Slashdot Mirror
RedHat Starts "Open Source Now" Fund
celston23 writes "According to this article (near bottom), RedHat is intending to use their Open Source Now Fund to support open-source (GPL) developers who are sued for copyright infringement. Might be used during the SCO legal battle."
This is awfully familiar, don't you think? (again, near the bottom)
They put the SCO spin on it, so it's new.
Wow. So RedHat gets free karma for creating an ostensibly altruistic fund to defend developers who release GPL software, then they turn around and say "Well, we release GPL code. We'll be taking our money back now, KTHXBYE"
Very interesting...
All ye kernel authors, instead of trying to fight SCO, just give them a deadline to license your kernel submissions, provide them a separate "binary only license" on top of the GPL license, and charge them $10 for every license they sell that includes your intellectual property. If they don't pay up, then cancel their license to use your part of the kernel.
meh
Open Source's greatest feature and worst flaw is that it's free and open. Because there's next to no profit in it, software authors have next to no protection from getting sued. So in order to protect things like Linux from SCO, there needs to be some kind of a fund like this. Again, unfortunate but true.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Why not just call it...
Save Open Source (SOS)?
Just realise the reality of the situation..... There is no reality.
Why is this necessary when we have the EFF?
Perhaps they could also use some of this fund, or another one, to start lobbying for less restrictive copyright laws? Even better, lobbying for legal recognition of the GPL would be a better goal. If the GPL is codified into law as an enforcable license, absurd lawsuits would carry far less weight in a court.
Of course, given the current makeup of the Congress, it would be more likely to see the GPL invalidated in national legislation than supported.
who keeps the interest earned from the fund?
Does it matter? Red Hat is sticking their neck out into a multi billion dollar lawsuit in the interest of their primary product (which is also a community of developers primary product) that substantial risk is very worthwhile additionally, they are using their clout and name recognition to attract donors. The use of corporate resources, image etc... is a service that even CHARITABLE organizations compensate.
I may have missed this on the home page, but is OSN a 503C non-profit?
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
I don't think it will be needed in the main case as IBM will pull SCO under with the length of the trial. They have much deeper pockets. However for the little folks that will be good. Also hope they EFF get in on it and all works out nicely
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
But do Red Hat know something that possibly the greater community do not?
If there has been no infringement then logically there would be no need for this fund as, again logically, it could be demonstrated in every court that Linux doesn't contain any SCO material.
I guess that this is not just for the SCO charges, but maybe for other similar charges from other companies who may, sometime in the future, level the same accusations.
Maybe I am well off track here, but surely it would be of better use to the community for SuSE, IBM etc to also put into the pot.... I guess the interest gained alone from such a pot would be huge if it is to protect people from charges similar to SCO which I will guess will end up costing millions.
I really hope this can be finally be put to rest sometime soon, as this kind of 'war chest building' does not inspire confidence. I have said before that whilst these charges, counter charges and now this warchest it is going to make those who are looking at migrating someway towards Linux a little concerned.
The post to which you refer announces the countersuit. This post announces the actual launching of the fund, complete with a website where you can join and make contributions.
Finding God in a Dog
Though it's great that somebody is willing to step up and offer legal protection to Linux, the kind that Microsoft are readily willing for the lack thereof. How will this help?
Take a look at SCO. For the last couple of months they have been spouting nonsense, slander and let's be honest FUD. In fact, in the face of the current IBM countersuit, they have the gall (read: stupidity) to launch another claim.
Now, all this is quite illegal, as IBM's lawyers have pointed out, but has it stopped SCO? No, not until 2005, at least. Until that time, SCO can say and do as it more-or-less pleases, until an injunction anyways. They will nodoubt reep the rewards for there behaviour, but that doesn't stop the damage they're causing in the meantime, until the courts get around to dealing with it.
Reason, let alone a cadre of Open Source Funded lawyers won't stop SCO. That's just the way it is.
You know, back in the day, when I first came to Slashdot, Open Source was all about the free, wild and woolly creation of software, about freedom from The Man, and doing stuff because it was a Nerd Mountain and by goddamn we were going to climb it. I'm never sure if I should be happy or sad that companies such as Red Hat and Oracle are essentially hijacking the popularity of Linux. At the end of the day, is it about being on everybody's desktop or server, or is it about having written good code without a boss? Coding just for the sake of coding, fixing problems without having to beg marketing to let you do it.
What do I say this? Well, I just can't bring myself to believe that Red Hat has the interests of the greater community at heart here. In my view, they are simply trying to protect their revenue stream. Without companies turning to Open Source, they simply don't have any customers.
Maybe that's obvious, but I think amongst all of the support that this fund will have, it's at least good to have it said.
20% is modest and truly "small" compared to welfare administration and every one of the charities that call you on the phone.
I still don't see anywhere to donate money. The open source fund right now seems little more then redhat.
My god.. why the hell is it that no matter what kind of offer people make into the Open Source community, there has to be some nit-picking whiner trying to crap on the parade, or pick holes in it.
Put a sock in it.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Lest we forget that ANYONE who makes ANY money off of ANYTHING must be evil and their motives must be solely to continue to make more money.
Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
You mean there's a project to create bender? Sweet! That's much cooler than that weak-ass blender project!
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Redhat doesn't HAVE to do this, and I'll wager it doesn't put "money in their pocket" as so many Redhat bashers seem to be obessed with mentioning. It's good PR, yes, but it's also good for the community.
Redhat makes IMHO the BEST out-of-the box distro. You want something that just works (tm)? 95% of the time, you're talking about Redhat. Is it perfect? No, not by a long shot, but it amazes me the sheer number of people who attack Redhat just because they are the market leader. Remember kids, if it's popular, it must be crap!
--Stupid Sig Here--
I feel like I've read that somewhere before.
