Hall On Worldwide Open Source Movement

adamsmith_uk writes "There's an article up on ZDNet summarizing an interesting speech from Jon "Maddog" Hall about non-US open-source, as well as protecting open-source from 'looters' - well worth a read: 'The open-source development community is an international treasure and should be protected as such, said veteran Linux advocate Jon "Maddog" Hall, in a talk in Birmingham, UK, that emphasized the role of open-source software outside the United States.'"

Comments

neccessary?

[SuperDuG]

I mean if the US can hold a Russian for violation of the DMCA (remember Dimitry) obviously American Law extends further than the borders of america.

Not trying to be a troll here, but it just seems to me that if you were to take open sourced software and released it closed source, unless you did it in the US, you would be fine, right? But how can all those VCD Dealers in Malaysia get busted by the Motion Picture Association of AMERICA?

I think the real legal threat to open source is the fact there isn't a huge legal padding fee behind them, hence the Open/Free (yes they are the same) software, no money exchanged.

Re:neccessary?

[GammaTau]

Not trying to be a troll here, but it just seems to me that if you were to take open sourced software and released it closed source, unless you did it in the US, you would be fine, right?

I can think of two scenarios for countries outside the US:

1. The country recognizes and enforces copyrights (e.g. Australia and most European countries). The copyright is international so open source in these countries is just like open source in the US.
2. The country perhaps says it regognizes copyrights but does not really care of enforce them (e.g. some Asian countries). Since the government doesn't care about enforcing copyright, people can copy and modify the software as it were in public domain. This might not be strictly open source (since no one has to provide the source code) but you could still share binaries and source if you have them.

intentional Rand reference?

[imsmith]

I wonder if the use of "looters" is intended to point towards the Ayn Rand novel Atlas Shrugged.

Casting the Free software movement in the mold of objectivist capitalism might be an interesting thought experiment.

If proprietary software vendors are the "looters" the intellectual efforts of those who can for the sake of those who cannot, it turns a lot of the corporate FUD on its head.

Re:intentional Rand reference?

[imsmith]

She may not have, but within her philosophy is the principle that when there is no expectation of assistance by those who cannot placed upon those who can AND there is no force to compel those can to act for the sake of those that cannot, there is a moral and just transaction that can take place between those that can and those that cannot, for the sake of those that can.

In my mind, this is the model of transaction that Free software is strongest in, and that works the best.

Re:intentional Rand reference?

[smallpaul]

If proprietary software vendors are the "looters" the intellectual efforts of those who can for the sake of those who cannot, it turns a lot of the corporate FUD on its head.

If you read the article you'll see that the looters are people who want to destroy open source (in particular SCO), not proprietary software vendors who want to take advantage of it. By definition they do not "hurt" it.

Re:looters ?

[dubStylee]

Why would somebody using an open source code be called a 'looter'

That is not who is being called a looter in TFA which you apparently didn't R. The looters mentioned in the article are an analogy for SCO. Maddog says that the world needs to step in and prevent SCO from destroying the international public treasure of the OSS the way the U.S. should have stepped in and prevented the destroying of the international public treasure in the Iraqi museums. He gives examples of Munich, the UK, and Brazil as places where local governments at one level or another are supporting OSS. He did not even remotely imply that someone using OSS would be a looter.

Protection

[Mostly a lurker]

I did RTFA and, while Hall indicated that looting of open source is a potential problem, he did not seem to me to be proposing any solutions. IMHO, the most important "protections" are to closely circumscribe software IP:
* ban software patents;
* allow enforcement of software copyright only where irrefutable evidence of infringement exists;
* provide a cheap, fast track method of dealing with frivoulous claims;
* free legal aid for non profit open source providers, but making deliberate misappropriation of IP a criminal offence.

Re:looters ?

[lysium]

I believe he is also referring to something we may see more of in the future -- commercial developers repacking open source software, or just taking the underlying design, and calling it their own. This is going to start happening in the American software industry, and likely in the far corners of the globe as well.

A relevant quote from Lawrence Lessig's blog:
âoeWhat you donâ(TM)t understand, Lessig, is that your bullshit âopenâ(TM) or âfreeâ(TM) types will never â" NEVER â" be able to compete with corporate organization. Squabbles-about-egos-pretending-to-be-about-the-me rits can never be quashed. There is no one to say âenough, letâ(TM)s move on.â(TM) So every great idea that your type creates, weâ(TM)ll just wait, watch, and then take. Always.â paraphrased from a conversation with someone from within one of the (how many are there?) largest proprietary code companies.

------------

Re:looters ?

