Professor Eben Moglen Replies

The call for questions went out on Feb. 10. Here are your answers. We'd like to give Prof. Moglen special thanks for taking time out from his busy schedule to do this.

1) Biggest win and loss so far?
by Em Emalb

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.

Eben:

When lawyers are engaged in litigation, their work can be judged in terms of wins and losses. But most of the work that I've done for the Free Software Foundation in the past ten years wasn't about litigation. It wasn't about conflict at all; it was about helping people cooperate, so that more high-quality free software came into being, and stayed free. Every time I persuaded someone that it was better to comply with GPL than to fight with the Foundation, everybody won. Every time I helped licensors who couldn't or didn't want to use GPL to use a GPL-compatible free software license, so that their code and all the world's GPL'd code could be freely combined, everybody won. Many of the outcomes I feel most satisfied about over the past decade wouldn't even make a good story: they're just examples of how persistent, patient reasoning with people can convince them to do the right thing. On the other hand, the matters I most regret are places where I failed to persuade people to work together. Everyone in the /. community can think of controversies in the free software world, personality conflicts, failures of cooperation that have impeded progress. I've tried over the years to bridge some of those gaps, sometimes with no success at all.

There have been litigation controversies in which I've been involved over the years, not always for the Foundation, which lend themselves to the calculus of win and loss. I still feel very pleased with the efforts I and others made from '91 to '94 to prevent the United States Government from indicting Phil Zimmerman over PGP. Winning the crypto wars was one of the most important things our side did in the '90s, and it started with Phil. On the other hand, this year's defeat in the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft, the copyright term extension case, is an unambiguous loss that's going to hurt the cause of free speech and free culture for years to come. I filed a brief amicus curiae in that case on the Foundation's behalf, and like my friend and colleague Larry Lessig, who argued the case in the Court, I take our defeat rather personally. But no defeat in court can possibly be as important as the victory all of us have won in the world: free software exists, and grows more powerful and more elegant every day. That's a victory of the profoundest consequence that we've all won together, and I'm intensely proud of the small contributions I've made to the cause.

2) Clarifying the GPL
by sterno

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.

Eben:

The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2(b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL. If the author of the other code had chosen to release his JAR under the Lesser GPL, your contribution to the combined work could be released under any license of your choosing, but by releasing under GPL he or she chose to invoke the principle of "share and share alike."

3) Helping independent developers work with the GPL
by SwellJoe

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.

Eben:

Two different issues arise here, and I think they're being conflated. One question is who will own the copyright on the code you are producing, and the other is what license terms the owner may use in releasing that code. Whether the code you write involves wholly new programs or modifications to existing GPL'd programs, your code constitutes a copyrightable work of authorship, and the first question is whether copyright will be vested in you or in the party with whom you are contracting. No matter who owns the copyright, however, modifications to or works based on GPL'd works can only be released under GPL. A "work for hire" provision in your agreement addresses the first question, and means that copyright in all the works of authorship will vest in your client. As to the works based on GPL'd code, in response to the second issue, you want your client to acknowledge its responsibility to release that code under GPL and GPL only. Any number of strategies in contract drafting might be appropriate, depending on the circumstances. The Foundation website doesn't make specific recommendations on how to draft contracts because contract law varies from country to country throughout the world, and no suggestion could possibly be right everywhere. Nor can I provide useful legal advice here, given the level of abstraction. On sensible approach, in a US contract, might be to include a provision in which the buyer acknowledges that the works listed in an attached schedule are subject to GPL, and promises that all code delivered under the contract modifying or extending any of the listed works will be released solely under GPL.

4) Put you in my will...
by wowbagger

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.

Eben:

Without information about the specifics of your employer's insurance program, I can't provide any detailed advice. The Foundation is of course enormously grateful for the support it receives from members of the free software community around the world. As a moderately large donor to the Foundation myself, I want to express my personal appreciation of your willingness to give. Anyone who wishes to donate to FSF, whether through testamentary disposition or direct contribution, can get further information from the Foundation's Director of Communications, Ravi Khanna, ravi@fsf.org.

5) PHB opinions
by Eric Seppanen

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?

Eben:

With all due respect to your boss' boss, he may not have appreciated the context in which the GPL is drafted. Most distributors of copyrighted material use a different copyright license for each country in which their work is distributed. That's not feasible for the free software movement: we have no control over the international path that any given piece of code may take, as it is copied and redistributed by its users, and we must therefore do business all over the world on a single license. What would seem good lawyerly drafting to a lawyer in one country might seem like officious or loquacious nonsense to a lawyer in another. Moreover, unlike the licenses written by the legal departments of proprietary content companies, our licenses are meant to be read by individual programmers, who we hope will choose to use those licenses to distribute their own programs. So the GPL is not addressed to lawyers in a single legal system, but to developers in every legal system around the world. Doing optimal drafting for that rather unusual set of needs is plenty serious business, I will say. It isn't work for amateurs. Whether we have been successful in achieving our intentions can only be judged by the results.

6) What can be done about spurious legal threats?
by Tom7

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?

Eben:

It's true that it's cheap to write letters threatening legal action, and it's true that many people would prefer to stop doing whatever they're doing that causes them to receive such letters. Bullying of this kind is one of the ways that the rich and powerful oppress the weak and poor. Your question contains specific versions of the only two general answers I know: those of us who are lawyers should fulfill our obligation to provide assistance pro bono publico (for the good of the public, which means without charging fees) to those who need our help and can't pay for it; those of us who aren't lawyers should contribute to organizations, like EFF and FSF, that provide legal support to individuals who need help furthering the causes we believe in.

7) Question
by edward.virtually@pob

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?

Eben:

Despite the annoyances you mention, which I regard as unfortunate but inessential, I think the position of free software is almost impregnable, both in the United States and everywhere else. The most important threat to the survival of free software is the concept of "trusted computing," which really means the building of hardware you as a user can't trust at all. "Trusted" computers are computers that can be trusted by media companies not to run software that users can modify, so that media company "content" can be delivered without fear that software modified by users will exercise fair use rights that media companies don't want to allow. If the free software movement and its allies can avoid having "trusted" computing forced on PC consumers by either mandatory legislation or industry "consensus," I believe free software will be around forever, and will become the dominant mode of software production and distribution in the course of the next two decades.

8) Being like you.
by Anonymous Coward

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?

Eben:

There are businesses all over the technology sector that are making money through the employment of free software. They sell hardware, services, solutions, expertise, and even the software itself. They employ lawyers who promote freedom by helping businesses that promote free software. There are going to be businesses all over the media landscape in the next decade that help cultural producers (writers, musicians, videographers, etc.) escape the system of cultural ownership that produces the schlock jamming the eyeballs and eardrums of the world. They're going to need lawyers to resist the onslaught of the "content" oligarchs, who will try to do everything to keep free content from succeeding. There is going to be a major movement in the next two decades to free the electromagnetic spectrum from the iron triangle of the broadcasters, the politicians, and the "campaign contributors," all of whom have tremendous interests in preserving the system where "free speech" means Rupert Murdoch has a million times more right to speak than you and I. Getting back the wireless bandwidth of the world for the people themselves, giving everyone an equal right to communicate, is the next great frontier of freedom. So there are enterprises that need lawyers, provide livings to those lawyers, and further freedom all at once. There are non-profit organizations too that we can work for or donate our time to. Being a young lawyer, as I tell my students at Columbia, is--at its best--an imagination test. We are very fortunate members of this society, in that we can imagine the lives we want and then make them happen. My advice is, aim high.

9) FSF's W3C patent policy position
by The Pim

I sent the following to info@fsf.org on January 1, and have not received a reply. Since it is a legal question, perhaps Professor Moglen would answer it here. Some context:

• Act Now To Sidestep A W3C Patent Pitfall [slashdot.org]
• Please Help Pass W3C Patent Policy [debian.org]

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,

C's patent license prohibits folks from taking his URL parsing code and putting it into, say, a search engine.

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.

Eben:

The question as asked is quite complex. Let me try to simplify it somewhat. Free software should be freely modifiable and redistributable by its users. Of course, any code once modified may practice claims of a patent about which the modifying user is uninformed. So anyone distributing free software is unable to assure his users that each and every modification they may want to make is noninfringing. But when someone distributes apparently-free software under actual but undisclosed legal restrictions preventing modification or redistribution, the software is not really free. GPL tries to deal with this problem through section 7, which says that if code you are distributing is actually under restriction that is incompatible with the terms of the GPL, you can't distribute under GPL at all. So if you have accepted a patent license that prohibits you from reusing some of your code, or code you have received from others, in different contexts, GPL section 7 means that you cannot distribute under GPL, and if the code you received was under GPL, your acceptance of the patent license precludes redistribution altogether. The goal is to ensure that, so far as each redistributor's actual knowledge is concerned, each item of GPL'd software distributed is fairly labeled: it can be freely copied, modified and redistributed.

From the Free Software Foundation's point of view, any code subject to field of use restrictions is not free software, but most free software copyright licenses don't read on the problem at all, and GPL section 7 only addresses one aspect of the problem. With respect to the specific issue involved in your question--the W3C proposed patent policy--GPL section 7 will be relevant in the following circumstances: a patent-holder contributes patent claims to a W3C Recommendation, and requires each implementer to take an explicit license containing a field of use restriction. GPL section 7 will preclude GPL'd implementation of that Recommendation. Apparently-free software can implement that Recommendation under, for example, BSD or X11 licenses, but despite its release under those licenses the software will not, from the Foundation's point of view, be actually and fully free.

10) Legal equivalent of GNU
by nattt

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?

Eben:

I don't think I would talk about free software as the saviour of the computer world. I would say that free software is an important tool for preserving freedom of speech and freedom of thought in our networked society. The equivalent forces acting to produce a better legal system and a better legal profession are the constitutional norms in the US and other societies that protect freedoms of expression, inquiry, and publication. Our job as lawyers is to defend those freedoms, and to increase the relevance of legal doctrine in new social and technological environments.

Comments

Fraud!

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say "GNU" nearly enough. Can't be with the FSF.

Re:Fraud!

[arvindn]

He didn't say "GNU" nearly enough. Can't be with the FSF.

If you notice, he never once said the word "linux" either. Like the GPL, which forces you to distribute source only if you distribute binaries, the FSF requires you to say GNU only when you say Linux.

HTH.

Re:Fraud!

[Richerd Stallman]

I noticed that too. And I am seriously considering getting a new lawyer to represent the Foundation.

Re:Fraud!

[Xtifr]

Like the GPL, which forces you to distribute source only if you distribute binaries, the FSF requires you to say GNU only when you say Linux.

Actually, even that's not quite true. If you're referring to the Linux kernel (and only to the kernel), or if you're referring to a hypothetical system using the Linux kernel but not using any GNU code (which we might see on some embedded systems), then the FSF won't object to you just saying Linux.

Or as I like to say, if you really hate using the word "GNU" that much, just write your own damn libc and shellutils and fileutils and textutils and all the other basic stuff without which all of those optional add-on applications (like X11 and apache and sendmail) won't work.

Re:Fraud!

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG have you no sense of HUMOR whatever?

Thank you

[jaybird144]

I would like to echo the post by saying thank you to Professor Moglen for his willingness to take time to respond to these questions...I can only imagine how busy his time is, and that his willingness wo do things like this is very indicitave of his support for the FSF. Thank you!

Re:Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on class, give a big hand to the guy with the funny name!

Re:Thank you

[sporty]

Are you sure you aren't a slashdot editor fulfilling your duplicate post quota? ;)

Re:Thank you

[Monkeyman334]

I'd like to thank the Slashdot editors for not making an ass of themselves and insulting this interviewee. Really.

I demand ...

[B3ryllium]

I demand that all words in this article be preceded by "GNU", by decree of the Dark Lord Stallman. This comment is exempt.

Re:I demand ...

[DonkeyJimmy]

I demand that all words in this article be preceded by "GNU", by decree of the Dark Lord Stallman. This comment is exempt.

This comment as in the comment exempting the comment, or this comment as in the comment not begining with 'this comment'. WELL?

Re:I demand ...

[B3ryllium]

Apparently, RMS is a multi-slashdot-mod. Go figure. And here I thought the comment was genuinely funny; after all, I don't think the letters "GNU" escaped from Moglen's keyboard ...

(GPL doesn't count - recursive acronyms that utilize other recursive acronyms are just WRONG ;-)

Re:I demand ...

[B3ryllium]

GNU/I GNU/don't GNU/believe GNU/that GNU/you've GNU/been GNU/exempted.

Re:I demand ...

[nmaeone]

That's GNU/Stallman to you, buddy.

Re:I demand ...

[B3ryllium]

GNU/My GNU/apologies.

Re:I demand ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Darth Stallman is not consistent. Read this article by RMS at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html . In it he complains about the concatenation of credits:

But, as you might expect, other developers did not copy the clause verbatim. They changed it, replacing ``University of California'' with their own institution or their own names. The result is a plethora of licenses, requiring a plethora of different sentences.

When people put many such programs together in an operating system, the result is a serious problem. Imagine if a software system required 75 different sentences, each one naming a different author or group of authors. To advertise that, you would need a full-page ad. ...
To address this problem, in my ``spare time'' I talk with developers who have used BSD-style licenses, asking them if they would please remove the advertising clause.

Hmphf! "Do as I say, not as I...say" ?!?

Re:I demand ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The hell? How is bitching about Stallman and the police that far off topic when what's his face has a gripe about being modded down by the karma kops re: his rambling about GNU?

Think about it.

Re:I demand ...

[DonkeyJimmy]

GNU. All these words are preceeded by GNU, it's just the same one... it's like when a cop pulls you over for not stopping at a stop-sign and you remind him that the law says only that you have to stop before the stop-sign, not how far before it, and you were stopped a few minutes ago.

Re:I demand ...

[B3ryllium]

(GNU) Hmm. I must concede, you do have a valid point.

However, in a feeble effort to distract you, allow me to attract your attention here:
http://paintball.beryllium.ca/

(It's not theft, because clicking it takes you do the creator's site ... right? On an unrelated sidenote, my server runs FreeBSD. Mwa!)

Re:I demand ...

[ichimunki]

Especially since it's the GNU GPL, i.e. "GNU General Public License"-- GPL isn't a recursive acronym.

obligatory_on_topic_material:
This is a pretty dull interview! Where were the good flamebait questions? Where was the one question where the interviewee could either look like a total idiot or a total genius? While this is all very nice and informative and stuff, it's not exactly riveting... even to a huge FSF fan like myself.

Is it any wonder lawyers make so much money? Law can be an incredibly mind-numbing activity. How would you like to spend your day worrying about this or that finer point of law, having to research 100 year old cases all the time, and actually having to read/write stuff like the average EULA. What I'd like to see is a Law & Order episode where some Linux company exec kills a programmer over some GPLed desktop theme to hush up the fact that they are ignoring developments on a different GPLed desktop. Now that would hold my attention.

Re:I demand ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Argh! This joke is too old already. Mods, could you please flag these as troll and reduntant and -1 them?

Notable in its Absence

[jazman_777]

Was the phrase "IANAL". Finally, someone on /. who _is_ a lawyer, not just playing one.

Nice

[t0ny]

wow, its nice to see someone working to help open-source without sounding like a zealot. I guess thats why he is out ther getting things done, and a lot of other people are typing baseless complaints into an internet forum.

Re:Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

At the risk of sounding like a zealot, he is working to help Free Software.

Come on guys, can't the people on Slashdot at least keep it straight? It's not that hard. Even if you don't agree with one side or the other, you can at least acknowedge the difference.

Re:Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

You should attend one of his classes if you don't think he's a zealot.

Re:Nice

[Uruk]

Mr. Moglen works for the free software foundation, and he is a staunch supporter of free software rather than open source.

Check this link for information on the differences between the two: Free software for freedom.

Disclaimer

[Ed Avis]

Disappoiningly, not one of his answers begins 'IAAL, but...'

Re:Disclaimer

[Anonymous Coward]

For how long have you been saving that joke?

Re:Disclaimer

[bicho]

well, that should be ' IAAL, and...'

Re:Disclaimer

[Ed Avis]

It's not a joke that's worth 'saving'...

He can't be lawyer!!

[adamofgreyskull]

He obviously charges less per word than Shatner!