In a related development, SCO has filed separae lawsuits against the government of Turkey and the Vienna Boys Choir for having employed eunuchs in the past.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
...SCO executive stock sales.
The FSF, will say it should be SFS (Save Free Software), but you can use your orginal name as long as you put a GNU/ in front of it.
But I'm digressing. Yes, here in the US, you _do_ need to protect yourself from litigation, even if the litigation is totally unjustified and spurious. And countersuing for abuse of process offers little relief when the entity suing you has no assets of values anyway. SCO has nothing to lose, that's what makes it dangerous!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
This seems different (though related) to the "Open Source Now Fund", which would specifically target legal threats against Linux and related things, like the FSF does for GNU.
I haven't been able to find any info on how to contribute to the fund. I spoke with many Red Hat people at Linux World about it, and they didn't know. I sent an email to opensourcenow@redhat.com, and they never replied. I've also been talking with Red Hat salesmen for the past week or two trying to put together a proposal, and they don't know either.
What's the hold up Red Hat? TAKE MY MONEY DAMMIT.
Wow, a lucrative publishing contract! I don't have to be evil anymore. --Meteor
You can't copyright names. They're covered by trademarks. And it is totally within the bounds of fair use to call something by its name. The canonical example: I don't have to call it "that long race we have in Boston on Patriots' Day every year" just because the Boston Athletic Association owns the trademark "Boston Marathon". Likewise, if SCO is actually referring to Linux, they can call it that.
/. so often that it occurs to me that I've probably just been trolled, hard. Oh well.
This is a good thing.
And this comes up on
With the FUD Microsoft and others spread about open source and the GPL being anti-american and bad for business, perhaps it isn't such a good idea for the site to look like it advocates socialism.
Just my $0.02.
I don't care if they use my donations to counter sue SCO. The Open SOurce Now fund is a charity, and they can help Red Hat if they please.
Is not the point of this whole issue fight against the FUDfest from SCO? And who are the ones that have _legally_ answered. There are the folks from Germany and Australia, but from the big folks (who will ultimately be the ones that can solve this whole issue, as has been said before, this is not a matter of justice but of money) we only have RedHat and IBM (for now) taking our side (their motives are part of another discussion since a lot of people disagrees with the angle IBM choose to atack).
IBM can fight all the way to the end of days in courts and will still have a lot of money in the bank, but Red Hat can't. If you feel uncomfortable with Red Hat using the donations to fight SCO then save your money, I'm puting my money where my mouth is and givin all I can spare to the fund.
BTW, I DO believe this whole issue has the potential to make a lot of damage to Linux, just see the parties involved (SCO, IBM, Microsoft, Sun, etc) and you will realize they have crushed more than one company/movement in the past.
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
GPL is Free Software(R) -- Open source is a conciderably wider target than that. A quick look over the site doesn't show anything GPL-specific, just Linux-specific. BSDers need love too!
Bitter memories.
Recall TransGaming's Winex scam. They planned to offer their work back to Wine when they got a certain amount of supporters.
Well...they have that. Where's the releases?
And for that matter, they're not really following the GPL's spirit if they track down everyone who is giving out a compiled version of their stuff (such as Debian and Gentoo) and telling them not to - and being listened to.
People asking for free money are not always appreciative of it without contracts to ensure that they have to be.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I agree with you. I have tried to send money for a while, but no luck. Maybe the third time Slashdot posts this story RH will have a Donation link ready.
Help fight continental drift.
Is a fund to help open source developers get a lawyer and go after people who are infringing on their copyrights.
It's high time (the SCO case should have made this obvious) that we in the OS community quit acting like laws only work for companies and start going on the offensive against companies that are infringing on our copyrights. The fact that SCO continues to distribute the Linux kernel even though they've rejected the GPL, for example, means that they're violating copyright law. There is talk of Linux code in SCO's operating system.
We need to start defending our IP. Perhaps the fund could specify that when you win, a percentage of the winnings go back into the fund.
Michael
Do you have ESP?
NEWSFLASH
Seriously, I'll bet you that ALL of the money, interest included, will go to the stated purpose of the fund. It's ridiculous to think that Redhat would commit such a trivial fraud so publically. Unlike SOME companies (notice my self restraint: I didn't mention SCO!), Redhat has recurring revenue, profits, and a business plan without Step 2) ????. They've got too much to lose to do something crooked.Dateline: State of Improbability.
This just in from Redhat CEO Matt Szulik:
See what I've been reading.
Open Source was never about freedom, it was and is about pitching the Open Source development methodology primarily to businesses: when businesses share source code they ostensibly get better programs developed with less expense because they can tap a large community of programmers who are willing to work on their project for no fee. Open Source talks about the practical outcome of sharing source code, not the freedoms that make those practical ends possible.
Freedom to share and modify programs was and is the message from the Free Software movement which started over a decade before the Open Source movement began. I recommend this essay for an instructive look at the differences between the two movements. It was the Free Software Foundation that brought us the GNU General Public License which secures the freedoms to share and modify and the community the Open Source movement has leveraged to spread their message. The FSF did these things well before the Open Source movement got started. I'm grateful the Open Source Movement is bringing users to Free Software and encouraging use of the GNU GPL (one of many Free Software licenses), but let's not overstate what the Open Source Initiative did--adding a license to a list of approved licenses cannot compare with writing and defending the license (links to parts one and two of Eben Moglen's essay).
SCO FUD aside, is Oracle interested in what's in the Linux kernel, or were you referring to the GNU/Linux operating system? I don't understand what you mean by "hijacking" here either--Red Hat has contributed a great deal to Linux and (as far as I know) all in accordance with the GPL. Everyone is free to study, share, and modify their contributions as well as the rest of the kernel.
Digital Citizen