The FSF, Linux's Hit Men

Of course! by Short+Circuit · 2003-10-14 01:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't they expect us to defend our own IP?

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)

Re:Of course! by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2003-10-14 01:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Definately not! That is a right reserved for multinationals! God forbid that a bunch of unwashed hackers and their legal thugs could threaten the Good and Honest Coporations working to make the world a better place!

</sarcasm>
Re:Of course! by missing000 · 2003-10-14 01:35 · Score: 2, Funny

Of course they do. It's for the greater good right?

I love being called a commie before breakfast!
Re:Of course! by BrokenHalo · 2003-10-14 01:44 · Score: 1

The original post claims the FSF aren't painted in a very good light, and I guess he's right. It seems to me that this report does not fall into the category of unbiased reporting.
But who expects that under the Forbes masthead?
Re:Of course! by Zephaniah · 2003-10-14 01:54 · Score: 0

hahah, spot on!
Re:Of course! by GammaTau · 2003-10-14 02:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

Don't they expect us to defend our own IP?

No, they just hate copyleft. If one goes along with the assumption that "intellectual property" is just like private property in general, copyleft might indeed seem like a communist plot to promote a concept of The United Soviet States of America (or something like that).

It's one reason why "intellectual property" isn't such a good word. Where I live, there is a rather widely understood word for copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets and other similar things. It's immaterial rights and it would be great if it caught on to wider use. Speaking of immaterial rights is rather neutral and doesn't carry any positive or negative payload that I could see.
Re:Of course! by NightSpots · 2003-10-14 02:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem is that the engineers are deciding that Linux is a great way to save time and money in embedded environments without realizing that the viral nature of the GPL is going to screw their company.

As the story mentions, the BSD licensed products provide an easy alternative without the licensing issues. It just takes an awareness of the options to realize that using Linux in the first place is a silly idea for commercial products.

--

--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
Re:Of course! by smittyoneeach · 2003-10-14 02:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah, but.
Speaking of immaterial rights is rather neutral and doesn't carry any positive or negative payload that I could see.
It would quickly acquire such a payload. Meanings in language only remain constant for 'dead' languages like Latin, and you can contrive arguments that Latin's mutable, as well.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Re:Of course! by nullard · 2003-10-14 02:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

I sent this to Forbes:

Lets say that Microsoft had developed some router code that Linksys had
licensed for a fee. If Linksys distributed their routers using Microsoft's
software but stopped paying the license fees, Microsoft would sue Linksys
and Forbes would run an article about Linksys stealing Microsoft's
intellectual property.

In the case of the GPL, the "license fee" is sharing your code. When you
copy GPL code into yours, the copyright holders don't ask for monetary
compensation, they ask for any changes you make and distribute to be made
public. That's the cost of using GPL intellectual property. The "free"
software is not public domain. It is copyrighted software. If a company
chooses to use this software in their products and refuses to abide by the
license, they have committed a copyright violation. The offending company
should face the same penalty for that, no matter who the copyright owner
is.

I hope someone reads it.

--

t'nera semordnilap
Re:Of course! by secolactico · 2003-10-14 02:58 · Score: 1

Well written, simple explanation and non-inflamatory. This is the kind of letter to the editor that can (and should) be taken seriously by major publications. Kudos to nullard, for this is the kind of writing that can give the OS movement a good image.

--
No sig
Re:Of course! by meta-monkey · 2003-10-14 03:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

Exactly, the whole "Linux is a shadow/communist conspiracy" thing annoyed the heck out of me. I wrote the editor this letter:

FSF ombudsmen, not "hit men"

Dear Editor,

In response to Daniel Lyons' piece, "Linux's Hit Men" dated October 14, 2003, I respectfully disagree with the author's conclusions.

Lyons seems to take offense that Cisco should be required to release the source code for the router software used in their Linksys wireless router, which was derived from GPL-covered code. When the Linksys engineers sat down to design their product, they had three options for the software. They could either a) license router software from another vendor, like Microsoft, which developed the Windows CE embedded operating system, b) write their own software from scratch, or, c) take advantage of code developed by the open-source community. Since option a) would require them to purchase a license for each router they sold, and thereby eat into their profits, and option b) would surely cost millions of dollars and months if not years of development time, they chose option c), with full knowledge of the requirements of the GPL, which are completely up-front, and in no way "onerous," as Mr. Lyons describes them. Where licensing Windows CE from Microsoft requires you to pay Microsoft money, licensing GPL software requires you to contribute back to the pool of open source software from which you benefited.

Lyons mentions that: "the $129 device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units in the first quarter of this year alone," and then goes on to say that the "the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house..." The problem with that conclusion is that Cisco didn't build the house. Their $129 device, of which they have sold 400,000 units of, would have cost much more, and taken much longer to develop and get to market if they hadn't leveraged the free software provided by thousands of volunteers over the past ten years. Is it too much to ask that they make a small contribution of software back to the community, which provided them with software that allowed them to make millions of dollars?

Finally, I question the author's motives and biases. I wonder how Mr. Lyons would have reported this story if Cisco were distributing Windows CE on their devices, without paying royalties to Microsoft, or failing to abide by the far more restrictive policies in their license? The author states that "For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation...has been making threats..." when, in fact, it has been widely reported in the technical media that the FSF has made requests for the source code from Cisco. The language of the article makes Linux sound like some of shadow-communist conspiracy. "Linux's Hit Men?" "The dark side of the free software movement?" "Comrade?"

Some objectivity and a modicum of research, please, Mr. Lyons.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Of course! by Compact+Dick · 2003-10-14 03:31 · Score: 1

The problem is that the engineers are deciding that Linux is a great way to save time and money in embedded environments without realizing that the viral nature of the GPL is going to screw their company.
The GPL is only "viral" if the abovementioned engineers are obtuse enough to use GPL'd code without studying the license first. Even then the fault resides with them, not the GPL.

Indeed, the GPL uses comprehensible language and lays out simple, straightforward terms that do not require a lawyer to make sense of. The least one can do is honour its terms before railing on about its "viral" nature.

--
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Re:Of course! by funaho · 2003-10-14 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

It should also be noted here that all that's being asked for is the source to any modifications they've made to the OSS software on the router, such as the kernel drivers for the Broadcom chipset. And there really isn't anything special about the Linksys routers from a hardware standpoint anyway. If I'm not mistaken it's almost a reference design slapped into a plastic case with some OSS software running on it.

What makes the Linksys units nice (IMHO) is the web interface. That's implemented as CGI scripts on the unit and such scripts, provided they are 100% custom, would not be a derived work and thus do not need to be open sourced. So nobody is going to take the code and use it to "clone" the unit as was suggested in the article. Hell if anyone did want to clone it it wouldn't be that difficult to do even without the code. Like I said the hardware isn't all that special.

I think perhaps one of the real reasons for Cisco/Linksys not putting out the code is that if you can upload your own firmware to the box you can essentially get all the features of the higher end router models in one of the cheaper WAP-only models. Nothing is stopping the cheaper models from routing other than the web interface scripts not allowing you to add routes.
Re:Of course! by GileadGreene · 2003-10-14 03:36 · Score: 1

It just takes an awareness of the options to realize that using Linux in the first place is a silly idea for commercial products.
Yeah, I bet Red Hat, Tivo, and Sharp (the Zaurus) are kicking themselves right now...
Re:Of course! by squiggleslash · 2003-10-14 03:38 · Score: 1

That's exactly the kind of intelligent, well written, properly thought out and argued, response people should be sending. Let's hope they're all like this and not of the "You suck, you're just a stooge of M$" variety.
Thanks.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Of course! by Teflonatron · 2003-10-14 03:41 · Score: 1

I wrote the following. From now on, I'll be giving my $0.02 directly to the authors. If everybody did that, they'd have one hell of a meaningful slashdot on their hands... :D

There are two sides to every coin, and almost always more sides to any issue at hand. Why is it then that this article points out only how this ongoing legal debate is hurting the business of Cisco/Linksys/Broadcom. You mention it cost Progress $10million in lost development and marketing work, but there is nothing regarding what kind of intelligence was exercised by Progress investing so much money into a questionable business practice?
When it comes to today's software industry, whether you are working with open or closed source, you still have to exercise great caution (especially with all the IP issues currently at hand.) To not do proper research into a new prospective business area would be folly at best. Why then, is it the opinion of the author, that when a company uses free (as in beer) code with an easy to understand license (which includes the obvious clause, 'if you use this code in a distributed product, you must also distribute its source code'), that those people who put many many hours worth of volunteer work into the product in the first place, are somehow the ones at fault. No fault lies with the company for their blatant missuses of somebody else's work?

Let setup a quick example. Cisco (instead of using Linux) used WinCE in their routers. They purchase a license from Microsoft (costing them a lot more in licensing fees than using the 'free as in beer' GNU/Linux OS). Cisco then implements WinCE in a way that violates their licensing agreement with Microsoft (lets say they publish some unflattering benchmarks!). Microsoft would then be well within their rights to terminate said licensing agreement, and also probably be entitled to collect money for the damage caused. The same thing applies to Linux and the GPL, just in a slightly different way.

The real problem with Linux here, is that it doesn't operate by standard business rules. People don't use/program Linux to make money, but for the freedom it offers. They want to be free, to have choice, to fix problems they can understand. They don't want to wait around for months for some company to decide *IF* they are going to fix them problem. In short, people want control, and the GPL gives them that.

Now we have a lot of companies out there which don't understand this. They believe the blood, sweat, and tears shed by those volunteers who contributed to Linux, and made it what it is today, was done solely for their benefit? They don't feel obligated to honor a license to which they agreed, because the owner of that license is not a company? And when those volunteers setup an organization, contribute funds to it for their common defense against companies which undertake these hijacking maneuvers, they are the ones acting irrationally?

Please, let's not forget that Linux is owned by everybody who's ever contributed to it, and that by Cisco/Progress/etc using GPL'd code, they are responsible for using it they way they, and the thousands of Linux authors, agreed it should be used. This is business 101, and I hope that even Forbes would be able to recognize this.

BTW, if you'd like to discuss these comments, feel free to email me at the above provided email address. I'm truly curious as to how you view this issue, and would like to discuss it in a civil manner if you're willing. Like I said at the beginning of this, there are many sides to each issue, and I'd like to better understand where you are coming from.

Thanks,
Sean
Re:Of course! by Linuxathome · 2003-10-14 03:43 · Score: 1

Yeah, I bet Red Hat, Tivo, and Sharp (the Zaurus) are kicking themselves right now...

LOL! I agree with your sentimental sarcasm. Please add MontaVista to the list as well. I would like the parent poster to explain and elaborate himself/herself of why Linux is "a silly idea for commercial products."

--
Linux at home
Re:Of course! by Rinikusu · 2003-10-14 03:55 · Score: 1

Just curious, but why does everyone assume that you *must* choose linux if you want an Open Source solution for your products?

What's wrong with *BSD (hell, NetBSD runs on *everything*, right?)?

My question then becomes, if Linksys had instead chosen a BSD instead of Linux, would they face the same issues?

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Re:Of course! by ninewands · 2003-10-14 03:59 · Score: 1

The problem is that the engineers are deciding that Linux is a great way to save time and money in embedded environments without realizing that the viral nature of the GPL is going to screw their company.

As the story mentions, the BSD licensed products provide an easy alternative without the licensing issues. It just takes an awareness of the options to realize that using Linux in the first place is a silly idea for commercial products.

I disagree wholeheartedly. First of all, anyone developing code for an embedded device like the router in question must be held to the standard of knowledge known as "an expert in the field." Agreed?

Now, if the Linksys engineers are expert enough to decide " ... that Linux is a great way to save time and money in embedded environments ... " don't you think it reasonable to also charge them with " ...realizing that the viral nature of the GPL is going to screw their company."? After all ... Microsoft has been spewing that exact FUD all over the tech press for the last four years or so.

Does anyone disagree that there have been *numerous* articles posted on /., LinuxDevices.com and many other technical fora on the subject of how to develop proprietary code for Linux without running afoul of the GPL? As both the article and the parent point out, there ARE BSD-licensed alternatives. Why did they not use one of them? Could it be that Linux has a superior networking stack? Could it be (arguably) that Linux's netfilter is superior to BSD's pf for this particular application? Could it be that the Linksys engineers (or more likely, their PHBs) just got lazy, careless, greedy ... or some combination of the three? Who knows?

The result is the same. Linksys at least arguably knew about the hazards of the GPL. Arguably they knew how to work around those hazards (after all, NVidia figured it out). If they ever read the FSF website or any one of the many README, COPYING and/or LICENSE files included in the kernel source tree, they KNEW the terms of the license, and if they ever read the FSF website, then they knew the FSF is vigorous about enforcing the GPL. When one walks into a minefield with one's eyes screwed tightly shut, they should not be heard later to complain about the loss of their legs. It is an established, proven fact that Linksys has done exactly what SCO has alleged IBM did, but on a grander scale. Instead of (allegedly) infringing the copyright on small bits and pieces of the kernel tree, Linksys has just appropriated the whole thing!

I say let them (and their media toady, Forbes magazine) twist slowly in the hot Santa Anna wind).

Just my US$0.02.

--
utter rubbish
Re:Of course! by jir0 · 2003-10-14 04:01 · Score: 1

I also wrote to Forbes. I hope our views are at least read.

---

This is in response to the article "Linux Hit Men" (http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksy s.html) published by Forbes.

I must say, I find your descriptions and reports of the Free Software Foundation quite unfair. From what I've read in your article, you do not seem to be fully aware of what the FSF has accomplished and stands for. Granted that the organization's views and measures are somewhat blunt and tend to be taken as extremist behaviour or zealotry, that does not make them any less valid. I think you are missing the point of their efforts.

The Free Software Foundation has been a chief driving force in supporting Free (or Open Source) Software. It is their main stand that software should have no owners for it to be fully made use of and developed. Free in this sense means Freedom, and not zero cost. As a means for the vision of Software Freedom to be realized, they have shunned proprietary software and have taken the effort to develop free alternatives from scratch. As closed software vendors make use of software patents and copyright laws to legally restrict the exploitation of their precious code, the FSF employs the powers of the General Public License (GPL) and its derivatives to make sure that the technology and knowledge they have created and have freely made available to the people _stays_ that way, and to prevent any group or individuals from exploiting these technologies and restricting developments from the public.

It is the vision of the FSF that society be freed from the restrictions of closed software and software patents, but as laws today still support these practices, the FSF has to be vigilant in enforcing the GPL to make sure that the rights and freedom of the Free Software community are upheld, especially in the case of the Linux kernel.

In the cases you have mentioned in your article, it seems that the only ways the mentioned companies could have ended up facing the FSF's legal teeth is in their ignorance (and lack of foresight) regarding the GPL's legal requirements, which is inexcusable for those in their position, or otherwise, in their plain disrespect thereof. In any case, it is the FSF's responsibility to uphold the rights of those involved in the development of Free Software.

Your reports, including the suggestion that we in the community purposely let code licensed with the GPL "infect" commercial software, enabling us to pursue legal means of exploitation later, are extremely unfair and show your ignorance of the situation, as well as your insensitivity and disrespect for our rights. Seeing how people of your stature and visibility could be so irresponsible, and that your published statements may foster false malicious ideas of Free Software and the community among your readers, I am greatly sadded at this and hereby protest your unjust publication.

--
--- Live and Learn Crash and Burn
Re:Of course! by bmedwar · 2003-10-14 04:03 · Score: 1

The GNU license is barking up the wrong tree. In trying to "free" software it puts shackles on anyone who later uses the software. It's not the software that we are trying to free, it is the humans! The "BSD-style" licenses (minus the advertising clause) are much more reasonable and much more free. There is certainly no sin in making money of software, nor protecting trade secrets. The only problem arises when you sell someone software and then use government force to keep them from doing whatever they want to with it (including copying it, reselling it, cracking copy protection, etc.). This is where our basic freedom's are compromised. The GNU license also compromises these freedoms.

--
--Brian
Re:Of course! by pesc · 2003-10-14 04:04 · Score: 1

The problem is that the engineers are deciding that Linux is a great way to save time and money in embedded environments without realizing that the viral nature of the GPL is going to screw their company.

As the story mentions, the BSD licensed products provide an easy alternative without the licensing issues. It just takes an awareness of the options to realize that using Linux in the first place is a silly idea for commercial products.

Exactly why would releasing the source code screw Cisco? Seriously? They sold 400,000 units and made millions of dollars from it!

I'm not saying that BSD is a bad alternative, but why should Cisco be so damned afraid of releasing the source? I think this is just a cultural thing with PHBs. I sincerely doubt that there is something revolutionary or unique there. Anyone could probably take any Red Hat distribution and build a similar router using off-the-shelf hardware.

What Cisco did, is that they packaged the whole thing into a dedicated low-cost box that is more easy to deploy than using old PC components. That reduced cost and the result is that they could sell 400,000 units and do a nice profit. It's not like you can't make money from using GPLed technology. So why should they be afraid of the opportunity?

--

)9TSS
Re:Of course! by bmedwar · 2003-10-14 04:09 · Score: 1

Touche! The GPL has everything to do with having power over other individuals and nothing to do with personal freedom. The BSD-style licenses (minus the advertising clause) are a much better option.

--
--Brian
Re:Of course! by MoonBuggy · 2003-10-14 04:16 · Score: 1

Very well said, your message definately gets our side across without offending anyone.

What I do find interesting here is even Slashdot (which I like as a site, but is clearly biased towards OSS and the like) would not bat an eyelid if Linksys were sued by MS in the situation you described. They chose the software, they knew the license and they could have made another choice if neccessary.
Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:19 · Score: 0

I'd go with the oxyclean.
Re:Of course! by LWATCDR · 2003-10-14 04:22 · Score: 1

If they really did not want to release the source then BSD is a good option. Even if they really wanted to use Linux couldn't the have just uses loadable mods like Nvidia does for it's graphics cards? They just messed this up six ways from Sunday. What I do not get is how this is any different than if Cisco took a copy of WinCE and included it free with every router? MicroSoft would have sued the daylights out of them.
It is not all that hard to make a product that uses Open Source without having to open your source. Just play by the rules. Look at TiVO.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Of course! by jir0 · 2003-10-14 04:33 · Score: 1

I see your point, but why do you complain? There are a lot of licenses to choose from. In choosing the GPL, the author maintains that he would like to see his work stay free in every way. It is his right to do that, and as so, he must be respected. You say that there is no sin in making money out of software. Yes, that is true. Red Hat does that in the GPL way, and they're doing technology a lot of good. But what constitutes "trade secrets" is debatable. It is not right for software to be held solely as the property of an individual or group because software is an highly abstract product of human intellect. Restricting its use simply cripples it. And that restriction is highly impractical anyway. Why hide something that's obviously so easy to copy? (extremely put)(just being sarcastic; not my ultimate stand) I hold this as my opinion. There is nothing wrong with the FSF's "use of legal force" to uphold the GPL. If they didn't do that, then what's the point of the GPL? The GPL is meant to pave the way for a world of software freedom, but it must be enforced, because at present, the conditions for that freedom simply do not exist, given current copyright and patent laws. With closed proprietary formats, who can be sure that the Windows source doesn't contain code stolen from Free Software? I wouldn't put it past Microsoft. From where I stand, I think you're thinking of freedom as being your own convenience to do whatever you want, which sadly can not be universal freedom. Taken extremely, this is the same reason why software piracy exists.

--
--- Live and Learn Crash and Burn
Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:38 · Score: 0

I guess you missed the important part of the article.

Intellectual property theft happens all the time, almost always inadvertently. The problem is that with regular old copyright or patent disputes, you get a letter demanding a payment in dollars or a percentage, your lawyer responds with a counter-offer, you cut them a check, and poof! Problem's solved.

With the GPL and the FSF, they don't want money. They demand your intellectual property. This is spelled out right in the GPL, but that doesn't change the fact that the consequences of a GPL violation--malicious or otherwise--are MUCH higher than the consequences of a regular IP infringement.

The net result? Companies are staying away from the GPL in droves, and for good reason. The risks are just too damn high.
Re:Of course! by fenix+down · 2003-10-14 04:43 · Score: 1

In Forbes America, the FSF paints you!
Re:Of course! by Sj0 · 2003-10-14 04:43 · Score: 1

So use BSD. Unless you think that because you can get Linux with the GPL, you should legally be able to distribue the Windows source code the same way, I fail to see where your arguement holds any relevance.

--
It's been a long time.
Re:Of course! by arkanes · 2003-10-14 04:46 · Score: 1

It already does - "immaterial" is already used to mean "without susbtance", or "baseless", and therefore meaningless.
Re:Of course! by Compact+Dick · 2003-10-14 04:46 · Score: 1

With the GPL and the FSF, they don't want money. They demand your intellectual property.
They do not demand you surrender your intellectual property to them, but to stop distributing the modified binaries. This is an important distinction.

Could post more on this right now, but it's 0246 hrs here and the screen's flickering into weird shapes. See you in the morning!

--
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Re:Of course! by orasio · 2003-10-14 04:49 · Score: 1

My question then becomes, if Linksys had instead chosen a BSD instead of Linux, would they face the same issues?

C'mon, everybody knows that BSD is dying!
Re:Of course! by Dalcius · 2003-10-14 04:51 · Score: 1

"It just takes an awareness of the options to realize that using Linux in the first place is a silly idea for commercial products."

Exactly. Because we all know that IBM's fire-breathing army of IP lawyers and middle management just use things without considering all of their options.

Right on the money. Motorola, who recently decided to split their chip fabs component into an entirely new company and concentrate on wireless and mobile, didn't do much thinking at all when they chose Linux for their future mobile products.

It's just so damn obvious.

--
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Re:Of course! by Performer+Guy · 2003-10-14 04:51 · Score: 1

Yes except that AFAIK this is more like taking linux and adding a little bit of their own code, same thing just put's a slightly different perspective on things.
Re:Of course! by DaveAtFraud · 2003-10-14 04:54 · Score: 1
I love being called a commie before breakfast!