Rational Face

[aridhol]

Looks like Prof. Moglen is the rational face of the FSF. He is able to explain things without ranting "Proprietary software is evil" and "Linux is really GNU/Linux" (although the word "Linux" never appeared in the article, so it's possible that he'd say it). He didn't object to the use of the phrase "open source".

Why don't we let the good Professor be the public face of the FSF and banish the zealots to a sound-proof box?

Re:Rational Face

[Elwood P Dowd]

He didn't object to the use of the phrase "open source," but I'd suggest that that's because it was used accurately.

People on both sides of the Free Software vs Open Source debate usually get equally upset when folks misuse the words. They mean different things. Even RMS doesn't get angry when folks discuss Open Source. He corrects them when they mistakenly suggest that he promotes Open Source Software.

Re:Rational Face

[Fnkmaster]

Do you understand how annoying it is to talk to RMS in person? You have to consciously keep telling yourself not to use the word Open Source. Despite your assertion that he only gets mad when people "misuse" a word, and that the Open Source people are equally fanatical about the words people use (they aren't), he is a nut. If you ask him for his thoughts on something like Linux, he'll correct you and say, "Well, I can't tell you that, but I'll tell you about my thoughts on GNU/Linux...".

It's not that HE chooses to refer to Linux as GNU/Linux or that HE chooses to speak exclusively for the Free Software movement, but the obnoxious and geekily obsessive-compulsive way he corrects other people's language all the time that pisses everybody off.

It's like if somebody asks you about those "hackers" that broke into some web site. If you start out by saying "I can't tell you about 'hackers', because I only know about 'crackers' and that's the only terminology that I will use..." - well it doesn't matter if you are technically correct, you are an asshole and people will hate you. I appreciate the fact that it can be frustrating to hear people abuse language in discussing topics close to your heart, but subtlety is a virtue if you don't want to inspire enmity in everybody you meet.

Re:Rational Face

[Anonymous Coward]

He is able to explain things without ranting "Proprietary software is evil" and "Linux is really GNU/Linux"

So.. when and where did anyone from the FSF say those exact things?

Re:Rational Face

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno about your experience, but *many* geeks are like that. They can't accept somebody else being a little different than them or having different viewpoints.

When you put two of them together, then, well, sparks will fly.

Ask yourself this, why do *you* care if he stops and corrects you? (If in fact you've ever actually talked to him. Personally I've only emailed him and he was completely civil. Precise and unyielding in his views, but not quite an "asshole".)

Re:Rational Face

[IamTheRealMike]

Why don't we let the good Professor be the public face of the FSF and banish the zealots to a sound-proof box?

Agreed. I thought the answers were tremendously cogent and well thought out. I didn't get the feeling any of the questions were being ducked, and I did get the feeling that he truly believes in what he is saying. I was able to understand a lot of what was said, despite the largely esotoric nature of the subject matter.

Basically, thanks Professor, and congratulations on an excellent interview.

Re:Rational Face

[Fnkmaster]

I realize that many geeks are like that. I'm just trying to explain that that's not a good way to be popular, well liked, or a charismatic leader. I am a nerd, perhaps even a geek, but I'm a social person. I understand how to interact with people in a business or professional environment, how to interact with people in an academic environment, how to be persuasive, when it's desireable or appropriate to be aggressive and so on. My actual views are often quite strongly held, though I consider myself a rational person open to logical persuasion on issues where it's appropriate. I just don't think people like RMS understand how to interact with normal folks well enough to be representing a community. Witness how many Slashdotters, geeks by trade or hobby, who are annoyed by the guy.

And yes I have talked to him in person before, several years back at a talk he gave at Harvard. Maybe asshole was too strong a word, I understand it's just "the way he is", I'm just pointing out it could rub a lot of people the wrong way.

Re:Rational Face

[Anonymous Coward]

>Why don't we let the good Professor be the public
>face of the FSF and banish the zealots to a
>sound-proof box?

Because in real life, Professor Moglen is just as (and possibly more) annoying than the rest of the people at FSF. He is thoroughly hated by almost all students at Columbia because of his zealotry. While he is, no doubt, an EXTREMELY intellegent person, he does not know how to engage in friendly debate. He is overbearing and obnoxious in debates. I saw him stand up during a Q&A section of a roundtable and give a rambling solliquay against the speakers and then storm out of the room when they disagreed with him.

Just because Professor Moglen can write well does not mean that he is a good public face for FSF.

Re:Rational Face

[stevenj]

The sad thing is that most people on here who criticize RMS for being irrational are demonstrably far more so than he. For example, name-calling (e.g. "zealot," "ranting") is an ad hominem attack. Putting words in someone's mouth is little better. (I've never read a single criticism of the FSF's position on "GNU/Linux" that responds to their actual arguments on the issue. Usually, people create strawmen and/or make arguments that the FSF has already responded to in writing.)

It is quite possible to disagree with Richard Stallman's views, especially if you don't start with the same values as axioms. And, in person, he is not always the most suave and charming character, to say the least. But if you actually read anything he has written, you'll find that his essays never make personal attacks, almost always try to directly respond with reasons to the actual arguments of those who disagree with him, and maintain a calm tone.

It is unfair to base your opinion of him on the strawmen propped up continually at Slashdot, and embarrassing that his strongest critics don't measure up to RMS's level of rationality.

(To be fair, the particular post I'm responding to is pretty mild; it doesn't make any arguments, it simply takes the Slashdot characterization of RMS as a given.)

Re:Rational Face

[Elwood P Dowd]

Yeah. I've gotta agree with you there. If someone misuses a term, and that causes real confusion of meaning, then it's fair to politely request clarification. If they misuse a term, but that does not cause confusion of meaning, then all you can do (politely) is to use the word correctly, or use the correct word.

So I am diminished :) RMS doesn't need to be such a jerk. He could (and damn well better) remain just as ever-vigilant.

Re:Rational Face

[1984]

"I appreciate the fact that it can be frustrating to hear people abuse language in discussing topics close to your heart, but subtlety is a virtue if you don't want to inspire enmity in everybody you meet."

Good point, well put. It matters if the person across the table thinks you're a nut, and it's short-sighted to the point of being infantile to think that deliberately being a prick to that person is the quickest, surest or most complete route to your goal. Unless your goal is to be thought a prick.

Re:Rational Face

[swillden]

I dunno about your experience, but *many* geeks are like that. They can't accept somebody else being a little different than them or having different viewpoints.

Allow me to correct your inaccuracy... :-)

While it's possible that many geeks can't accept different viewpoints, that's not my experience at all. My experience is that hard-core geeks tend to be fairly accomodating of different viewpoints, but they tend to correct *inaccurate* or, even more baffling to many people, *imprecise* statements relentlessly.

I think that much of this focus on precision and accuracy stems from spending great slabs of time with stupid machines that don't have the ability to determine what you meant and instead do only what you said. The habits of precision thus developed are reinforced when geeks spend time with other geeks and I think geeks soon realize that highly precise communication is very efficient, or at least can be.

The problem with this, of course, is that the vast majority of the human race does not value precision to the same degree and is perfectly content with any communication that gets the point across with a modicum of accuracy. This causes no end of problems when serious geeks talk to others. On the one hand, the geek expects his listener to understand all of the nuances and shadings of his precisely chosen words, and their logical implications, whereas the non-geek expects it to be spelled out. This problem even afflicts "junior" geeks in many cases, such as, for example, the Unix man pages, which are generally well-written and almost always densely packed with all of the needed information -- if only you understand the precise meaning of the terminology used.

On the other hand, when the geek listens to a non-geek (or lesser geek), he expects the speaker to be similarly precise and is occasionally baffled momentarily by apparent contradictions that are caused by "loose" language. The instinctive geek response (and one that would be appreciated by a fellow geek) is to provide a corrected version of the erroneous sentence. To another geek, steeped in the terminology and thought processes, this correction would either encourage greater precision or, even better, provide clarification of an error in the speaker's understanding of the subject. Correcting errors is good. To a non-geek, the correction seems to be a pointlessly nitpicky restatement of what was just said! Even worse, the nitpicking is clearly unnecessary, since the listener did, in fact, understand.

This dichotomy of precision levels gets to be especially apparent when the subject of discussion is the geek's area of expertise, because the geek tends to have a very broad and subtly nuanced vocabulary, encompassing a thousand fine distinctions which are critical to the expert but silly hairsplitting to anyone else. It's also important to realize that this phenomenon isn't restricted to *computer* geeks, although as I mentioned, I think the machines reinforce it. By way of example, my wife has a degree in Zoology and she occasionally corrects my misapplication of the terms "insect" and "bug". Not because she's trying to be annoying but because the distinctions are as clear to her as, say, the difference between a just-in-time compiler and an interpreter are to me.

Bringing this back to RMS, there actually *is* an important distinction between GNU/Linux and Linux. How important it is depends on the context of the discussion, but in RMS' world, the distinction is always important. His insistence is a little over the top, since context can generally make clear whether "Linux" is intended to mean "the GNU/Linux operating system" or "the Linux kernel", and that pettiness arises from his feeling that people generally give too much of the credit to Linus and company and not enough to GNU (and RMS himself).

The distinction between "Free Software" and "Open Source" is one that RMS would probably never allow to slide, because they are so similar that context may not clue you in as to which one is meant, without careful and consistent application of the correct terminology.

Re:Rational Face

[wunderhorn1]

http://www.jwz.org/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-imp ossible.mp3

;-)

Re:Rational Face

[Daniel Phillips]

If you ask him for his thoughts on something like Linux, he'll correct you and say, "Well, I can't tell you that, but I'll tell you about my thoughts on GNU/Linux...

Personally, I'd prefer listen to that remark, which at least shows some humor, than your aggressive attack, which only shows bile.

Re:Rational Face

[Fnkmaster]

You are on target with your description of "geeks" and their precise use of language. My point is simple: when you are supposed to be speaking for a community, you need to understand how to use the language that your audience will comprehend. When I'm talking to a broad, general but educated audience, having conversations with students in good colleges, or talking to executives from software and other technology companies, and other generally bright but non-"geek" people, I use the speech and mannerisms expected in our culture to communicate ideas effectively. Precision is sometimes important, but an effective communicator who doesn't want to anger those he or she is communicating with knows when to insist on precision (sometimes, but not constantly) and when to let a point slide because it's not germane to the topic at hand, or because the ideas can be communcated well enough without worrying about it.

In RMS's world, precise use of "Free" vs. "Open" may be important all the time for philisophical reasons, but it's not the most important point to a generally educated, non-geek audience - or rather, it's a point you can bring up once in a talk, but to harp on your audience for every slip of the tongue is disrespectful and annoying. He doesn't understand this distinction. Ergo he should not be considered a mouthpiece for the Free Software community or any other community.

A sufficiently bright person should be able to tune their communications to an appropriate level for the audience. I don't think I qualify as a "lesser geek" just because I don't ALWAYS consider the distinction between Free Software and Open Source software to be relevant to every conversation that touches on the topic.

Re:Rational Face

[4of12]

rub a lot of people the wrong way.

I can believe that he does.

I can also believe that Richard holds his principles so strongly that he himself is constantly being rubbed the wrong way by nearly everyone around him.

History is witness, though, of many men of principle and vision, unwilling to sacrifice or compromise with the conventional wisdom. These are the key people that leave a legacy of progress from which all of society benefits.

More common, though, are plain garden variety assholes that do not possess principles or visions, or at least none apart from a primal need for ego maintenance and inflation.

I think Richard belongs to the former category of "perceived assholes" rather than the latter.

Re:Rational Face

[swillden]

I agree with your statements about why RMS is a less-than-ideal spokesman. I was really responding to the AC's post about how geeks are intolerant of other viewpoints and trying to explain that non-geeks sometimes interpret geeks' focus on precision as intolerance. Well, perhaps it is intolerance, but it's intolerance of imprecision, not of differing viewpoints.

In short: I was defending geeks' rationality, not RMS' capability as a spokesman :-)

Re:Rational Face

[Merk]

Never? You've never read a single criticism of the FSF's position that responds to their actual arguments on the issue?

How about this. The one thing guaranteed to be common about all Linux distributions is the kernel -- Linux. While all current end-user distributions use a lot of GNU software, end-user distributions are not the only form of Linux. My TiVo runs Linux. It has almost no GNU programs on it by default, but it is a Linux OS.

Secondly, things are named by the people who drive their development. The FSF claims that Linus developed the last remaining puzzle piece in the GNU system, the kernel. But if he's the one who finally got a widely-used stable system, he's the one who gets to name it. Most inventions are simply improvements on existing products, or amalgamations of several products, but the person who choses which parts to use and who makes a complete system out of those products can call the whole system whatever he/she wants.

Finally, things with a GNU in their name are almost universally things whose development is driven and led by the FSF. From what I know, the FSF didn't lead development of operating systems based on the Linux kernel. GNU Emacs is called GNU Emacs because RMS is the one who chooses which features get implemented, what code is good enough to be checked into CVS, and basically runs the development program. Calling all operating systems based on the Linux kernel GNU/Linux would imply that RMS or the FSF is providing a similar leadership role to those projects, which it isn't. If the FSF wants to direct development of a Linux based OS, choosing what software is included, how the installer works, what package management system to use, how the /etc directory is laid out, etc. then it would not be misleading to call their version GNU/Linux, or heck, even GNU-OS if they prefer. (I know they're probably saving that name for when they have Hurd ready but if they wanted to use it for a Linux based OS that's their right).

Re:Rational Face

[rgmoore]

I'm just trying to explain that that's not a good way to be popular, well liked, or a charismatic leader.

Of course it's always possible that RMS doesn't particularly want to be a popular, well liked person. He cares a great deal about Free Software, and has poured his heart and soul into it, but has never particularly shown that he cares about being liked. He appears to care about being listened to and have his ideas thought about, but he shows no sign that he particularly cares if people like him.

Personally, I'd have it no other way. The Free Software movement does need some charismatic leaders, but it also needs some uncompromising zealots who will stick to their guns in the face of hostility. RMS has shown that he has the vision to see possible problems facing Free Software and the determination not to back down in his defense of those principles. It's unfortunate that those characteristics make him tough to get along with, but Free Software would have foundered long ago without RMS's unwillingness to bend.

Re:Rational Face

[stevenj]

How about this. The one thing guaranteed to be common about all Linux distributions is the kernel...

Nice try, but this in in their FAQ (although "Frequently Made Arguments" would be a better name). You are free to disagree, but you have to respond to their counter-arguments or things will just go in a circle.

Secondly, things are named by the people who drive their development.

This isn't an argument, this is a statement of fact. The FSF doesn't dispute that people do, in fact, call the system Linux, and they even support people's free-speech right to call it whatever they choose (this is a FAQ, too). Their argument is over what the system should be called.

From what I know, the FSF didn't lead development of operating systems based on the Linux kernel.

The whole purpose of the GNU project, starting in 1984, was to develop a free operating system. It's hard to say that they didn't "lead" the development when they were the people to start it. This in, in fact, the FSF's main argument, which you have still failed to address. (They also respond specifically to suggestions that the GNU name only be used for those components they particularly developed.)

I don't really want to have to argue the side of the FSF here; I'm not their spokesperson, and my views are not identical theirs. I just find it frustrating to watch people argue in circles about this all of the time because they don't respond to counter-arguments. Still, your post is much better than the vast majority on the topic.

Re:Rational Face

[Odinson]

Rather than focus energy on FSF promotion for itself (GNU), why not get people thinking about our broken language another way.

I suggest the FSF should pushing for the use of spanish words gratis and libere in place of free. It focuses on American assumptions on cost and rights, and might help the world get free of hollywood's chinese finger trap.

Copyright is an problem of American misunderstanding first. If copyright is the Free Software Foundation's enemy, this is where to strike. It's time to think outside the jail of our language. LSF has a nice ring to it.

"With words they try to jail ya" - The Police

Re:Rational Face

[delcielo]

ad hominem

What'd you call me?!

Re:Rational Face

[ralphclark]

Let's not lose sight of the significance of Richard Stallman's massive achievement, which was to kick start the entire free software movement that eventually led to the burgeoning world of open source we enjoy today. Back around 1990 before the web, before Linux even existed, it was already possible to get unixalike software tools from the FSF to run on non-Unix operating systems. Maybe you ought to consider just how far would linux have got without any software to run on it. An OS kernel on its own isn't a general purpose computing environment. You can use it for embedded applications but that's all unless you have a shell, command line tools, networking software etc.

