I believe patents are good, but they should not allow "business process patents"; Also anthing that receives a patent should be proven by a PHYSICAL working implmentation with DETAILED steps, such that any improvement on any of the steps would allow for a new patent.
What? You don't like pro-bon-bon lawyers? I respect all of the lawyers who are working for free to protect my right to consume bon-bons!
How do you feel about using this type of software? Technically it is non-free, but you could hardly claim that it's `dividing users and keeping them helpless', nor would I consider it immoral. What's your take on this sort of buisness?
There's been talk of filing 'defensive' patents of late by several Open Source vendors/organizations.
.gif fiasco). They shouldn't be able to sit on a patent, just waiting for everyone to start using the patented technology, and then open up the legal guns.
As I understand it, they'd file patents on key technologies, and then give out unlimited, no-cost, no-royalty licenses for the technology to be used in Open Source projects.
Do you see this as a good idea for Open Source, or a bad one? Theoretically, the patent system is supposed to, well, work.
One would think that if someone discovered a technology, implemented it, and then shared it freely with the world.. If others used that technology, the discoverer wouldn't be able to just turn around and say, "Okay, now I'm filing, prepare for lawsuits!"
Or, one would think that even if there was a patent for something, a company wouldn't be able to ignore widespread, easily visible infringement (see the
I'm not really asking whether the patent system is broken or not, if improvements can be made, or anything of that sort. Basically, I'm just asking that, given the current state of affairs with the idea of patents, if Open Source companies should file for so-called defensive patents or not.
Are they really necessary, or could Open Source software stand on legal ground without them? Many people, including myself are worried that if defensive patents are filed, a company, even an Open Source company, could turn around later and say, "Here's your bill!"
Given the recent outbreaks of patent shennanigans and corporate corruption, I think we'd be stupid to believe that all Open Source entities are inherently "good", that they wouldn't try something like this. Software and defensive patents have been debated on Slashdot before, but it'd be nice to hear an actual lawyer's view on the subject - especially a lawyer so involved with Open Source and Free Software.
...licenses without compensation are revokable.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
What are your views as to the adviseability of creating an arsenal of patents arising from open source projects, which could be used to deter (via cross-licensing, etc) closed source attacks on open source.
/.er can fill this in) but I would like to see an actual patenting operation wherein open source coders could have help patenting their inventions, in return the patent is assigned to the portfolio, to be used in the event of a suit by a closed source company, etc.
I have seen one project along these lines (perhaps a helpful
Where do you get *your* entropy?
GPL v 2 itself says that that you can use a later version of the licence.
This answers only one side of the question. The other side is interesting and I have never seen it addressed. That is, is the GPL binding on the grantor?
I doubt that the FSF is going to change its mind about Free Software, but what if some commercial vendor who has contributed substantial amounts of software licensed under the GPL and that software has become widely available through sources other than the vendor. The vendor then gets purchased, goes into liquidation, or simply decides that Free Software is not such a good business plan, and makes the claim that their previous grants under the GPL are not binding on them, at least not to those who have not purchased the software directly from the vendor. Since the vendor has received no consideration from such people, the agreement is invalid, and the vendor can enforce its copyrights against anyone distributing the software under the GPL unless they have purchased a license directly from the vendor.
There are some commercial entities who could cause substantial problems for the if they were to try this so it is more than just a hypothetical question. One could certainly imagine a large, non-Free software vendor trying to buy out certain Free software vendors just to make the Free Software legally unavailable.
tato (and tato only)
This post is strictly opinion, including the spelling.
Hello,
I am currently a third year Computer Science major at a small southern university. I would ultimately like to complete my CS degree, attend law school, and help with the battle you are fighting (eg become an attorney for the EFF). What suggestions would you have for people like me?
Thanks,
Chas
Linux User #296508 Get Counted!
If I assign my (C) to FSF (rather than myself)
for my GPL'ed code, I'm worried that will have
no control over the code at all anymore, eg
a new version of the GPL might do something
I don't like. What safeguards are there against
the FSF going to the darkside or something going
wrong here?
Why, exactly, did the EFF choose not to appeal the 2nd Circuit Court decision against 2600 Magazine in the DeCSS-linking case?