As a good Libertarian, I take great umbrance at being called a commie even if I did read the article after breakfast.
There are as many different reasons for contributing to free/open software as there are people who contribute. I contribute because its in my own selfish best interest:
- Microsoft needs the competition. If you think their software and terms of use are bad now, imagine what they would be like if Linux wasn't out there as an alternative.
- In spite of the above, I need better, more secure software than what come out of Redmond. How nice that its free.
- I need something to keep my programming skills sharp. I've been running development kernels on one of my boxes since about 2.5.25. I'm running 2.6.0-test7 now.
- With Linux, I can delve into any part of the OS as training for either my next task at my current job or my next job without paying an arm and a leg for some software that I may never otherwise use.
I could go on. The clown from Forbes who wrote this trash needs to take a look at the real technical community in the 21st century before making it sound like the open source community is strictly a bunch of commies.
--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:55 · Score: 0

The net result? Companies are staying away from the GPL in droves, and for good reason. The risks are just too damn high.

Spoken like a true expert... in janitorial services. Had you been an expert in anything remotely resembling the computer industry, you would have been aware that Linux (a good example of GPL'd software) is currently taking over the embedded systems market. But hey, I'm sure you were in a rush to get to those extra-grungy toilets on the third floor so you had no time to do a simple google search.
Re:Of course! by fenix+down · 2003-10-14 04:57 · Score: 1

So either we enforce fair and social behavior, or allow full freedom and accept that people will abuse it. Hark, we've discovered the difference between anarchy and communism. Congratulations.
Re:Of course! by Juju · 2003-10-14 04:59 · Score: 1

Well nothing prevents them from adding some close software that will run on their modified Linux kernel. If they don't want to give away their precious intellectual property, all they have to do is put it in user space, not in the kernel... the way the article is writen makes you feel that you can't write any proprietary code with Linux. that's plain wrong

--
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
Re:Of course! by fredrik70 · 2003-10-14 05:02 · Score: 1

nope they wouldn't at all, since the BSD licence allows you to release derivates without the source. weird that they didn't pick any of the BSD's really...

--
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Re:Of course! by gaijin99 · 2003-10-14 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

And naturally, though the word "viral" didn't actually appear in the article, they did bring up the dread "oooh, the GPL is viral" line of crap.
What I've never understood is how people can object to the "viral" GPL, yet have no objection to propriatary licenses, which are equally viral. Linksys needed an OS for their router. They could have paid SCO huge bux for the rights to the Unix source. Presumably MS has its source available for embedded apps, also at high prices. Had they chosen to use SCO's Unix they not only could have kept their changes secret, the license would have required that they do so. So the secrecy license scheme is also "viral".
Modifying GPLed code is an exchange, just as much as using non-GPLed code is. With non-GPL stuff, you exchange money for code. With the GPL you exchange access to your changes for code. What is with this pathetic whining: "But we wanted to keep our changes secret." If you want to keep your changes secret either build your own damn OS, or license one of the propriatary ones by paying lots of money. The FSF is about exchanging access to code for access to code, not about giving away code
More to the point, of course the FSF sues people who violate their license, just as MS and SCO sue those who violate their license. Likewise, the FSF thinks that its system is superior and would like to see it supplant the propriatary system. Why is this bad? MS and SCO certainly would like to see their system prevail. Apparently, Forbes can't stand to see actual competition...

--
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Re:Of course! by arkanes · 2003-10-14 05:10 · Score: 1

You've got a pretty low user number, so I have no idea why you aren't aware of the holy BSD vs GPL wars, but the short answer is no. The BSD license does not require distribution of source code. In fact, it doesn't require (anymore) anything except the preservation of the copyright statements.
Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:11 · Score: 0

Wow, big speak for such a little man.

In fact, the GPL has everything to do with personal freedom. You are granted the use of the code so long as you also grant those same rights to your own code. Claiming it is about "having power over others" is disinginuous at best. Noone compels you to use GPL'd software in your products, and FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD/Darwin/OSX/etc exists for those people who prefer forkware.
Re:Of course! by arkanes · 2003-10-14 05:27 · Score: 1

Linux is a silly idea for commercial projects where your buisness plan relies on trade secrets being implemented in the Linux kernel, though :P
Re:Of course! by void* · 2003-10-14 05:27 · Score: 1

So Cisco should be able to take code and violate that code's license agreement?

How nice that you should allow this for Cisco and not for 'regular people'.

Let me paraphrase you, so you can see what you're actually saying:

It's much more important for Cisco to get their hands on some dope-smoking free-love hippies work than it is for Cisco to actually honor the agreement under which they used that work.

--

Code or be coded.
Re:Of course! by drmike0099 · 2003-10-14 05:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

I submitted a very similar reply:

The author of this article misses a key point, and is hostile towards the open-source software because of it. The point that he misses is that the company who use this software agree to the GPL license through its use. The GPL is included with every bit of code that is covered by it, typically at the top in big bold letters. People, typically working for free in their own time, have written this code to provide something useful to others, also working for free, to build their code. That is how open source works. These people don't ask for money for their products, but they do, through the GPL, request that if you do happen to like what they have written that you pass it along to everyone you redistribute it to.

This is all spelled out in the GPL. Found with every bit of code. Agreed to by every one of these companies who use that code.

So when Linksys, and then Cisco, distribute the code, which was licensed under GPL, without redistributing it, they are breaking that agreement that they made. This sort of licensing agreement is exactly the same conceptually as licensing agreements that don't allow you to give copies of Windows XP to your buddy. In that case, you paid money and agreed through the license to not redistribute. In the GPL case, you paid nothing, and agreed to redistribute it.

Now many people think this is a fair deal. Some people, and apparently the author of this article, do not. That's okay. You simply do not have to use the GPL'ed code. Just like, if you really wanted a bit of software you could hand over to your friends legally, you don't choose Windows XP.

In particular, though, my "favorite" line was this: "But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners." This doesn't even make sense. If by cloners you mean to say "someone who would copy your code and use it themselves" then yes, that's what the GPL is all about. That philosophy is why these companies had the software to put in their routers to begin with. If anything, they were the original "cloners." Burning down your house is also ridiculous, like I stated above, they agreed to the license when they chose to use that software. If you build your "house" on software that you intend to use without honoring the licensing agreement, then you've broken the agreement, and deserve to have it "burnt down." If I built a business reselling copies of Windows XP and Microsoft came a-knocking, I don't think I'd have a legitimate complaint against Microsoft.

Please, do some research and learn something about licensing laws before publishing something like this, especially in a financial magazine. This sort of ignorance happens all the time on technology boards, but here?
Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:55 · Score: 0

They do not demand you surrender your intellectual property to them, but to stop distributing the modified binaries. This is an important distinction.

Nonsense. You have two alternatives: surrender your valuable IP, or scrap the product. Those alternatives suck in precisely equal ways.
Re:Of course! by mr_sas · 2003-10-14 06:05 · Score: 1

heh, the device won't be $129 once people realise they have to pay SCO another $699
Re:Of course! by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-10-14 06:10 · Score: 1

I love being called a commie before breakfast
In Soviet Russia, Forbes reports on YOU!

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:35 · Score: 0

In case you missed it, I don't care about your personal freedom. I do care about the freedom of the code.
Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:57 · Score: 0

Likewise, the FSF thinks that its system is superior and would like to see it supplant the propriatary system. Why is this bad?

- It turns the software industry from a semi-product based industry to an (optional) service based industry.
- Since no one has to pay software or service, less money enters the market. Less money in the market means fewer jobs.
- There is much more uncertainty in the model for people who actually make their living writing code. Today you may be doing service on some software that you wrote. It is trivial for someone to wait for your time investment to complete the software, then offer service at prices that you cannot compete to recompensate for your time/monitary investment in writing the code. Better yet, some of the people who helped develop your code can easily fracture from your group and form their own - especially the core programmers who originally wrote the code.
- In many ways, OSS can easily decrease the number of coders and programmers. Sure, you have access to the source code but since people can't make a living writing code, fewer people become coders. Competition is a good thing, but competition is usually driven by the ability to make money. If you can't make money, there will be fewer competitors.

Funny, I never get any answers to the question I ask "How many people posting on this board have their only income from OSS projects?"
Re:Of course! by FreakinHippie · 2003-10-14 07:12 · Score: 1

So don't license your code under the GPL or other OSS license. Also, find another job. This crap about fewer jobs being bad is nonsense. If the job has already been done, there is no reason to do it over again (except, of course, so that you can make money).
Re:Of course! by The+Vulture · 2003-10-14 07:41 · Score: 1

Releasing the source wouldn't screw Cisco. It would screw Broadcom.

Note: I don't work for Broadcom (I only had a job interview with them), but my previous and current employers both licensed reference designs from Broadcom. As such, what I say is my personal opinion, and not that of my employers, previous or current. I figure that there's no point in posting anonymously, since somebody can figure out who I am based on what I say anyway.

Broadcom uses vxWorks (and they also support pSOS) as the operating system of choice in their cable modems (that I know of, I know of the 3300, 3350, 3345 and 3348). However, they are starting to migrate to Linux for some of their other devices, notably the wireless devices (although I've heard rumors of Linux for their newer cable modems too).

Releasing the source code screws Broadcom over because they don't want people reprogramming their chips, especially their wireless chips, due to the government regulations on power levels, frequencies, etc.

Additionally (and probably more importantly), if the code comes out for this product (Broadcom acknowledging that they violated the GPL), you can be sure that people will hack other Broadcom-based devices checking to see if they use Linux - they're just trying to seal up the can of worms. Companies that licensed the reference designs from them will probalby try to sue, claiming that Broadcom gave them contaminated products. It would be a huge scandal.

-- Joe
Re:Of course! by Brandybuck · 2003-10-14 07:46 · Score: 1

The thing that bugs me the most about the GPL is not the license. As it's written, it's not bad. Heck, compared to the MS EULA, it seems heaven sent! I have some minor quibbles with it here and there, but overall it is more than satisfactory.

My big beef is the marketing of the GPL. It's free! Free as in speech! Free as in freedom! Free as in warm fuzzies that will make the world a nicer place to raise your children! Free Free Free Free Free!

But it's only free to use. It's not free to utilize. The "marketing" glosses over this fact. All of these embedded companies jumping into bed with Linux think that they're just using the software. They're really utilizing it instead, and all those GPL conditions apply. The GPL isn't Free as in "no strings attached". Far from it.

It's always puzzled me why Linux is making strong headway into embedded companies. It's one thing to use Linux to run a webpage, install on the secretary's system, or be a development workstation. But basing your products on Linux code is going to put yoru business at odds with GPL's attached strings.

Surely businesses know this, don't they? They've got lawyers reading the GPL, don't they? Their developers aren't blindly dropping in GPL code, are they? The big problem is that lawyers aren't developers and developers aren't lawyers. What's the distinction between writing a bash script and writing a kernel driver? To the developer, everything. To the lawyer, not much difference at all.

I think these embedded companies are getting in trouble because they don't realize that a 100% original driver created from completely from scratch in a blackbox environment could still be considered a derivative work. The strings attached to the GPL look simple, but they're very convoluted out in the real world. The fact that the law does not precisely define "derivative work" doesn't help matters. It's all too easy to get the FSF breathing down your neck for the most innocent of actions.

I work for an company that makes very large and very expensive embedded systems. I know how easy it is to "infect" the system with the GPL. It's one thing to grab bash and drop it in your system because you need a POSIX shell. But it's a completely different matter to grab a module from Linux and drop it in your system because you need a USB driver. Most lawyers don't know the difference between the two. Most developers don't care because they think the lawyers are making sure everything is hunky dory.

GPL code is not business friendly, despite the marketing. It may be friendly to the consumer, but it's frequently antagonistic to the producer. BSD or MIT licensed code is much better for embedded companies. But before you GPL advocates take exception to that last sentence, stop and think if you want your own GPL code closed up into a proprietary package by and embedded software company. If the answer is no, then stop marketing your code to them! To the businesses out there, if you don't want to open up every byte of code written by your developers, use BSD or MIT licensed code instead.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Of course! by Brandybuck · 2003-10-14 07:56 · Score: 1

...yet have no objection to propriatary [sic] licenses, which are equally viral.

Some proprietary licenses are viral, but the vast majority are not, particularly those that are meant to be utilized by developers. Microsoft's MFC and .NET libraries do not place any viral strings on the code I write that utilizes them. I can write an MFC application and distribute it all day long under any license I like, without paying one cent in royalties to Microsoft. But a GPL library is another matter entirely. If I utilize a GPL library I have no choice as to my application's license. This is the major reason the LGPL was created. Heck, GNU's own GTK+ toolkit still argues that Qt is bad because it's under the GPL and the LGPL.

No code that is meant to be utilized by people outside of its respective project should ever be placed under the GPL. That's just plain rude. If embedded companies grab code from within the Linux kernel to use, then they should expect to "pay", just as if they had disassembled the NT kernel and did the same. But they shouldn't be taken to task for writing a 100% original driver from scratch. Kernel code isn't meant to be utilized, but kernel API's are.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Of course! by EvilAlien · 2003-10-14 08:01 · Score: 1

Of course they don't, they didn't read the GPL. They thought "free software" meant that they didn't have to pay someone to write the code and could just use it. People who don't understand Open Source tend to think in terms of freeware, shareware, etc. They think "free software" is freeware.
The Forbes article is myoptic at best. A logically consistent situation to the acts they defend would be installing a burned copy of Windows XP on an workstation, not reading the EULA, and then getting pissed at Microsoft when they go after you following an audit of licenses for your office.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism, but logical inconsistency is to be dispised. Hopefully some of the professionals who read Forbes will see the article for what it is.

--
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Re:Of course! by gammoth · 2003-10-14 08:12 · Score: 1

Intellectual property theft happens all the time, almost always inadvertently.

Dubious and absolutely irrelevant. This is copyright we're talking about, not patent. Linux is so obviously GPL that if a company doesn't realize this, it shouldn't be in the industry.

Nothing about software copyright says you can't implement your own solution.
Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 09:08 · Score: 0

This is copyright we're talking about, not patent.

Which has what to do with it?

Linux is so obviously GPL that if a company doesn't realize this, it shouldn't be in the industry.

The FSF is trying like hell to make sure that's exactly what happens. The moral of the story is crystal clear: use GPL'd software, get sued out of business.

No thanks.
Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 09:10 · Score: 0

I would respectfully disagree, since we are talking about the individual efforts of Actual People here.

If I make something, I should be able to release it to the world, completely and fully, should I choose to. If I choose GPL for my code, then I expect others to respect my choice.

This is especially relevant if my creation is one of the best implementations on the face of the earth. Just because it's hugely useful doesn't change the license.
Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 09:12 · Score: 0

Oh please, spare me the cries of alas and alack.

Your third, perfectly viable, option is to look at the GPL code you used for RAD and re-implement the functionality. You could even go rip off some BSD code if you're too greedy share with your benefactors.
Re:Of course! by mcc · 2003-10-14 09:33 · Score: 1

If that is the case, that is the fault of the engineers, not of the FSF.

If the engineers went with linux without fully reporting to their overseers what the consequences of extending and selling as a commercial product Linux would be, they are guilty of almost criminal incompetence. They, or the overseers who okayed extending linux rather than looking for other options without being willing to accept the consequences of doing so, are be the ones who should be villified here, not the FSF.

--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 09:43 · Score: 0

Mr Lyons might find it a little easier to be objective if he didn't have to listen to absolute corkers such as:

"We'd like people to stop selling proprietary software. It's bad for the world."

I mean, ffs, Mr Kuhn is sounding like a wet-behind-the-ears freshman chick damply expressing "make love, not war".

No-one in the wider community gives a toss about how proprietory software is "bad for the world" - they are too busy worrying about things that are actually bad for the world, you know, things like famine, war, ecology. For a self-proclaimed Linux spokesman to go on record with such a pathetic line makes the community look like a bunch of obsessive losers.
Re:Of course! by NightSpots · 2003-10-14 10:33 · Score: 1

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm simply saying that the license itself is portrayed as "free", when it's definition of free is somewhat skewed. Clearly, the BSD license is much more free.

--

--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
Re:Of course! by Brandybuck · 2003-10-14 11:14 · Score: 1

No, the postulation is that proprietary licenses are just as viral as the GPL. I've demonstrated that many, if not most, are not.

I did not argue here that the "infectiousness" of the license is good or bad. That's a different topic entirely. You have the right, and I will fully support you in it, to release you code under any legal license you wish.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Of course! by w_crossman · 2003-10-14 11:51 · Score: 1

If they were smart, they wrote the driver as a module. If they did, they are completely free from blame.
Re:Of course! by inode_buddha · 2003-10-14 12:13 · Score: 1

No, it does *not* shackle anyone who uses the software. It only shackles those who *distrtibute* the software.
Yes, we are trying to free the humans and choose to do it this way.IMHO, it can be said that some humans do not want to be free, or that they are a slave to some thing; even to themselves.
I could go on, but I'll do a private essay for a later date. Suffice it to say that IMO its very much a cultural collision.

--
C|N>K
Re:Of course! by thisgooroo · 2003-10-14 12:55 · Score: 1

No code that is meant to be utilized by people outside of its respective project should ever be placed under the GPL. That's just plain rude.

what is plain rude is telling the copyright holder (i.e. owner) of the code how he has to release it. you can always negotiate (and the GPL does not stop the copyright holder from releasing the same code under a different license) if you don't like the terms (though with the many copyright holders of the linux kernel this might be difficult).

the simple solution to your problem: if you don't like the terms and can't negotiate other terms, dont use the code. you can either try to find something else that satisfies your needs and that you can use under terms you like, or write it yourself
Re:Of course! by Antaeus+Feldspar · 2003-10-14 13:23 · Score: 1

This is rather like saying "The lawyers hit upon an ingenuous strategy to win the lawsuit for the company without realizing that forging evidence and lying about it in court is illegal." If they don't realize something like this, 'the problem' is not that they don't realize it, it's that they're stupid enough to not realize it.

As I'm hardly the only one to point out, no one would have the slightest sympathy for Cisco if they had chosen to rip off Microsoft software, 'not realizing' that they had obligations to fulfill if they used the code. No one would pretend that anyone reasonably competent at their job could make that 'mistake' as an actual mistake.

--
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
Re:Of course! by thisgooroo · 2003-10-14 13:51 · Score: 1

this is a very simplistic view. in essence, the GPL is trying to protect the user's freedom to modify the software according to his needs. not that the conditions of the GPL apply only to distributing the code or derivative work. if you don't redistribute, you are free to do whatever you want.
obviously, the BSD license is providing another freedom
Re:Of course! by Brandybuck · 2003-10-14 14:17 · Score: 1

what is plain rude is telling the copyright holder (i.e. owner) of the code how he has to release it.

But isn't that what the GPL is doing? It's telling the copyright holder of a derivative work how to release it. If you check the law, the copyright holder of a derivative work is *not* the original author.

Why is it rude for an application developer to demand a certain class of license from the library developer, but somehow polite for that same latter to demand a specific license from the former? Or are double standards in etiquette okay just because it's the FSF and the GPL?

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Of course! by thisgooroo · 2003-10-14 15:31 · Score: 1

But isn't that what the GPL is doing? It's telling the copyright holder of a derivative work how to release it. If you check the law, the copyright holder of a derivative work is *not* the original author.
wrong. it allows people to use the GPLed code as base of derived work under certain conditions, namely that the derived work is distributed under the same license. whoever plans to develop the derived work is free to accept the condition or not. if not he has to look for another base, or he can try to negotiate different terms with the copyright holder (something the GPL does not forbid).
i am not familiar enough with copyright law to comment on your claim that the author of the derived work is sole owner of the copyright, but it sounds dubious to me
Why is it rude for an application developer to demand a certain class of license from the library developer, but somehow polite for that same latter to demand a specific license from the former? Or are double standards in etiquette okay just because it's the FSF and the GPL?
well, the copyright holder of the original work is the owner. if you want to use other peoples' property you have to play by the terms they are setting. if you don't like the terms you'll have to find another property whose owner sets terms to your liking
nothing against FreeBSD or any other of the BSDs (which, afaik, use an idetical license), but i suspect that companies like IBM had damned good business reasons to pick a GPLed product to contribute to. i'm sure they didn't like the idea that somebody would take their code and run away with it. with the GPL they have an opportunity to benefit from whatever improvements are made to their contributions, just like theauthor of the derivative benefitted from their efforts. so much for the claim that the GPL is unfriendly to business. it seems to depend very much on which business'es case you are looking at
Re:Of course! by Brandybuck · 2003-10-14 17:19 · Score: 1

i am not familiar enough with copyright law to comment on your claim that the author of the derived work is sole owner of the copyright, but it sounds dubious to me

Title 17, Ch 1, Sec. 103 (b): "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material"

In other words, if I write one single line of code for your GPLd work, I own that single line. I don't own the combination of your work and my work, but I do own my line. For a more realistic example, and one that happens all the time, consider a GPL library that I use to create an application. If this application is not statically linked, then I own 100% of it. The library author has zero property claims over it.

but i suspect that companies like IBM had damned good business reasons to pick a GPLed product to contribute to.

And I suspect companies like Apple had damned good business reasons to pick a BSD licensed product to contribute to. (just had to throw that in)

In a competitive business environment where your product is pure software, the a copyleft license like the GPL makes sense. Trolltech, MySQL and some others are doing well through copyleft libraries. But IBM doesn't need to, because IBM doesn't sell the software, it sells the service. Their business model would be identical if they used a BSD instead. In fact, they are active contributors to Apache, which is under a BSD-like license, and they haven't complained once. (interestingly enough, NO ONE ever complains about Apache's license).