As things are, the Linux kernel was mostly responsible for the sudden explosion of interest in free software but it really would have counted for very little if there hadn't already been a fertile free software environment ready and waiting for a handy free kernel to come along and complete the picture.

In my view we all owe a debt of gratitude to Richard Stallman and his zealous pursuit of an ideal. He was a driving force among the first few who helped to create something out of nothing, without him Microsoft might well have had the entire field all to themselves by now.

Re:Rational Face

[LooseChanj]

>

I'm right. You're wrong. Ergo, I'm smarter than you. Admitting you're right would mean you're at least as smart as I am, possibly more. So wallow in your wrongness you peasent.

Re:Rational Face

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, I've known the guy off and on for about fifteen years, and he's a jerk. He's a jerk that earned a lot of points by creating great, free tools, and in creating a social structure that creates great, free tools. But he's still astoundingly unpleasant to interact with on a personal level, to the point where many people around MIT avoid entire buildings in order to reduce the odds of running into him. My suggestion is to admire him from a distance -- he's done a lot of wonderful things, so it's best to simply avoid those aspects that aren't as wonderful.

Re:Rational Face

[jmt9581]

Counter evidence to this argument:

Millions of misuses of the words "your" and "you're" in various tech sites, such as Slashdot.

Example:

"As long as your talking about the FSF, let's talk about RMS . . ."

Re:Rational Face

[Merk]

Ok you said that the whole point of the GNU project was to develop a free operating system. I don't dispute that, but has GNU released an operating system? I say they didn't lead development because to my knowledge once all the parts necessary to release a free OS became available I'm not aware of them laying out an entire OS, front to back, installer, booter, configuration files and all, and releasing it.

My impression (and I could be completely wrong about this), is that they created almost all the necessary parts of an OS, but until the Linux kernel came along nobody had ever integrated them all together into a fully functional, working OS. And futher as far as I know, once a free kernel did become available in the form of Linux, they didn't grab it and assemble an OS from all the parts.

You want a point-for-point rebuttal of the FAQ? Well I won't promise to do that but I'll take a few shots:

• They say "by the time Linux was written, the system was almost finished" -- so why is it then that 12 years after Linux was started there still is no working GNU system? The kernel is probably the toughest part of a system, the hardest to get right, and the most important. It may not use as many lines of code as the rest of those GNU components but that's not necessarily the best measure of importance. Even if GNU code comprises the second most important part of the system, there's no need for dual naming.
• Next they say current developers of "Linux" don't share the same philosophy as the FSF and that calling the system GNU/Linux recognizes the importance of the philosphy of the FSF. But if the people creating complete systems using the GNU tools and the Linux kernel don't share the FSF's views, then it makes sense *not* to call the system GNU/Linux to acknowledge that the people developing these systems don't necessarily share the philosophy of the FSF.
• The next argument actually counters their own arguments as to why the systems should be called GNU/Linux. They say it should be called GNU/Linux because "by the time Linux was written, the system was almost finished". They make it seem as though Linux development basically took an almost-complete GNU system and designed a kernel to use it, but then they explain that the whole reason it's called Linux is that in the beginning very few GNU tools were used. If that's the case then the fact it uses many GNU tools is a matter of convenience rather than philosophy. By their own admission, the Linux operating system was developed starting in 1991, and bit by bit GNU software was added to it. The end result ended up resembling the GNU system but at no point were the developers trying to create the GNU system. Part of the philosophy of the FSF is that the code is out there and people are free to do what they want with it. In this case they wanted to make an OS. The fact they used GNU software doesn't mean they believe in the GNU philosophy.

I think their whole view is that Linux is a kernel used to make the GNU system work, the kernel is less important than the sum of all the GNU parts, so GNU should be in the name, and it should be the first part of the name. I would counter that mere inclusion of a lot of GNU components doesn't make it a GNU system. Unless the initial goal of the people creating the system was to implement the GNU system it doesn't deserve that recognition. The GNU parts were convenient "off the shelf" components, added bit by bit to something based around the one essential part which is common to all Linux variants and which defines what it is to be Linux -- the kernel. Secondly I think the fact Hurd's stable release is at 0.2 points to the fact that the kernel is very important. If it were easy to make a GNU system just by adding a new kernel, there would be many other GNU/* systems out there. There are, however, a fair number of Linux systems with few GNU components, such as the TiVo. To me that says that the kernel is the most important part of the system, no matter how many additional GNU components may be included.

Re:Rational Face

[mandolin]

she occasionally corrects my misapplication of the terms "insect" and "bug"

Just FYI, an insect is a six-legged arthropod of the class 'Insecta'. A bug is an error in a computer program. You should be ashamed sir for confusing the two.

Ok, serious, was anybody else curious what the technical difference between a bug and insect was? Webster's was thouroughly unenlightening.

Re:Rational Face

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent argument; would that more people were capable of reasoning thus.

(Not that I care a whit about the issue under debate; but I am greatly pleased by the maturity of the debate itself.)

Re:Rational Face

[Thnurg]

Just one point to raise here. RMS insistance in using GNU/Linux rather than Linux when refering to the operating system is not in order to get ego stroking credit.
If people are led to believe that "the Linux operating system" was created by Linus Torvalds then they think it was created "Just for Fun".
By calling it GNU/Linux you draw attention to the fact that most of the operating system was written to further the cause of Free Software. The Free Software cause is different to the Open Source cause, or Linus's reasons for writing Linux.
RMS is keen for this distinction to get across so that the principles of Free Software are brought to the fore, and people can see why they are so important.

Re:Rational Face

[swillden]

That's not a couterexample to the theory that geeks are careful with language. That's a counterexample to the theory that slashdot is truly populated by geeks, rather than wannabes.

Re:Rational Face

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish RMS could work out a way to express himself in a way that didn't often make him look like having a bad case of cranial invasion of the rectal cavity. You need to allow for people which don't have brains running at the same high clockspeed, don't know the whole picture and are most likely still trying to dig their way out of a huge mountain of FUD. This takes time, patience and, most of all, a degree of empathy. Forget the empathy and you'll face apathy.
The guy's principally brilliant - shame it's obscured by his less than optimal method of communication ;-(.

Re:Rational Face

[swillden]

was anybody else curious what the technical difference between a bug and insect was?

Umm, without asking my wife (which would probably earn me a beating), I don't actually recall what the defining characteristics are, but bugs are a strict subset of insects. I believe one difference is that all bugs live in the water.

Here, a bit of googling found this. Looks like I was wrong about the water bit, although I think a lot of them do live their entire lives in water and the hardened part of the half-wing is somehow useful to them there.

Re:Rational Face

[TaranRampersad]

Agreed, Prof. Moglen appears quite rational. If people get past the quirks of many of the supposed 'zealots', they may find that the arguments are also quite rational. Sometimes we look at the messenger instead of the message. That said, there are some eccentricities that we attribute to 'zealots', yet these eccentricities are what created the Free Software movement... without them, who knows where we would be. I wouldn't want the zealots in a sound-proof box, myself. Without people making some noise, maybe we would not discuss things we should discuss. I think the best answer is that Prof. Moglen keep doing what he is doing. Why compare him to others? He stands well enough on his own.

Re:Rational Face

[jdavidb]

My dad is not a techno-geek, but he and I both share that annoying trait of insisting on accurate use of terms and unintentionally (and occasionally intentionally) misunderstanding people who misuse them. Of course, I have a greater knowledge of technical terms, and he has a greater knowledge of terms in his field, which is sort-of an offshoot of legal work (see, I don't even know what to call it!).

The sad thing is we unintentionally do this to each other constantly. Dad and I are great friends, but it's amazing how he can look at me like I just turned into an orangutan when I ask him a question about his job, or how we can get so frustrated at each other on the phone we get mad and hang up. Took me over a year to get used to him referring to a Powerpoint presentation as a "program," for instance. Each and every time for the first six months or so, I honestly thought he was confused. Once I thought he was telling me he was trying to copy Powerpoint itself (the .exe) to a ZIP disk...

Anyway, enjoyed your comment because it is so true!

Re:Rational Face

[swillden]

The Free Software cause is different to the Open Source cause, or Linus's reasons for writing Linux. RMS is keen for this distinction to get across so that the principles of Free Software are brought to the fore, and people can see why they are so important.

That makes a great deal of sense. Thanks for the illumination.

Reasoning works?

[Jezral]

...persistent, patient reasoning with people can convince them to do the right thing.

I wish I had seen the effects of that more often.

In my experience, people are fanatic about their way of doing something, even if it is completely illogical and not in their best interest.

Or maybe I am the wrongheaded zealot...nah, never...

-- Tino Didriksen / ProjectJJ.dk

Re:Reasoning works?

[John_Sauter]

I belive Progfessor Moglen gives himself too little credit. It is the case that skillful, persistent, patient reasoning with people can convince them to do the right thing.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

Re:Reasoning works?

[IamTheRealMike]

In my experience, people are fanatic about their way of doing something, even if it is completely illogical and not in their best interest.

In general I've found it's possible to get people to change their minds, if they are reasonably intelligent and don't have a large investment in one particular viewpoint (ie little emotional attachment to it). Even then, it's still possible to defeat people in argument, even if they don't change their minds straight away, sometimes it seems to plant the seeds of doubt in their minds - maybe, just maybe, this guy has a point.

Silly though it may sound, I've had my mind changed by what I've read on Slashdot for instance many times. A year ago, I was of the opinion that X sucked and Linus should make all the GNOME developers work on KDE :)

My moderation of this interview...

[syle]

+5 Insightful

Great quote

[TopShelf]

The most important threat to the survival of free software is the concept of "trusted computing," which really means the building of hardware you as a user can't trust at all

Well said - this is a perfect example of Doublespeak, for which you could also say that the built-in presumption is that the user cannot be trusted.

Re:Great quote

[3Bees]

TopShelf noted:

Well said - this is a perfect example of Doublespeak, for which you could also say that the built-in presumption is that the user cannot be trusted

And notat the sly redrawing of questions into the realms of issues as ephemeral and subjective as "trust" and away from legal facts of copy-right and freedom of speech.

Re:Great quote

[namespan]

the built-in presumption is that the user cannot be trusted.

Quasi-true. (1) Many users do not trust themselves and (2) often (without well-thought out security), you do not know who is "using" the machine (ie, who wrote the code).

Both these problems have solutions which don't have to include draconian "Trusted Computing," of course, but don't underestimate the power of those two arguments as a support for TC. I know people who use them ("But I _don't_ know much about my computer... it's be nice if there was automated security to let me know what I could trust...")

Re:Crap!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be able to keep up my drug habbit if it weren't for the GPL.

Re:A bit pompous

[matthewn]

Grammar Nazis are especially annoying when they are flat-out WRONG. "Rupert Murdoch has a million times more right to speak than you and I" is correct. Proof? Insert the implied verb: "Rupert Murdoch has a million times more right to speak than you and I [do]." You would not say "me do." I won't even go into the matter of using an apostrophe to pluralize Nazi.

Ours or his?

[fnurgel]

"Here are your answers"...

I'm really not a language expert (this not being my home language and everything).
But I was pondering the "Here are his questions and here are your answers" and was just still wondering who's answers and who's questions was it again?

Re:Ours or his?

[Mononoke]

But I was pondering the "Here are his questions and here are your answers" and was just still wondering who's answers and who's questions was it again?

The questions were given to him. The answers have been given to us. Yes, I'm a smartass.

I won't go into the GPL ramifications of the QnA transaction at this time.

Re:Ours or his?

[Anonymous Coward]

He is to be asked his questions. And we are to be given our answer.

Verbose interview...

[$$$$$exyGal]

Leave it to a lawyer to have one of the most verbose interviews on Slashdot ;-). Even the questions themselves were mostly very verbose. Just compare this interview with the one that William Shatner did. You'll notice that Moglen goes into much greater detail than Shatner, even though Moglen is, no doubt, way more busy.

--sex

Re:Verbose interview...

[Anonymous Coward]

But Shatner was asked inane questions he's no doubt answered a million times before. "Do you like the new star trek?" "Do you think Kirk could beat up Picard?"

Moglen is a zealot looking for a soapbox, and just reaffirms the misguided opinions of the rest of the slashbots. Yes, I said misguided. Lawyers can be wrong too. His comments about free software being the 'primary means of releasing software in the next 10 years' are overly optimistic to say the least. I heard that 10 years ago.

Frankly, Shatners was a much more interesting read. This guys just some a-hole preaching to the choir.

Re:Verbose interview...

[Anonymous Coward]

That was an amazingly insightful comment.
Thank you captain obvious :P

Re:Verbose interview...

[mdielmann]

You'll notice that Moglen goes into much greater detail than Shatner, even though Moglen is, no doubt, way more busy.

I'm guessing that's because writing, and writing eloquently and clearly, is part of Moglen's profession, whereas Shatner is primarily an actor (some would say living puppet, although I disagree :).

Can trusted computing help FSF/GNU?

[e2d2]

"Trusted" computers are computers that can be trusted by media companies not to run software that users can modify, so that media company "content" can be delivered without fear that software modified by users will exercise fair use rights that media companies don't want to allow.

But can the "trusted computing" scenarion be used to protect GNU works? Can we make sure that others are not infringing on the GPL using this or am I grasping at straws here? Is there anything in this initiative that could be used to promote our freedoms?

Re:Can trusted computing help FSF/GNU?

[aridhol]

Can we make sure that others are not infringing on the GPL using this

No.

or am I grasping at straws here?

Yes.

OK, now to be a little more helpful ;)

Trusted computing requires that the binaries be signed by a trusted signer. For example, Company A is a trusted signer, and Product B is GPL. Company A can take Product B, modify it to their heart's content, and publish it as their own. As long as they sign it, the computer will run it. The computer has no notion of license, just signed or unsigned.

Re:Can trusted computing help FSF/GNU?

[lederhosen]

>But can the "trusted computing" scenarion beused
>to protect GNU works?

No.

>Can we make sure that others are not infringing
>on the GPL using this or am I grasping at straws
>here?

No, you are grasping at straws here.

>Is there anything in this initiative that could
>be used to promote our freedoms?

No.

Re:Can trusted computing help FSF/GNU?

[spitzak]

No.

Free software means the user can modify it, including modifying it to work around any hardware restriction.

Re:Can trusted computing help FSF/GNU?

[DickBreath]

The "trust" in trusted computing means that the user and the software provider can both be assured that the software and hardware are not tampered with. The software intregity is assured.

While this does mean that, yes the software is not compromised by a spy, or spy agency, or some enemy, or by some virus; it also means that the software is not compromised by the end user.

A software package that does something good, such as securely handling classified data, can be trusted to do its job properly.

But also, a software package that

• limits your rights
• sends your private data to some corporation
• pops up ads in your face
• tampers with search results to cause their own links to come to the top

such as program can likewise be trusted to do its job properly.

You know, I've read all the people who have said "I've read the TCPA / TPM specs, and this is good and won't hurt us.".

Are people really so gullible today? Yeah, maybe it won't hurt us if everyone plays nice. Do you really think Microsoft (or any corporation) is going to play nice? Maybe today. What about in ten years when everyone has forgotton?

You know what? I just don't trust corporations. They lie through their teeth. Microsoft has already disclaimed that Palladium has anything to do with DRM, yet The Register soon afterward showed some Microsoft help wanted ads for Palladium that expressly stated that you would get to work with cutting edge DRM, etc.

Haven't you learned anything from thousands of years of human history?

If not, then....

Haven't you learned anything from Babylon 5. The suspension of civil liberties and rights is just temporary.

Haven't you learned anything from Jar Jar Binks? Meesa thinks weesa should give the chancellor emergency powers. Chancellor: I will lay down these powers after the emergency has passed.

Don't they teach World History in high school anymore?

Some people ask, but aren't there some advantages to trusted computing?

Hey, there are advantages to living in a police state. Just ask anyone how low or non-existant the crime rate was in Soviet Russia. (Please no Soviet Russia jokes.) You could walk in a dark alley at 3 AM with no fear of getting mugged. (or very little fear)

I'm sure there are probably some advantages to having a system that takes away my freedom and takes away my control over the software.

It's so funny how youngsters these days who were born way after most of the horrors of the 20th century seem to think it could never happen to them. I guess I'll end up laughing my ass off and saying I told you so.

Re:Can trusted computing help FSF/GNU?