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
I think a lot of people have this same question. But speaking for myself - why work thru the system? I believe it is inherently corrupt, and our strengths lie in thchnology like encryption and decentralized p2p networks, that will do far more to create the change we need for the better and relieve us of the copyright beast riding our backs than any legal manuvers I can think of.
Other than to maybe hold back the atacking dogs another day or two while we consolidate our strengths and technologies - I just cant see a reason to ever rely on or even expect the system to change and embrace our best interests unless it is forced to from the outside.
I am trying to develop a career in law, working in Intellectual Properties. Whats the best way ( a good way) for a young person like me, who has had no prior experience in law, to be a successful student, and develop a successful career? I am 22 years old, i just graduated from the University of Illinois in Urbana/Champign in computer engineering, and had several interships to supplement my education. even though i am working in Information Technology, I have started the process of applying to law schools in the Chicago area. I would like to incorperate my education in techonlogy with one in law, and would appreciate any advice you can offer. Thanks
Hi.. To prevent bad patents I think that new ideas by Free software people should be posted on the web and timestamped. What's your opinion legally or otherwise on this defensive approach to "conceptual freedom"?
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
Do you ever get tired of explaining to people why the GPL isn't an evil, communist plot against the American people and their values?
Clause 9 in the GPL has a statement about applying "any later version" of the GPL to a work by a modifier of the original. Granted, the original author has to explicitly state this or not select a version number in the first place. I don't believe the "similar in spirit" phrase carries any legal weight. What is to prevent the FSF from being subverted and releasing licenses which effectively makes most GNU software BSD-like (or worse), thereby giving a huge advantage to the proprietary competition?
What, realistically, can we do to have the consumer's voice and interests heard more effectively in our Legislatures, balancing our interests in legislation such as UCITA, CFAA, DMCA, etc?
Many projects under GPL have a large number of contributing authors. If someone violates the GPL in such a case there may not be anyone with the money to enforce it in court. The courts also seem to like cases where you can show damages which would be hard to do for many projects. GPL works in theory, but how will enforcement work in practice for smaller projects without commercial backing?
E-mailed the guy, and got no response :). In the end I just ended up using other software to accomplish the task since i wasn't sure about how the GPL would apply in this case and figured I'd be better off erring on the side of caution.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I was wondering what the E.F.F. was planning to do about the new Patriot Act (Patriot II) that Bush has recently announced. The first Patriot Act was passed shorly after the tragedy of 9/11 without much scrutiny by congress. Do you have any plan of action to make to general public more aware of the real threats to this new proposed legislation?
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
If a professor wants to initiate and/or contribute to a GPL program, can he do it without complications due to universities claiming intellectual property rights?
Can work funded by the federal government (for example, the National Science Foundation or the AFOSR (air force office of scientific research)) be licensed under the GPL?
How do you think the evolution of the law is conditioned by the evolution of the ways of breaking it? How _can_ a "property right" be claimed inviolable be when it's so easily and undetectably violated---do you think we'll adjust our concepts of property, or retain them at the cost of living under constant potential surveillance?
Do you feel that the enforcing power must be able to claim some sort of moral authority in order for a law to work, or will the utilitarian calculus of risk/benefit be enough to make the legal system work? This is related to the first question because my own answer is, "No," and I'm afraid that the enforcement of laws that don't seem to make sense to enough people will undermine the authority of the government to enforce the laws which it must for a decent society to work ("Against murder, theft, fornication, and blasphemy," as a Christian Reconstructionist once told me, to emphasise that it's hard to find agreement on what that set is....)
Really?
Or does the 10-3 clinch it for you?
If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.
Many observers have speculated about the wide-ranging consequences of DMCA 512h, the focus of the current legal battle between RIAA and Verizon. Critics of the law claim that the potential for abuse is staggering because of the prevalence of copyrighted material on the internet and the low requirements for getting a subpoena issued.
My question is about the possibility of a grassroots movement designed to abuse, and thereby expose the flaws of, DMCA 512h. Since anything someone writes, for example, email and public forum posts, can be copyrighted, would there be an easy way for ordinary people to have their copyrighted material stored or transmitted on the networks of certain organizations in such a way that they could, in good faith, suspect infringement, and then acquire and serve these subpoenas on these organizations? I'm envisioning something like a million subpoenas sent to, say, RIAA's service provider for copyright infringment of individuals' emails.