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Of course! by God!+Awful+2 · 2003-10-14 19:03 · Score: 1

You mention it cost Progress $10million in lost development and marketing work, but there is nothing regarding what kind of intelligence was exercised by Progress investing so much money into a questionable business practice?

Using OSS is a questionable business practice? Damn... I knew it!

-a

--
/. users can't
Re:Of course! by bmedwar · 2003-10-15 01:11 · Score: 1

> In choosing the GPL, the author maintains that > he would like to see his work stay free in > every way. It is his right to do that, and as > so, he must be respected I disagree. Giving the author that right stomps all over my most basic rights (mainly that my brain is my own). If that author grants me access to his source code, I read it and digest it, then it becomes part of me, and the author certainly has no right to tell me what to do with what my brain has comprehended. Otherwise a piece of me is a slave to the author. As for trade secrets; it's not the type of info, it's the access to it. If somebody keeps their source secret and protected and you hack into there system and copied there source code you would be guilty of trespassing. Notice that the system is physical property.

--
--Brian
Re:Of course! by bmedwar · 2003-10-15 01:13 · Score: 1

In a perfect world both GPL and DMCA would be ridiculed as nonsense. I'm less worried about choosing a license for my own software. I'm more worried about having my most basic rights stomped on by this lunacy!

--
--Brian
Re:Of course! by bmedwar · 2003-10-15 01:20 · Score: 1

I have a feeling that what you consider "abuse" has been molded over your lifetime by a power-thirsty government. Who is to say that a structured, peaceful society cannot exist with the absence of the concepts of "intellectual property" and "fair, social behavior"? This has never been tested, and it is certainly not anarchy. There are plenty of legitimate government functions.

--
--Brian
Re:Of course! by jir0 · 2003-10-15 03:30 · Score: 1

I agree with you to some extent. I for one would like to see complete _mutual_ freedom exercised, especially in CS development. I believe that people should be free to make use of whatever knowledge and resources they gain for their own use. But with the kind of _society_ and _government_ we have today, a system that opens everything to that can only lead to anarachy, which I would rather not have. And so I go with society to avoid conflict and instead develop my skills and exercise my freedoms in ways that would befit the kind of society I am part of. I see the GPL as Right and Good, and so I will support it, as I do freedom.

I really do not see your point. Why do you keep on insisting on getting your every wish when such will so obviously conflict with the interests of other people? This has nothing to do with the GPL anymore. You're complaining because a certain license provision doesn't accomodate your wants? Go look for satisfaction yourself elsewhere then. It makes sense for a lot of people; if it doesn't to you, you can't just keep on bashing. Other people see this as truth. Accept that. It's as simple as that. A world with your idea of freedom implemented would be quite chaotic.

The point stands, the GPL provides a very explicit set of rules for the software it guards. The mentioned groups (Cisco, etc) ignored those rules, of which I'm sure they were very well aware, so the FSF has to enforce those to maintain the rights and freedoms of the authors and the community. That was the original point, before you dragged it away with your complaints.

Now stop your whining and do something productive.

--
--- Live and Learn Crash and Burn
Re:Of course! by bmedwar · 2003-10-15 04:18 · Score: 1

Making my voice heard on /. IS productive. Their are too few people who are getting this message. The reason being that there is no power-grab associated with it. I certainly agree with you that under the current laws, a GPL author can enforce the license. I am asking you to take a step back, and ask if the GPL is about freedom or confinement. A world where every idea is protected by GPL is just as confining as a world where every idea is protected by DMCA. GPL is like Sauron in the Lord of the Rings; they both try to use power to do good, but the problem is that power itself is evil.

--
--Brian
Re:Of course! by jir0 · 2003-10-15 05:55 · Score: 1

I actually agree. But read on.

RMS even said, "If you have anything on your computer, you should be free at least to make a copy and send it to your friend," he says. "Anyone who tries to stop you doing that, that's tyranny, that's oppression. When you start telling people it's forbidden to share with your neighbour, nothing less than pervasive fear can enforce that. We're going to see a war on copyright like the war on drugs. They're public enemies: the public should rise up and put an end to them."

As you see, what you're saying is true. Even the creator of the GPL agrees. There has been and continuous to be exploitation on various levels. But what you fail to see is that the freedom introduced by the GPL is a means of escaping that exploitation and moving into a freer society.

You're saying that the GPL is evil because it still restricts what you can do with software. But the GPL presents a _choice_. You cannot force an author to release his/her work to the public without first acknowledging that he has his own freedom of choice to decide what to do with it in the first place. If you want to gain freedom, you also have to let people know that you are willing to respect theirs.

Stallman also said, "I'm not trying to give users what they want, I'm trying to give them freedom, which they can then accept or reject. If people don't want freedom, they may be out of luck with me, but I won't allow them to define for me what is right, what is worth spending my life for." Though his views are hard-headed and his insistence blunt, he still acknowledges that the users ultimately have choice. In doing that, he also strengthens his stand that he himself possesses the freedom of choice, and should be respected when he exercises it to help those who share his beliefs in whatever way he can. In the same way, you also have a choice. You can choose not to support the GPL if it doesn't make sense to you. (Try doing what RMS did, build with your own philosophy from what you have (in his case, from scratch).) But you will acknowledge that everyone else has his/her own freedom too.

As for me, I believe that for society to work, there are concepts that as yet have to be accepted. I acknowledge your point, but I hold my own ideas. I believe that proprietary software and software patenting is wrong and therefore, from where I am, the GPL makes a whole lot of sense. I will continue to work with what I have (hey, CS is still lots of fun the way it is^_^) and continue to express my beliefs, push awareness, and strive for acceptance.

--
--- Live and Learn Crash and Burn
Re:Of course! by Sj0 · 2003-10-15 06:14 · Score: 1

Which rights are those? Since the software isn't yours, really, you have no right to be adding to it if you don't believe in the license(Though you legally have them because the GPL is free in that regard), and you legally DON'T have the right to make money off of said software if you don't want to follow the terms.

--
It's been a long time.
Re:Of course! by thisgooroo · 2003-10-15 11:11 · Score: 1

In other words, if I write one single line of code for your GPLd work, I own that single line. I don't own the combination of your work and my work, but I do own my line.
that's what i suspected. somehow i read your remark as claiming that with adding a line you would own the whole derivative
For a more realistic example, and one that happens all the time, consider a GPL library that I use to create an application. If this application is not statically linked, then I own 100% of it. The library author has zero property claims over it.
are you sure? i thought it was entirely dependent on the license the library is under (GPL vs LGPL e.g.) and that static vs dynamic linkage didn't matter
And I suspect companies like Apple had damned good business reasons to pick a BSD licensed product to contribute to.
no doubt. different business model
But IBM doesn't need to, because IBM doesn't sell the software, it sells the service. Their business model would be identical if they used a BSD instead.
did they contribute any patented stuff to apache? i suspect that they would think twice before contributinging stuff like RCU to a BSD licensed codebase. i might be wrong, though
Re:Of course! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-17 00:57 · Score: 0

Infringing patents happens all the time, usually inadvertently. An engineer can write his own code, from scratch, that happens to infringe some patent he's never heard of. Most such violations go undetected.

In contrast, infringing a *copyright* involves *modifying and/or copying part of a copyrighted work*. In other words, the engineer takes *someone else's work* and misuses it. The copying is almost always an intentional act--maybe he didn't intend to infringe, but he DID intend to use someone else's intellectual property and should have made damn sure he was doing so in accordance with its license.

Re your second point -- it should actually read "steal copyrighted software which you would have been allowed to use for free had you only obeyed its licensing conditions, get sued out of business".

And Cisco is way bigger than the FSF anyway--they will correct their infringement somehow, they aren't going out of business =P

Sounds like a Microsoft ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:29 · Score: 0

... organized FUD campaign

Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by TheLogster · 2003-10-14 01:36 · Score: 1

This is probably going to open a can of worms, but here goes.... Having never read the GPL license stuff, but if I have a closed source software, and use some open source "bits" that have been distributed under GPL, can't I just encapsulated the GPL stuff in a library and give the source to the library, and not the complete source to the software. My personal feelings towards OpenSource software, is that is it is good for research and academics, but I find it difficult to understand how a person can earn money by releasing the source to the software. (Now if it is ok by the GPL to pay for the exe and the code, then that would a different story) I get the impression that OpenSource software is becomming analyous to Free (as in beer) software. We all have to earn a living to afford all of the gadgets we love so much..
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by RyoSaeba · 2003-10-14 01:45 · Score: 1

From what i understood about the GPL (someone will correct me if i'm wrong), you can't even use a GPL library in a proprietary software if you distribute the software (keeping it inhouse is another matter).
What you mention is more the LGPL, or 'Light' (or 'Library', i never know) GPL, which allows you to link proprietary a software to for instance a LGPL library.
Thus, glibc is released under LGPL to allow proprietary software to be distributed under Linux and still use glibc

--
Tsuyoikoto ha taisetsu da ne, dakedo namida mo hitsuyousa (Strength is an important thing, but tears too are necessary)
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by the+morgawr · 2003-10-14 01:47 · Score: 1

I'll try to answer your questions. Here goes:
if I have a closed source software, and use some open source "bits" that have been distributed under GPL, can't I just encapsulated the GPL stuff in a library and give the source to the library, and not the complete source to the software
No, if the software was LGPL you could, but under the GPL, any code that is used at runtime (e.g. the entire thing) has to be made available.
if it is ok by the GPL to pay for the exe and the code
Actually the GPL says you can't charge for the USE (i.e. a EULA), but you can charge for distribution. You also only have to give a copy of the source to people who have the binary. The problem is that under the GPL anyone is allowed to redistribute both the source and the binary. Before the internet was wide spread this worked out really well (people used to pay over $100 for emacs). With the internet however the marginal cost to distribute the software is 0. So no matter how little you charge, someone will just give it away. Also the GPL isn't about making money with software, it's about getting the most USE out of your software. In that sense the people who benefit are the purchasers not the developers.

--
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:54 · Score: 0

can't I just encapsulated the GPL stuff in a library and give the source to the library
No, you can't. This would be possible if (and only if) the code is LGPL. The LGPL allows you to link against it from closed source apps. (e.g. glibc and the kdelibs are LGPL so you may write closed source C or KDE apps.)
If the peaces you use are GPL however linking also applies to "derivate work" exactly to prohibit this cheap trick you used, to (I'll grant you the unknowingly) circumvent the Licence.
If you want to use GPLed Code you HAVE TO GPL your code, too. Period.
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by GirTheRobot · 2003-10-14 01:58 · Score: 0

You haven't read the GPL? We don't take kindly to non-GPL reading folk 'round here! ...no really, just kidding

If your program depends on GPL code (whether its in your program itself or in a library), the entire work must be GPL. The spirit is that if you use the shared work of another, you must share your own.

...you make money through support contracts. Like RedHat. Simple enough. They charge over $1000 for their server Linux software. Of course, all their artwork in the distro is not public domain, so its not like you can download the iso for free. As long as buyers are given full source code and allowed to install on as many computers as they please (though support must be paid for)
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by TrueJim · 2003-10-14 01:59 · Score: 1

This is like saying that Physics and Chemistry is only good for research and academics. The fact that sciences are studied in universities doesn't mean that companies can't also make profits from the applications of science. We all manage to, as you say, "earn a living" making gadgets that apply scientific principles, but that doesn't mean we then take the next step and asume that those scientic principles must therefore become proprietary, as you have suggested. If you stop thinking of software as being like "books that we write" and start thinking of it as being like "theorems that we write" then it's easier to understand how free (as in speech) software is good for the economy. Yes, you could create a false economy (i.e., offering no productivity that has real economic value) by arbitrarily putting a price on theorems and getting mathematicians to license theorems to the world, but in the long run that's a silly approach that achieves to real economic gain.

--
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by johannesg · 2003-10-14 01:59 · Score: 1

This is a bit of a grey area, since it depends on the definition of "linking code together". Simple case: if you link your wrapper-library to GPL code, that library also becomes GPL. If you then link that library to your application, that application therefore also becomes GPL. In other words, it isn't possible to rip off the open source community by using something as simple as a wrapper.
Then again, if you put the GPL stuff in a separate process that you connect to through a socket, that's ok. Otherwise noone would be able to connect with Internet Explorer to Apache, for example.
And there are some really grey areas: how about loading the wrapper dynamically, does that count as "linking"? The answer might just be, "this depends on your operating system."
As for paying for GPL'ed source and binaries, that is no problem. You can most certainly ask money for GPL'ed software. For example, if a customer of mine wanted some new software, and assuming he pays for it, I do not mind the software being released under GPL. Since the customer already gets full rights to the source as it is (including the right to outsource further work to other companies) this changes very little for me.
Oh, for completeness I should mention IANAL...
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by Stephan+Schulz · 2003-10-14 02:00 · Score: 1

Having never read the GPL license stuff...
Well, why don't you? It's an interesting read, and much easier going than most commercial licenses (possibly because its purpose is to educate the reader as opposed to confuse and bore him to dead).
...but if I have a closed source software, and use some open source "bits" that have been distributed under GPL, can't I just encapsulated the GPL stuff in a library and give the source to the library, and not the complete source to the software.
No, not if your library is linked directly with the executable. If you manage to use some loose coupling, you might get away with it. As someone else wrote, the LGPL will let you link libraries as long as you make the library code available.
My personal feelings towards OpenSource software, is that is it is good for research and academics, but I find it difficult to understand how a person can earn money by releasing the source to the software. (Now if it is ok by the GPL to pay for the exe and the code, then that would a different story)
It is okay to pay for the code. You can charge whatever you get away with for the program. The only limit is that if you distribute just the binary, you must make the source available at minimal cost. But you can (try to) sell the combined package for a Million a seat.
There are a lot of other ways of earning money. I am the sole author of a GPLed program, so I can release it under various licenses, and I sold a license for proprietary versions to a company. I also did consulting, getting paid for adding certain features (to either or both versions), and for training people about use and architecture of the software.

--
Stephan
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by CustomDesigned · 2003-10-14 02:01 · Score: 1

Yes, it is OK by the GPL to charge as much as the market will bear for binaries and support. For instance, SuSe charges for binaries. RedHat gives away binaries, but charges for support. Both companies are doing well.
If I have a closed source software, and use some open source "bits" that have been distributed under GPL, can't I just encapsulated the GPL stuff in a library and give the source to the library, and not the complete source to the software?
That works for LGPL. With GPL, you have to go a little farther and encapsulate the GPL code as a 'plugin', allowing the user to create their own derivative plugins for your proprietary application environment. For instance, a Windows application is a 'plugin' for the MS environment.
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by MickLinux · 2003-10-14 02:01 · Score: 1

...but I find it difficult to understand how a person can earn money by releasing the source to the software.
Okay, fair enough, but just because you have trouble understanding it doesn't mean it isn't so. For example, there's the mySQL/Red Hat model. They give the software for free, and sell service. Since they know the software better than anyone else, they are worth the price.
Or, suppose you want to sell free music, or even free pages of childrens' mazes -- how would you do that? Well, check here.
There are working business models. Indeed, as people wise up, I suspect that the working free business models will eventually put the badly-working closed business models out of business. In the end, even nations are going to have to give up the idea of intellectual property, because the working free-IP countries will put the badly working captive-worker countries out of business.
However, that said, if and when that happens is none of my business.

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by 0x0d0a · 2003-10-14 02:06 · Score: 1

Sounds like a Microsoft ... organized FUD campaign

I disagree. I really think that if Microsoft was doing so, they'd publically take a stand (a la "OSS is viral"), rather than paying off journalists. The thing that drove this article is the same thing that drove pro-Linux hype a couple years ago, before Linux was ready for desktop transitioning -- business journalists are terrified of being behind the curve, and are constantly trying to find something new that they can give as good tips to their readers.

I do think that I can comfortably claim that this article has little value from a useful content perspective. Linksys management almost certainly did not decide to use GPLed software -- some subcontractor put it in. Aside from the fact that it's easier to get ahold of GPLed source than source to most non-GPL software (and thus GPLed software and temptation might lead to more violations), there isn't really much causality with the GPL. Some engineer at Linksys (or some Indian subcontractor...there are good engineers in India, but in the current environment, there are also a *lot* of people that simply swipe code and let the company get screwed down the line) swiped some code.

I don't buy into the whole "a non-GPL company would just demand moderate royalties, but the FSF requires you to remove the software" claim. If you're Cisco (or IBM, or Oracle) and a company discovers that you're bundling its software in your products, you are going to get burned. Badly. There is simply too much potential money involved. No lawyer is going to let you off nicely. At that point, you are up shit creek, and the degree to which you are going to get screwed is fairly academic.

Slashdot has been bitterly complaining about SCO for some time -- a company that (well, in its own eyes) doesn't have GPLed source, and discovered (or at least wants to convince others) that it has its source in other, major products. Sorry, but $699/copy is not trivial.

Come to think of it, SCO licensing fees would also apply to the routers in the article. Funny how that works, eh? :-) They're large enough that they'd drive the product out of the market.

The article implied that using GPLed software immediatelye exposed one to such potential liability. I hope that no IT manager is going to hold off moving to Linux on the desktop because of random IP worries.

The fact that the FSF does not accept royalties could be a reasonable complaint for some companies that have deliberately or otherwise stolen FSF software. However, if you aren't maintaining enough control over your software to avoid having mass chunks of source that you haven't checked out the license on incorporated into your product, you have severe legal problems -- forget worrying about the GPL.

Furthermore, I severely doubt that Linksys made a measured decision to use GPLed software, or at least a decision that was properly passed through legal. I cannot understand how a corporate lawyer would sign off on incorporating GPLed code into non-GPLed code. I have a sneaking suspicion that the work was done by a subcontractor or an engineer that wasn't being reviewed by legal.

Finally, I think that, as per the article, if the FSF is simply giving the option of removing the code (with no damages, which I find extremely unlikely), that's more than generous. There have been many, many, many Linksys routers shipped. A company could sue for phenomenal back damages.

--
May we never see th
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by neonprimetime · 2003-10-14 02:14 · Score: 0

Having never read the GPL license stuff

Here ya go, read it...

GPL
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

LGPL
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:16 · Score: 0

I bet you like to anal.

PS - apache is BSD licensed. No ambiguities, unlike your sexual orientation.
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by the+morgawr · 2003-10-14 02:19 · Score: 1

Not so, your code only must be under a compatible license. A good example of this is "X-style" licensed code in the Linux kernel.

--
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by Mr.+Slippery · 2003-10-14 02:25 · Score: 1

Having never read the GPL license stuff

Well, why remain ignorant? Read it, dammit.
but if I have a closed source software, and use some open source "bits" that have been distributed under GPL, can't I just encapsulated the GPL stuff in a library and give the source to the library, and not the complete source to the software.

The legal question is, is your program a derived work? This is a tricky question in any copyright consideration.
The FSF's opinion is that "because the program as it is actually run includes the library", linking with a GPLed library makes your work a derivative, and requires that your program be GPLed.
(Note however that the GPL does not affect your "fair use" rights.)
I find it difficult to understand how a person can earn money by releasing the source to the software.

There are companies that are doing it...your difficulty doesn't seem to affect them. There are other ways to get paid besides a "pay-per-copy" scheme - like custom development and support contracts. Indeed, given the ease of making unauthorized copies of proprietary software, most people who actually purchase it do so in order to get support. (If you think they do so to comply with the law, you obviously haven't checked out the popularity of file sharing. (Although many if not most of the RIAA's copyright claims are constitutionally bogus, since copyright can only be legitimately held by creators...but that's a digression so far off course it's nested in two levels of parenthesis.))
(Now if it is ok by the GPL to pay for the exe and the code, then that would a different story)

It is quite legitimate to sell binaries under the GPL, and only make source available to those who bought binaries. However, you have to give those purchasers the same right - they can modify and redistribute the software, but have to provide source to anyone to whom them give binaries.
In fact, I've made my living writing software for over a decade, and most of it could have been GPLed without much affect on my employer's bottom line.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by paule9984673 · 2003-10-14 02:41 · Score: 1

The real question is, why do so many think they are entitled to using "bits" of free software? These "bits" are copyrighted works and you must license them to be able to incorporate the into your own programs. (And if you don't like the licensing terms of the GPL you are free to contact the author to negotiate about a different license.)
It seems funny to me that makers of proprietary software claim to not understand this concept.
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by roystgnr · 2003-10-14 02:42 · Score: 1

I really think that if Microsoft was doing so, they'd publically take a stand (a la "OSS is viral"),

They've already done that, repeatedly. "Viral" is one of the words used, "a cancer" is another phrase from a few years back that comes to mind.

rather than paying off journalists.

Aren't they where the phrase "astroturfing" comes from? This isn't nearly that bad - to get press they want, Microsoft doesn't even have to make any obvious bribes, they just have to make their advertisement dollars follow up shill articles more often than coincidence would allow.

Linksys management almost certainly did not decide to use GPLed software -- some subcontractor put it in. [...] Some engineer at Linksys (or some Indian subcontractor...there are good engineers in India, but in the current environment, there are also a *lot* of people that simply swipe code and let the company get screwed down the line) swiped some code.

Linksys isn't just using a couple swiped functions here, they're selling products based on the whole Linux kernel and a dozen other free packages. They're even providing related source code under the GPL for what they distribute; it just turns out that they're not providing the source code for the derived works they're distributing, they're providing it for the original GPLed software they started from.

There's simply no way this could be an oversight that went on underneath their management's noses - this is practically the entire software component of their product!