[Anonymous Coward]

can the "trusted computing" scenarion be used to protect GNU works?

Sure. In about the same way a nuclear war, wiping out everyone on earth, can protect from people infringing the GPL.

Personally, I prefer less drastic methods, even if some misuse of the GPL happens due to that.

Re:Can trusted computing help FSF/GNU?

[Anonymous Coward]

But can the "trusted computing" scenarion be used to protect GNU works?

No. Consider section 3 of the GPL, which mandates that source code be released in the "preferred form for modification." How could a software system possibly check this? Especially, how could it check if a (3)(b) offer was being honored?

On the other hand, following the copyright licenses on Hollywood works is very easy to implement -- just don't allow them to be copied.

Your karma whoring....

[Anonymous Coward]

... is now beyond pathetic. Please go away.

Re:Your karma whoring....

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed

In your will? Yikes!

[egg troll]

Now RMS is going to hunt you down and assassinate you for your insurance money! That RMS is like cat, or a ninja, or a ninja cat!

Re:In your will? Yikes!

[Servants]

4) Put you in my will... by wowbagger

This offer would seem more generous coming from someone with any other username.

Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[Sloppy]

The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2(b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL

That's pretty broad. If I take that really literally, then if my networking program does DNS lookups in order to make it easier for users to specify what host they want to talk to, then my program is a "combined work" with a DNS server program?

That's obviously absurd. (Right? Please tell me I'm right!))

Somewhere there's some line that is crossed that determines whether two works are really combined or not, and I think that the JAR question was intended to nail that down. At face value, Moglen's assertion that the paradigm doesn't matter, seems pretty radical IMHO. Because if it really doesn't matter, then the whole internet is one combined work.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[tgd]

Its simple -- your program doesn't require a GPL DNS server, it just requires a DNS server.

'nuff said.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[John_Sauter]

The "line" you cross is distribution. If I write a program that depends on a GPLed work, such as the Linux kernel, I can distribute it without licensing it under the GPL if I require my users to obtain the Linux kernel from a different source. However, if I distribute the Linux kernel along with my program, as a convenience to my users, then I am obliged to offer the source code not only for the Linux kernel but also for my program.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[Sloppy]

Ok, then back to the JAR example: the program doesn't require the GPLed JAR, it just requires any JAR that happens to implement that interface.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[spells]

That line needs to be clearly defined (although we are talking about the law), otherwise MS will start talking about the viral GPL again.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[IamTheRealMike]

That's pretty broad. If I take that really literally, then if my networking program does DNS lookups in order to make it easier for users to specify what host they want to talk to, then my program is a "combined work" with a DNS server program?

IANAL, but ... like most legal documents, there is a certain amount of slack involved, a certain fuzziness which is open to interpretation. Most of the time, common sense rules the day, and everybody lives happily spending their time Getting Things Done.

Occasionally there may be a dispute over the wording, or the interpretation. At that point, the two parties can normally resolve the issue between them. If they can't, then it goes to court, and the issue is decided there. If it's law, then it goes down as "case law" and in future judges will use it to aid them in their judgement. I don't know what the equivalent is for software licenses.

Basically the GPL is an agreement between two human parties. It implies a modicum of cooperation, of flexibility. If that cooperation doesn't exist, then the lawyers become useful :)

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[ctid]

The issue is linking. Is your program linked (in the compilation sense of the word) with the DNS server? If you contact the DNS server over a network, your program is not linked with it, even if the DNS server code is GPLed. If you've incorporated GPLed code into your program, then your program becomes GPLed (this is a gross simplification of course).

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure about that?

If this were true then I could write a proprietary program using the GPL'd Qt/XLL library. I could then distribute my program to whomever I chose ... licensed under a proprietary license ... as long as I didn't also distribute the GPL'd Qt/X11 ... and Trolltech could not say anything about this?

Somehow I don't think that is the case.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[lederhosen]

>Ok, then back to the JAR example: the program
>doesn't require the GPLed JAR, it just requires
>any JAR that happens to implement that interface.

Right.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[spitzak]

I think the answer is that although the GPL could in theory lead to perverse examples, this never happens in the real world.

It is obvious that the DNS server was written to allow closed-source software to call it. Otherwise it would be quite useless, people would not use it, or ignore the restriction (because it is impossible to enforce technically). I think all the really perverse examples that can be come up with it can be shown quite obviously that the writer intended non-GNU software to call it.

As for "libraries", it seems that all real-world examples are LGPL or similar. The only counter-example I have ever heard of is readline, can anybody (even RMS) name another? By this I mean a library that could in any concievable way be used by more than one program with significantly different functions. Libraries designed to work around the Windows DLL limitations so that "plugins" can load do not count.

In the real world (as opposed to RMS's fantasy wourld) the LGPL (or an even looser version that explicitly allows static linking, like I use) very well protects your clever algorithim from being stolen. People have to use your library (or write possibly worse algorithims from scratch) and that can hugely limit the amount of damage they can do with their closed-source, since the library and what it does is open, and because the license requires that reverse-engineering be allowed.

IMHO putting the GPL on libraries seems to be an attempt to lock the *interface* so that non-GPL code cannot call it. This sounds suspiciously like what MicroSoft does. It also does not work, the result (like for readline) is that nobody uses the library at all. Even for GPL code, since part of the GPL is the freedom to change your own code to be non-GPL if possible, and using that library means that is not possible.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolltech's QT library is another example.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

i wondered why installing stuff on linux is such a pain, but i guess if not making stuff for the user easier actually helps the developers, that kind of explains it

now i only need to find out why linux and documentation dont work together

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[Haxwell]

But I think his question, which is a valid one, is what if it is a GPL DNS server? Is that still a combined program? I'd say no. If there was a line to be set, physical machine boundaries should be it, if not even closer.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[squiggleslash]

Correct.

The reason for this is this: You do not have to accept the terms of the GPL if you do not intend to redistribute GPL'd code.

If you can legitimately claim that nothing that you redistribute has Trolltech's copyrighted code within it, which remember would include their stub libraries under normal circumstances (you'd have to rewrite those), then, yeah, by all means distribute a non-GPL'd application that relies upon the user having installed QT. There's nothing they can do about it.

I think you'll find that's actually harder than it looks however.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[Jason Earl]

Another example of a GPLed library is QT. This allows developers to use QT if they are willing to let their software fall under the GPL. If you want to use QT in a commercial product you must pay money for a commercial (non-GPL) license.

As for your belief that GPLing a library is an attempt to lock the *interface*, that's blatantly false. As proof of this take a look at libedit. It's goal is to be 100% API compatible with readline, but with a BSD-style license.

The FSF argues that there is little reason to GPL a library that is a reimplementation of a commercial library (ie glibc), because if you did that no one would use the GPLed library. However, if your library has new and interesting features that aren't found in a commercial library then the GPL makes sense. People will want to use the library in their own programs (because of the features), but they will need to release their software under the GPL to be able to use it. There are several examples (ncftp using readline being the prime example) where this has actually been the case.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[rpeppe]

The issue is linking. Is your program linked (in the compilation sense of the word) with the DNS sever?

I don't think that is the issue. After all, with Java there's not necessarily any compilation going on at all (if it's not running in JIT mode) - it's just an interpreter, and the programs (the non-GPL program and the GPL'd JAR) are just inputs to that interpreter.

The GPL says:

If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

It seems to me that anything that needs to use GPL software in order to be used cannot be considered independent of the GPL software, and hence must be distributed under the GPL license.

How is an interpreted Java program that relies on a piece of external GPL code qualititavely different from (say) a document written with a GPL word processor (in a format specific to that word processor)?

I don't think it is... and I hence I can understand entirely the reluctance of Apple's lawyers to countenance the bundling of any GPL code with MacOS X...

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is incorrect. You are spreading misinformation.

The GPL is a copyright license. Copyright law has a notion of 'derivative work' that is no where very well defined. A powerfull argument can be made by Trolltech that if you create a program that relies upon the Qt library interface then you are making a derivative work and are therefore are not allowed to distribute/make copies unless Trolltech allows you to.

The same argument goes for a musical performance or movie. This is copyright law and as such it is broader than software/gpl/linking.

The real problem is the fact that 'derivative work' has not been defined satisfactorily in any sense let alone the realm of software.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[captaineo]

dietlibc. It's a very cool drop-in replacement libc that is orders of manitude smaller (and somewhat faster) than GNU glibc. It's also GPL by choice of the author.

And what about your HDR to 8-bit conversion code?? It looks to me like it's GPL only, yes? (interesting, in the copyright header it refers to BOTH "the GNU General Public License" and "the GNU Library General Public License" - which is it?)

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[swillden]

Ok, then back to the JAR example: the program doesn't require the GPLed JAR, it just requires any JAR that happens to implement that interface.

Here's another example, one that I've seen in the real world (though not at my company, lest someone think IBM is engaging in such duplicity):

A company sees a GPL'd library they'd like to be able to use, but they don't want to GPL their own application. So, they write a simple HTTP server that accepts XML-formatted requests, processes them and returns the XML-formatted results. This simple server is linked (in the 'ld' sense) to the GPL'd library and the server uses the library to perform part of the request processing. The server is released under a GPL-compatible license. Both the server and the library are distributed on a hardware device that contains a whole bunch of other of other GPL software, including source code for all of it. Any application can use the little server and the GPL is complied with in every respect. The server does significantly more than just wrap the library, and does constitute a widely-useful (though not widely-used) component. There is also clear technical value in making it a server that can service multiple clients simultaneously, using shared context, and there's clear value in making it usable over IP, rather than just on the local machine (though it's primarily used in "local" mode).

Now, the company can write its own applications to use the server in somewhat the same way they'd use the library, but without linking to the library at all. And, of course, their applications would also work with any other server that implements the same XML-over-HTTP interface. Of course, none exists.

So, is this legal? If not, does it mean that if I were to create a new network protocol and license the server under the GPL that only GPL clients could be written? If so, does it not constitute a fairly widely-applicable mechanism for bypassing the contraints of the GPL?

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[sbeitzel]

Right, but remember that wasn't the question. The question had to do with bundling the GPLed JAR with the author's program.

Take a Jakarta/Tomcat servlet example: you write your servlet and part of its logic calls out to some GPLed JAR -- maybe some super-nifty XML parser or something. So you build a WAR file that can be dropped into any Tomcat webapps directory to enable the servlet. The WAR file contains your code, but it also contains that pesky GPLed JAR -- which means that you have to release the WAR file under the GPL.

Now, the easy way I see to get around this is to ship your WAR without the GPLed JAR inside it and in the distribution notes you say something like, "This servlet requires a super-nifty XML parser in order to load and run, and it needs to implement org.sumdumgai.niftyParser. You can get one of those over at some.place.else/nifty.jar for instance, but whatever you use, you need to modify myservlet.properties so the servlet knows where to find the class to use." Bada-bing, you can now release this servlet under something that isn't GPL -- just make sure that your warranty states that the thing isn't guaranteed to do anything other than take up storage space.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[ctid]

Well it is the issue that the poster was asking about (DNSs etc).

As to your specific point, I'm afraid I don't know much about the process of executing Java programs. But what you describe sounds enough like the process of dynamic linking to make me think that the GPL still applies: if you want to make a program which needs that GPLed JAR to work (whether at "compile" time or at run-time), then you have to GPL your program.

I think the bundling point is bogus. The GPL specifically addresses the issue of distribution on the same media, and that is not treated the same as linking.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[squiggleslash]

Er, no.

Simply being capable of being interfaced with another work will not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered making a derived version of. A derived version would at least have to be similar, and there's nothing similar between an application that calls a library, and the library itself.

Derived isn't some catch-all that means anything you want it to mean. For a work to be derived it has to be copy an existing work to some degree. In the example i give, nobody's copying anything from Trolltech. Nothing, whatsoever.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[hysterion]

--

A young idea is a beautiful and a fragile thing. Attack people, not ideas.

This sig promotes ad hominem argumentation over rational discussion. (Indeed the latter requires relentlessly criticizing ideas; only if they survive attacks are they strong enough. Science consists of trying to prove our theories wrong.)

So, I take it that I should now attack you instead of rationally criticizing your moronic sig? ;-)

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[swillden]

So, I take it that I should now attack you instead of rationally criticizing your moronic sig? ;-)

Well, that would seem appropriate, wouldn't it!

However, there is an alternative -- you could consider that my sig is intended to be sarcastic, ironic or sardonic, depending on the occasion, but never serious.

The main reason I like it, is so that I can point to it when others attack me :-)

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[spitzak]

Good one! The HDR code is available for commercial use if you negotiate a license with Digital Domain. Sort of like Qt. Also the algorithim is simple enough that you can probably recreate it without looking at the code.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[cthugha]

Personally, I think that this is largely wishful thinking on the FSF's part. Remember, the basis of copyright law is to give the copyright holder an exclusive right over the reproduction (and analogous activities) of a work. In order to be limited by a licence covering a copyrighted work (such as a library), the activity you are doing must fall within that classification (which is more precisely defined in the relevant legislation) of reproduction. Dynamic linking would obviously not fall within anyone's definition of reproduction, whereas static linking would constitute the creation of a derivative work. To avoid the licence, you would therefore only need to restrict yourself to releasing source or a dynamically linked binary (and leave solving the dependency problems to your users :)).

However , this is only based upon a construction of the GPL as a licence. By imposing limitations upon the way in which you dispose of your own copyright in your own works as a condition of being granted a licence to use a GPLed work, the argument could be raised that the GPL is in fact a form of contract, like an EULA. The issues surrounding software licences as contracts are much nastier so I won't get into them, except to say that the FSF thinks that EULAs are invalid and so do I.

Given the example you cite: the DNS protocol is independent of any particular implementation of a DNS server, so by writing software that acts as a DNS client as part of its functionality, you are not in any way linked to the author of any GPLed DNS server implementations. Therefore, there cannot be any possibility of the existence of legal relations (either licence or contract) between you and the authors of such software, and you are not bound by the terms under which they release their software.

IANAL (yet), and I don't have authority to back up a lot of what I said, but it sounds right, and I hope it helps. :)

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how would you feel about third party map files made for a game engine, which copied none of the original map files?

I point you to Microstar v. Formgen for the actual legal answer.

Color Me Confused...

[redragon]

"Eben:

The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2(b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL. If the author of the other code had chosen to release his JAR under the Lesser GPL, your contribution to the combined work could be released under any license of your choosing, but by releasing under GPL he or she chose to invoke the principle of "share and share alike.""

Based upon this, wouldn't any software linking against libraries (assuming they GPL-ed) on a system be required to be GPL-ed? Seems like it would be difficult to write any software that didn't need to be GPL-ed if you were doing it on a Linux system.

I'm just curious, trying to understand better.

Re:Color Me Confused...

[stratjakt]

>> Based upon this, wouldn't any software linking against libraries (assuming they GPL-ed) on a system be required to be GPL-ed?

Yes

>> Seems like it would be difficult to write any software that didn't need to be GPL-ed if you were doing it on a Linux system

It is, though not impossible. Not every library on every linux system is GPLd, and you can always statically compile against the proprietary libraries (after you licensed them) that the GPL'd ones are based on.

Ever notice commercial linux softwares tend to have gigantic executables?

There's a certain 'indian-giver' aspect to the GPL thats distasteful when applied to library code. Luckily most are bright enough to use the LGPL, and no doubt the true GPL'd libraries will fade away into non-use (like proprietary ones like Motif largely did)

Re:Color Me Confused...

[lederhosen]

>Based upon this, wouldn't any software linking
>against libraries (assuming they GPL-ed) on a >system be required to be GPL-ed?

Yes.

>Seems like it would be difficult to write any >software that didn't need to be GPL-ed if you >were doing it on a Linux system.

Not realy. Glibc is GPL with an exception that permits dynamic linking for any program.

Gtk is under LGPL, X is under a BSD-like license
and so on...

Just don't try to link readline!

Re:Color Me Confused...

[gnuadam]

The LGPL was born to address this problem. The GNU folks argue that if you link to a GPL'd library, your code must be GPLed as well. The LGPL is not as strict, and thus many useful libraries are LGPL instead of GPL - allowing other licenses to exist on a linux system. Not everyone agrees with this interpretation, though.

Re:Color Me Confused...

[IamTheRealMike]

It is, though not impossible. Not every library on every linux system is GPLd, and you can always statically compile against the proprietary libraries (after you licensed them) that the GPL'd ones are based on. Ever notice commercial linux softwares tend to have gigantic executables?