This is, of course, purely hypothetical.
If GPL'd software achieves monopoly status, the community is regarded as a single entity, and the "free as in beer" status of the software is regarded as "product dumping", how should the monopoly be broken up?
Of these condtions, the regarding of a "community" as a single entity is the least likely, so if you remove that condition and imagine a situation in which, for example, RedHat dominates the desktop and has complete copyright control of a GPL'd desktop, how should that situation be addressed? The classical argument is that competition would be created via forking, but as RedHat moves to not supporting editions from just a couple years ago, this "free beer" could be regarded as a form of product bundling designed to lock people into their support service. The GPL's practical tendency to fix prices at or near zero could be regarded as a form of collusion among GPL'd software vendors.
The bottom line, IMHO, is that being dominated by a single player in any industry is bad. True competition implies that the source isn't shared in the manner in which the GPL permits--it gives rise to a tendancy to reuse code as opposed to coming up with alternative (and sometimes innovative) solutions to problems. I don't see how haveing a single player, GPL'd or otherwise, benefits consumers and others are likely to feel the same way.
Perhaps this could be solved by a simple pledge among the competing companies to GPL their apps, but not to share the source--but then that would be totally contrary to the GPL...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
It's been clear in the software industry since the get-go that software patents are a sham, but they've been imposed on the industry by and to the benefit of the legal industry. Why isn't there a push to "Just say 'No!' to software patents" and rid the software industry of the hairball legalities of them? What would be the best way to eliminate software patents once and for all? Are they even constitutional, and what legal basis do they have (I doubt Bruce Lehmann as USPTO head really has the authority to pass new laws or interpret laws)? Any insights to eliminating software patents would be appreciated.
Given that machines which are running Linux/BSD operating systems do not need a Microsoft operating system and, furthur, that Linux/BSD do not directly support business applications which require Microsoft operating systems, what legal justification does the Business Software Alliance have for demanding purchase of Microsoft software licenses for machines which run Linux/BSD? What is an appropriate defense against such claims?
I paid for braces for my girlfriend, and they were on for a year, but did a good job straightening her teeth; she now has a beautiful smile.
Then she dumped me.
What I want to know if, can I legally go and, like, just jack her teeth right the hell up, and not get in trouble?
who is pro Bono working for the EFF? I thought they would be against that kind of legislation *rim-shot*
I do know what pro-bono means, and if you have gotten this far and think I don't, you have mised the joke. Move along.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'd like to learn more about the history and status of the "corporation" as a legal entity - where should I go? Where do you see the status of the Corporation as a legal entity going in 50 years?
As I understand it, corporations were developed as an investment risk-avoidance mechanism, and prior to 1800 were required to be of limited time and to show proof of (probable) public benefit before incorporation, since avoiding responsibility was not a desired side-effect of avoiding risk. Over time lobbying efforts removed the time-limit restriction and granted "person-hood" to the corporation (which I don't really understand), turning it into a pretty strong legal entity.
These days it seems that the Corporate entity, under the unspoken pretense of creating jobs and stimulating the economy, is gaining power and status beyond that of mortal men, and reducing its own liability - forget about needing to show benefit.
Why did we let this happen? Could there be parallels with the history of the Corporation and the evolving status of IP law, and what can we learn from them?
Given artistic intellectual monopoly rights (copyright) were originally conceived as a means of encouraging innovation by providing monopoly rights in the short term, dissolved in the medium term, what effect on society do you expect to see from the extension of these originally temporary monopoly rights effectively into permanent monopolies ?
Given inventors intellectual monopolies (patents) were conceived in a time when the number of independent inventing, communicating groups was relatively small with a slow information culture, whereas today the number of groups is spectacularly larger, with a high speed information culture - what effects do you think the current inventors monopoly system (patents) with it's slow to grant, lack of recognition of the potential of independent invention, relative cost free nature for large corporations unchecked will have on future innovation,and invention ?
Finally, given the original aims - cultural & intellectual enhancement of society by the granting of temporary monopolies of control - are positive, and taking into account the original setup - 14 years for copyright, renewable for 14 years, with patents granted few and far between, how should the balance be restored ? Should we return to this situation, but with enforcement of copyright & patents made stronger - as publications like The Economist suggest, limits on number of patents per inventor? Limits on patents patentable per year by any patent office? Peer review? or something else?
have a look at southern datacom's embedding of awk in their creditcard auth product with no source or inclusion of gpl's text either.