It's possible that this never made it to a lawyer, I suppose, and that Linksys for some reason thinks the "you must provide source code" clauses in the GPL are because we don't have enough kernel mirrors of our own... but it's more likely that they're keeping their modifications closed because they thought they could get away with it.
Re:Sounds like a Microsoft ... by TheLogster · 2003-10-14 04:37 · Score: 1

Thaks for the links to the GPL stuff (I will read them).. Some interesting comments on OpenSource stuff should work, but alas, in the real world there are alot of people who want something for nothing. It is my belief that the source to a package is "worth" alot more than the package itself. I.e I spend 50 hours writting something, I'll sell the compiled code for $10 a pop, but the source code at $5000. Personally, I design and write software because I enjoy it, and don't really mind if people don't pay for the compiled code. I don't go out looking for copyrighted work just to re-badge and encorperate stright into my code. I have, in the past, gotten stuck on a problem and looked at other people's OpenSource code to try and get a better understanding of how they solved similer problems. Does that put me in violation of the GPL?? (possibily a gray area). My personal view points go along the lines that GPL/OpenSource is a nice in terms of information sharing and research; but I still stand by the opionin that in the "real" world OpenSource won't be able to have a sustained existance due to the pure fact that you are giving away the source code. Which, I belive, is the most valuble part of any software package. However - back to the point of the whole story.. if LinkSys and Cisco are indeed in violation then they should either release the code, pay a license, or (more propable) re-write the sections to conform to a closed-source development practice. After all if software development was easy there would be 6 billion developers in the world... My $0.02 :)

Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Kiaser+Zohsay · 2003-10-14 01:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

The last several Forbes articles that even mentioned Linux were just plain old bashing.

Now, maybe I'll RTFA.

--
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.

Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Glass+of+Water · 2003-10-14 01:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

No need to RTFA, it's pure FUD.
A summary, if you like: beware of using this software (which thousands of people have developed and give away for free) because you might have to actually honor the license that comes with the software! Imagine that.

--
There are no trolls. There are no trees out here.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Kiaser+Zohsay · 2003-10-14 01:49 · Score: 3, Informative

OK, I did RTFA, and it is mostly bashing.
For months, in secret,
If LKML, KernelTrap, Slashdot, and Newsforge stories all qualify as secret, that is.
... the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free" programs,
I don't know about "controlling" the licensing. They wrote the license, Linus and various other project maintainers chose to use the license. There is not much "control" to be wielded here. Open is open.
...has been making threats to Cisco Systems and Broadcom over a networking router that runs the Linux operating system.
The first actual statement of fact in the article, even though "threats" might be a bit of a stretch. Moglen was quoted farther down that all of his conversations had been ammicable and that a resolution would probably be reached without going to court. That doesn't sound very threatening.

--
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by beady · 2003-10-14 02:19 · Score: 0, Offtopic

+4 FlameBait... impressive!
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by LostCluster · 2003-10-14 02:23 · Score: 1

That's not FUD, that's a fact. The GPL isn't toothless, it has the FSF behind it.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Short+Circuit · 2003-10-14 02:25 · Score: 1

They've got a feedback mechanism...

I wonder what would happen if it got 4000 uses in five minutes.

Please, limit yourself to an "educated" vocabulary and grammar only.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by ichimunki · 2003-10-14 02:28 · Score: 2

The article is unforgivably biased, but your summary is a bit off (and yes, I'm being picky because it's a subtle but important distinction). There is no license required to use Free Software. None.

The GPL only affects those things that would normally be infringing acts under copyright law: copying, distribution, and derivation. The GPL does not fall under the same rubric as the ubiquitous and offensive EULA of commercial software fame. The difference is significant because these companies are looking to commit otherwise illegal actions (creating and distributing derived works from someone else's copyrighted software) in order to make a profit.

--
I do not have a signature
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:30 · Score: 0

(Score:5, Flamebait)? never seen that before.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by JediTrainer · 2003-10-14 02:38 · Score: 0, Offtopic

It's +5, FlameBait now! Is that a first?

--

You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by the_mad_poster · 2003-10-14 02:53 · Score: 1

Yea, but they make it out to be a bad thing. Unreadable, 10-page long EULAs from Microsoft, Oracle, etc. are "Good Things". Somehow, the GPL, which is much clearer and easier to understand, IMHO, is a "Bad Thing" just because stupid people don't read it.

I guess the right to enforce your license only applies to big gigadollar corps.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:59 · Score: 0

What's really funny is that forbes.com itself uses linux internally.

Interesting that that wasn't brought up in the article...
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by EchoMirage · 2003-10-14 03:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway ...so no need to worry about what they say, as all the corporate and business types who read this know this too, and are vividly aware of the licensing fights going on, and are anti-Microsoft themselves, and are vividly aware that Cisco is doing a bad thing and that those poor kids in the FSF are really getting portrayed in a bad light.

Yeah, real good attitude. Keep ignoring Forbes: it's that mentality that keeps Forbes readers ignoring Linux and free software.

The free software community really needs to understand that when you're the underdog, you want to ALWAYS be portraying yourself in the best light possible and holding your head up high, even when people take really cheap shots at you. If the free software movement keeps miring itself in the mud and digging in its heels, it's going to continue to have a very difficult time growing.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by junklight · 2003-10-14 03:12 · Score: 1

Sadly it probably *is* because people can read it that its become a bad thing.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by mentatchris · 2003-10-14 03:13 · Score: 1

The whole magazine is crap. For decent business news, the WSJ or Fortune are far better. Forbes is so far right the news you get is a total distortion of what is actually happening. It's not worth the paper it's printed on... and it's no surprise that they did a bad job of covering the FSF, they do a terrible job of presenting everything.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Captain+Rotundo · 2003-10-14 03:14 · Score: 1

This is exactly why I do not understand why some Free Software makes you click through the GPL when you install it. At least they did in the past when installed on windows (I've never seen this on Debian). Maybe they stopped doing this since I stopped using windows but it always bothered me.

Let's make them click through a licence they don't actually have to agree to. a little strange if you ask me.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Daniel · 2003-10-14 03:19 · Score: 1

I've often suspected it's because they were using a stock Windows installer program which has a slot to drop a "license" into. Or maybe just because they figure Windows users would be confused if they didn't have to click through a license.

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:54 · Score: 0

What makes you think you don't need permission from the copyright owner to copy a program from storage into ram?
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by golgotha007 · 2003-10-14 03:54 · Score: 1

i am still trying to understand something. for years now, proponents to the GPL keep saying (including this article) that if you adopt GPL code into your project, then you have to open source and make available your entire project.

isn't this not true?

let's do an example: i make some new embedded linux device that makes popcorn. let's say i made some small kernel modifications to support my application which makes the popcorn.

wouldn't i only have to release the source to my modified kernel? i wouldn't have to open source the application itself.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by jmv · 2003-10-14 03:58 · Score: 1

The part I like best is where they *quote* someone from the FSF saying:
"We have legal teeth, so if someone does not share and share alike, we can make them obey the rules."
I'd be very suprised if the guy really said that. The term "share and share alike" was really "invented" my MS do they could talk about Free Software/Open Source without talking about freedom and open-ness. Actually, I wouldn't be suprised if the article (or at least that quote) came from MS directly.

--
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:02 · Score: 0

I've had a +5 Troll, it's not that impressive.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Kissing+Crimson · 2003-10-14 04:06 · Score: 1

(I can't help it...)

Only if you sell the popcorn do you have to release the modified kernel.

--
What's that smell? Ah, that's my karma burning...
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by IWannaBeAnAC · 2003-10-14 04:06 · Score: 1

This is the crux of the argument. As I understand it, this is what makes EULA's enforceable in the first place. But I think it is a crock of shit.
By the same arguments, you 'copy' the contents of a book onto the back of your retina when you read it, therefore you need permission from the copyright holder to read a book.
If there is ever a court case where this becomes an important point, I would expect that such 'copying' that is required for normal usage of the material falls squarely under fair use.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by IWannaBeAnAC · 2003-10-14 04:10 · Score: 1

The Kernel license doesn't cover user-land applications. I can't remember whether Linus just 'interprets' the GPL that way or whether there is a specific exemption.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2003-10-14 04:19 · Score: 1

How did parent get modded insightful? Where's the FUD in the article? It definitely has spin but it's also factual.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:27 · Score: 0

A summary, if you like: beware of using this software (which thousands of people have developed and give away for free) because you might have to actually honor the license that comes with the software! Imagine that.

Its sad, but I expected such a short sighted interpretation from the elitist pinko commie /. geeks like you.

What the article says is that companies are not going to adopt linux if doing so will require them to give away the farm. The GPL is exactly what is holding Linux back now.

Do you want Linux to succeed? Then give up your hippie socialist license. It is anti business.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Rogerborg · 2003-10-14 04:31 · Score: 1

>There is no license required to use Free Software. None.
Quotes from the article:
"a networking router that runs the Linux operating system. "
"These disputes might scare companies away from using open source software
"Now he says he is cautious about working with GPL software. Instead, Progress uses an open source database program distributed under the less onerous Berkeley Software Distribution license."
Oh, sure, it's just semantics, and they (shock!) mostly get it right that it's copying distribution and derivation that's the issue. But it's not entirely clear of FUD.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:38 · Score: 0

They don't have to give away the farm or anything. They can _use_ it as much as they like, for ervery purpose and on every machine, that's fine. The _only_ thing they can't do freely is give away modified versions. But that's a very specific use, which doesn't affect most companies. Linux the product vs Linux the systems-building-block.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by sflory · 2003-10-14 04:46 · Score: 1

You would need to release source for your kernel modifications. User space apps would only need to be GPLed if you used GPLed code, or linked to a GPLed library.

Keep in mind many library are LGPLed which allows linking. Glibc, and gtk are good examples of LGPL libraries. QT, and readline are good examples of ones that are not.

--
IANALBIPOOGL (I am not a Lawyer, but I play one on GrokLaw.)
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Ohreally_factor · 2003-10-14 04:47 · Score: 1

Can I get a copy of your retina right after you see "Kill Bill"?

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Evil+Adrian · 2003-10-14 04:53 · Score: 1

Wow. You mean like Slashdot bashes Microsoft all the time?

Don't dish it out if you can't take it, people.

--
evil adrian
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by ichimunki · 2003-10-14 04:53 · Score: 1

I wasn't responding to the article's use of the word "use", but to the prior poster's. But about the article: Since he starts off with a factual inaccuracy about SCO owning Unix and ends with the ad hominem attack inherent in the word "comrade" I consider it to be exceptionally poor journalism. I think Lyons' implied assertion that flagrantly violating the copyright law is okay as long as the perpetrator is willing to pay some royalties after getting caught inidicates that the only place Lyons is more challenged than he is in the facts department is in the ethics department.

--
I do not have a signature
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by bnenning · 2003-10-14 04:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

If there is ever a court case where this becomes an important point, I would expect that such 'copying' that is required for normal usage of the material falls squarely under fair use.

Correct, as per 17 USC 117. This raises the question as to why virtually every EULA in existence isn't invalid due to lack of consideration. You already have the right to run the software; the publisher is attempting to remove other rights in exchange for nothing.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by daVinci1980 · 2003-10-14 04:56 · Score: 1

Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.

Yeah. That's the way to get the community some cred. Ignore criticism and articles that don't agree with you or your philosophy, or paint you in a bad light.

You *could* write them a letter, or start posting counter-articles to more tech-friendly mags.

--
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:08 · Score: 0

Yup. You lose rights. You gain nothing. They gain nothing.

Any questions?
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by avdp · 2003-10-14 05:29 · Score: 1

But to clarify further, libraries are usually LGPLed and not GPLed (The L is for "Lesser"). That license allows you to link without having to GPL (or LGPL) your code.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by WNight · 2003-10-14 05:30 · Score: 1

Even beyond the fact that copyright law specifically says otherwise, it's just fucking retarded to consider that someone could *sell* you a product and still require unspecified actions on your part to authorize activation. If this did happen we'd all need to fight it, it'd be a terrible law.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by avdp · 2003-10-14 05:46 · Score: 1

Slashdot is not a news outlet. I does not have journalists. Other than the odd book review it does not write/create any articles. It only provides links (and a commentary) to articles on the other sites.

To my knowledge slashdot has never claimed to be unbiased in its selection of articles, or the commentary that goes with it, nor is it expected to.

Maybe I am a bit naive, but the print media (newspaper, news magazines) and associated websites do have a (moral, not legal) obligation to write fair(er) and (more) balanced coverage on issues. Forbes' article was far from that mark.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by stuntpope · 2003-10-14 05:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Our weapons are Fear:

"For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation, ... has been making threats to Cisco Systems" ...if my company uses Open Source, some shadowy "enforcer" group may threaten us with who-knows-what!

Uncertainty:

"The dispute... offers a rare peek into the dark side of the free software movement--a view that contrasts with the movement's usual public image of happy software proles linking arms and singing the "Internationale" while freely sharing the fruits of their code-writing labor." ...what, there's a dark side to Open Source? It's not basically benevolent, it's subversive? And written by communists?

more Fear:

"Or maybe, as some suggest, the foundation wants GPL-covered code to creep into commercial products so it can use GPL to force open those products."

and Doubt:

"These disputes might scare companies away from using open source software. Joseph Alsop..., chief executive of Progress, reckons the fiasco with mySQL cost his company $10 million in lost development and marketing work." ...looks like using Open Source wouldn't be a good idea after all, it might cost us big time for arbitrary reasons. Don't want a fiasco!

let's add sarcasm:

'Will Cisco and Broadcom be the first? Probably they'll decide, like everyone else, that it's cheaper to settle than to fight. Such a pity, comrade." an aside: I wonder if Forbes always pities parties in breach of contract and bemoans the resulting "enforcement actions".
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by dissy · 2003-10-14 05:50 · Score: 2, Informative

> i am still trying to understand something. for years now, proponents to the GPL
> keep saying (including this article) that if you adopt GPL code into your
> project, then you have to open source and make available your entire project.
>
> isn't this not true?

Correct, that statement is not true.
The 'entire project' is usually everything you do.

If you modify the kernel, your kernel modifications MUST be released.

Now, if that kernel mod was literally the only thing you did, and the kernel already had drivers for your hardware, then i guess yes your whole project would be released then.
But usually there is more software needed than that.. what good is a kernel mod with no application to use it. That app has nothing at all to do with the kernel. It is yours and you can licence it however you want.

In this particular case, no one is even asking cisco for the userland code in their router, we just want the changes they made to the kernel.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Trepalium · 2003-10-14 05:59 · Score: 1

Either that, or carry on the spirit of the last line he wrote ("Such a pity, comrade."), and insult him in the same way. Perhaps by taking a page from the RIAA/MPAA, and calling him a pirate and thief. Turnabout is fair play, right?

--
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Evil+Adrian · 2003-10-14 06:08 · Score: 1

Maybe I am a bit naive, but the print media (newspaper, news magazines) and associated websites do have a (moral, not legal) obligation to write fair(er) and (more) balanced coverage on issues. Forbes' article was far from that mark.

When's the last time you read any newspaper or magazine without an editorial piece? Do you bitch about the New York Times because they run editorials? How about your local paper? Should newspapers never run editorials?

I know you don't feel that way.

You're just bitching because Forbes ran an editorial piece that put Open Source in a bad light. I'm sure you'd cheer, though, if they ran an article that was Open Source friendly.

Instead of bitching, why don't you write your own editorial, and get it published? Then your fellow Slashdotters could cheer, the "Micro$oft"ies could boo, and the world will be as it was before you started crying.

--
evil adrian
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by one-of-many · 2003-10-14 06:26 · Score: 1

Look, there is nothing that makes a PHB's hole tighten up quicker than the word "lawsuit".

If you want OSS to be shunned to hobby land, then go ahead and cheer lawsuits against big companies.

"Under the license, if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any 'derivative works' you've created". From the article

The threat to adoption here is that a "derivative" work is whatever a judge decides it is. A PHB would be reckless to mix commercial and OSS software together in a system if there is any ambiguity about whether the commercial part is seperate or a derivative. It could create a huge liability.

The GPL would be stronger if there was a way for PHB to be absolutely certain that the OSS authors have no claim on the commericial works.

Of course, if you are really committed to OSS, you should just put your work in the public domain.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by gotem · 2003-10-14 06:55 · Score: 1

are you talking about the corn kernels?
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Zork+the+Almighty · 2003-10-14 07:06 · Score: 1

+20 Insightful

--

In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 07:14 · Score: 0

Public domain doesn't protect the code at all. The GPL is all about protecting the code.

From the GNU page: "Public domain software is software that is not copyrighted. If the source code is in the public domain, that is a special case of non-copylefted free software, which means that some copies or modified versions may not be free at all.

In some cases, an executable program can be in the public domain but the source code is not available. This is not free software, because free software requires accesibility of source code. Meanwhile, most free software is not in the public domain; it is copyrighted, and the copyright holders have legally given permission for everyone to use it in freedom, using a free software license.

Sometimes people use the term ``public domain'' in a loose fashion to mean ``free'' or ``available gratis.'' However, ``public domain'' is a legal term and means, precisely, ``not copyrighted''. For clarity, we recommend using ``public domain'' for that meaning only, and using other terms to convey the other meanings."
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by SpaceLifeForm · 2003-10-14 08:08 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You are incorrect. First there is no 'kernel license'. Second, GPL is also used for user-land applications. Third, Linus has no 'interpretation' of the GPL. Forth, there are no exemptions.
Thanks for playing.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 08:14 · Score: 0

Spoke like someone who's never read the license file that comes with the kernel.

It is a license and it has either an interpretation or an exemption attached to it.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Lazaru5 · 2003-10-14 08:43 · Score: 1

The strongest occurance of FUD was the Comrade comment at the end. Communism is still a bad word and the comment has surely planted (non technical and legal) seeds of fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of Forbe's staunchest readers.

The average, ignorant capitlistic Forbes-reading PHB will come away with an impression that OSS is too closely related to Communism. Not because of the GPL's treehugging, teach-the-world-to-sing qualities but because a biased reporter abused his influence.

--

--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by avdp · 2003-10-14 10:13 · Score: 1

The editorial in the New York time is a page (or two) clearly marked as such. As I am usually looking for news (not for some opinion piece) I skip that section. Journalists are supposed to leave their bias in the closet and write a "fair and balanced" piece explaining, without emotion or name calling, both sides of the argument. I understand that this is not always the case, based on the quality of a newspaper or magazine (and their editors).

Unless you're trying to tell me that the entire Forbes magazine is one big editorial (which I guess it's possible) this does not apply here. This "article" is not marked as being someone's opinion but as being a report on a specific issue. That report was not even close to "fair and balanced".

That's my problem with it. Clueless people will read this as something it's not: News.

That's my problem with it.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by IWannaBeAnAC · 2003-10-14 10:38 · Score: 1

Whoa, chill out dude!
The phrase "Kernel license" means, duh, the license the Kernel is licensed under, ie the GPL. I don't see how you could have misunderstood that.
Secondly, Linus certainly does have a particular interpretation of the GPL. For example, many people argue that a strict reading of the GPL forbids binary-only modules. But they exist essentially because Linus said "I won't sue you".
The meaning of my post was that user-land apps are taken to be not derivative works of the Kernel, even if they are bundled together, eg in an embedded system. Just because the Kernel is GPL'ed, doesn't mean your user-land app needs to be GPL'ed too. Normally, linking something against a GPL'ed library requires that the linker is also GPL'ed. So the case of a user-land app making system calls into a GPL'ed kernel is not as straightforward as it might appear.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 11:03 · Score: 0

The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.

So it's a good idea to stick your head in the sand when things go bad?

Pathetic. This is exactly why Open Source will fail.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Evil+Adrian · 2003-10-14 11:23 · Score: 1

That's my problem with it. Clueless people will read this as something it's not: News.

People who spend time reading Forbes are not clueless. They are smart enough to discern that it was an opinion piece based on the author's tone -- I mean, unless you're telling me that the majority of people who read Forbes, a magazine targeted at business leaders, are clueless.

Are you really, honestly trying to tell me that?

--
evil adrian
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by avdp · 2003-10-14 11:33 · Score: 1

Yes, that's what I am telling you. At least in things like technology.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Evil+Adrian · 2003-10-14 11:56 · Score: 1

"Tone" has nothing to do with "subject".

It is obvious -- to anyone -- that it is an editorial piece, because of the tone. The content is clearly opinion.

Surely, you are just playing dumb.

--
evil adrian
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 21:46 · Score: 0

-100 moron
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Rogerborg · 2003-10-15 02:05 · Score: 1

Fair enough, you're quite right. Given the obvious slant of the article, it's actually surprising that he bothers to distinguish between use and distribution/derivation at all. I guess a tiny twinge of conscience remains.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by greenrd · 2003-10-15 13:01 · Score: 1

Think before you put finger to keyboard.
You are incorrect.
No, you are incorrect. First there is no 'kernel license'.
WRONG!
Second, GPL is also used for user-land applications.
True - but IRRELEVANT
Third, Linus has no 'interpretation' of the GPL.
WRONG!
Forth, there are no exemptions.
WRONG!

--
Female Prison Rape in NY
Re:Forbes is a Microsoft shill anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 21:22 · Score: 0

"Tone" has nothing to do with "subject".
It is obvious -- to anyone -- that it is an editorial piece, because of the tone. The content is clearly opinion.
Ok, the contents of my t-bowl must also just be opinion, hehe!
Surely, you are just playing dumb.
Better playing dumb than actually being dumb!

Don't use Linux by Brahmastra · 2003-10-14 01:30 · Score: 1

If you have proprietary secrets to protect, do not develop that code under GPL. Use some other closed source option.

Re:Don't use Linux by CyberLord+Seven · 2003-10-14 02:46 · Score: 1

Yes, but realise that if you are not going to play by the rules of the GPL, then you should NOT use ANY GPLd software to speed up development or otherwise improve your code.

--
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Re:Don't use Linux by NDPTAL85 · 2003-10-14 03:23 · Score: 1

You can use GPL software to develop your product internally. Just never tell anyone outside the company.