That's not entirely accurate. In fact, virtually no system libraries are exclusively GPL, and in the rare cases that they are, they normally contain exception clauses that let you avoid using a free or open source license (or they are dual licensed).

The reason commercial programs are often so large is because we really suck at binary distribution. Making portable binaries is hard work, which we cunningly avoid by distributing software as source. Commercial software doesn't do that, nor can it make a new binary for every version of every distro, so they statically link stuff to keep themselves sane.

Re:Color Me Confused...

[Jason Earl]

Yes, software that links with a GPLed library needs to be released under the GPL. However, most of the libraries on a typical GNU/Linux box are LGPLed, and not GPLed. Readline is the prime example of a widely used GNU library that is released under the GPL.

Re:Color Me Confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2(b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL.

I am also confused...

Lets assume I write something that runs on Linux. In order for it to run it must be combined with the Linux kernel (depending on your definition of combine). Therefore, does it have to be GPL?

Re:Color Me Confused...

[spitzak]

Wrong. Nearly every useful library on Linux is LGPL already (the only counterexample anybody seems to be able to come up with is readline, I would like to hear what the others are).

The reason commercial software is statically-linked is that they are afraid of binary incompatabilities. Those static-linked libraries are the same ones.

Re:Color Me Confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but there are a few things they tried to compensate for this. First, most libraries on a GNU system are LGPL or BSD licensed, or have exceptions about lining with user programs.

On the other hand, the GPL explicitely states that linking against libraries distributed with the OS does not make those libraries fall under the GPL, so you can run GPL'd code under Windows, or Solaris with your conscience clear.

A small problem people sometimes point out with this is the issue of Java code. Java code links dynamically with the JVM, which is not GPL'd. In theory this is not allowed, but people just don't care.

Of course there is still the problem of how much is considered linking. Do a pair of programs that comunicate over a socket and cannot do anything without the other form a single work or not? Can one be GPL'd without the other? How about simple dynamic linking? static linking?

These are issues that will mark the limitations of the GPL, and haven't been explored well. Moglen of course favors the "everything that depends on each other is a single work", while other people set the boundary on inter-process communication mechanisms, and even others set it at the dynamic linking point.

We'll see. No lawyer has argued anything either way in court yet, so I don't know of any precedent in any country.

Re:Color Me Confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Nearly every useful library on Linux is LGPL already (the only counterexample anybody seems to be able to come up with is readline, I would like to hear what the others are).

how about libqt? It's GPL + Troll license.

Re:Color Me Confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets assume I write something that runs on Linux. In order for it to run it must be combined with the Linux kernel (depending on your definition of combine). Therefore, does it have to be GPL?

Linux binaries usually work on *BSD as well. Both works are independent. So your point was?

Re:Color Me Confused...

[marko123]

If I execute a GPL'd program binary from within software I have written, am I still obliged to release my software under the GPL?

Re:Color Me Confused...

[spitzak]

If you pay TrollTech money you can get a version you can use in closed-source programs. So it is still possible to write closed-source code.

Expiration of copyright and GPL

[WetCat]

What happens with GPL-ed code after the
copyright on it is expired?
I probably can do with that code whatever I want.

Re:Expiration of copyright and GPL

[JoeBuck]

It's a moot point: no copyright on GPLed code will ever expire, because we lost the Eldred case. This means that Disney will have its paid congresscritters extend the copyright term again every time Mickey Mouse threatens to go into the public domain. As a result, all GPLed code will always be copyrighted.

If we had won Eldred, then eventually GPLed code would enter the public domain.

Re:Expiration of copyright and GPL

[spitzak]

The direct answer is that yes you will be able to do anything with the code after the copyright expires. GPL is a license to violate the copyright in certain restricted cases, so if the copyright is expired the GPL is meaningless.

I agree with all the joke responses that this is probably never going to happen in the USA.

Re:Expiration of copyright and GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I can just imagine microsoft, drooling over the now public domain 98 year old version of nethack.

Re:Expiration of copyright and GPL

[Arandir]

And apparently, the FSF is completely happy with this situation. If they really wanted reasonable copyright terms, then they would have already explicitely placed their 20+ year software (like the original emacs, gcc, etc) under the public domain. Since they haven't, they fall into the same category as third term congressmen campaigning for term limits.

GPLd software will never enter the public domain as long as the FSF has a say in the matter.

Re:Expiration of copyright and GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the FSF would probably be happy to put its fifteen-year-old works into the public domain, if some proprietary software companies would do likewise. Expecting the FSF to unilaterally disarm is unrealistic.

And if you think the FSF supports copyright extensions, why on earth would it file an amicus brief in support of Eldred?

Trusted computing as the true enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it highly meaningful that he would see this as the true enemy of free software. Another question is: how do we stop it? What if, a few years down the road, you cannot buy a CPU or motherboard that doesn't contain it?

Re:Trusted computing as the true enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

How about designing you're own?

Well?

RH could easily design their own MB with their own BIOS and sell true Linux PCs. ANYONE with an engineering budget could.

What are you waiting for? Why are you relying on "other" people to supply your hardware?

Re:Trusted computing as the true enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ultimately the enforcement hardware will be located on the die. Can RH design their own core (can't license from one of the "trusted" boyz dontchyaknow) ? and build their own fab ?

Exactly....

Re:Trusted computing as the true enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

Civil disobediance. Smart people will figure out how to disable DRM, and freedom loving folks everywhere will learn the information or get the kits. Just like cable descramblers, mod chips, phreaks, PGP activists, and copy protection crackers.

I imagine that cheap, non-DRM motherboards will continue to come in from Taiwan.

They will run GNU/Linux. I can't imagine the basic x86 clone market being legislated out of existance, but I can easily imagine it becoming marginalized. People who enjoy freedom in computing will then be like those of us who are boycotting DVDs and major labels: sacrificing entertainment for the ideals of freedom.

But hey, if you are using your computer to compute, and not for gorging on Hollywierd or RIAA materials, then you'll have no problem. Get a DVD player if you want to watch DVDs. You just won't be able to make your constitutionally protected backups which, I believe, is what the whole thing is all about.

Lawyer

[twoflower]

Legal questions, on Slashdot, being answered by a lawyer.

How refreshingly novel.

Re:Lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

But the GNU hippie up on a pulpit preaching about Open Source is same-old, same-old.

Re:Lawyer

[The J Kid]

How refreshingly novel.

Hey, IANAL, but my Boss' Boss' Boss is really sharp, and he resents the way you've written that.

Re:Lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Score: -40
Redundant Redundant Redundant

Re:Beneficiary?

[Planesdragon]

The NRA? I don't know all about your U.S. organisations, but isn't that the National Rifle Association?

You are leaving them as a Beneficiary? Let me get this right.

So when you die, you can help other people join you?

No, no. You're thinking about the National Murderer's Association. The National Rifile Assocation just helps people be killed in an effiicent manner, often taking their murderers with them--as opposed to a rather gruesome knife fight. ;)

Eben

[diablobynight]

Doesn't that mean "father of" in some older languages

Re:Eben

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you're thinking of 'Ibn', which (I'm pretty sure) means 'son of'.

Re:Eben

[Syntari]

As another comment has pointed out, "Ibn" means "son of" (in Arabic). A more likely etymology for the worthy professor's name, however, is the Hebrew "Even", meaning "stone". Hebrew uses the same letter for B and V. Combine this with his affiliation with the Tel-Aviv University's Faculty of Law, and I think there's a strong case to be made for the Hebrew derivation of Eben. Of course, it could also be an abbreviation of Ebenezer (as in, "the Scrooge"). I report, you decide ;)

Re:Crap!

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, you are trolling..

The difference between GPL, BSD, and Public Domain is quite minimal, especially to someone who is not redistributing, which is most folks.

Also, the GPL, BSD, and PD are ALL free software licenses. The GPL is loved/hated because has the copyleft restriction, which only kicks in if you redistribute. It's not a big deal unless you want to change the license on the code.

The focus should be on free software, not copyleft software. That's why they call it the "FSF" and not the "CSF". They don't make a big deal about it, why should you?

Please, instead of posting trolls on slashdot, put out some software under the BSD or PD license. The world needs more free software, no matter what the exact license.

Re:Beneficiary?

[geekoid]

No, so when he dies he will help people protect themselves.

I dont understand

[Anonymous Coward]

....Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work,....

from that sentencew than ANYTHING that is written for linux MUST be GPL'd.

as your app, in order to operate, must be running in linux.

It's awfully sticky...

Re:I dont understand

[stratjakt]

Theres precious little thats written just for linux. Most apps will compile under a dozen or so flavors of unix, like HP-UX, Solaris, BSD, etc, etc.

What I dont get is say I write an application FOO, which requires certain library routines from BAR. BAR is proprietary under HP-UX (for example). There's a copylefted GNU/BAR for linux.

I can release my FOO binaries for HP-UX as proprietary (closed) license, but if I want to sell it to linux systems, it requires GNU/BAR so now I must open the source?

Re:I dont understand

[Anonymous Coward]

That's interesting. If a libbar is GPL under Linux, then the applications using it must be GPL. But those applications may not be brought to HP-UX then, because that would require the libbar of HP-UX to also be GPL (which it isn't).

Hmm, GPL as a platform lock-in - I never thought of it in quite that way before.

Re:I dont understand

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why libraries in Linux are released under LGPL. That protects your right to propriety software even though you dynamically link to system libraries. A purely GPL library would need to be re-written under a less intrusive license to be used in a proprietary app.

I'm confused about this claim

[CoughDropAddict]

Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2(b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL.

Section 2(b) of the GPL does not contain the "only under the GPL" part of that statement. It is my understanding that if I write a program that links against a GPL library, I may distribute the source code to my own program under the terms of (say) the MIT license as long as I also provide it under the terms of the GPL.

Re:I'm confused about this claim

[lederhosen]

>... forming a new combined work ... must be
>distributed under the terms of the GPL and only
>the GPL.

I.e. your code can be distributed under BSD,
but the combined work (BSD + GPL) must be under
the GPL.

Othervise you could unGPL code by adding a bit
of code under the BSD licence.

Re:I'm confused about this claim

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The dual-license doesn't mean you can just pick and choose terms as you please. On the other hand, no court has established that distributing source code that could be linked to a GPL library is therefore a part of a joint work. If the GPL library was written explicitly for this one non-GPL program, though, the legal status might be different. Obviously it's safe to distribute your source that when compiled is linked against a standard library of some sort, even if a GPL implementation exists. The FSF asserts these things as if they are legal fact when for the most part they are simply the intentions of the GPL.

Re:I'm confused about this claim

[stefanb]

Exactly. You can license your code any way you wish.

However, the combined work has to be licensed under the GPL.

You (supposedly) read source code carefully; read Ebden's language carefully as well. He writes in a very clear, consise and exact way.

Now, there is an interpretation that if your code is not functional without the GPLed other software, then it might not be considered a work in it self, but only a derivative of the GPLed work. If that interpretation is correct, then distributing your own work falls under the GPL, and you can only license it under the GPL.

I tend to think that if you are distributing your own work as source code, then you are in the clear: the code doesn't have to compile into a functioning binary as such to be useful. However, distributing binaries linked statically against GPLed code is clearly a derivative work, and you must make your source code available under the GPL.

There is some contention about dynamically-linked executables; many GPL proponents make the case that it's essentially the same as with statically linked binaries. However, in theory, anybody could implement a compatible library that has the same ABI, and so would allow running the non-GPL binary without using any GPLed code.

I personally would draw the line between "ubiqutous" APIs (libc, etc.) that are designed to be a framework, and code that has been ripped from an existing project and just compiled into a dynamic library just to avoid the "GPL hassle". Obviously, there are quite a few murky cases in between...

Re:I'm confused about this claim

[rabidcow]

OP was not asking what it meant, but whether this claim was valid.

Section 2(b):

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

contains no prohibition against adding another license.

I think Section 4 might cover it though:

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

(emph. mine, of course, and ianal)

My moderation of this comment...

[peterpi]

-1 KarmaWhore

"Look, honey!"

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's a troll!"

But, I'll bite.

Contrary to the popular belief held by bleeding heart liberals, the NRA isn't in the business of killing people, or teaching people to kill.

I'm willing to wager that no organization is anywhere near as intensly focused on preaching gun safety than the NRA. Furthermore, they're continually involved in fighting for the provision of rights to privacy - not just for their own members, but for all citizens of the United States.

Ah, hell, I can't. I can't do it without lowering myself to your level. Well, so be it.

You, sir, are a fucking idiot.

Re:"Look, honey!"

[labratuk]

You, sir, seem to be in denial of the fact that guns are designed solely to kill people. Quickly. Efficiently.

(apart from hunting of course)

And are instead trying to make it into a political point.

And just what is a 'bleeding heart liberal'?
Someone who believes that civilisation can evolve to become more than a neverending hostile pissing match?

If you don't mind, I'm going to lock myself up in my castle, drop the portcullis and bring up the drawbridge.

You right wingers scare me.

Re:"Look, honey!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually guns are designed for various purposes. If you visit the remmington web site for example you will not see a single instance of them saying "Buy this gun so you can go out and shoot someone." Most of their guns are designed for hunting, which is what the NRA is promoting. The second thing that gun manufacturers are producing guns for is protection. This is personal protection as well as for Police use. Yes there are collectors who want to purchase the occasional M60 or .50cal rifle, which are probably not being used for either of the two mentioned. However legislation has been passed to restrict access to these kinds of guns. The NRA is about protecting the right of people to bear arms. That is for pleasure (hunting), protection (police and personal protection), and for malitia (which has historically been used extensively by the US in war time). And just in case you want to know, this rambling is comming from a man who became a single parent of two at the hands of a lunatic with a 9mm pistol, that was not registered. And who does not own or wish to own a firearm of his own. But who believes that I should have the right if I want to.

Re:"Look, honey!"

[labratuk]

If you visit the remmington web site for example you will not see a single instance of them saying "Buy this gun so you can go out and shoot someone."

Of course they're not going to say that!

When was the last time you believed marketing literature?

But who believes that I should have the right if I want to.

Why? So you can kill people? Why would you killing him be any better than him killing someone? I know it is a bit of a 'him or me' situation, but that doesn't cut the mustard. It's the same attitude that's fuelling this 'war' (it translates in my opinion to 'slaughter'). If the west ahead with this war, they're just going to get back at the west, and then there's going to be another war. etc etc. Bush and Blair like to go around acting as though they are being ever so enlightened, that they are leading an advanced society, and they are making tough diplomatic decisions, but really what they are doing is no different from what an ape started doing when it picked up that first rock.

I realise that I have just managed to completely change the subject, but it still stands.

The only way of stopping this childish behaviour is to break the cycle, and violence, war and violent crime will not stop or even significantly decline until you do so.

Right Wing society is all built up on alienation. What I have that you don't. Or what I can hold over you.

Part of this gun bullshit I think is due to the average citizens powerlessness in the world of press releases, billion dollar business deals, and corporations. Their egos are massaged by the idea that they have the power of life and death in the closet under the stairs.

Plus, do you think that 9mm would have been as easy to obtain if they were outlawed?

Re:"Look, honey!"

[pknoll]

I respond to flamebait for the first time ever. Sigh. =)

You, sir, seem to be in denial of the fact that guns are designed solely to kill people. Quickly. Efficiently.

Actually, firearms are designed solely to fling a bit (or several bits) of lead or other material in a specific direction at high speed.

What the user points them at, whether it be paper or metal targets for sport, animals for hunting, or people to kill or defend a nation, is up to the end user.

It is the preservation of the freedom of a civilian to do the first two that the NRA tries to protect. It's an important freedom.

Re:"Look, honey!"

[labratuk]

It's an important freedom.

But it creates a huge amount of gun crime.

It's down to the old saying.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. At least if they have a gun, they do."

Re:"Look, honey!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Shaddup troll. Or I'll kick your ass with one of these: http://www.smithandwesson.com/headline.xml?produce r=headline&ACTION=SHOW&headline=100043

Re:"Look, honey!"