You might want to check out the League for Programming Freedom
Sir,
With the apparent momentum for 'security' initiatives at the expense of freedom, and the desensitization of society to such things as imbedded radio identification, ubiquitous biometrics and new other new technologies, and a vast blanket of secrecy descending over the executive branch - are we entering a new dark age, where nothing is private or free? Will a new 'American Inquisition' pervade our lives in the years to come?
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Hello Professor,
Short version of my question: There always seems to be a lot of wonder whenever a lawyer knows his or her techiespeak; everyone wishes that lawyers knew their technology better and that techies knew their law better. How should a quasi-geek like myself prepare to apply to a good law school?
Long(er) version: I am a geek with a liberal arts background (so not quite as hard-core in the geek arena as many around here, but enough to make a living out of it these days!). I have a BA in English and theatre arts (acting) from Cornell and am employed as a web developer with a focus on web accessibility (practical, technical aspects as well as legal). So what should a reasonably well-rounded person who is fascinated by law in cyberspace be doing to stand out when admissions time comes? (to an NYC-area school like Columbia or NYU, hopefully!)
Thanks very much,
Samuel Knowlton
Hi Eben, thanks for your time.
;) - but it does slightly bug me that they've got away without a substantial cluesticking from the community with respect to the commercial value of goodwill and reputation - especially since their offence was so willful (they knew *exactly* what they were doing, and took a calculated risk that they'd get away with it.) What's that all about? How often do such cases get drawn to your attention - and how many more are going unreported? (This product had been shipping for several years before I noticed what was going on, immediately I was introduced to it as something I'd have to QA in a new job.)
I was recently involved in bringing a gross GPL breach to the attention of the FSF when I discovered my then-employer was shipping a product containing essentially a complete GNU/Linux distribution without any attribution, source, license etc. After initally threatening to fight it in court, they have apparently now rolled over and decided to play nice; they're making good all their past omissions, contacting customers retrospectively and so on. Two things surprised me about the process. Firstly, if this company had done the equivalent to Microsoft, they'd have been lucky to get away with several hundred million dollars damages (at a guess.) Even a hundredth of that would help the FSF enormously; how come (assuming this is standard practice) you don't get any cash in settlement?
Secondly, the evil scum-sucking bastards got away without any publicity at all (your 'license enforcement engineer' requested that I keep schtumm about their identity, and I'm respecting that; it's also why I'm posting as AC, I'm well enough known here that my handle would give away their identity.) As is the way of these things, this particular corporation is already in rather bad odour with Slashdot types and the Free software community in general - so karma works like a force of nature I guess
Sorry these are rather long. Thanks for all your work.
Many newer laws are slowly nibbling away at the rights hackers have had in the past and some new laws are clarifying the fact that some rights we thought we had don't exist.
Right now if I get a program and I suspect has GNU code in it and its "protected" via something as simple as xor encrption, I can't verify its got stolen colde it in because I can't get at it because of things like the reverse engineering bits of DMCA.
What is being done to protect the rights of people that successfully verify a comercial closed source program has GPLed code it in?
If someone finds a a company distributing modified GPL code as binary-only, what's the best way to report it? Is it o.k. if they just say they'll release source code in the future?
A year ago, we had a forum in which Bruce Perins was our keynote speaker. The main part of his talk that got me thinking, was about the software patents that are so rampant today! He mentioned that he's not in favor of trying to abolish software patents, but finding a way to get the laws to state that Free Software is not held by the same rules as everything else when it comes to patents. I sorta agree with this point.
.Net vs Mono. or MSOffice vs Open Office, or pick-your-own-poison)
I can forsee a day when some law is used to force everyone to use certain software on their servers, and that software is patented by a large software giant. Without this exemption of which Perens speaks, Free Software would not legally be able to provide an alternative solution. (for example
I guess what I'm asking is, what efforts are being made to protect the rights of free software to exist and to compete with proprietary solutions and methods that have been patented? (surely we can't rely on the insightful folks at the patent office)
How do you feel about TCPA, and what effect do you think it will have for Linux?