--
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Re:Don't use Linux by Mauvaisours · 2003-10-14 03:36 · Score: 1

Yes, but realise that if you are not going to play by the rules of the GPL, then you should NOT use ANY GPLd software to speed up development or otherwise improve your code.
Untrue : we do regularly use gcc here to speed up development :)
Re:Don't use Linux by teval · 2003-10-14 09:08 · Score: 1

No.. if you don't want licence problems use BSD. It doesn't make you release the source code. I really dom't get what these people are thinking? Let's uphold the rights of MS.. but when it comes to upholding the licence of something that is much less restrictive we can bash it?

At least get it right by isn't+my+name · 2003-10-14 01:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

While I disagree with most of the author's conclusions, I can understand how someone steeped in traditional business models would feel that way. However, I hope that enough people can call Forbes on this egregious misdefinition of what code is actually covered by the GPL that they publish a retraction. The article clearly implies that anything you write to run under Linux must be released for free.

Re:At least get it right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:39 · Score: 0

I can understand how someone steeped in traditional business models would feel that way.

I don't then. What does the author of this article expect? Maybe he knows something we all don't, but when was the last time Microsoft (For example) let someone use an unlicenced copy of Windows in their product? Does the author believe that a traditional software house would sit down the director of the infringing company and happilly sort it all out over tea and crumpets, perhaps?

What a fool. The re -baiting peice at the end was a real shining example of his idiocy, too. Thats the same level as calling someone a poopy head and then running away before they can answer back.
Re:At least get it right by Amiga+Lover · 2003-10-14 01:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Under the license, if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any "derivative works" you've created--even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product.

I'm quite stunned at this statement. It's like, you've just gotten a software's source code, someone elses work, to use in your product for free. free. no payment. just you have to hand back what you take.

Now the bit about even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product is what amazes me. Hello. If you're looking at it that way, then you, in the first place, by using GPLd code have gone and made a "knockoff of" someone ELSES product.

Hypocrisy.
Re:At least get it right by henrygb · 2003-10-14 01:45 · Score: 1

The following paragraph in the Forbes article is clearly an attempt at a summary of the GPL:
Under the license, if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any "derivative works" you've created--even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product.
The first part of that looks fair enough. The second is a combination of oversimplification and hyperbole, but it is no worse than most /. comments.
Re:At least get it right by Sajarak · 2003-10-14 01:51 · Score: 1

While I disagree with most of the author's conclusions, I can understand how someone steeped in traditional business models would feel that way.

What's more, the author could have easily spun it the other way; this is a simple case of Cisco breaking the terms of their license, and facing legal action as a result. This argument would make perfect sense from a business perspective.

But as another poster pointed out, it would appear that it's only acceptable to enforce the terms of your license if you're a big multinational company. If you aren't acting solely in your own interest you're perceived as a threat. I wonder how you would explain the psychology behind this?
Re:At least get it right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:57 · Score: 0

I wonder how you would explain the psychology behind this?

GREED
Re:At least get it right by Twylite · 2003-10-14 02:01 · Score: 1

You are of course correct, but you have to remember that this is written from a business perspective.

To a business "free" means gratis, and "free" source code that doesn't explicitly require royalty payments is believed to be completely gratis, forever, amen. This is why there is so much business concern and FUD about the GPL being viral: these liberal "open source" wankers have redefined the well-understand business term "free" into something to do with liberty, lulling innocent businesses into a false sense of profit opportunities. How inconsiderate.

--
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
Re:At least get it right by FuzzyDaddy · 2003-10-14 02:05 · Score: 1

The second is a combination of oversimplification and hyperbole, but it is no worse than most /. comments.
Of course, my comments aren't published by Forbes.

--
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Re:At least get it right by TamMan2000 · 2003-10-14 02:05 · Score: 1

I wonder how you would explain the psychology behind this?

Capitalism gone too far...

That said, I am not sure this article is a bad thing. If a company wants to use linux and comply with the GPL, wonderful. However, if a company is thinking about making a closed derivative of GPLed code, screw them, we are better off without them, and we should thank Forbes for scaring them away...

--
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Re:At least get it right by afidel · 2003-10-14 02:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually they are mostly right. When you use GPL'd software you are getting that software for free (as in beer), but it does come with some obligations (the "hidden" cost), those include making available free of charge and without further incumberance any changes you have made to the software before releasing it. If your business model is such that secrecy of the OS behind your router is important than GPL'd software is NOT the place to go looking. If you want to make a cheap piece of hardware with minimal investment in the OS and sling those in high volume then GPL'd software may be a good choice.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:At least get it right by Short+Circuit · 2003-10-14 02:27 · Score: 1

That's one of the goals behind the BSD license anyway. That you can make your changes, and not have to share.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:At least get it right by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 02:45 · Score: 1

But as another poster pointed out, it would appear that it's only acceptable to enforce the terms of your license if you're a big multinational company.

LOL. And on Slashdot, it's only fair to enforce the terms of your license if you're not a big multinational company.

Is what the FSF doing legal? Sure. But I for one don't think it's ethical of them to force others to release their source code. That goes against the whole concept of making something Free, in my opinion.
Re:At least get it right by Sai34 · 2003-10-14 02:56 · Score: 1

I think the reason the suits take offense at the free software foundation license is that when they hear the word "free" they assume that means "with no strings attached." However, that is not the definition of free that the GPL uses.
Re:At least get it right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:08 · Score: 0

"That's one of the goals behind the BSD license anyway. That you can make your changes, and not have to share."

That's why it's dying... ;-)
Re:At least get it right by squiggleslash · 2003-10-14 03:48 · Score: 1

The FSF, however, would argue that it's Cisco that are being unethical, by providing software that isn't free. From their point of view, Cisco have distributed software without making it free, and the FSF has a tool to legally force Cisco to behave otherwise.
Remember that there's a whole bunch of things going on here. The FSF has asked people to contribute to a body of software that it can use as a carrot and stick to encourage the creation of free software. That body is copylefted, and free (albeit in a "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" sense.) By growing that body of software, it hopes the value to others will be great enough that many will see making their own software products free a fair price for being able to make use of other's works. The FSF is about making software free. Copyleft is a tool to do so.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:At least get it right by Sajarak · 2003-10-14 03:50 · Score: 1

I for one don't think it's ethical of them to force others to release their source code.

The terms of the GPL could be seen as onerous for companies that make money off proprietary closed-source software, but that's a "glass is half empty" way of looking at it. Think of it this way: Cisco gets an operating system, that they can modify as much as they like for $0. All they have to do is release the source code along with any work they do that derives from it. They don't lose any money by allowing their modifications to be licensed under the GPL, so they still come out ahead. No one is forcing them to use Linux or accept the GPL but if they do then they should abide by the terms. Sounds perfectly ethical to me.

The GPL does present a threat to companies that design their software to maintain their market dominance, but I personally see that as a good thing!
Re:At least get it right by gormanly · 2003-10-14 03:50 · Score: 1

But I for one don't think it's ethical of them to force others to release their source code. That goes against the whole concept of making something Free, in my opinion.

For fuck's sake. Really. That is the whole concept of making something Free. Doesn't go against the concept, doesn't sit uneasily with it.Is it.

Free Software is *sharing*, with the one attached string that the beneficiary also must share any additions.

Open Source, OTOH, is simple sharing - anyone may use OSS code in their project.

Even the author of the Forbes article gets it. Hell, even Microsoft get this. Pay some damn attention to the licences that come with your software, and if you don't like it, fuck off. Don't whinge later that you shouldn't have to comply with the licence - it's the same deal with Commercial, Open or Free software: comply with the licensing terms, or don't. Your choice.

And if you think what the FSF do is not ethical, imagine what would happen if Cisco were using code seen under this licence, in violation of said, in a commercial product. Would it be ethical for MS Legal to have a "friendly chat" with Cisco?
Re:At least get it right by Tukla · 2003-10-14 04:07 · Score: 1

Thats the same level as calling someone a poopy head
Well, this is the same guy who, in a previous article, repeatedly used the term "Linux-loving crunchies". He's obviously not even trying to project an image of "professional journalist" at this point.
Re:At least get it right by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 04:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

The FSF, however, would argue that it's Cisco that are being unethical, by providing software that isn't free.

I'd disagree. There's nothing unethical about not releasing your source code.

That body is copylefted, and free (albeit in a "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" sense.)

C'mon now. Cisco is not actively hurting the FSF by not releasing source code. Maybe they're passively hurting the FSF, but this is much different from punching someone in the face.

The FSF is about making software free.

According to their own particular definition of free. And that's fine, they have a right to that opinion. I just don't think they should be forcing it upon others who are merely using code on which they hold the copyright.

Legally, they have the right to do what they are doing (maybe, like I said in another thread Cisco might have a First Sale defense). But ethically, I don't think they do have that right.
Re:At least get it right by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 04:32 · Score: 1

Think of it this way: Cisco gets an operating system, that they can modify as much as they like for $0. All they have to do is release the source code along with any work they do that derives from it. They don't lose any money by allowing their modifications to be licensed under the GPL, so they still come out ahead. No one is forcing them to use Linux or accept the GPL but if they do then they should abide by the terms. Sounds perfectly ethical to me.

You're making the assumption that copyright law is ethical. I reject that assumption.
Re:At least get it right by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 04:39 · Score: 1

And if you think what the FSF do is not ethical, imagine what would happen if Cisco were using code seen under this [microsoft.com] licence, in violation of said, in a commercial product. Would it be ethical for MS Legal to have a "friendly chat" with Cisco?

Of course it wouldn't. Enforcing copyright, except in a defensive situation (such as Linux users countersuing SCO), is unethical.
Re:At least get it right by swv3752 · 2003-10-14 06:18 · Score: 1

I do not think it would be ethical for them not to enforce thier rights. If I put some code under the GPL, I expect it to be honored, in essence share and share alike. If they fail to honor the Licence then I expect that they are to be punished.

If some group is urging everyone to Licence under the GPL, then that group is honor bound to do what they can to enforce the GPL. It would be highly unethical fot the FSF not to enforce the GPL.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Re:At least get it right by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-10-14 06:20 · Score: 1

Freedom is only worth something if you are willing to fight for it. Open-ness only works if all parties are being transparent.
As a species and a culture we abhor cheaters. It's a given.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:At least get it right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:27 · Score: 0

When you use GPL'd software you are getting that software for free (as in beer)
no, you're dead wrong, GPL software can be sold.
Re:At least get it right by DoctorFrog · 2003-10-14 09:32 · Score: 1

According to their own particular definition of free. And that's fine, they have a right to that opinion. I just don't think they should be forcing it upon others who are merely using code on which they hold the copyright.
By that latter they do you mean Cisco or the FSF? Why shouldn't the FSF enforce the terms of their license on the people selling software to which the FSF holds copyright? The FSF didn't force Cisco to use GPL'd software, after all.
Re:At least get it right by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 10:03 · Score: 1

By that latter they do you mean Cisco or the FSF?

FSF

Why shouldn't the FSF enforce the terms of their license on the people selling software to which the FSF holds copyright?

Because software should be free and unrestricted.
Re:At least get it right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 13:00 · Score: 0

Remind me never to let you use anything I've created without enough cash to compensate me for my creation of it, then.
Re:At least get it right by squiggleslash · 2003-10-15 01:13 · Score: 1

I'd disagree. There's nothing unethical about not releasing your source code.
This may or may not be correct, but you're arguing that the FSF should understand it's being unethical. I'm pointing out that, given the agenda of the FSF which considers unfree software to be morally reprehensable, that's not the case. The GPL's original agenda is to create a structure for encouraging the creation of free software using a legally enforcable "I show you yours, you show me mine" agreement. The FSF has every reason to consider its enforcement of such a system morally right, not just because the users of GPL'd software have legally agreed to do so, but because the FSF sees any unfree software, be it a derivative of Linux or a completely self-contained package like Windows, to be immoral.
If the FSF could find a loophole to allow it to sue to make Windows or OS X free, I'm quite sure it would make use of it. If Amnesty International found a loophole in Chinese law that meant it could get every prisoner of conscience there released, they'd do that too. If the Sierra Club found a deed that required Disney World be reforested after fifty years, they'd enforce that. If the NRA found a loophole that required that every adult in the America be required to carry a gun, they'd sue to make it happen.
The FSF is a political organization that considers unfree software to be immoral. It has one tool, the GPL, and it happens (quite rightly) that that tool requires some consent to be used. Given that this tool is voluntary - you don't have to use the software released under it and as such you don't have to be bound by its terms if you choose to release new software - it is perfectly legitimate for the FSF to enforce those terms.
C'mon now. Cisco is not actively hurting the FSF by not releasing source code. Maybe they're passively hurting the FSF, but this is much different from punching someone in the face.
Well, that's wrong on a couple of levels. The FSF is representing parties whose interests have been hurt by deliberate breaking of a contract. Those parties have created free software with the intent that it be used as the basis of a growing body of free software, and Cisco has willfully infringed the contract guaranteeing that. You may not see that as hurting those parties, but the parties do not see it that way. If Cisco uses their work and gets away with not releasing changes, then there's free-license to anyone else to do the same.
The FSF does see the customers of Cisco as victims too, as they have little control over the hardware item they purchased because the software is closed.
According to their own particular definition of free. And that's fine, they have a right to that opinion. I just don't think they should be forcing it upon others who are merely using code on which they hold the copyright.
Looks like you have an odd definition of "forcing"! It's a simple agreement, Cisco have both consented to it and broken it. The end users are negatively impacted by this. The authors who wanted to see their work used to open up software have seen their work undermined by this. The FSF has every right to represent those interests, and it has every right to see that fight as moral when it sees unfree software as being immoral and when it sees that Cisco has legally agreed to make the software free and has not done so.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:At least get it right by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-15 04:45 · Score: 1

The problem here seems to hinge on what is "voluntary," and what is "forced." It comes down to a question of what actions need to have permission granted in order to do. In your argument, in order for Cisco to distribute code which was written by the FSF, they must agree to a contract with the FSF. In my argument, no such contract should be necessary.

Whether or not Cisco even consented to such a contract is obviously in dispute between the FSF and Cisco. But that's even beyond my point, which is that Cisco should not have been put into the position of choosing between agreeing to the contract and letting the code go to waste in the first place.

The FSF wrote a bunch of code. Kudos to them. Linksys came around and adapted that code to be more useful. Kudos to them too. But then the FSF comes along and threatens Linksys with a lawsuit because they didn't play by the FSF's rules when they adapted that code. The FSF thinks that's perfectly fine, because since they wrote the original code, they get to dictate the terms under which it may be adapated. But I think that's bullshit. Free code should include the freedom to hide your source. Enforcing copyright law, other than defensively (like Linux users countersuing SCO), is immoral.
Re:At least get it right by squiggleslash · 2003-10-15 06:12 · Score: 1

The FSF thinks that's perfectly fine, because since they wrote the original code, they get to dictate the terms under which it may be adapated.
Not quite. The FSF believes it has a legal case, a way of forcing Cisco to do what it believes it right, because the FSF can enforce the license for the original code which dictated that Cisco, as a user, make its changes free too. The FSF believes the right thing, regardless of whether Cisco took GPL'd code or not, is for Cisco to make that code free. However, in most cases the FSF has no legal power to make that happen. In this case, however, the FSF has that power thanks to the GPL.
From the FSF standpoint, to go back to your original point, it isn't immoral to force someone to abide by the terms of the GPL because not performing the actions dictated by the GPL, whether the person is redistributing GPL'd code or his or her own, is immoral, in their view, anyway. The difference between the former (redistributing GPL'd code without the copy being free) and the latter (redistributing one's own code without that code being free) is that in the former case, the FSF has a means of legal enforcement.
Does it make sense where they're coming from? The focus many people have on "It's my code, I wrote it, I have the right to force users to make their changes free" has obscured, through putting a focus on a "right" the FSF wouldn't even consider legitimate, what the focus of the free software movement is. This gives you some insight into why RMS gets very upset when people confuse the Open Source and Free Software communities.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:At least get it right by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-15 06:55 · Score: 1

The FSF thinks that's perfectly fine, because since they wrote the original code, they get to dictate the terms under which it may be adapated.

Not quite. The FSF believes it has a legal case, a way of forcing Cisco to do what it believes it right, because the FSF can enforce the license for the original code which dictated that Cisco, as a user, make its changes free too.

While the FSF obviously believes it has a legal case, it also obviously believes it has the moral right to "force Cisco to do what it believes is right."

The FSF believes the right thing, regardless of whether Cisco took GPL'd code or not, is for Cisco to make that code free.

And by free they mean that the source code be released. And this is one disagreement I have with them. Just because someone writes code doesn't mean they should be obligated to release the source code. Sometimes by not releasing source code they can earn more money, and thereby be able to write even more code than they would otherwise be able to. It is an individual decision which should be made in light of the specific circumstances.

But the fact that it is an individual decision is my main disagreement with the FSF. Just because the FSF has a legal right to force Cisco to make a particular decision doesn't mean it has a moral right to do so. The FSF's concept of "Free Software" is fine even if it is a bit unrealistic, but forcing that concept upon others is wrong.

From the FSF standpoint, to go back to your original point, it isn't immoral to force someone to abide by the terms of the GPL because not performing the actions dictated by the GPL, whether the person is redistributing GPL'd code or his or her own, is immoral, in their view, anyway.

I guess both my disagreements are really the same. I don't think it's immoral to not release your source code. Therefore I think it is immoral to force someone else to release their source code.

The second point is more a matter of practicality, I guess. There are some points upon which reasonable people can disagree, and so for practical purposes it's better to live and let live than to get involved. I mean, the argument you're making can easily be used to justify acts such as the killing of doctors who perform abortions. But that's more a practical consideration, I guess.
Re:At least get it right by squiggleslash · 2003-10-15 07:35 · Score: 1

I mean, the argument you're making can easily be used to justify acts such as the killing of doctors who perform abortions
No it couldn't and I resent that. It could be used to justify someone who objects to abortions using the courts to prevent them from happening when that person sees an opportunity arising that would allow him or her to involve the courts. It could also be used to justify someone creating an framework to make it easier to use the courts to force what that person sees as more moral behaviour.
I don't know where you see anything suggesting someone might feel justified in even breaking the law, let alone resorting to murder, in what I've written.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:At least get it right by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-15 09:01 · Score: 1

I don't know where you see anything suggesting someone might feel justified in even breaking the law, let alone resorting to murder, in what I've written.

It seems to be the same argument to me. That's all I'm saying. Sure, killing someone is much more harsh than suing them, but in the mind of someone who believes that abortion is murder abortion is much more harsh than refusing to release source. The basic argument, that individuals have a right to force their morality upon others, is the same.
Re:At least get it right by squiggleslash · 2003-10-16 02:30 · Score: 1

Now, come on, this is getting absurd. The FSF is not arguing that murdering people is a legitimate response to the lack of release of free software. And if you seriously believe that an anti-abortionist murdering a doctor is like the FSF enforcing what it can to ensure released is free, then perhaps you can explain the reasoning.
And again, you're again missing the point. You're arguing hypocracy here, because the FSF fails to abide by your sense of right and wrong. The FSF doesn't abide by your sense, it abides by it's own beliefs, and those beliefs are wholly consistant. Your sense is that unfree software is not a crime that rises to a level you believe requires enforcement (I assume you really didn't mean to criticise the notion of forcing a morality on others - that really would justify letting an individual murder an abortionist, after all, who are you to prevent such a murder, surely you'd be "forcing your morality" (your opposition to murder) "upon others"?) so you ignore the fact the FSF does.
The FSF believes that unfree software is immoral. It believes that it's not a legitimate choice. As such, it is not hypocritical for it to attack, legally, someone's "choice" to release unfree software. It believes that, just as with a murder or the taking of property, the release of unfree software is an occurance with serious negative repercusions. You may or may not believe that it is correct in its beliefs, but it certainly has a right to them, and it is certainly not hypocritical for it to follow them. Your belief is that the hypocracy is there because by saying "No use of this software to produce unfree software", it is imposing a restriction. However, the FSF would argue it is not the use of the free software it objects to, it's the fact that software is released that's unfree. It doesn't care whether the original software is original, or based on baby-mulching code from OpenBSD, or based upon GNU EMACS, the only difference between the three is that for the latter, it actually has a means of enforcement.
I don't really care whether you support the FSF's views or not. I'm never certain myself whether I go with the BSD or GPL view of the world. But it's absurd to run around implying that, somehow, the FSF is being inconsistant here, simply because your view of the world is not the same as its. And the FSF is clear on one thing, it works within the law. I don't see that its belief in free software has ever resulted in it abusing the law - it doesn't hack into Microsoft, it's very careful to redistribute only code it has license or rights to. The FSF is one of the most careful groups in the world when it comes to following the law, to an extent that I doubt most of its enemies are (no, screw that, I *know* - this very case of FSF vs Cisco is an example.)
They're not hypocritical. They're not murderers. They're not breaking the law, advocating breaking the law, or working outside of the system. And ultimately everyone who's being the target of legal action from them has affectively consented to that legal action. It's exceedingly unfair to paint them otherwise.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:At least get it right by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-16 11:41 · Score: 1

Now, come on, this is getting absurd. The FSF is not arguing that murdering people is a legitimate response to the lack of release of free software.

Agreed.

And again, you're again missing the point. You're arguing hypocracy here, because the FSF fails to abide by your sense of right and wrong.

I never mentioned hypocrisy.

Your sense is that unfree software is not a crime that rises to a level you believe requires enforcement

No, my sense is that not releasing your source code is not a crime at all.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-10-14 01:31 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Great quote: by Saint+Aardvark · 2003-10-14 01:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

In some ways, these Free Software Foundation "enforcement actions" can be more dangerous than a typical copyright spat, because usually copyright holders seek money--say, royalties on the product that infringing companies are selling. But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties -- it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.

1) Hah! Let's try:

@companies = ("Microsoft", "IBM", "Oracle", "SCO"); foreach (@companies) { $quote =~ s/Free Software Foundation/$_/g; }

There has been more than one story about Microsoft and IBM using licensing or patent disputes in order to screw competitors. SCO's entire existence seems to depend on wanting you "to burn down your own house". Oracle's in there for completeness. I'm sure there's other examples.