[Bull999999]

Gun don't kill people, planes (9/11), fertilizers (Oklahoma City Bombing), cars (DUI and wife running down her cheating husband, etc), flammable liquids (120 deaths in Korean subway), and TVs (TV intoxication defense) do. I drive to work everyday and share the road with people who drive while drunk, talking on the cell phone, racing, cutting other people off, trying to merge into the highway while doing 35MPH (mostly older folks), throwing objects, committing hit and run, not yielding to emergency vehicles, and/or putting on the makeup. Last thing on my mind is worrying about getting shot.

Still no Ninnle!

[Anonymous Coward]

I still can't believe he didn't want to answer my question about Ninnle Linux!

What does everybody here have against Ninnle anyway?

Thanks to Disney and Friends..

[Anonymous Coward]

..copyright on GPL programs will *never* expire. ;)

Jokes about the idiocy of length in regards to copyright aside, I don't think that matters much on software. Even if it was a flat life-of-author thing, in the computer industry, by the time such software came under public domain it would be 'useless' to the majority of the population.

* Useless in the sense that it would be hard to make money off of it, just as it would presently be hard to make money off, say, the ENIAC.

It'd still be a great tool for teaching the history of software development and so forth - and I can't see anything wrong with that. Hell, if someone digs up my code in seventy years and says, "See, they did it this way back then.", I don't know whether I'd laugh or feel honored. ;)

Ask the Bono estate

[yerricde]

What happens with GPL-ed code after the copyright on it is expired?

The Bono Act, together with the Eldred v. Ashcroft precedent, seems to make this question a moot point.

GPL FAQ

[sleepingsquirrel]

Based upon this, wouldn't any software linking against libraries (assuming they GPL-ed) on a system be required to be GPL-ed?

Yup. You can find this answer and many others like it in the GPL FAQ

Re:GPL FAQ

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer in the FAQ can be simply incorrect!

There are several loopholes around the simple reasoning that linking with a GPL'ed library would force you to GPL your sources.
1) The author of a work decides the Licence
2) The author distributes his work
3) The library is distributed seperately
4) The end user creates the combined work
I can't predict how an American court will rule; but I expect that a Dutch court will not find any problems.

I know that Eben Moglen has to support FSF politics; well I would like to see all sources opened too!

Re:GPL FAQ

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there is some ambiguity in the 'derivative work' area of copyright law. All software licenses suffer from this same ambiguity as well as many non-software copyrighted works.

However, it doesn't really matter in practice. The GPL will stand up in court and if it doesn't then you simply lose the ability to distribute the GPL code *at all*! The GPL was designed to err on the side of the GPL for this purpose.

Great Interview

[irix]

Indeed.

Many thanks to Roblimo for setting this up and to Prof. Moglen for responding to the questions.

Re:Crap!

[estar]

>What ever happened to truly *free* sw like >Public Domain? Hell, even the BSD license is a >hell of a lot free-er (IMO) than *GPL. Why do I >have to *force* people to not use my code in >certain ways?

It depends your intent. For example I design rocket models using Orbiter Sim. I release all the my source under the BSD liscense. I am enough of a libertarian that I find forcing people to do what I say repugent.

However there is a community of users that run virtual space agency that use orbiter and my models (I create mostly historical rockets). For some reason they like to keep everything tight within themselves. I find them very cliquish (sp?).

So because I release under the BSD those agencie are not required to release their source to their modifications of my modules. And there are few other module writer that used pieces of my code to implement important aspect of a flight plan (re-entry flames, parachutes, etc) and don't release their source.

This really gets under my skin. But I still find it very repugent to force people to open their code under a GPL license. This for me outways my use of the GPL license.

My solution is that I feel that I am a good enough programmer with enough people working with me that I can reverse engineer anything that I find in a closed source version of my module. Also I and my compatriots can make a better version to boot.

However if other people want too use GPL then they have the right to do so. I think the strength of the community relies on the cooperation of working on a project with the source code open to all. If somebody or some company take a version of that source and close it doesn't matter because the bazaar will beat the cathedral.

But hey if folks feel they need the copyleft that the GPL provides then they have the perfect right to do it. And I have to perfect right NOT to use it if the GPL is not right to me. But I do use in a project that is dependent on it then I need to abide by the terms of the GPL.

Rob Conley
http://www.alltel.net/~estar/orbiter.html
http://www.orbitersim.com

Actually, he's perversely correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the NRA is so weak & compromizing, more gun control gets passed. It is much more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, resulting in more death.

The original guy should name JPFO as a beneficiary instead.

Re:Actually, he's perversely correct

[labratuk]

It is much more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves...

From what?

Other similar talk

[A nonymous Coward]

Do you understand how annoying it is to talk an African-American and constantly keep telling yourself not to use certain derogatory terms?

Do you understand how annoying it is to talk to an Irish-American and not use various derogatory terms?

Ditto for Polish-Americans, American Indians, women, hackers, how often do you mistakenly talk to someopne and unknowingly insult them? Ever use the word suit to a suit, to his face, by mistake?

Face it, you are insulting RMS by using derogatory terms. If you don't like that, if you think he is overly sensitive, then turn around and look at it from his point of view, and maybe, just maybe, you will see you need a bit of sensitivity in your language. Maybe you need to see RMS as a human being who doesn't like being insulted, and maybe you will see how arrogant you are to think he should adapt to your terms and accept your insulting language.

Re:Other similar talk

[Fnkmaster]

That is possibly the most inane argument I've ever heard. I can turn that argument around the other way to refer to anybody's use of language it makes equally little sense:

Face it, RMS is insulting me by using derogatory terms. Turn it around and look at it from my point of view, and maybe, just maybe, you will see that he needs a bit of sensitivity in his language. Has he ever stopped to think that the way he uses language might be insulting to some people? I am a human being too, and I don't deserve to be insulted. It is so arrogant of RMS to assume that I should adapt my terms to his standards and accept his insulting language.

In other words, your argument is content-free. My language pisses him off. His practice of correcting other people's language pisses me off. I was simply arguing that if you don't understand how to correct people in a way that doesn't offend 80% of people in the room, you are going to be an ineffective communicator. We have societal norms for interpersonal interactions. If a person has no intention of conforming to cultural norms, fine, but don't expect people in that culture to just smile and say "well, he's the most annoying fuck in the world, but let's see things from his perspective, he has the right to be an annoying, anal fuck, he's a human being too, maybe he is insulted by our use of language contrary to the rules he has drafted in his own isolated universe".

Re:Other similar talk

[fucksl4shd0t]

Do you understand how annoying it is to talk an African-American and constantly keep telling yourself not to use certain derogatory terms? Do you understand how annoying it is to talk to an Irish-American and not use various derogatory terms? Ditto for Polish-Americans, American Indians, women, hackers, how often do you mistakenly talk to someopne and unknowingly insult them? Ever use the word suit to a suit, to his face, by mistake?

Maybe if you weren't prejudiced and ashamed of it, you'd have an easier time. :)

I've earned a bit of respect from the people around me at various points by specifically *not* censoring myself for their benefit. I speak precisely, *most* of the time. The rest of the time, I'm usually purposely speaking imprecisely, for various reasons.

Fact is, I had a good fried from whom I split only because I moved to another town (not good enough a friend to keep in touch, but good enough to watch out for each other), and during a typical shit-talking day, I told him he was a nigger. He laughed pretty hard about it. Now guess what color his skin is? Well, it ain't white. Peckerwood, I think, was his answer. Fun guy, actually.

Point is, if you worry so much about offending people, then you're worrying too much. You just can't walk into any room that has more than one person in it without offending someone (well, I can't, but I'm an offensive person anyway, just look at my username :) ), so why bother trying not to? It's not worth it. Regardless of what you intend to say, or what you're trying to get across, people will just take offense at it for no real reason, if they want. Maybe they don't like your long hair? Maybe they don't like your wife? Whatever, they take offense and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Conversely, I haven't spoken much to RMS. I've only exchanged some email with him, and I found him extremly polite, even when he did correct my language. :) Hardly an offensive kind of guy. Strikes me as someone who doesn't really give a fuck whether or not people like him, but he doesn't want to hurt people anyway because he's just a nice guy. Who gives a shit if he wants you to speak precisely around him? You either do or you don't, you don't have to in any case. Say what you want. ARgue with him. Fight with him. Kick his ass.

Or you could quit worrying about it and go do something good for yourself, and maybe even the community. :)

Re:Beneficiary?

[labratuk]

From? How?

Another question

[riptalon]

It would be interesting to know Prof. Moglen's views on the main point in this article in the unlikely event that he is reading this. Namely that while the GPL and most other Free/Open software licenses are perfectly enforcable, there exists a weak point with the copyright holder themselves. If the copyright holder of a peice of free software decided to they could change, or totally revoke the license of the software, and that change would apply to all copies of the software not just future versions. If this is indeed true it is certainly not the way most users of free software believe things work.

I don't think most users believe that Linus could wake up one morning and decide he is going to revoke the license to all the code he has contributed to the Linux kernel and bring linux development to a crashing halt until all that code could be reimplemented by other people. While this is an unlikely senario there are plenty of companies that contribute to free software which might be bought out, go bankrupt or simply have a change of heart.

What about the case of an individual free software developer going bankrupt? Couldn't the copyright of some free software be considered an asset that could be seized to pay their debts? Would the FSF even be a safe copyright holder? Wouldn't it be possible for the FSF to be forced into bankruptcy? Would it be any different from a company or an individual going bankrupt?

My limited usderstanding of this is that the GPL only really applies at the point where a copy is made of the work, although our friends at the RIAA/MPAA are doing their best to make copyright property, rather than a limited monoply on copying. If this is the case then revoking a free software license would seem to only directly affect the distribution and development of the software and current users would be free to continue using it. Although I know there have been attempts to argue that using software involves copying it into memory and so is covered by copyright. What is the status of that?

Of course provided most copyright holders don't do this, free software as a whole can advance but it would be preferable if you could rely on a piece of software staying free after it has been released under the GPL. But in the end I think free software licenses are just a necessarily imperfect attempt to mitigate some of the evils of copyright and that it is suprising that it does as well as it does.

Re:Another question

[u38cg]

I'm no more a lawyer than anyone else here *g* but my understanding is that once something is received under the GPL, the copyright holder is limited to doing no ore than enforcing the GPL terms on those who received the GPLed works.

What this means that if Linus was to decide that he no longer wanted his code out there, there would be nothing he could do about it. He could remove his code from his source tree (although that would probably be less catastrophic than you might think; Linus' code doesn't make up all that much of the total code base these days), but anyone with a copy of the kernel sources who had accepted the terms of the GPL previously would be free to carry on modifying and distributing till the cows came home.

Re:Another question

[Daniel Vallstrom]

IANAL and I only had a quick look at the cited article but it doesn't seem very authoritative. Common sense (and FSF) say that you can't revoke or change contracts or licenses after they have been agreed, no matter if you pay for them or not. So a change of license will only affect future versions of the software. And the author simply misunderstands clause 9 of the GPL saying that it can take away your rights to use GPL software when it only can be used to strengthen them.

A change of license would affect future versions of some software though. That's why FSF wants you to hand over the copyright of your GPL code to them...

Re:Another question

[riptalon]

According to the author of the article (who is a lawyer, in Australia) a software license is only a contract if "consideration" is involved on both sides (i.e. each side has to receive something). From my an admittedly small amount of searching on the web this appears to be true. Now since the copyright holder does receive anything in the case of a free software license, it doesn't seem possible for it to be a contract.

The author then states that a pure license, one that involves no contractual obligation, can be revoked by the copyright holder at any time. Searches on the web produce a lot of people saying this is not the case but none of them are lawyers. The author only states that it is true for Australia so it may vary depending what juristiction you are in. However in the case of Australia the author cites a case involving the shareware program Trumpet Winsock which appears to back up his arguement.

The FSF site says that the GPL cannot be revoked but it presents no legal argument why this is the case. Such a legal arguement would certainly be comforting.

Re:Another question

[Daniel Vallstrom]

Yeah, I agree that it would be good to hear what Moglen or someone at FSF has to say about this. Why don't you email gnu@gnu.org the question.

Re:Professor, I'm a crooked cop. I want mail

[Anonymous Coward]

Though possibly off topic, that was an interesting article.

Mad props to y'all in WA!

Re:Beneficiary?

[gr8_phk]

Someone must have accidentally moded you up instead of down. Your comment is sad and off-topic.

Speaking of lawyers...

[eddy]

How about an "Ask Slashdot" with Hank Mishkoff of www.taubmansucks.com and/or Paul Levy of Public Citizen? Their fight and eventual win against Taubman and their crooked lawyers (just read the account and you'll see -- they're lying and distorting throughout the process, and frankly I find it amazing what they *get away* with[0]) is not only important in itself, but the way Hank documented it is an inspiration to all. It provides real insight into fighting a corporation out the crush you.

Great work by the team of Public Citizen; Press Release (Won appeal)

Here's an article in the Dallas Observer about the case -- check the spin Taubman tries! (third paragraph from the end)

[0] Maybe we should Ask Slashdot with Julie from Gifford-Krass-Groh-Sprinkle and ask her how she sleeps at night. "Great", I guess :-\

Five possible solutions...

[sleepingsquirrel]

1. Release your product under the terms of the GPL
2. Convince the authors of GNU/BAR to sell you an exception to the GPL.
3. Convice the authors of HP-UX BAR to sell you their source so you can port it to Linux.
4. Write your own version of BAR from scratch.
5. Don't sell a Linux version of FOO.

GPL and BS wording

[Anonymous Coward]

I was very disappointed with the reply to question 5, the one about the GPL text itself sounding amateurish. Sorry, but I don't buy for a second the comment about needing to understand the context of the license, etc. Any software license that starts with a political manifesto, in effect, is poorly written and shows with perfect clarity just how screwed up are the author's priorities.

I know, this is exactly the kind of license you would expect from a fanatic like RMS, but I agree with the thrust of the original question--the wording does look stupid and I know for a fact that it turns off some business people.

Re:GPL and BS wording

[prizog]

Sure, the GPL's text turns off some business people. But legalese turns off more hackers, and, well, hackers are the ones writing the code. The GPL's text is what attracted me to Free Software in the first place.

If business people don't want to use GPL'd code, then they're free to pay enough hackers to write a proprietary solution. It turns out that, at least in firewall boxes and embedded systems compilers, almost nobody is choosing to do that.

Clarification to the answer for question #2

[YinYang69]

Okay I've been around long enough to hear this question come up time and again in one form or another, but I've rarely had a true-blue lawyer (who's head is apparently attached to his body, as is the case with our guest here, thankfully) convey the answer.

But the answer is, to me is kind of muddled. And I think it has primarily to do with the question. A *.jar is basically a zip file. Usually filled with compiled classes. My restatement of the question would be:

For any given language, I use compiled library X(a DSO, DLL, etc.). If the code, Y, which when compiled yields compiled library X, is released under the GPL, that forces my code Z to be GPLed as well?

In most simple terms, the license for my code is in part dictated by the libraries, packages, (sharable) objects, and classes I use in my code?

Eben Moglen is definitely one of us . . .

[Yeechang Lee]

. . . One day a few years back, while working on the helpdesk hotline Columbia's IT department runs, I got a call from a law professor wanting to report portscan attempts on his office box. I assured him that I had the same thing happen on my personal box connected to the campus network, that they were done by people who were probing the entire Columbia network as opposed to him specifically, and that as long as he made sure to follow security bulletins and upgrade software when appropriate he probably didn't have much to worry about. After the call I mentioned it to my manager, as Unix-savvy faculty is awfully rare in my experience. He nodded his head and said "That's Eben."

Re:Eben Moglen is definitely one of us . . .

[prizog]

More on this:
He writes his legal briefs in LaTeX. He says that he uses Perl for much of his programming, because it reminds him of APL.

DMCA Provisions ?

[IanBevan]

Speaking of the DMCA -- it has built-in provisions for making precisely this kind of judge-free takedown by an ISP!

What provisions are these ? Are they pro-user or pro-copyright holder ? I don't understand...

Re:DMCA Provisions ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're the "Safe Harbor" provisions. copyright owner complains to host, host removes site without an intervening judge

Clear up

[dachshund]

As for your belief that GPLing a library is an attempt to lock the *interface*, that's blatantly false. As proof of this take a look at libedit [sourceforge.net]. It's goal is to be 100% API compatible with readline, but with a BSD-style license.

I write an application called FooEdit, which dynamically links to a GPLed library called libfoo. I distribute FooEdit under some closed license, requiring my users to get their own copy of libfoo. Have I done wrong? If I understand your post correctly, then you believe that the FSF does not really have a case against me.