There has been a lot of discussion in the free software community lately about giving the GPL contractual terms to make it stronger. What do you think about this route?
Do the obvious to e-mail me.
Do you think that frivolous lawsuits create an environment where people don't take license agreements seriously (this could apply to either a GPL style agreement or to a non-free commercial EULA).
Any ideas on how these types of lawsuits might be curtailed?
no llamas were harmed in the making of this sig
My good friend from Germany is financing the development of a closed source propietary operating system that should ship some time in the middle of 2003. His team has ported the latest versions of all GNU tools over to it but has not published any sources for those. Meanwhile, beta versions have been shipped off to beta testers and developers. He says that only one or few versions (of several different flavours) of this OS will include the sources of these ported GNU tools and that he will not release these sources on any public servers, but he will make them available for extra charge (for his work, not for the sources), should someone contact him about them. Is this a violation of GPL somehow? To what extent can the developer withhold GPLed source code that has been altered in some way? Can altered GPLed source code be used "internally"? But what if it's for commercial reasons?
About the closest match I could think of would be running all the other jar file class calls in a seperate thread - but what if you are just calling into an API the jar offers? Worse yet, what if you extend from one of the classes in the jar (for instance to create a plugin to be used by the jar).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
thx.
I am interested in the enforcement of technology patents on "obvious" technologies (e.g. hyperlinking, XOR'ing as a bit mask, [someone else has a nice link to older Slashdot stories]).
How can we defend against stupid patents being issued and enforced?
What qualifies as prior art? How does someone prove prior art?
Thank you for your time!
I see a future where nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and weapons that we cannot even dream of can and will be manufactured and used by nearly anyone with the time, funds, and motivation. A jealous boyfriend could decide to take out neighborhood with a nerve agent; a road-raged driver could toss a vial of engineered influenza at an offending traffic jam; a religious zealot could obliterate a city with a nuclear weapon. Is this future really speculative? Or is it the product of the inevitable march of technological "progress" that will continue until 9/11 is reduced to a quaint footnote in history? Is
After losing, say, several major metropolitan areas here and after watching the extermination of millions or billions elsewhere on the planet, is it too far-fetched to say that the American public will beg the government to take away every last vestige of its privacy? To establish a world where every action that could possibly pose a threat will be monitored, recorded, and analyzed?
My question is whether that day has already arrived, and if not, then what events will have to transpire before we willingly give up our rights to privacy in return for security? Will the delay to impose "big brother" controls only serve to hasten the demise of this Camelot of freedom that we have enjoyed for the last two centuries?
I often have trouble explaining to my friends why the DMCA is such a bad law. Could you provide to me the reasons why it oversteps it's bounds as far as Copyright law goes? Related to this question, why should the DMCRA be passed?
By analogy, I would think that using a GPL'd JAR file would be treated similarly.
IANAL, nor do I play one on TV. Nor has anything GPL-related been really tested in court yet, so even If I Was A Lawyer, who knows what the courts might decide to do.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
There are quite a few of us, though silent so as not to disparage `free software' or `open source', that don't think very much of the GPL, also referred to as the GPV (`GNU Public Virus'). The recent Castle Technology debacle is an example. I would much rather release my code to the public domain with the only restrictions being that you can't claim that you authored my code and you can't restrict others from using my code. I don't care if you take my code, modify it, make a mint, or whatever.
How best do I go about doing this ?
fl0ydz
More importantly, I expect .net to be a huge success and we will finally get reusable, cross platform software components. Does linking to a GPL .net component, which is essentially a unique process called using SOAP over some transport (pipes,tcp..), invoke the linking clause of the GPL?
.net age?
Seriously, within a few years we will have SOAP wrappers for all major open source projects. emacs.net or vi.net will be embedded for text editors, khtml.net for html rendering... will the GPL still have any relevance in the
Given that modern day law did not specifically anticipate free software, is there any modification (not limited to copyright law) of the law which you would like to see enacted in order to advance the cause of free and open source software?
Disney and others aren't shy about buying the changes they want; why shouldn't we at least ask?
What is the FSF position with regard to taking over copyright of a potentially controversial (esp in this legal climate) software project that is under the GPL? What are the considerations that go into whether to accept copyright for a software project?
Can your IM do this?
Does RMS smell funny?