2) And holy FSOF, since when did complying with the license the software is released under become such an onerous act? When it forbids you to release benchmarks of .NET software (MS)? When it includes clauses saying "If you're in Europe, and you have the right to reverse engineer this software, you explicitly give up that right even though you don't have to" (Synplicity or Matlab, I forget which -- installed recently at work)? Evidently these crack-induced clauses are perfectly acceptable; why, then, does Forbes' writer swallow a camel and strain at a gnat?

Grr, this is going to bug me all day...

--
Carousel is a lie!

Re:Great quote: by rmohr02 · 2003-10-14 01:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

And you generally don't have to pay for GPL'd software. The only thing the developer asks for in return is that you release any changes under the same license.

CISCO knew this requirement, yet they still used Linux for their routers.
Re:Great quote: by Jason+Earl · 2003-10-14 01:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Exactly. The reason that Linksys was able to sell 400,000 units is that they stole a jump on their competitors by using Free Software as the base of their product. They didn't write that software and the license that Linux is distributed under is very explicit. Linksys sold nearly a half million units of a product that someone else did the bulk of the work developing and now they want to complain about the terms?
That's just ridiculous.
The reason that Cisco is going to settle is that they know that if they didn't settle they would lose,be forced to cough up the source code, and pay damages to boot. They are fortunate that they stole from the FSF and not someone else.
Re:Great quote: by beady · 2003-10-14 02:05 · Score: 1

Precisly, could you imagine if Cisco paid for one license of windows CE, and then proceded to distribute 600,000 routers with WinCE on? Which big bucks company would Forbes side with then?
Re:Great quote: by Syphtor · 2003-10-14 02:06 · Score: 1

But reading the article, isn't it Broadcom that used Linux in the chips bought by Linksys?

So by that logic, Linksys did not knowingly use (unless informed by Broadcom) Linux to jump on the work done by someone else. I'd say that it's Broadcom that should be in the shitter...

But then again I don't know enough of the details, and the article has way to much of a slant to rely on what little facts can be gleaned.

--
It's in that place where I put that thing that time
Re:Great quote: by Znork · 2003-10-14 02:08 · Score: 2, Funny

"But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties -- it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners."

That line is rather funny. He seems to have missed the point that, in fact, it's NOT Linksys's house. Linksys only built the outhouse, and the FSF wants Linksys to share the outhouse in exchange for Linksys being allowed to use the mansion. Not to mention that Linksys remains entirely free to take their outhouse and remove it from the FSF property, as long as they quit using the mansion and build their own mansion.
Re:Great quote: by fermion · 2003-10-14 02:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is real interesting because I would think Forbes would be pro IP. For instance, do they support the RIAA? I guess they do not. Music for all practical intents and purposes is free. If someone buys music, it is out of a respect for laws and various contracts that says we buy goods and services. We have always been able to get music for free, it is just easier now. The fact that music sales have remained as high as they have, in spite of music being freely available, in spite of the RIAA attacking customers and potential customers, in spite of the economy being in such a slump that many people have no money.
And does Forbes believe in EULA that says you must have a license for each machine or each processor? I guess not. After all, the consequences to businesses for violating these agreements are extreme. A company with several PCs and lacking a single license for the MS software could be a great deal of trouble. And the gestapo tactics of the BSA audits and spy software certainly cannot be good a corporation.
Many of these adults remind me so much of adolescents who want to pick and choose the rules. The GPL is disclosed up front and a person chooses to use the GPL code or not. If they choose to used it and violate the license, there are consequences, just like any other violation. It is childish to say after the fact that the rules are unfair. The rules were agreed to when the software was used. And unlike some other software or music licenses, there is no element of constraint or duress, and the GPL has no element of unreasonable restrictions of rights.
The fact is that corporations want others to pay for their worthless products, but refuse the same in return. We have seen this with the RIAA and expensive industry reports. I have seen this with guys make 100K a year but only go to movies when they are free. And we see this know with companies that steal code but complain when others do the same.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:Great quote: by eht · 2003-10-14 02:14 · Score: 1

yeah, they should have stolen from freebsd/openbsd/netbsd instead
Re:Great quote: by __past__ · 2003-10-14 02:15 · Score: 1

And you generally don't have to pay for GPL'd software. The only thing the developer asks for in return is that you release any changes under the same license.
This seems to be what the author considers the problem: If you use proprietary code without a license and are caught, you have the option of either stopping to use it or to start paying license fees and go on. With GPLed software, you can stop using the code, or open your own one, which is less attractive.
What makes the GPL more dangerous for companies is that the risk of trying to get away with copyright violations is higher. Companies that honor the law have nothing to fear, but they are obviously not Forbes' target group.

--
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Re:Great quote: by LostCluster · 2003-10-14 02:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, Cisco's only involvment is that they purchased Linksys who had gotten themselves into this mess. Buying a company and then realizing it didn't own its key IP asset would have to go down as one of the biggest business blunders of the decade.
Re:Great quote: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:26 · Score: 0

See there you go using the whole "stole" thing again. They did not steal, they violated the copyright, otherwise known as copyright infringement.

Keep you diction in line, we don't want the RIAA to actually start making us think that copyright infringement is theft.

Or are we simply like the other conglomerates, willing to change our words to fit our needs. I was rather hoping we were above that.
Re:Great quote: by sstaton · 2003-10-14 02:31 · Score: 1

Oh, you mean like IBM buying an open license to MS-DOS in 1981, and then finding out that it was really CP/M, ported by Seattle Softworks? And then facing a huge lawsuit by Gary Kildall?
My guess is that this happens all the time, and only rarely gets into the courts.

--
The two most common things in the Universe are dark matter and stupidity.
Re:Great quote: by Cramer · 2003-10-14 02:31 · Score: 1

Can we stop blaming CISCO... they bought LINKSYS. And LINKSYS uses Linux in many of their products. It's sorta like buying up rental properties to later find one of them was a meth lab. Cisco will eventually figure out what their children are doing and put a stop to it. (Everything must run IOS afterall.)
Re:Great quote: by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 02:34 · Score: 1

So by that logic, Linksys did not knowingly use (unless informed by Broadcom) Linux to jump on the work done by someone else.

Well, they probably knew about it, but don't they have the right of First Sale to redistribute it anyway?

If the FSF sued Linksys, it would be as bad as when Microsoft sues eBay resellers.
Re:Great quote: by Jason+Earl · 2003-10-14 02:38 · Score: 1

Ah good point. The FSF wouldn't want me to use the world "steal" either. Linksys violated the FSF's copyrights, but they did not steal.
Good catch. Carry on.
Re:Great quote: by OscarGunther · 2003-10-14 02:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

And this is precisely why we should go out of our way to read articles that are critical of the open-source community. We need to know what others are thinking, particularly those who oppose open source because of some misguided view of its political underpinnings. We can act like the article's caricature--happy (clueless) proles linking arms and singing the "Internationale" (oh, please)--or we can be aware of how the public perceive us and work to correct those misconceptions.
The socialist references in the article are particularly telling. Apart from the fact that Linksys and Progress weren't required to use GPL'ed software as the basis for their code, should not cavil at honoring the license the code was released under, and would be more than happy to sue anyone who violated their licenses--apart from all that, I say, is this weird underlying theme that the GPL is offensive to capitalism. Lyons, the article's author, and by extension Forbes magazine seem to take it as a personal affront that someone should choose not to profit from their work. I didn't know that capitalism was a moral mandate; I wasn't aware that I am required to make a profit if I can possibly do so. Silly me, I thought I was free to choose. This is an odd stance, considering the state science would be in if most scientists weren't willing to share freely the fruits of their researches. Lyons might still be publishing his screeds by painting them on cave walls.
Re:Great quote: by g00set · 2003-10-14 02:42 · Score: 1

I totally agree. It appears that the author believes that if Company X gets caught in a GPL bust why can't they just buy their way out of it and move on?

I find it similar to a polluter who lets say is going to may $15 million dollars off a contract to dispose of waste but may end up violating a few pollution laws in the process. Well, fines for violating pollution laws may only total to $250K. From a business perspective they go for it.

I guess the author is crying that the punishment does not fit the crime. As the GPL is not a new thing and *they* must have known the rules I say screw em'.

--
... and furthermore ... I don't like your trousers.
Re:Great quote: by Cramer · 2003-10-14 02:46 · Score: 1

bulk? Linksys didn't simply download the latest RedHat and install it on their hardware. They did a lot more work than you're giving them credit for.

There's nothing at all wrong with companies using Linux as the base for their products -- more than you'd ever suspect actually are. The biggest stink is over the source to Broadcom's wireless driver -- so the chips can be supported in other systems. The thing is, they don't have to give you the source to *their* f***ing driver. It's their driver. It's loaded as a module and thus not sucked under the GPL. Unless you can prove the Broadcom driver is an adaptation of a GPL'd driver, that's the end of the discussion. Now who's trying to steel what?
Re:Great quote: by jav1231 · 2003-10-14 02:51 · Score: 1

And the article talks about the GPL leading to others essentially ripping off the technology. Hello! Everyone and their grandmother builds a similar router! (Netgear, SMC, D-Link, hell even Microsoft!). "But unlike OTHER routers, I can speak with an English accent!"
Re:Great quote: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:54 · Score: 0

This is real interesting because I would think Forbes would be pro IP.

They're just pointing out the hypocrisy of the FSF. IP is bad, unless it's the GPL.
Re:Great quote: by martyros · 2003-10-14 02:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

And holy FSOF, since when did complying with the license the software is released under become such an onerous act?

And I like how he talks about the GPL "enforcement" squad as hit men, "snooping" into companies to try to find hidden violations. What about the Business Software Alliance? Don't Oracle and Microsoft do the same thing, looking for illegal copies of their software?
No one made Linksys or Broadcom use Linux; they were perfectly free to buy someone else's kernel, or to write their own. If they'd put Windows CE in there without paying for a license, you can bet Microsoft / BSA would be down their throat in a heartbeat. Why should it be any different for us?
The other thing that pisses me off about the article is that you can tell, from some of the quotes, that he's playing that stupid journalistic "selective quoting" game. If the OSS and FSF people he quoted knew that he was going to write such a bigoted article, they probably wouldn't have talked to him. I guess it gets articles published, but it sure is a shame to have to lie and betray people to make a buck...

--
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Re:Great quote: by LMCBoy · 2003-10-14 03:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's a huge difference between first sale (in which I sell a single copy of some software to one person, then no longer have it myself) and redistribution (in which I sell my embedded linux device 400,000+ times). The latter is clearly not "first sale".

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Re:Great quote: by corporate+zombie · 2003-10-14 03:11 · Score: 1

Um...

http://www.linksys.com >> Support

http://www.linksys.com/support/default.asp >> GPL Code Center

http://www.linksys.com/support/gpl.asp

And from this page:

If you would like a copy of the GPL source code in Linksys products on a CD, please send $9.99 to Linksys for the costs of preparing and mailing the CD to you.

Plus individual source files available for download.

You say, "That's just ridiculous." And I can't agree more but I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

Please do some research before you accuse companies of stealing from the FSF on the basis of a magazine article which is rather slanted. Many large corporations understand both the benefit and limitations which are attached to working with OSS. Just because a company makes money off of using OSS doesn't mean they've done it by ignoring the GPL. In a lot of circles around here that seems to be an immediate conclusion.

-CZ
Re:Great quote: by kasparov · 2003-10-14 03:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Linksys wrote drivers to support the Broadcom chips and directly modified the Linux source to support these chips. Everything is statically linked. There are no modules. Linksys is violating the GPL, and they do have to give us the source to *their* f***ing driver. They distributed it. It's not our fault. I don't think they will be able to successfully undistribute it...

--
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
Re:Great quote: by Carewolf · 2003-10-14 03:20 · Score: 1

Please do the research yourself. The CD only contains the original Linux kernel, and not the Linksys drivers (derivative product).

So yes, they are violating the GPL. And PLEASE PLEASE dont accuse other people of not doing something you dont do yourself, asshole.
Re:Great quote: by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 03:24 · Score: 1

There's a huge difference between first sale (in which I sell a single copy of some software to one person, then no longer have it myself) and redistribution (in which I sell my embedded linux device 400,000+ times). The latter is clearly not "first sale".

Actually, First Sale makes no mention of a limit as to how many copies you can resell before it stops applying. Maybe there's a difference ethically, but there isn't a legal difference.
Re:Great quote: by You're+All+Wrong · 2003-10-14 03:36 · Score: 1

So it appears CISCO have never heard of Due Diligence?

I have a lovely bridge I can sell them.

YAW.

--
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
Re:Great quote: by AstroDrabb · 2003-10-14 03:41 · Score: 1

It is even less then that. With GPL you can build your outhouse anywhere on the GPL property and use all of the GPL facilities free of charge. Linksys moved on to the GPL property and built an addition to the GPL mansion and is now trying to say that, "while I can use all of the GPL facilities, no one can use the addition that I build on your foundation". Linksys could have easily built on the GPL property, used all of the GPL facilities, but not have built any additon and been fine. They could still take down their addition and move it to some other part of the property not directly attached to the GPL mansion and be fine. Or they can keep the addition and allow others to enoy it.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:Great quote: by JCholewa · 2003-10-14 03:41 · Score: 1

> Actually, First Sale makes no mention of a limit as to how
> many copies you can resell before it stops applying.

I would imagine that the "First" in "First Sale" implies that it stops after the "First" "Sale" of the item.

I mean, isn't that part obvious?

--
-JC
Re:Great quote: by LMCBoy · 2003-10-14 03:50 · Score: 1

Sorry, my friend. You are wrong about that. See Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 109:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

(emphasis added). As you can see, when you own a particular copy of a work, you may sell that copy (note singular form of "copy") without permission of the copyright holder. That's First Sale. There's nothing about being allowed to redistribute copies hundreds of thousands of times, and I cannot seriously believe that you ever actually thought that such activity was allowed by the First Sale doctrine.

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Re:Great quote: by squiggleslash · 2003-10-14 03:51 · Score: 1

Where did you get that from? MSDOS was no more a "port" of CP/M than Linux is a "port" of Unix (SCO allegations notwithstanding.) MSDOS (or rather QDOS, as it was when Seattle wrote it) was a CP/M workalike, with some significant differences. No code, to the best of my knowledge, was shared.
I don't recall Kildall ever suing either, but I'm not sure if that was a rhetorical point ;-)

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Great quote: by sharper56 · 2003-10-14 03:53 · Score: 1
Zombie use your corporate ability to follow orders and execute these tasks:
1. 1. Download the code from this site
  2. make bzImage
  3. Watch as compile fails due to broken headers/missing code
  4 Shut your hole about not following up!
Enjoy.
Re:Great quote: by swdunlop · 2003-10-14 03:57 · Score: 1

Ah, and here we come to the crux of Forbes' problem with Free Software. Forbes is a magazine that focusses on the culture of making money, not social advance or intellectual pursuits beyond those of applied economics. The very idea of giving something away, in order to get something better in return simply offends their target demographic in ways unimaginable by sane, rational individuals.

I take exception with the original article poster's suggestion that we not read the article, simply because they are making mountains out of molehills.. We should all read it, consider it, then enjoy it, much like a fine bit of John Cleese absurdism.

If they're screaming about us, we must be doing something right.

--
Weapons of Mass Analysis
Re:Great quote: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:08 · Score: 0

The reason should be obvious. FSF and the GPL are communists and Daniel Lyons obviously is into McCarthyism. To capitalists anything communist == bad. So being expected to share and play well with others and their property is ghastly unspeakable. You should be able to buy it so you can selfishly have your own. Then use it to profit and outmaneuver your competition. Basicly, they don't like the GPL. Its not a fair license to them. "They" are companies like Forbes.
Re:Great quote: by sstaton · 2003-10-14 04:09 · Score: 1

Tim Patterson wrote a set of 8080 macros for the 8088 assembler, and reassembled the CP/M source that Kildall shared with him (they were friends at the time), because Kildall didn't have access to a working 8088 CPU and motherboard and was interested in seeing CP/M working on the new Intel chip. Patterson knew Paul Allen, and told him about the effort. Paul told Bill. Bill called Tim and offered him $50K for the codebase. Tim agreed to sell. Some of this story was part of the teleplay of The Pirates of Silicon Valley.
It doesn't make sense that Patterson would do this, but it does explain the CP/M calls in MS-DOS 1.0. Obviously, Microsoft rewrote sections of CP/M to work with the IBM-pc BIOS, and to provide a more Xenix like shell (later called COMMAND.COM in MS-DOS 2.X) as opposed to the CP/M one.
This was related to me by an individual who had a seat at the table when Kildall and his lawyer visited IBM in Boca Raton in early 1981, to share the good news that MS-DOS was based on their code. IBM ended up buying a source license for CP/M for Microsoft (cost: $250K) so that they could clean up the licensing mess that Bill and Tim had made. Little did they know that it was just a harbinger of the OS/2 vs. NT fiasco to come.

--
The two most common things in the Universe are dark matter and stupidity.
Re:Great quote: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:09 · Score: 0

You do realize that Linksys didn't put that page up until after people complained, right? And even when they did, there were missing files.
Re:Great quote: by Rich0 · 2003-10-14 04:17 · Score: 1

The fact is that corporations want others to pay for their worthless products, but refuse the same in return.

You hit the nail on the head here. Keep in mind who reads Forbes - executives.

Executives are in the business of selling copies of a product for $200 each while paying the guy who created it $60k/yr and living off the difference (usually a couple hundred million dollars - split with shareholders of course).

To them an idea should either belong to a corporation or be in the public domain. The idea of IP being licensed for the public good and being off-limits to exclusive corporate use is alien to them.

The FSF is right. They're more than welcome to write their own OS. Or they can use WinCE and may MS a royalty on every box sold. Or they can use BSD and just put an attribution in their manual. But if they want to use GPL software they have to relase their source. Linux doesn't belong to the public domain - it belongs to the devlopers who wrote it. If they want to make the licnense terms such that anyone can use it as long as they ship them $x dollars nobody would dispute this. Instead they make the terms "if you benefit from my source, then I can benefit from yours".
Re:Great quote: by Zimm · 2003-10-14 04:18 · Score: 1

This is real interesting because I would think Forbes would be pro IP. For instance, do they support the RIAA? I guess they do not. Music for all practical intents and purposes is free. If someone buys music, it is out of a respect for laws and various contracts that says we buy goods and services. We have always been able to get music for free, it is just easier now. The fact that music sales have remained as high as they have, in spite of music being freely available, in spite of the RIAA attacking customers and potential customers, in spite of the economy being in such a slump that many people have no money.

People who make music might be suprised to learn that music is free. Instead of spending time and money making music, maybe they should just pull it out of thin air, because it's free.

Many of these adults remind me so much of adolescents who want to pick and choose the rules. The GPL is disclosed up front and a person chooses to use the GPL code or not. If they choose to used it and violate the license, there are consequences, just like any other violation. It is childish to say after the fact that the rules are unfair. The rules were agreed to when the software was used. And unlike some other software or music licenses, there is no element of constraint or duress, and the GPL has no element of unreasonable restrictions of rights.

Right the GPL is a copyright and you accept it just like any other copyright. So if the FSF wants to use gestapo tactics just like the BSA then why not? Why is the FSF different from the BSA? Birds of a feather....

The fact is that corporations want others to pay for their worthless products, but refuse the same in return. We have seen this with the RIAA and expensive industry reports. I have seen this with guys make 100K a year but only go to movies when they are free. And we see this know with companies that steal code but complain when others do the same.

If their products are worthless don't buy them. Why do you want to enforce some copyrights(GPL) but not other? Why do you accept FSF gestapo tactics with regards to GPL but not BSA? Do you believe in copyright at all or is everything public domain, including GPL source code?

Take a look, your cake is gone.. you just ate it.
Re:Great quote: by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 04:21 · Score: 1

I would imagine that the "First" in "First Sale" implies that it stops after the "First" "Sale" of the item.

You'd imagine wrong.

I mean, isn't that part obvious?

Read the law some time. It's not at all obvious.
Re:Great quote: by iamacat · 2003-10-14 04:34 · Score: 1

Except that they bought 400000 chips from Broadcom, so selling each of the chips was in fact a first sale.
Re:Great quote: by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 04:36 · Score: 1

As you can see, when you own a particular copy of a work, you may sell that copy (note singular form of "copy") without permission of the copyright holder. That's First Sale. There's nothing about being allowed to redistribute copies hundreds of thousands of times, and I cannot seriously believe that you ever actually thought that such activity was allowed by the First Sale doctrine.

You're the one confusing the law. If you lawfully obtain hundreds of thousands of copies, you can lawfully resell hundreds of thousands of copies.

Let's go back to the eBay reseller. Are you trying to claim that if I buy one copy of Windows I can resell it on eBay but if I buy two copies of Windows I can't resell them both on eBay? Or are you just confusing what Cisco is doing here?
Re:Great quote: by Citizen+of+Earth · 2003-10-14 04:41 · Score: 1

They are fortunate that they stole from the FSF and not someone else.

Slashdotally speaking, it's possible to "steal" only free software. If it's taken from anybody else, it's called "copyright infringement", with a dozen bots a-bitchin' that it's not physical property.
Re:Great quote: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:42 · Score: 0

Modules or Static Linking are irrelevant from a legal perspective, and the FSF knows it. If the driver can be considered an independent work (and most Linux drivers are), then they only owe you the rest of the source code.
Re:Great quote: by schlick · 2003-10-14 04:58 · Score: 1

CISCO knew this requirement, yet they still used Linux for their routers.