What I get from this interview is that the FSF does think it has such a case. The question I'd like to see answered is how it would go about enforcing it. In distributing FooEdit, I haven't agreed to the terms of the GPL, so they would have no choice but to go after me for copyright infringement. In order to gain any traction they would have to argue that my use of libfoo's API constitutes copyright infringement.

Is the FSF willing to argue that point in a court of law? Or are they just blowing hot air and hoping to scare people into licensing their applications under the GPL?

Re:Clear up

[Jason Earl]

I write an application called FooEdit, which dynamically links to a GPLed library called libfoo. I distribute FooEdit under some closed license, requiring my users to get their own copy of libfoo. Have I done wrong? If I understand your post correctly, then you believe that the FSF does not really have a case against me.

If you write an application that links (dynamically or statically it doesn't matter) with a GPLed library then you must distribute your application under the GPL (assuming you distribute your application). This doesn't "lock" the interface or the API because you are perfectly free to create your own replacement for libfoo (called libbar, of course). Example: libedit is a replacement for readline.

What I get from this interview is that the FSF does think it has such a case. The question I'd like to see answered is how it would go about enforcing it. In distributing FooEdit, I haven't agreed to the terms of the GPL, so they would have no choice but to go after me for copyright infringement. In order to gain any traction they would have to argue that my use of libfoo's API constitutes copyright infringement.

If your application doesn't work without libfoo then it is clearly a derivative work of libfoo. You are infringing on the copyright not because you used the libfoo API, but because you created and distributed a derivative work without the permission of the copyright holder.

Is the FSF willing to argue that point in a court of law? Or are they just blowing hot air and hoping to scare people into licensing their applications under the GPL?

Here's a little secret. The reason that the GPL has never been tried in court is not because the GPL is on shaky ground, but rather because it is on such firm ground that only an idiot would want to get up in front of a judge and become a precedent. First of all, all of the major software houses rely on copyright to protect their own intellectual property.

Take the large software development firms, for example. The last thing that IBM or Microsoft would want is a legal precedent that weakened copyright. So count out the large software houses as potential GPL litigators. This explains why there is not a single major software company that hasn't responded, and responded quickly, to perceived GPL violations. Even Microsoft distributes GPLed software, strange as that may seem.

So that leaves the small-time developers. Now imagine your local software consulting firm paying for the lawyer fees that would arise from butting heads with the likes of Moglen or Lessig. The FSF has access to excellent lawyers, and in a copyright case the FSF could even push for the reward of heavy damages. So not only would the small consulting firm be faced with large legal bills, but they would also be faced with the possibility of losing their own copyrighted works (since they would be a derivative of the FSF's works), and paying a hefty fine. It's no wonder that a case hasn't gone to court. Especially since the FSF is happy to forgive you if you simply make the source code available to your customers (note, you don't have to make the source available to the whole world). And the FSF almost certainly would win the court case anyhow. You see, they were very careful to make sure that the GPL relied on the "distribution" of the software as the key to their license. Under normal copyright terms the end user is denied the right to distribute copyright material without permission of the copyright holder. The GPL simply points out the terms under which the original copyright holder is willing to allow you to distribute their work. Either the end user accepts the GPL, or they don't have permission to distribute the software (or its derivatives). The end user can still use the software, but that's it.

Re:Clear up

[Arandir]

If your application doesn't work without libfoo then it is clearly a derivative work of libfoo.

Apparently, you're using the same faulty definition of "derivative work" that the FSF is. Go read up on Title 17 then get back to us. Dependency is not derivation. Duh! ...it is on such firm ground that only an idiot would want to get up in front of a judge and become a precedent.

No one challenges the FSF because you don't want to go to court to begin with. If you're a little guy, you don't go head to head with the FSF because they have millions of dollars and hundreds of lawyers. If you're a big guy, you don't go head to head with the FSF because a lawsuit if very bad for business. It has nothing to do with the validity of the GPL, but everything to do with the size and reputation of the FSF and the bad mojo that goes along with a lawsuit. Remember, every still thinks the winner of the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was a nincompoop, even though she was in the right.

Most of the GPL is quite valid. But there are two parts where it is somewhat shaky. The first is the imposition of terms upon third parties. The second is implicit treatment of linkage as derivation.

The end user can still use the software

Not if it's a library. Using the library means linking to it, and that's restricted by the FSF.

Re:Clear up

[Waffle Iron]

If you write an application that links (dynamically or statically it doesn't matter) with a GPLed library then you must distribute your application under the GPL (assuming you distribute your application). This doesn't "lock" the interface or the API because you are perfectly free to create your own replacement for libfoo (called libbar, of course). Example: libedit is a replacement for readline.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If (as the parent post assumed) you're not distributing libfoo, how can you violate its copyright? The situation you're presenting seems to require some kind of "quantum entanglement" between the existence of a compatible libbar and the legality of distributing a program that is able to link to libfoo.

How about a simpler example. I write a Windows program; it can't run without Windows. Does that make it a "derivitave work" of windows? Is Microsoft entitled to royalties on my program?

Re:Clear up

[Jason Earl]

The folks at the FSF explain it much better than I could here. Long story short you don't link against "Windows" it is a separate program.

Let's imagine that you took one of Steven King's novels and wrote an alternative ending. Could you legally distribute that and tell your customers to go and purchase Steven King's book if you want to read the first part of the story. Of course not. Creating a program that requires an external library is a similar type deal.

Now if your program communicates with a separate GPLed program via pipes (or other methods) that's a totally different story. Read the FAQ, it should clear things up.

Re:Clear up

[Jason Earl]

I actually have read Title 17, and I am afraid that I will have to agree with the legal folks at the FSF (and every major software company). Not that it matters what I think. As you have pointed out only a fool would go to court against the FSF on this issue. If the FSF is right about what constitues a derivative work in software then the offending company's software would essentially become property of the FSF and they would have to release the source code to this software to all of their customers (plus any monetary penalties). In short, it would be instant death. Even releasing the source code to your crown jewels is probably a better alternative.

Big Corp A would be crazy to base their proprietary software on GPLed code because anytime between now and whenever the copyright wears out on said code the FSF can come and wreck their party. And the FSF can even wait until after it has found an easier target to be the legal precedent.

So you can pretend that the GPL is on shaky ground when it comes to linking, but you can bet that your legal department isn't likely to advise you to press the issue. If Mr Moglen called your company you would cave, just as everyone else has. So think what you want, for all practical purposes the FSF is right as rain on this issue.

Your "so-called" imposition on third parties, on the other hand, is just pure hogwash. It doesn't matter where I get the copyrighted work, if I try and distribute it I have to get the permission of the copyright holder. Without that permission I can't distribute the work. There is no third party. The only way to get permission to distribute GPLed code is to make source code available.

Which brings us to your last point, where you talk about the GPL restricting the "use" of software. I am perfectly free to download a GPLed library and link my own personal programs against it, as long as I don't distribute my derivative work to someone else. In short, I am free to "use" the software how I wish (including linking), I just can't distribute the GPLed software, or its derivative works, without the permission of the copyright holder. As long as you don't distribute the software the GPL has absolutely no hold you.

Re:Clear up

[prizog]

Could you legally distribute that and tell your customers to go and purchase Steven King's book if you want to read the first part of the story? Of course not.

Some Slashdotters may not believe this. I point them to Universal City Studios Inc. v. Kamar Industries, Inc. 217 USPQ 1165 (S.D. Tex 1982), and Microstar v. Formgen, Inc. 154 F.3d 1107. These cases were decided on the basis of no literal copying, but instead the copying of characters by reference to the original works.

OTOH, IANAL.

Re:Clear up

[dachshund]

I actually have read Title 17, and I am afraid that I will have to agree with the legal folks at the FSF (and every major software company).

Could you cite me some precedent? Of course software companies are pushing for the broadest possible interpretation of the law. I'm curious if the courts have ever put their seal of approval on it.

From what you say, just about every piece of code ever written is now a derivative work, if it even calls one function from another library.

Re:Clear up

[Waffle Iron]

So I looked at the FAQ and the GPL again. Clearly, I can't redistribute a GPL'd program that I've modified to depend on a proprietary program. However, the question here was whether I could distribute a proprietary program that depends on a GPL'd program. The proprietary program would be distributed by itself; the end user would have to obtain the GPL'd library.

I still maintain that the GPL can in no way affect my distribution of my program. It is not a deriviative work until it is actually linked. Just because it doesn't do anything by itself doesn't mean I can't sell it; there's no guarantee that anybody will ever try to link it to the GPL'd code. Nor is there a guarantee that a compatible non-GPL'd library doesn't exist or will never exist.

The question then boils down to whether the end user can legally link the two parts together and use them. That's a stickier question. However, here's the actual restriction from the GPL:

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, distribute or transfer the Program except as expressly provided under this General Public License.

If the end user were to install (copy) the GPL'd library first before running it with the proprietary program, then he would no longer be covered by any of the above restrictions (which do not prohibit using the program). The next sentence in the GPL forbids using the program if you violate the above conditions, but the user isn't violating them as written.

The end-user would probably considered to be "modifying" the GPL'd library by linking it to form the derived work. However, the GPL only says (in paragraph 2a) that the user must place notices on modified files (he modified none), and (in paragraph 2b) that if he redistributes it, the whole thing is GPL'd. Obviously, the end user couldn't redistribute it. But I still think he can get away with just using it.

Re:Clear up

[Anonymous Coward]

From what you say, just about every piece of code ever written is now a derivative work, if it even calls one function from another library.

Apparently, every piece of software on your system is a derivative work of a common ancestor.

Re:Clear up

[Arandir]

I actually have read Title 17, and I am afraid that I will have to agree with the legal folks at the FSF (and every major software company).

Title 17, Sec. 101, defines a derivative work as:

A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''.

When I link an application to a library, I am not recasting, transforming, adapting, revising, annotating, elaborating or modifying the original work. In fact, I don't even need to have even seen or examined the library in order to link to it.

At compile time, a library is a black box. You cannot create a derivative work from a black box. Take a book as an example. How would it be even remotely possible to make a derivative work of the book without opening it? Yet I can make an application use a library that I don't even have installed on my system! I've done it before! I've got a program that worked with Qt 3.1 flawlessly, as a binary package, two months before I ever installed Qt 3.1 on my system. How can that be possible if my program is a derivative work of Qt 3.1? I've got another program that is "based on" MFC, yet works flawlessly under WINE, with not one byte of Microsoft DLL anywhere in sight! How can it be derivative of MFC when I don't have MFC available to recast, transform, adapt, revise or modify from?

The usual answer to this conundrum by the FSF is their specious argument that an application is not a derivative if there is more than one implementation of an API available. Yet where is this stated in copyight law? Nowhere! Dependency is not synonymous with derivation. The words "dependent" and "dependency" do not exist in the above definition.

p.s. Static linkage is a different matter, since the process of static linkage creates a "compilation" of the application and library into a whole.

p.p.s. What major software company (other than Trolltech which uses the GPL) considers linkage to be derivation? Please cite from a license or EULA or other documentation. I'm not doubting their existance, I just want to know who.

Re:Clear up

[Jason Earl]

Yes, something like that. Read the licenses on some of the commercial libraries you use. If you think that the GPL is shocking, you should see what Microsoft, Borland, and some of the rest have to say.

I don't know of a precedent for this sort of a interpretation, but I am not Eben Moglen either. Not that it matters. Since there is little to gain and a lot to lose by testing these legal waters it isn't likely that we will get someone stupid enough to actually set a legal precedent. That is why people comply when Eben Moglen calls them on the phone. The only reasonable way to act is as if a legal precedent had been set. After all, you don't want to become the precedent.

That's why I always laugh at GPL detractors who point out what they consider to be legal problems with the GPL. The detractors might be right, but no one is likely to take their word for it.

Re:Clear up

[Jason Earl]

If they share the same memory space then your program is a derivative work. If they communicate in some other way then you are fine. That's "mere aggregation."

There are plenty of folks that thought that their product wasn't a derivative work if they simply pointed people to the download of the GPL library. In the end all of them either released their source or wrote a small GPL wrapper around the library that communicated with their program via some other method than a shared address space (and even that may not be a protection in some cases according to the FSF).

The point that you are missing is that it doesn't matter who downloads what when. If your program doesn't work without the GPL library linked in then it is a derivative work, at least according to the FSF.

Re:Clear up

[dachshund]

I'm just interested, because your interpretation has consequences affect far more than the GPL. If what you're saying is correct, then just about every software company is exposing itself to massive litigation simply by publishing their work, if it includes even one call to an external library that they didn't write.

I simply cannot believe that the industry would sit back and accept such a precarious legal situation-- one where they could get sued out of the blue at any moment. The FSF would be the least of their worries; I'd be concerned about staying in business for five minutes in that environment.

Also, wrt interface locking, am I incorrect in what I said in my other post?

Re:Clear up

[Jason Earl]

Once again, read the licenses of the libraries that you are linking against. You will probably be surprised. The fact of the matter is that the software industry has worked like this forever. You simply haven't paid any attention to software licenses before.

The fact of the matter is that if you base your work on a commercial license you are invariably putting yourself at risk. The company could disappear, they could change their licensing terms, etc. The fact that your program is a derivative work (legal, in this case that you paid for your library) doesn't really change the equation. When you use someone else's proprietary license you are literally at their mercy.

Re:Clear up

[Jason Earl]

Here's what Borland has to say:

The Kylix Open Edition ships with CLX(TM) libraries under the GPL license.
As such, any applications that are built with a CLX library must make their sources freely available and distribute them under the terms of the GPL license as well. For example, any application built with the Kylix Open Edition must link to the BaseCLX(TM) library and will therefore be bound to the GPL. Furthermore, the Open Edition IDE End User License Agreement (EULA) also requires that any software developed with Kylix Open Edition must be released to the general public under the terms of the GPL. Any other use of Kylix Open Edition IDE would be in legal violation of the license agreement.

Here's a link. Unforutnately it is a Word document

A little searching will undoubtedly produce others. Basically if the FSF is imagining the bounds of copyright then it is a consensual hallucination with a lot of participants.

Re:Clear up

[Waffle Iron]

In the case we're talking about, the program does not share the memory space until the user runs it. If it's a derivitave work, the user is creating the derivative at runtime. As I pointed out, the user probably can do this if he chooses.

If just writing a program that can call a particular API (in process or not) causes it to be a derivitave work of some library that implements that API, then the whole GNU project (a straight clone of UNIX, including its APIs) would be toast.

Even if I'm wrong and you're right, somebody could always write an RPC proxy between the GPL'd library and the proprietary program. Once this proxy exists, then the program becomes legal to distribute, because there exists a workaround. Regardless, as I explained before, the end user is entitled to do a direct link anyway, so nobody would need to actually use the RPC proxy. At this point, it all becomes a pointless exercise in semantics.

Re:Clear up

[dachshund]

Once again, read the licenses of the libraries that you are linking against. You will probably be surprised. The fact of the matter is that the software industry has worked like this forever. You simply haven't paid any attention to software licenses before.

Ok, but you still haven't explained to me how the GPL forces you to GPL your applications, but lets you re-implement a GPLed library under a non-GPL license.

That's the missing link I'm really interested in.

Re:Clear up

[Jason Earl]

If the program is designed to share a memory space with the library, and does not run without it then the binaries that you compile that dynamically link to the library are clearly a derivative work (according the definition the FSF and the rest of the software industry uses). You can't distribute these binaries that are a derivative work without the permission of the original copyright holder. The end user's actions have nothing do with it.

Now if you wrote a proxy for the library that would be a different matter. However, you had probably better remove the bits where it links the library anyhow. After all, the fact that a proxy exists might not be enough of a buffer. It's like the rules that accountants use for deciding whether a tax deduction is legal. The rule of thumb is that if you believe you have a one in three chance of winning in court then you can take the deduction. The question is whether or not you believe that you can make your point in court, with the ownership of your proprietary code and all the revenues you have made from it (plus damages) hanging in the balance. Not to mention the fact that the very fine lawyers at the FSF will be on the other side of the bench. Will you be able to afford someone who has argued in front of the Supreme Court? The FSF might even get help from the major software producers (and possibly Hollywood) who want to guarantee that no bad copyright precedents are set.

Feeling lucky, punk?

Now, if you want to argue about how copyrights, should be, that's another story. I am simply telling you how they are.