He looks like he doesn't care much for his outward appearance (more power to him). But does he bathe regularly?
What's your problem? I am interested in the answer, how is pro-bono (and pro-GPL) work affects his other work. Maybe that can be found by googling, but I hope that a direct answer will contain some insight not found elsewhere.
Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
- Does the "or any later version" clause imply, I am free to take a GPLv2 source and make it a GPLv6 release (not being the copyright holder, of course)? Or must it stay to say "GPLv2 or later". If allowed, I am able to protect new releases against a loophole in an earlier GPL version. If so, the next item is redundant, I think.
- If not, I thought about using the phrase "or (at your option) the latest version" instead, this way you may only use GPLv2 or GPLv4 (or whatever is current by then), but not GPLv3. The idea is, that if GPLv3 is found to have a loophole, there is problably a GPLv4 soon. Would the GPL support such a copyright clause (the "or any later version" is directly referenced in the GPL)? And if so, do you see any disadvantages in doing so?
- Assume the worst, that the FSF goes bad in 30 years and publishes GPLv7, which is, say, BSD-style (*eg*). Is there a way that I can use this clause and being safe from such a change by the FSF?
Well, in short I think the real question is: what do you see as the risks and benefits of using this clause - under the requirement, that I want my source stay licensed under the same meaning, but be safe against loopholes in the current and in future versions of the GPL (even if I died meanwhile)?Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
Courts (like in the the DeCSS case, I think)have stated that code is not considered Free Speech. Where do you stand on this topic? and why?
The basic moral principle for RMS behind the GPL seems to be that people who use software should also be able to modify it (and share their modifications).
This would seem to imply that web-services should provide access to the source code.
Why isn't software (and more importantly Free Software) subject to strict liability for defects (i.e. security holes, etc.)? Is it because of the disclaimers in the license text? Is it because there is no specific tort mentioning software? Is it because, in the case of Free Software, you are only paying for the distribution, not the software? Or is it because no one has a reasonable expectation of bug free programs?
Will you help hold lawyers up against the wall?
What's the best part about Hooty?
Was his name Hooty?
Did he LIKE Hooty?
It has always struck me that the treatment of technology issues in courts of law has been rather haphazard. On the one hand there are moments of wonderous insight displayed which results in "the right thing" happenning. On the other hand, there have been far reaching decisions made which are clearly nuts to "one who is skilled in the art." If you had the clean sheet, and were able to redefine how the law treated technology in court - what provisions would you make to ensure the law kept in touch with technology and technology issues in law? Or do you believe that the court system as it stands is adequate?
Question: What do you view as the enforceable boundary between GPL and non-GPL software on an embedded system. For example, Linux on an embedded system may have non-GPL licensed software within the same runtime image (the new Motorola phones for example). There is no distinction to the end user between the GPL and non-GPL portions. Is that 'mere aggregation' in that the non-GPL application is being distributed, ambeit deeply embedded on an EEPROM along with the GPL software and hence unaccessible to the user, or is that derivation or incorporation of teh GPL'd work? Will the GPL v3 address embedded system boundary?
Do you think it would be advantagous for the major Linux contributors to assign their copyright to the FSF. It appears that a substantial number of GPL violations are based around the increasing prevalence of Linux code. Would FSF sponsorchip of the Linux codebase be a useful method for GPL enforcement (and also perhaps allow RMS to benefit on this GNU/Linux crusade?)
Professor,
One of the worries quoted as obstructing attempts by the authors of software in a healthcare organisation to release it under Free or Open Source licence is the question of liability.
They write software they would like to make available, they are in an altruistic, cooperative environment, but the lawyers for the employing organisation fear that disclaimers of liability for the use of the code may not stand in the way of action against the originating organisation.
There is activity at a high level aiming to make it possible to release healthcare software as FLOSS and I believe it is a necessary condition for stable and effective healthcare software that it be Libre or open source, and I don't know how that will turn out, but your advice and opinion would be interesting.
is more apposite.
In fact, the GNU web page calls it "a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license".
It has an "obnoxious advertising clause", but nobody ever said it was non-free.
Please, *please*, please learn to spell. 3 enormous spelling errors in your first 14 words: pro-bon, loywer, essentiallie. You must know your spelling is bad, so do us the courtesy of checking it over before subjecting the rest of us to it.