Cisco didn't do it, Linksys did. Most cisco routers run IOS. Cisco just acquired Linksys. Maybe they will make the source available. It would be irrisponsible of them not to make an informed decision about what to do. (Either take out the GPL'ed code or distribute it... there may be other otpions I'm not aware of)

--
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
Re:Great quote: by LMCBoy · 2003-10-14 05:10 · Score: 1

(a) I was replying to your statement that "First Sale makes no mention of a limit as to how many copies you can resell before it stops applying.". This is wrong; First Sale says that the lawful owner can sell their copy. Of course if you legally own two copies, then First Sale applies twice. That's not what you were saying, however.

(b) You say: "If you lawfully obtain hundreds of thousands of copies, you can lawfully resell hundreds of thousands of copies." If Broadcom distributed GPL'd software without complying with its conditions, then Cisco/Linksys did not legally obtain those copies, and they therefore have no First Sale rights.

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Re:Great quote: by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 05:20 · Score: 1

Of course if you legally own two copies, then First Sale applies twice. That's not what you were saying, however.

You misunderstood me, because that's exactly what I was saying.

You say: "If you lawfully obtain hundreds of thousands of copies, you can lawfully resell hundreds of thousands of copies." If Broadcom distributed GPL'd software without complying with its conditions, then Cisco/Linksys did not legally obtain those copies, and they therefore have no First Sale rights.

How do you know Broadcom did not comply with the GPL? Maybe Broadcom gave Linksys the source code to its changes.
Re:Great quote: by kwoff · 2003-10-14 05:20 · Score: 1

> @companies = ("Microsoft", "IBM", "Oracle","SCO");
>
> foreach (@companies) {
> $quote =~ s/Free Software Foundation/$_/g;
> }

'Free Software Foundation' won't match after
'Microsoft' gets substituted for it.
Re:Great quote: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:23 · Score: 0

Society is built on a series of fictions. The value of most things is predicated on the acceptance of these fantasies in a consistent self-fulfilling manner. The trademark, copyright, and patent laws exist to create a fiction where things will have value, under the assumption that such a fiction will increase motivation to create these products.
The traditional problem is that agents use the so-calledIP laws to control markets. Part of the fiction is that consumers have choice. Part of the current problem is that the fiction of choice is falling apart, which is causing other parts of the fiction to lose cohesion. It is arguably true that the RIAA, the BSA, and the FSF are all doing this. However, by attacking the GPL, as some have, we risk the fiction.
The GPL is not copyright. It is a licencse. Various laws like copyright allows the owners to impose a license on the products use. Corporations now live and die by the fictions created in thier licenses. The FSF foundation may or may not have such a constraint. For example, if the GPL fails, all the things coved under it may very well simply revert to the copyright owner and very little will be lost. OTOH, if MS license in invalidated, and they specified, for example, that all reviews of thier products must be approved by MS, they will lose quite a lot.
I don't condone violating copyright. I believe that the fiction needs stuff to enter the public domain in a timely manner. I tend to buy what I need and generally try to do without what I cannot afford. But then I ignore most societal pressures. I do not think I ever begged my mom for a pair of sneakers, or even a color TV.
I don't know if the PHB don't understand the fiction, or if thier greed just warps thier judgement.
Re:Great quote: by Ohreally_factor · 2003-10-14 05:35 · Score: 1

Reeeeally bad analogy, comparing Open Source to Meth. Accproding to the RFC, you should compare Open Source to Medical Mariajuana.

This analogy is bad on so many levels. Crystal Meth is not released under any sort of license. The Crystal Meth Foundation won't come after you for failing to abide by this non-existant license.

If you begin to include "Free Crystal Meth" with rental or purchase of your property. . . .Well, I guess that would be OK with proprietary Meth.

A person buys up properties that are documented to house meth labs If they don't remove those meth labs right away, you don't think they bear any responsibility?

You're just silly.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Great quote: by LMCBoy · 2003-10-14 05:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

You misunderstood me, because that's exactly what I was saying.

Well, no. You said that the First Sale doctrine "makes no mention of a limit as to how many copies you can resell". This is simply not correct: it is mentioned quite explicitly that the legal owner of a particular copy is allowed to resell that particular copy.

How do you know Broadcom did not comply with the GPL? Maybe Broadcom gave Linksys the source code to its changes.

Hence the word "If" that began my sentence. Anyway, "if" that were the case, then Linksys is still bound by the requirements of the GPL; if any of its customers ask to see source code derived from GPL'd software, they must still provide it, as a distributor of GPL'd software.

You can try to juggle blame between Broadcom and Linksys all you want, but in the end, if someone is sold GPL'd software, then they have the right to see the source code. It is not complicated.

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Re:Great quote: by _Sprocket_ · 2003-10-14 05:44 · Score: 1

They're just pointing out the hypocrisy of the FSF. IP is bad, unless it's the GPL.

The GPL is basically a hack of the current system. You either abolish so-called Intellectual Property or you follow that system and adhere to the GPL.

Hypocricy is when you demand that people adhere to your licensing and respect your copyright while being absolultely shocked that someone might require you to adhere to their licensing (the GPL).
Re:Great quote: by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 05:47 · Score: 1

You misunderstood me, because that's exactly what I was saying.

Well, no. You said that the First Sale doctrine "makes no mention of a limit as to how many copies you can resell". This is simply not correct: it is mentioned quite explicitly that the legal owner of a particular copy is allowed to resell that particular copy.

Yes, but there is no limit as to how many copies you can resell, as long as you are the owner of each copy.

Hence the word "If" that began my sentence. Anyway, "if" that were the case, then Linksys is still bound by the requirements of the GPL; if any of its customers ask to see source code derived from GPL'd software, they must still provide it, as a distributor of GPL'd software.

Wrong. Linksys is not bound by the GPL, because Linksys never agreed to the GPL. Again, it's like saying a reseller is bound to the Microsoft EULA and therefore is not allowed to resell on eBay.

You can try to juggle blame between Broadcom and Linksys all you want, but in the end, if someone is sold GPL'd software, then they have the right to see the source code. It is not complicated.

It's not complicated, but it's also not correct.
Re:Great quote: by murphj · 2003-10-14 06:14 · Score: 1

Don't Oracle and Microsoft do the same thing, looking for illegal copies of their software?

Microsoft certainly does, but not Oracle, according to this story. Their software costs a fortune, of course, but their attitude seems a lot less adversarial. That may be due in part to the difficulty of determining Oracle licensing compliance, though. Every time I purchase a license from them, something has changed.

--
SONY. Because caucasians are just too damn tall.
Re:Great quote: by cyberformer · 2003-10-14 06:18 · Score: 1

If software patents had been around back then and Kildall had patented CP/M, MS-DOS probably would have been found to be infringing. The same is true of Apple's attempt to sue Microsoft over Windows (which failed because it was based on copyright, not patents).

There does now seem to be a movement among some corporations to have the same expansive definition of "intellectual property" applied to copyright as to software patents. SCO is the most obvious example, but there are others, and they're not all in the software industry: Musicians have been sued over silence, and the publisher of Harry Potter has claimed copyright over an entire genre of fiction.

The Fortune article is pushing the same crazy agenda. Expansive copyright is even more dangerous than software patents, because copyright is automatic and (for all practical purposes) eternal
Re:Great quote: by pmz · 2003-10-14 06:19 · Score: 1

And you generally don't have to pay for GPL'd software.

The price of the GPL is giving up rights normally reserved for the public domain. So, it isn't money, but it is real. Selecting a license for open source software is very much like picking a price for selling widgets. If the license cost is too high, then people can seek out alternatives (BSD, Apache, commercial licenses, etc.).

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:Great quote: by Cramer · 2003-10-14 06:24 · Score: 1

Looking through the image the new wrv54g is running... wait for it... the wireless interface is a MODULE. lib/modules/islpci.o to be precise. The wrt54g... lib/modules/2.4.5/kernel/drivers/net/wl/wl.o.

And Linksys didn't write those drivers. The chip manufacturers did. And their current linux environment (wrv54g hardware) is a commercial environment from Jungo - OpenRG.

(BTW, the include files for the ipsec hardware crypto aren't there, so one cannot build the exact same kernel. I haven't dug through Intel's web site to see if they are available or not.)
Re:Great quote: by Minna+Kirai · 2003-10-14 06:24 · Score: 1

Yes, but there is no limit as to how many copies you can resell, as long as you are the owner of each copy.

And since making a copy of software without permission is illegal, you are not the owner of those copies unless you agreed to the GPL before making them.

Linksys is not bound by the GPL, because Linksys never agreed to the GPL.

So then you're accusing them of flat-out copyright violation then? Fine.

It's not disputed that they downloaded Linux, modified it, made thousands of copies, and sold them. That part where they "made thousands of copies" is criminal copyright infringement, with statutory damages that can reach the billions, unless they had first come to an agreement with the original copyright holder. That agreement is the GPL. If they didn't consent to it, then they're just a bunch of warez d00ds.

People are allowed to make a small number of copies of software for Fair Use purposes, but those cannot be resold (except as bundled with the original, licensed copy). I can backup Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) XP onto my tape drive, but can't sell that tape independtly of the original install media.

You have no right to make an independently redistributable copy of GPLed software without agreeing to the GPL.
Re:Great quote: by kasparov · 2003-10-14 06:26 · Score: 1

It seems to me, that the only license Linksys has to distribute Linux specifically states that they have to distribute any source modifications they have made to it or else that license is revoked. Ergo, their problem.

--
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
Re:Great quote: by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 06:50 · Score: 1

And since making a copy of software without permission is illegal, you are not the owner of those copies unless you agreed to the GPL before making them.

Not true. If someone else made the copies, and then sold them to you, then you are the owner.

It's not disputed that they downloaded Linux, modified it, made thousands of copies, and sold them.

According to the article, Broadcom is the one that did that.
Re:Great quote: by Minna+Kirai · 2003-10-14 07:06 · Score: 1

Not true. If someone else made the copies, and then sold them to you, then you are the owner.

And recursively, back when he was making the copies, "someone else" must have agreed to the GPL, or else it was illegal.

If he DID comply with the GPL back then, the copies you got will have the GPL license attached to them, and such things as "an offer valid for 3 years for any 3rd party to request a copy of the source code".

If you pass that software to your customers, then the GPL is on it, and they can ask for the source code. Or if you remove the GPL, then you are no longer distributing what you got, but rather a modified copy, and have to get permission from the copyright-holder for that.

(Just imagine if I bought Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) XP, and replaced the EULA with a BSD-style license before selling it on E-Bay. Would that work? No! You can't edit the license on software before legally reselling it. That's fraud)

Are you seriously suggesting that the GPL can be completely evaded just by asking a separate entity to make copies of the modified GPLed program before you sell them?
Re:Great quote: by Sj0 · 2003-10-14 07:19 · Score: 1

They didn't say anything about that, nor did they imply it. The whole article was just one huge ignorant blast against the FSF defending the copyrights of GPL'd programs.

I recommend you take a reading comprehension course before telling people what the article is pointing out again.

--
It's been a long time.
Re:Great quote: by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 07:20 · Score: 1

And recursively, back when he was making the copies, "someone else" must have agreed to the GPL, or else it was illegal.

Of course.

If he DID comply with the GPL back then, the copies you got will have the GPL license attached to them, and such things as "an offer valid for 3 years for any 3rd party to request a copy of the source code".

Or they could just "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code."

If you pass that software to your customers, then the GPL is on it, and they can ask for the source code.

They can ask, but you don't have to give it to them, since you never agreed to the GPL. And the GPL only requires the original copying party to give source code to you. Sure, if you use option b), the offer is valid to all third parties, but this is not required if you're using option a).

Are you seriously suggesting that the GPL can be completely evaded just by asking a separate entity to make copies of the modified GPLed program before you sell them?

Not completely, but you can avoid the requirement to distribute source code thihs way.
Re:Great quote: by Sj0 · 2003-10-14 07:24 · Score: 1

accept FSF gestapo tactics

I don't think you understand what gestapo tactics are. Wait...You're not a regular here, are you? SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!

--
It's been a long time.
Re:Great quote: by Minna+Kirai · 2003-10-14 07:35 · Score: 1

Not completely, but you can avoid the requirement to distribute source code thihs way.

And what else is there to avoid? Requiring distribution of source code is the sole objective of the GPL.

(The fact that customers purchasing a router will be able to extract ROM images to freely use in their own projects is small consolation, and not at all what the GPL is meant to do)
Re:Great quote: by Zimm · 2003-10-14 07:36 · Score: 1

The trademark, copyright, and patent laws exist to create a fiction where things will have value, under the assumption that such a fiction will increase motivation to create these products.

So the only reason copyrighted works have value is because of the copyright? No, works that are copyrighted are found to be valuable even without copyright. Other wise those things would not have existed before copyright, trademark, patent laws. I will not respond further since the rest of your post is based on this statement.
Re:Great quote: by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 08:15 · Score: 1

And what else is there to avoid?

The requirement to license your derivative work under the GPL.

(The fact that customers purchasing a router will be able to extract ROM images to freely use in their own projects is small consolation, and not at all what the GPL is meant to do)

It's certainly part of what the GPL is meant to do.
Re:Great quote: by IntlHarvester · 2003-10-14 08:25 · Score: 1

According this page:

DR's Gary Kildall sat down at an IBM PC supplied by IBM and, using a secret code, got it to pop up a Digital Research copyright notice.

It's case won, Digital Research received monetary compensation and the right to clone MS-DOS. This is why Microsoft never sued DR over DR-DOS, but used every other means to destroy it. The settlement was under a strict non- disclosure agreement, so few even know DR sued, never mind that they won.

Now, this is third hard information, but the story was repeated in various print publications of the day as well as histories of Microsoft.

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:Great quote: by Minna+Kirai · 2003-10-14 08:29 · Score: 1

Oh, you're just trolling now huh? Not even trying to hide it. Stopped making sense about 8 posts ago... why am I even bothering to reply?

The requirement to license your derivative work under the GPL.

And if there is no source code available, what does the license status of the derived work do for anyone? Absolutely nothing. It's not like you can redistribute a GPL program if you don't have the source code (or an offer)- you wouldn't be able to complete the requirement to include source code (or an offer).

The GPL is meant to make the source for programs available to all users of the programs, including derived versions. To that end, it requires
A) Recipents of software be given source code (or an offer for source code)
B) Modified versions use the same license

You've just stated that although part A is gone, section B is still in effect. But the only purpose of B was to propagate A. Without A, B is meaningless.
Re:Great quote: by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 09:09 · Score: 1

Oh, you're just trolling now huh? Not even trying to hide it. Stopped making sense about 8 posts ago... why am I even bothering to reply?

I have no idea, since you obviously are too stupid to understand me.

And if there is no source code available, what does the license status of the derived work do for anyone?

It allows you to make copies and distribute them for free.

It's not like you can redistribute a GPL program if you don't have the source code (or an offer)- you wouldn't be able to complete the requirement to include source code (or an offer).

That's circular logic there. You're saying if you didn't have to distribute the source code, then you wouldn't be able to redistribute, because you wouldn't have the source code. Sounds like I'm the one being trolled, and unlike you, I don't find the need to continue this discussion any further.
Re:Great quote: by Minna+Kirai · 2003-10-14 10:08 · Score: 1

Or they could just "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code."

Are you claiming that Broadcom actually shipped 400,000 CD-ROMs full of source code, one for each chip they sold to Linksys?

I rather doubt it. So unless there was "an offer" along with the chips, they were in violation of the GPL. (And if there isn't a 1:1 matchup between code and source, your "First Sale" theory has no prayer of applicability).
Re:Great quote: by Minna+Kirai · 2003-10-14 10:16 · Score: 1
I have no idea, since you obviously are too stupid to understand me.

I see that you're incorrigible and have no desire to understand the truth. But for the benefit of others who might be reading (although I hope none would traverse so far down a vapid thread), I'll slowly explain why you were just totally wrong.
- And if there is no source code available, what does the license status of the derived work do for anyone?
It allows you to make copies and distribute them for free.

It does not allow you to make copies and distribute them for free. Lets go over this one step at a time.
1. Copying & redistributing a computer program is normally illegal, without permission from the copyright holder.
2. The GPL offers you that permission in the following (abbreviated) section:
  - 3. You may copy and distribute the Program in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code.
  More briefly, you can give out copies if you include with them either the source code itself, or an offer for the source code (regardless of if the offer is honored by you, or an upstream provider).
3. If you don't have the source code, and can't get the source code, then you have no way to include it with the software, or to make an offer for code. The customers buying these routers are getting neither source tarballs nor coupons to mail away for source CD-ROMs, which is why the vendor is in violation of the GPL.
4. Therefore you cannot satisify section 3 of the GPL, so you have no permission to copy & distribute the program, so you cannot "make copies and distribute them for free"
That's circular logic there. You're saying if you didn't have to distribute the source code, then you wouldn't be able to redistribute, because you wouldn't have the source code.

No, I'm saying that if you didn't have the source code, you wouldn't be able to redistribute, because you don't have the source code. If you somehow get a GPLed program and have no way to get the source code, then the GPL has already been broken.
Re:Great quote: by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 10:56 · Score: 1

Are you claiming that Broadcom actually shipped 400,000 CD-ROMs full of source code, one for each chip they sold to Linksys?

They wouldn't have to ship 400,000 CD-ROMs, only one.

(And if there isn't a 1:1 matchup between code and source, your "First Sale" theory has no prayer of applicability).

Why? The GPL does not require a 1:1 matchup between code and source. It only requires that when you distribute the code, you accompany it with source. It doesn't say you have to accompany the code with a number of copies of the source equal to the number of copies of code.
Re:Great quote: by harikiri · 2003-10-14 11:55 · Score: 1

CISCO new this requirement and still used Linux for their routers
Correction: Linksys knew this requirement. Cisco has since acquired them.

--
Man watching 6 MSCE's around a sun box, looks alot like the opening scene's of 2001:space odyssey...
Re:Great quote: by Minna+Kirai · 2003-10-14 12:23 · Score: 1

The GPL does not require a 1:1 matchup between code and source

That's it. Too much prima facie untruth from you. That's exactly what GPL section 3a requires.

It says you must accompany "the copy" with "the source code". That's 1:1.

Your "First Sale Loophole" theory rests on the idea that each of the 400,000 chips was an independent GPL-authorized transaction, meaning each one needs a separate copy of source code.

Did they ship 1 cd per chip? No. Did they even ship 1 cd per temporally separate delivery of chips? Enormously doubtful. They might not have even given the source code at all.
Re:Great quote: by Saint+Aardvark · 2003-10-14 14:59 · Score: 1

Ack...
Completely correct.

--
Carousel is a lie!
Re:Great quote: by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 19:07 · Score: 1

It says you must accompany "the copy" with "the source code". That's 1:1.

No it's not. If two copies accompany one copy of source code, then each copy accompanies the source.

Your "First Sale Loophole" theory rests on the idea that each of the 400,000 chips was an independent GPL-authorized transaction, meaning each one needs a separate copy of source code.

No it doesn't. It rests merely on the fact that the copies are legally obtained.

Did they ship 1 cd per chip? No. Did they even ship 1 cd per temporally separate delivery of chips? Enormously doubtful. They might not have even given the source code at all.

Pure accusations with no evidence whatsoever. Stop trolling.
Re:Great quote: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 23:19 · Score: 0

Binary-only dynamic linkage isn't allowed under the GPL. Nowhere in the kernel license clarifications does it say otherwise. You link with a GPLed work, that work is a derivative. Please note that I'm only
claming that the linked work is a derivative. Not the work that the linked work is base upon. And no, the kernel license has no exceptions for binary modules. It doesn't even mention them.

Broadcom/Linksys/Cisco is in clear violation (I'll let the lawyers decide who's at fault).
Re:Great quote: by Minna+Kirai · 2003-10-15 03:05 · Score: 1

No it's not. If two copies accompany one copy of source code, then each copy accompanies the source.

Which means nothing. "each copy accompanies the source" is not sufficient. The source must accompany each copy! That's reversed.

No it doesn't. It rests merely on the fact that the copies are legally obtained.

And since each copy was not accompanied by source, nor offer for source, they were illegally obtained.

Pure accusations with no evidence whatsoever. Stop trolling.

Since you have a theory that the GPL has a loophole which makes it completely meaningless, but you haven't backed this up, I'm not the one trolling here.
Re:Great quote: by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-15 04:23 · Score: 1

Which means nothing. "each copy accompanies the source" is not sufficient. The source must accompany each copy! That's reversed.

Fine. The source accompanies each copy.

And since each copy was not accompanied by source, nor offer for source, they were illegally obtained.

You don't know that. Perhaps each copy was accompanied by source.

Since you have a theory that the GPL has a loophole which makes it completely meaningless, but you haven't backed this up, I'm not the one trolling here.

That's your theory, I merely agreed with it. And it seems like you're not even disputing that theory, merely arguing about whether it requires 1 CD or 400,000.
Re:Great quote: by Cramer · 2003-10-15 14:13 · Score: 1

Stupid Anonymous Idiot.

Kernel modules are not "dynamic linkage". Linus has stated repeatedly over the years that binary modules are not a violation. If it is, then many more than broadcom, linksys, and cisco are in hot water. And if your non-legal interpretation is true, there are thousands of companies violating the GPL -- everything uses (g)libc, and a lot of other GPL'd stuff uses (or can use) non-GPL'd libraries. (In fact, it would be so broad as to be unenforcable.) That's the whole point of dynamic linkage. Static linkage is a whole other ballgame.

The GPL covers source code and what gets done to that source code (a "derivative work".) In the case of linux kernel modules, 3rd party code is using a documented standard interface to provide additional functionality. The code covered by the GPL need not be modified in any way. The only restrictions Linus has voiced pertain to modifying the kernel (GPL'd code) to create hooks specifically for a 3rd party module. 3rd party, closed source, non-GPL'd modular drivers are perfectly acceptable.

What greater compliment could be wished for? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:31 · Score: 0, Troll

This should be considered a compliment.

It's like the Republican Right calling the ACLU, "hit men" (as has been frequently done in more or less words).