Believe what you want, when Eben Moglen calls you'll either hand over the source or you'll write your proxy application and you'll be glad that the FSF doesn't make examples of companies that change their ways.

Re:Clear up

[Jason Earl]

The secret is that it is not the idea (or the API in this case) but rather the implementation that gets copyrighted. You copyright the source code and the binary is a derivative work (lots of precedence here). The API can either be reverse engineered, or in the case of readline it isn't even protected.

So you create your own library libedit. The source might be similar to readline, but similar is fine in this case. Just like there are lots of books that are similar to Lord of the Rings. Your binary is a derivative of your library (not of readline), it just happens to do the same thing. You are free and clear.

On the other hand, you build an application that links with readline. The binaries you create are clearly a derivative of readline (for the same reason that your binaries compiled against libedit were derivatives of libedit). If you distribute this binary then you are distributing a derivative of someone else's work. Now, you could distribute the source for your work and have the end user build it himself, that's a much harder reach as a derivative (there are precedents, however). On the other hand, if you are going to distribute source you might as well license your software under the GPL.

You see, that's the real trick. People distributing closed software want to distribute binaries.

Re:Clear up

[Arandir]

As you note, CLX is licensed under the GPL. I'm looking for a single instance of a non GPL library that claims ownership over any application linking to it.

Besides which, the CLX EULA itself is in violation of the GPL, merely by existing. You cannot impose a separate contract on top of the GPL.

Re:Clear up

[dachshund]

The secret is that it is not the idea (or the API in this case) but rather the implementation that gets copyrighted. You copyright the source code and the binary is a derivative work (lots of precedence here). The API can either be reverse engineered, or in the case of readline it isn't even protected.

This is a fascinating legal work of art. I produce a binary that does not include a drop of material or source from a library, and merely loads a shared external library and executes a particular procedure... But by doing so my entire binary becomes a derivative work. Yikes. Where is the precedent for this?

This is nothing like re-writing the ending to an existing book; in that case it would only be illegal to do so because you're ripping off copyrighted characters and plot and including them in your work-- which you are not doing in this case.

Meanwhile I can rip off an entire API from a copyrighted (GPLed) library and re-implement it without violating any copyrights?

Re:Clear up

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you can.

Just got my tax refund...

[Anonymous Coward]

those of us who aren't lawyers should contribute to organizations, like EFF and FSF, that provide legal support to individuals who need help furthering the causes we believe in.\

Thanks for reminding me. I just got my tax refund and it's time to put some of that money to good use.

Although I do feel a little bit...ashamed? I almost feel like a rich, arrogant sultan from a bad cartoon. "You have pleased me today little man! You may have some of my money!"

Whoa.

[gheidorn]

I'm surprised he didn't switch his name back to "Ben" after the dot-com craze died down. *shrug*

X11/BSD-style licences and the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the FSF's position on using the non-GPL'd XFree86 with GNOME, the GPL'd, official GNU project? Nobody seems to have a problem with it. Is that because there's no GPL'd X11R6 implementation, so we just have to use XFree86 because we don't have a choice right now? Then what would be their position on the recent BSD-licensed contributions to the GNU/Linux kernel from Intel?

I seem to recall that RMS once conceded that certain libraries are better licenced under something other than the GPL. Anyone have any references to that? Does that argument go away now that there is an LGPL?

Question nobody asked

[blair1q]

How does giving away "free" software protect free speech? It may be a role model for free speech, but I don't see how it protects free speech.

What it really does is it undercuts the value of commercial software, which destroys jobs in the software industry.

Anyone think that can't happen any more?

Re:Question nobody asked

[bnenning]

What it really does is it undercuts the value of commercial software, which destroys jobs in the software industry.

Google for "broken window fallacy". When a formerly scarce good becomes abundant, the economy benefits.

Re:Question nobody asked

[blair1q]

Google for "internet bubble".

No it doesn't.

The buyer of the good may benefit (just ask any tech house that can now get top talent for $20/hour, or less by going to India) but the economy (shitsville all around us) clearly does not.

Software is not a consumable. It's eternal. It only goes bad when it's corrupted or superseded.

You're netting on it.

PS

[stevenj]

I'm not claiming it's impossible to make a rational argument opposing the FSF's views. It's quite possible for reasonable people to disagree about these things, and I'd be happy to see people do so; rational discussion is a healthy thing. (But I'm not interested in arguing the matter myself in this forum, so don't try to drag me into a GNU/Linux debate, please.)

My main point is that some of the best examples of reasoned argument are to be found in the FSF's essays, and often not in the writings of those who accuse them of zealotry and irrationality.

Eben Moglen, the "Enforcer?"

[Brett Glass]

Eben Moglen writes:

But most of the work that I've done for the Free Software Foundation in the past ten years wasn't about litigation. It wasn't about conflict at all; it was about helping people cooperate....

Interesting. Gangsters use exactly the same term -- "cooperate" -- when they coerce victims to pay them protection money or otherwise do their bidding. And the FSF now has, or so it says, a "compliance" engineer, specifically charged with finding people to coerce to give away their work.

It appears to me, at least, that the fact that the FSF needs a lawyer like Moglen to rattle sabers at people smacks of the exact opposite of freedom. What do you think?

Re:Eben Moglen, the "Enforcer?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Gangsters use exactly the same term -- "cooperate" -- when they coerce victims to pay them protection money or otherwise do their bidding..... It appears to me, at least, that the fact that the FSF needs a lawyer like Moglen to rattle sabers at people smacks of the exact opposite of freedom. What do you think?

I think you need some fucking perspective in your world view.

Re:Eben Moglen, the "Enforcer?"

[Uruk]

Classic technique - compare a group you don't like (in this case the FSF) to something completely different that's evil (in this case "corporate gangsters") and link them through the smallest filament of backwards logic "they both have lawyers".

Nicely done. Now could you please explain how legal bullying by multibillion dollar international corporations is the same as a several hundred thousand dollar a year organization (non-profit mind you) asking people to comply with their license?

I think he made it clear in the article that he's not rattling sabers, but helping people comply with the GPL. I didn't hear anything in his article about cease and desist letters, or frequent lawsuits, both of which are the hallmarks of the people you're comparing him to.

He's not distributing any GPL code, remember?

[dark-nl]

If the court decides that what you're distributing is not derived from a GPL'd work, then you're free to use whatever license you want.

re: Leave you in my will

[Paradise Pete]

Right now, the only organization I have listed is the NRA - they make it pretty easy to set this sort of thing up.

Sshhh. It may not be so wise to let the NRA know you're worth more to them dead than alive.

Free Hardware

[femto]

> The most important threat to the survival of free software is the concept of "trusted computing," which really means the building of hardware you as a user can't trust at all.

I'm a contributor at OpenCores, a hardware equivalent of sourceforge.

Many moons ago, one of the list subscribers emailed the FSF (not sure who was the contact, but I think it was RMS). At the time the FSF didn't seem to be interested. RMS has also written that the FSF is not interested in free hardware. His arguments seem to revolve around copyright not applying to physical objects and the fact that hardware cannot be copied like software.

RMS (and the FSF since he is speaking for them) seems to have misunderstood modern hardware design. Engineers no longer sit in labs surrounded by piles of circuit boards and logic chips.

Today's hardware is converging with software. Typically a generic Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) is used as an implementation platform, with desktop manufacturing in the future. The definition of the system is written in a hardware description language (HDL), and is covered by copyright. Saying free hardware is not relevant is like saying free software is not relevant because the system on which it runs (a PC) cannot be copyrighted.

What will convince the FSF to change its position?

HDL by any other name is software. It is copyrightable, copiable and modifiable and deserves to have its freedom fully recognised.

HDL has the additional hurdle that it can describe patented objects. As such it is subject to threats by patent holders, even though one could argue that it is only the object, and not its description, which is patentable. Laws such as the CBDTPA will only increase the number of threats made against free hardware.

HDL descriptions already been removed from OpenCores due to theatened patent action. (See nnARM project.) This fledgling movement does not have the resources to even consider fighting such threats. It badly needs the protection of an organisation like the FSF.

Free hardware might not yet be on people's radar, but it will be once 'trusted' computing takes hold.

Re:Free Hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not write to Software in the Public Interest, the legal organization behind Debian? I bet they would be interested in adopting your work.

Re:Free Hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

There is currently a tiny hope that Europe will not follow the US into patent chaos.

The industrial revolution is about to tune out, and hopefully the legal system of industrial property (yes, that's the legal term for patents in Europe) will tune out together with it, keeping the patent system within the production fields that may still benefit from 20-year monopolies.

The US patent system is nowadays corrupt, both in practice and purpose. There is still hope for Europe that we can stop patent inflation.

See Call for Action:
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0 202/deman ds/index.en.html

Erik Josefsson

Re:Free Hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

"His arguments seem to revolve around copyright not applying to physical objects and the fact that hardware cannot be copied like software."

I would say he is right and the US patent law is wrong or ambigous.

In Europe, there is (was, depending on patent lawyer movement FUD success) a clear understanding that patens (industrial property) and copyright should never overlap. Extreme caution should be taken whenever a case was mixing the two diferent law systems.

I guess you debug your legal system in a different way in the US.

Erik Josefsson

I think he is out to lunck on the Java jar questio

[samantha]

The original GPL predated the use of components such as in Java, CORBA, COM, SOAP and so on. A claim that use of a GPL'd component requires the client program to be GPL'd is bogus. Why is it ok to call a GPL piece of code running in a GPL'd shell program using SOAP remotely but not ok to link that same bit of code or call it as an inline component? It would greatly harm the cause of Free Software to make such a claim. If this was true then no one doing commercial software or working within a company doing commercial software would be able to make use of free and open components. The LGPL was created for similar cases in "libraries". The software world of today is more sophisticated than just "programs" and "libraries" wheter static or dynamic. The GPL must keep up with the times if it is truly to be a boon to free software.

stupid questions

[Xtifr]

What it really does is it undercuts the value of commercial software, which destroys jobs in the software industry.

Yeah, 'cause Ghod only knows it was OpenOffice.org that destroyed the market for jobs writing word processors and spreadsheets, and not anyone else.

Speaking as a programmer myself, all I can say is that if your job skills are so limited that the best you can hope for is a job reinventing the wheels now so often provided by free software (and other commodity software, see link above), then you probably don't deserve a job in the industry.

Doesn't answer the question

[dachshund]

If you write an application that links (dynamically or statically it doesn't matter) with a GPLed library then you must distribute your application under the GPL (assuming you distribute your application). This doesn't "lock" the interface or the API because you are perfectly free to create your own replacement for libfoo (called libbar, of course). Example: libedit is a replacement for readline.

Sorry, I don't get the logic. So it's copyright infringement (creation of a derivative work) if I insert a function call specific to a GPLed library in my work. In order to avoid that copyright infringement, I would be forced to license my application under the GPL.

HOWEVER, I am allowed to re-implement the same GPLed library-- complete with the same API-- and release it under a non-GPL license? Seems to me that if my application is a derivative work, then a re-implemented library would be just as much (more!) of a derivative work. In order to legally create a non-GPLed version of the library, I'd be infringing copyright once again!

So I'm stuck now. If an application developer is liable for copyright infringement for writing an app that references a GPLed library, then a developer would be liable for copyright infringement if he re-implemented the library from scratch. So therefore an API is locked no matter what you do.

Once you take that first step and make any program a "derivative work" just because it calls a function from a library, you pretty much open the gates wide for all of the evils of interface copyrights.

Re:Doesn't answer the question

[ingvar]

Let me try to rephrase this.

The API is not the copyrighted part.
Using the API does not a derivative work make.

The implementation is copyrighted.
Linking to the implementation makes a derivative work.

You are free to write your own implementation with the same API.
Your implementation is not the other implementation (barring wholesale code copying). If the original is GPL and yours isn't, you can link to your own without being forced to GPL the program.

License preamble -vs- License

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. The license does not start with a political manifesto. That's the preamble to the license. The license starts after that. It's a fine document.

We knew this

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I persuaded someone that it was better to comply with GPL than to fight with the Foundation, everybody won.

Because, as Asimov taught us, the Foundation is destined to win anyway.

Link

[PhilHibbs]

More for my benefit than yours as this is the quickest method I have for creating a clickable link (yes, including all this typing)

RMS Controls the World

[Rogain]

oooooh you so bad! Stick it to The stallMan, yeah baby, burst his little bubble. That's a powerful guy you're taking about, are sure you can survive the onslaught of his revenge? Really brave man.I mean he could like have you banned from being hired at this one computer lab in boston, maybe if he really raised a stink about it, maybe. Rough stuff dude! Power to the People Oppressed by RMS and the Evil GPL! Yeah, dude you're talking Truth to Power! Gosh you are so brave, you risktaker you!

Re:I think he is out to lunck on the Java jar ques

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS was working on a new version of the GPL (v3) a few years ago that was supposed to address these issues. I haven't heard anything about it since then. I suspect it's an impossible problem to solve because there's no way to identify any natural, non-arbitrary division between software components.

Re:Crap!

[Anonymous Coward]

I release all the my source under the BSD liscense. I am enough of a libertarian that I find forcing people to do what I say repugent.

These people are not forced to use GPL software. If they choose to, they accept its terms. What is repugnent about freely agreeing to the terms of a contract?

Eben Moglen.. Who the heck is that?

[A55M0NKEY]

I sure never heard of him so he can't be a real person..

Free as in freedom and copyright

[jbn-o]

I suggest the FSF should pushing for the use of spanish words gratis and libere in place of free.

Perhaps you should listen to the speeches FSF members have made. When introducing the concept of software freedom they address the alternate terms and mention that when speaking other languages they do use the term appropriate in that language. "Free" is the most appropriate term in the English language, it just happens to come with a double meaning which needs to be clarified. But this is hardly a major stumbling block to people understanding the concept.

If copyright is the Free Software Foundation's enemy, this is where to strike. It's time to think outside the jail of our language. LSF has a nice ring to it.

I think the confusion a name change would provoke outweighs any advantage a name change would gain. It doesn't take much time or effort to learn the concept of freedom (and English speakers are familiar with it in other contexts like "Free Tibet", so the idea is useful in other places too).

Copyright is not the FSF's enemy. Proprietary software is the enemy of Free Software. Copyright is leveraged to great success by the FSF and the GNU GPL. The problem the FSF has with copyright is a problem many other people share. If there were a grassroots copyright reform movement (which is growing, and I'm proud to say I'm working on by talking about copyright issues on my radio show), I'm sure the FSF would cheer us on.

Re:Free as in freedom and copyright

[Odinson]

First of all, thanks for the link.

Just make my alignments clear, I talk all the time about the GPL. I remind people who focus on a particular bug/feature, or the use of Unix, that the GPL along with the Internet is the technology. The type of OS or Software can be any.

My knowladge of the idea for gratis/libere language actually originates from the FSF itself. I think getting people to talk about what the meaning of freedom is, is more important than guiding them to the foundation who recognised the problem (with software) first. People like to think they thought of a particular idea first, in order to accept it. Using the ambigous Linux helps people's self promotion along, and ultimately they will learn of the FSF's role in due time. The FSF seems to be focused of defining languge, so I am suggesting defining this language instead. It seems less self important to a new person.

I agree changing the name of the FSF is a bad idea. That doesn't mean the LSF can't be a good running joke. :)

The english language is broken with the systematic intentional abuse of the word freedom and liberated by the press. (respect is another example of abused word) The word free is very ambigous and the liber(al) root of liberated has been abused no end. Perhaps extensive use of the less confusing or revialed liberty.

I don't really think the FSF is about abolishing copyright, but there are many other problems due ridiculous copyright stay. The national conversation that starts with GNU ultimatly ends up questioning copyright.

What radio show do you participate in? Has your parent company tried to shut you down yet, or is it public? I would like to listen.

Re:Free as in freedom and copyright

[jbn-o]

What radio show do you participate in? Has your parent company tried to shut you down yet, or is it public? I would like to listen.

Thanks for your interest in my show. I am the host of "The Free Software show" on WEFT 90.1 FM Wednesdays 2-6a. I also guest on Mediageek. I talk about and play things of interest to the Free Software community. I also try to explain things so that people who aren't so skilled with computers will understand what the issues are and how these issues impact their lives. If I can arrange the bandwidth and storage, I'll look into archiving my shows for syndication and digital distribution.