[Anonymous Coward]

All you slashdotter's feel that dull ache in the middle of your forehead? That's called experiencing cognitive dissonance. Trying to believe at the same time that making a copy of a music CD IS NOT theft, while making a copy of a freely given program, modifying it, and not releasing the source code of those modifications IS theft; enough to make your head explode.

Illusions - get real!

[Anonymous Coward]

> non-US open-source, as well as protecting open-source from 'looters'

What an illusionist. Open Source == freedom for looters!. It doesn't matter what own visions Maddog has what matters is the license you put your stuff under. If you release your software under the freeticket of GNU/GPL (which many people blindly do) then you can't do anything against it from not being looted by other people. And what can you do about it? To say the truth, you can do a shit about that. As soon as you release your intellectual work as open source, as soon someone else is able to take your work, derivate it, code around it, release it as source again. And how can you be sure your code, routines, ideas are not being used in close source as well? Can you find out?, can you prove it?, can you do something against it? nothing.

I think that Maddog (with respect to him) only want's to create a similar heroic position for himself such as RMS did years back. Like 'Hey listen, I have said something'.

Should the US pass a law protecting Open Source

[memmel2]

The open source movement is finally allowing the computer industry to build a shared pool of intelectual property which can be used to build new and innovate solutions. This has happened in the past in other industries for example the Chemical industry were the trade secrets of yesterday are the textbook examples of today. I think a law that allowed software to be declared "public domain" and forever protected from lawsuits/patents etc etc would be a good thing sort of like a reverse patent. It would allow the computer industry to finally join the rest of the world industries based on a shared core set of technologies.

Re:One unbeatable advantage of Open Source

[asscroft]

I read this and I think, well shit, if it's standard and everyone knows how to do it, why am I worth $$$ instead of $$ or even $. But then I think about other trades such as plumbing, construction, even medicine. It's standard, it's known and they still are worth the money you pay them. So with knowledge and ability I should be able to still get paid. Maybe.

US Government and foreign OSS

[Anonymous Coward]

There is at least one secretive, DoD centric, left-nameless US government agency that strongly dislikes open source because they don't trust it. Then, if it was developed by someone in a foreign country, that's even worse. Getting the package accredited could take months. (Sorry Guido)

And this organization knows who they are. Just say the words "Please approve Samba" and they all clam up and start fighting amongst themselves. Forget getting that package approved.

Say the words "Please approve Windows Office [current year]" the same week it comes out and you'll get an answer back the same day saying approved. Say "Please approve [name of US vendor] [name of commercial product]" and you'll probably get an approval the same week.

Never mind the gaping holes every one knows exist in Internet Exploder and Outlook. They are approved without concern. Ask for anything OSS and it will take some video footage of you jumping on your grandmother's grave to convice them you'll lock it down because it's your production system.

They obviously don't read anything Bruce Schneier has to say in his Cryptograms. Lots of companies sell snake oil or never put a patch out when the exploits are alive in the field. It's just that the OSS one's are a little more visible.

Long live paperwork!

Re:looters ?

[boots@work]

It's funny that you should use that example. There is a wonderful old satire by Swift (iirc), in which candlemakers petition the government for laws requiring curtains to be closed all through the day, so that people will not unfairly deprive candlemakers of income.

bingo.

[twitter]

What SCO is doing, however, is attempted theft (although not in the conventional sense). They're trying to take the IP for themselves, so no one else can have it (at least without paying SCO). This is taking from someone. Not just making a copy for themselves without permission. This is theft, not copyright violation.

When you take work someone else did, claim it's "derivative" and then keep them from using it, you are indeed a theif. SCO would essentially be destroying the original copy for the author as well as violating the author's intent for the software to be free.

Re:looters ?

[miu]

I believe he is also referring to something we may see more of in the future -- commercial developers repacking open source software, or just taking the underlying design, and calling it their own.

This probably already happens. I know that I often spot a nice technique in GPL or BSD code and use the idea (not the code) in my own programs. Seems perfectly legitimate. I also pick up ideas from co-workers, magazine articles, books, and so on. As long as you are not outright copying the code why would that be considered a problem?

I think that more and more that OSS is being used as an 'open university' where ideas are tested and played with. As long as no patents are involved the ideas and designs do not belong to anyone.

OSS vs. "commodity software"?

[heironymouscoward]

This is a very strange comparison to make. OSS _is_ commodity software, by its very nature. You cannot get more commodity than perl, Apache, PHP, MySQL, Linux. Open standards are the only basis for true commodity software: TCP/IP, HTTP, etc.

Commercial software is not a commodity, it is the opposite, a corral in which users are captured and bled.

RMS' of course predicted the "Looting of OSS" (or rather was one of the first lootees) and this is why the GPL is so important. The looters become part of the movement.

Re:looters ?

[alekd]

That would be "A Petition From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting." by Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), not Swift. You can read it here