"Thank you sirs! Anytime you feel the urge to violate, suppress, or eliminate liberties and freedom, just give us a ring and we'll get on it."

WTF? by Verteiron · 2003-10-14 01:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

This a very ignorant, poorly-informed article. I find it especially surprising in a magazine like Forbes, which (although I'm not a regular reader) I thought had a reputation for honest writing/reporting.

The author obviously has no idea what the GPL involves, and demonizes an organization who's concern is to enforce a simple set of rules. Does he think Linksys would get such leniency from the BSA, Microsoft's hitmen?

--
End of lesson. You may press the button.

Re:WTF? by NineNine · 2003-10-14 01:34 · Score: 1

In what way does the author not understand the GPL? I thought it was summarized very well. Or is this post just a troll?
Re:WTF? by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2003-10-14 01:35 · Score: 0

"I thought had a reputation for honest writing/reporting."

If you believe any mainstream newspaper, TV or radio publication is honest these days, you need a serious reality check.
Re:WTF? by Threni · 2003-10-14 01:36 · Score: 1

I believe stuff from the BBC and Reuters is pretty much straight from the source. Are you saying I'm wrong?
Re:WTF? by iworm · 2003-10-14 01:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

He seems to understand (or imply) that the GPL is something that sneaked out of the woodwork and crept up on these companies AFTER they had innocently and reasonably taken a lump of code and developed a product with it.

He does not make clear that these companies would have been completely aware that they were taking an existing software product which, like all others, would have a license attached. Basic due diligence would then mean that the license should be read and complied with.

The GPL did not come along and ambush these companies - they CHOSE to make use of GPL software. So tough-titty to them.
Re:WTF? by ekuns · 2003-10-14 01:43 · Score: 1

I would have thought -- naively -- that Forbes would contain good reporting. But after RTFA I read several other Linux-related stories on their web site. ALL of them were propoganda in the guise of reporting. The kind of things one would find on an editorial page, not on a news page.

Is that considered to be real reporting in the financial world? I hope not. Portraying open source as communism or angry hordes is fine and good for an editorial page or an opinion column. But as news?

And all those gripes about the FSF -- it's the same old complaint of, "Hey, I cannot take the stuff you wrote for free and use it in my proprietary code the way I want to." Well, then, write your own!!! I don't get how that is onorous.

And since when is indemnification a "standard practice"?
Re:WTF? by Azghoul · 2003-10-14 01:43 · Score: 1

Actually, yes, I'd say you're wrong. Any news of any consequence ought to be checked out using at least 2 competing sources. Then you decide which is telling the truth.

Blindly believing any single source is just setting yourself up for disappointment...
Re:WTF? by aborchers · 2003-10-14 01:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Here's what I sent Forbes via their comment function:

I'd like to be diplomatic, but the tone of this article is just ridiculous.

Since when is it an onerous act to expect a licensee to comply with the terms of the license? These companies used GPL-protected code and then wanted to balk at the license by not distributing the changes as required. How is that different from a software purchaser deciding it is acceptable to copy and redistribute proprietary software protected by a more "traditional" license?

While it may be an affront to the proprietary software industry's ways of doing business, the GPL is a sound contract that anyone is free to accept or reject as conditions for use of the protected software. The payment for receiving the "free" GPL software is that modifications must be released back to benefit the public. If that isn't acceptable, then these companies should not use GPL code and should either create or purchase another operating system.

Spare us the "comrade" and "dark side" nonsense. This is a simple contract dispute based on U.S. copyright law. Your mockery of it reflects poorly on your journalistic credibility.

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:44 · Score: 0

No you're right, the author does seem to understand the GPL, he just hasn't thought it through. He speaks about Broadcom releasing the source as though it would bring their share price crashing down as every Korean clone maker jumps into their market, but never paused to wonder where, why and how Broadcom originally got hold of that source code and why they might want to use it. Its not like one day the FSF submarined them with a dubious GPL requirement that they couldn't have reasonably known about before hand.
Re:WTF? by Lagged2Death · 2003-10-14 01:45 · Score: 1

The author refers to the GPL's requirements as "onerous." They're not.

The author implies that complying with the license is difficult and/or risky. It isn't.

The author says that complying with the license (as these companies agreed to do when they used GPL code) is somehow "burning down one's house," and implies that compliance is an unreasonable thing to ask. It isn't.

QED.
Re:WTF? by Mr.+Slippery · 2003-10-14 01:52 · Score: 1

In what way does the author not understand the GPL?

The article states, "These disputes might scare companies away from using open source software." Clearly either the author, or the companies he spoke with, do not understand the GPL, which puts no obligation on the user of GPLed software; only on a distributor of GPLed software. You can put GNU/Linux on all your companies' computers and not incur any obligation under the GPL.
The article also states, "the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house". No. A closer "house" metaphor would be that the FSF wants you to make available the blueprints to your house - as you agreeed to do in order to get access to someone else's blueprints.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:52 · Score: 0

The problem is that almost all "sources" are now just reprints from the wire, so you're now down to basically a choice of Reuters or News Corp. Now add the fact that 80% of that "news" is a series of press releases from a hired PR company, and you have a single source for each peice of news you see.

It is very very rare to find multiple, independent sources for any individual news peice.
Re:WTF? by turbosk · 2003-10-14 01:54 · Score: 1

i too sent a reply to forbes, something i haven't done to a "news" site for a long time, but the article was so pisspoor i felt compelled to let them know how i felt about their shoddy reporting/ misunderstanding of the GPL.

since the article was mainly about the GPL and FSF, mebbe the article author could have taken three minutes to read up on the subject and get an idea of what it was they were writing about. as it stands, the piece smacks of willful ignorance at least, or even corporate bias, both of which are evil poison for "news" folks.

unless *my* understanding of Forbes is way off the mark, in which case they've become part of the machine and should be beaten with a clue stick.

fred
Re:WTF? by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2003-10-14 01:56 · Score: 1

Yes. So what if it is straight from the source? Who says the source is honest? And who selects what you hear about in the first place? Read medialens, FAIR or any of the other media monitoring organisations and then tell me you trust any of them anymore.
Re:WTF? by Phragmen-Lindelof · 2003-10-14 01:59 · Score: 1

The PM does not seem to believe the BBC (at least when I was there this summer).
Re:WTF? by Stickster · 2003-10-14 02:01 · Score: 1

I wrote a reply to the editors to this effect. I would suggest others do the same, in a professional and informative tone. (I know this is a stretch for many /.ers, so if you can't manage it, please don't make the free/OSS community look worse than this guy Lyons does.)

This is purely a case of the management involved simply not understanding (or worse, ignoring) the licensing terms under which their software falls. I pointed out in my reply that their failure to comply with the GPL's terms is functionally no different than sending their customers illict copies of Microsoft Office without having paid royalties. (Leaving aside propaganda about the relative quality of the software.)
Re:WTF? by JanneM · 2003-10-14 02:02 · Score: 1

Yes. And not because BBC of Reuters are dishonest in their reporting either; they have a good rep for a reason, and they mostly try to report accurately.

But any news source suffers from two (at least) problems: First, they have to winnow down what is reportable as news. This sieving can not be done "objectively". You are going to miss parts - perhaps important parts - of any story, if not hing else than because no news outlet can dedicate enough time and resources for complete coverage of anything, really.

Second, any reporter, no matter how honest, suffers from reporting stuff two steps (or more) removed from the events. It's not "I did this", or "I saw him do x", but "I talked to people who saw him do x". The inevitable results are errors, misconceptions, oversimplifications, skewing and omissions.

Basically, don't really trust any one source for anything of significance.

--
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Re:WTF? by 0x0d0a · 2003-10-14 02:10 · Score: 1

The GPL did not come along and ambush these companies - they CHOSE to make use of GPL software. So tough-titty to them.

And this isn't just a matter of "choosing to use GPLed software", a la Linux on the desktop. They incorporated extremely large quantities of code from software that they did not own (and would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop in the commercial world) into their own product.

I'd like to see a company sign a MS shared-source agreement and try using Microsoft kernel source, and see how gently Microsoft treats them. Microsoft would *love* having a huge club like that. Yes, they probably wouldn't demand removal. They'd just use it as a lever to force Cisco into signing other useful agreements. Overall, I think Cisco would likely be hurt more in the long term by stealing Microsoft source than GPLed source.

--
May we never see th
Re:WTF? by dbc · 2003-10-14 02:13 · Score: 1

(although I'm not a regular reader)
that explains why...
I thought had a reputation for honest writing/reporting.
you are so misinformed.

It doesn't take too many readings of Forbes to realize it sees its primary mission as fluffing up the egos of vain CEO's.

Fact checking has never been their forte. "Balance" is not in their house dictionary.

On the one hand, I could invite you to read it more often to see if you agree with me. On the other hand, I believe your time is better spent on just about any other financial press.
Re:WTF? by Lodragandraoidh · 2003-10-14 02:14 · Score: 1

This is what I wrote in the submit comment area:

The article "Linux's Hitmen" is utter garbage. How you keep such an obvious hack on your payroll is beyond me.

What Mr. Lyons fails to mention in his article is the other side of the coin: Microsoft and other heavy hitters using their unlimited legal resources to enforce their own lisenses.

The GPL is clear on the issue of use and the requirement to make the source code available. If a company goes into a project and expects to sidestep the lisense - I see no difference between that and someone not following Microsoft's lisensing.

Why is there a double standard? Why should GPL software developers be any less worthy of respect than a company? Why should companies get the benefit of GPL'd software without meeting their obligations - that they agreed upon by using the code?

Hypocricy is still hypocricy, anyway you cut it.

I would urge everyone here to reply to this article to drive our point home.

--

Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Re:WTF? by EinarH · 2003-10-14 02:19 · Score: 1

It looks like the author of the article failed to correctly understand the priciples behind GPL.
I think it's safe bet to say that he has never read the license text.
The easy priciple behind GPL, the old (simplified) "free as in freedom, not free as in beer" is something that a jounalist that writes about this stuff at least should know about even if he is a advocate of proprietary software. So it's beyond his capacity to analyse the dispute between Cisco/Linksys and Free Software Foundation.

--
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
Re:WTF? by _xeno_ · 2003-10-14 02:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does he think Linksys would get such leniency from the BSA, Microsoft's hitmen?
Yes, he does:
In some ways, these Free Software Foundation "enforcement actions" can be more dangerous than a typical copyright spat, because usually copyright holders seek money--say, royalties on the product that infringing companies are selling. But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.
He thinks that releasing the code is a far worse penalty than having to pay money. And, here's the scary thing: he's right. Most companies would much rather spend a couple million to make the license problem go away then have to release any intellectual property.
Granted, they should have known what they were getting into before they used the license. Because they are using a product that has a license for use, and they implicitly demonstrate agreement with that license (by distributing the work), then they should follow the terms of that license. It just happens that in this case the terms of the license may require them to do more than they really want to do.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Re:WTF? by nkuitse · 2003-10-14 02:30 · Score: 1

Here's mine:

When you obtain software released under the GPL, you are granted certain conditional rights. When you violate those conditions, you lose the rights. It's as simple as that.
Re:WTF? by evilviper · 2003-10-14 02:32 · Score: 1

Most companies would much rather spend a couple million to make the license problem go away then have to release any intellectual property.

And Linksys can spend far, far less to just rip out linux, and use another OS.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:WTF? by stop14 · 2003-10-14 02:33 · Score: 1

He seems to understand (or imply) that the GPL is something that sneaked out of the woodwork and crept up on these companies AFTER they had innocently and reasonably taken a lump of code and developed a product with it.

exactly. it's not like the GPL crept up and bit these companies in the ass. the article doesn't mention these companies complaining when they didn't have to pay licensing costs to use linux in their products.

i can't believe that lyons is trying to whip up sympathy for cisco, though. it's downright laughable. he insinuates (though never demonstrates) that the GPL has devalued their acquisition of linksys. if cisco bought linksys based on the intellectual property value of its software they deserve to lose money. it's called research - and sure as hell i'd do some before my company layed out $500M. i thought mr. uber-capitalist would be able to understand the concept of caveat emptor.

and don't get me started on this business about the FSF. even if you thought that the GPL was the most ridiculous idea ever it doesn't stand to reason that it should simply not protect its interests. [snip]in fact, the Free Software Foundation runs a lot of these "enforcement actions"[snip]. so what? is he implying that they shouldn't even bother because he disagrees with the concept of the GPL? that's just dumb.

ah well, just letting off steam first thing in the morning. it's just that i can't stand the disingenuity behind an article like this - if you've got a problem with the GPL then say it, don't couch it is half-truths and hyperbole. if the author's intention was to rile people up then i say bravo - he certainly got me going. if, however, his point was to put forth a reasoned, informed opinion for his readership then he failed miserably. of course, his real intention was to find a new angle to spread some more GPL FUD.
Re:WTF? by sgtron · 2003-10-14 02:34 · Score: 1

"If a company goes into a project and expects to sidestep the lisense - I see no difference between that and someone not following Microsoft's lisensing."

you misspelled "licence"... twice

--
No todo lo que es oro brilla
Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:34 · Score: 0

"This a very ignorant, poorly-informed article. I find it especially surprising in a magazine like Forbes, which (although I'm not a regular reader) I thought had a reputation for honest writing/reporting."

What was ignorant or poorly informed about the article? Who controls the terms and wording of the GPL? What does the GPL allow you to do and not do? That part seems accurate although not coached in the best of terms used on slashdot. His view is different and he paints opensource as comunists and you paint him as ignornat and unappreciative of your ways, way to rise above it all.

"The author obviously has no idea what the GPL involves, and demonizes an organization who's concern is to enforce a simple set of rules."

I think he has a perfect idea of what is involved. On the other hand he also has a perspective on what that can mean for business. We have seen the GPL described a hundred times from a programmers perspective but the impact on hardware companies using GPL code has not recieved the same reflection or reflection. His view differs from yours in that he looks at dollars and liability and does not attempt to conform to your views of the FSF and GPL being beneficial to all and benevolent things.

"Does he think Linksys would get such leniency from the BSA, Microsoft's hitmen?"

How many times has Microsoft or the BSA forced a hardware manufacture to disclose their entire software internals of a hardware product to the world? Let us also not forget that there is a camp that wants opensource Broadcom support in the Linux kernel and public domain (amoung other places) and gladly would welcome such an action. Whether your heart is pure, make no mistake that others want to get their foot in the door. Go listen to RMS singing "Free the software" and get back to me.

---
And before other people bring up the past SCO article this author also wrote, think of the scenarios we have seen. Is it not possible that their is indeed code now in the Linux kernel that someone else owns the rights to? Is it possible that at sometime someone got some snippet of code in there that they did not have the rights to or some process that is patented? It is not inconcievable epspecially if we consider RAMBUS on DDR patents, Contract clauses on what a company owns of a programers ideas and implementation etc. Also SCO does have a past history of milking other companies larger than itself in court for things that they bought in the past. Do I approve of it or condone it, hell no. On the otherhand I would be a fool to not consider an opposing perspective and write about why we are right and they are wrong and begin to sing the I am right song.
Re:WTF? by arkanes · 2003-10-14 02:34 · Score: 1

I think the real issue here is a core capitalist mentality - the weighing of cost and benefit. Companies will do illegal things if the profits they make from doing so are more than the fines they have to pay when they get caught - just as a quick example, delivery services in NYC write off traffic tickets as a cost of doing buisness. The idea that theres a licensing issue that doesn't just involve paying money if you break it is abhorrent - the author mentions this when he says that the FSF "doesn't just want royalties".
Re:WTF? by Ivan+Raikov · 2003-10-14 02:43 · Score: 1

Here's my email to Forbes:

On the Nature and Purpose of the General Public License

Sir,

I find the tone of your article on the General Public License (GPL) to be offensive and disrespectful to the Free Software community. In the particular example of Cisco, what we have is a simple contract dispute based on United States copyright law. Comparing the actions taken by the Free Software Foundation to protect the community, to actions of organized crime, or the GPL to communism (!?) is childish, and it is inexplicable to me how a self-respecting journalist could publish anything like that. I encourage you to read the GPL Frequently Asked Questions, located at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html in order to gain some understanding of how the GPL works.

To address your particular points: the primary reason behind the GPL is providing freedom to developers and users. You are very much in control of your machine. It is yours. The software, that's yours. The data you generate, that's yours too. The documentation, that's also yours. However, if you do decide to release that software to the public, or a subset thereof, you'd like to have a guarantee that nobody can then take this software, make some small modifications to it, and start offering it under restricted terms, in effect preventing the public from benefiting from your software the way you intended.

This is a very powerful idea, and it works because it benefits both users and developers. Many corporations today choose to incorporate Free Software in their products, because Free Software is reliable, flexible, and most importantly, it comes without onerous commercial licensing terms, and the freedom to modify it and use it internally without any limitations. Observe that at this point, the GPL already provides more freedoms than traditional copyright law. Now, if a corporation decides to distribute (sell) the modified software, section 3 of the GPL requires them to provide the exact same freedoms that they enjoyed while creating the modified version of the software. I hope you will agree with me that this is perfectly fair.

If the corporation wishes to release some strictly proprietary software alongside the GPL software, there are ways to arrange that, and that's one way the intellectual property of the company can be protected.

Above all, nobody is forcing these corporations to use Free Software. If they do not want to use Linux, they don't have to. If they want to enjoy the quality work of hundreds of volunteers, then they have to obey the rules. It's as simple as that.

Sincerely yours,
Ivan Raikov

--
Bush Lies Watch
Re:WTF? by micromoog · 2003-10-14 02:44 · Score: 1

Oh God, I hope you're kidding. Please be kidding?
Re:WTF? by Threni · 2003-10-14 02:53 · Score: 1

My point exactly.
Re:WTF? by Lodragandraoidh · 2003-10-14 02:54 · Score: 1

LoL!

Karma has a way of coming back around and stinging you in the ass, doesn't it?

--

Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Re:WTF? by rhadamanthus · 2003-10-14 03:01 · Score: 1

Here's mine too:

To whom it may concern,

The hypocricy in this article is a little too thick for me to ignore. How would any of the companies that rely on non-GPL licenses react if said licenses were ignored? For instances, what if someone decided to install a single copy Microsoft Windows on multiple machines? There is no difference between the two from a legal prespective. The article seems to say that it is unfair and odious of the FSF to protect the clauses outlined in the GPL. However, these companies were not under an illusion as to what they bargained for; the GPL makes it perfectly clear what it is required of companies or people that partake in it. This is a contract dispute, just like any other, and it reeks of misguided bias to paint it any other way. The FSF is justified in their pursuit of corrective action from Cisco; they broke the license. Please save you misinformed and hypocritical rants for a magazine of less stature than Forbes.
--rhad

--
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
Re:WTF? by EatAtJoes · 2003-10-14 03:02 · Score: 1

I would suggest others do the same, in a professional and informative tone
Bah, I say rip him a new one. I did. Not in a breathless "I can't believe you're such a meanie" way but in a "you're wrong, here's why, you're either a shill or a dumbshit, fuck off" way.
Believe me, all of the "eww, I'm not going to stoop to your level" kind of talk can be just as annoying in it's obvious condescention.
This article pissed me off so I let the fucker know. End of story.
Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:05 · Score: 0

At least nobody will know if you spelt your own name incorrectly. Except your parents anyway.
Re:WTF? by aborchers · 2003-10-14 03:10 · Score: 1

Nice job, but I feel obliged to argue with this statement:

Observe that at this point, the GPL already provides more freedoms than traditional copyright law.

The GPL is founded on traditional copyright law. Copyright law per se just permits authors a time-limited monopoly of control over their work. This does not require putting remunerative or overly restrictive conditions on access to the works. That is more along the lines of copyright-law-as-traditionally-employed.

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Re:WTF? by DrakeX · 2003-10-14 03:12 · Score: 1

"Your mockery of it reflects poorly on your journalistic credibility."

True. Though it may also be a reflection of the authors ignorance of the entire subject (be it copyright laws; GPL; GNU; OSS; etc.). regurgitating FAQ sheets and reports without real understanding of content seems to be the "norm" when it comes to journalistic integrety.

Ya know! Like CNN.
Re:WTF? by meta-monkey · 2003-10-14 03:14 · Score: 1

Also, I think if you want to email him directly, the author's email is dlyons@forbes.com. Their comments page says that all Forbes employees' email addresses follow the "first initial, last name" format. I couldn't find anywhere that explictly stated his email address, but I sent my letter (which I posted above before I saw this sub-thread) through both their comments form, and directly to that email address, and it hasn't bounced back yet.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:16 · Score: 0

My reply to Forbes:

Wow! Thank you for your insightful article on the secret inner workings of the FSF cult. I was shocked to find out that those thugs were going around and enforcing the terms of the GNU Public License through legal means. How sneaky and devious of them to distribute copyrighted works under a specific license and then demand compliance to specific terms of the license!

Thank goodness that we in the US have a free thinking publication like Forbes to stand up for the more radical among us (e.g., Cisco) who feel that the law of the land in effect for centuries no longer has direct bearing on their day to day operations.

Keep the fight against The Man brothers,

P.S. Since I know you are so carefree and foot loose with trivial things like Copyright law, I thought you'd be thrilled to know that I'm planning on selling my own magazine which is largely a derivative work of Forbes. For example, this article will prominently appear (verbatim) as the cover story. Thanks again for your contributions to my profit margins!
Re:WTF? by forrestt · 2003-10-14 03:17 · Score: 1

Here's mine

I recently read the article referenced above, and feel compelled to express my disappointment with the Forbes editorial staff for allowing such a misleading and fallacious article to be printed. In the article, Daniel Lyons portrays the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source movement in general, as a form of cancer eating away at intellectual property of legitimate businesses. I believe this is either due to Mr. Lyons lack of knowledge regarding the GNU public license, or his misconception regarding who is infringing on which groups IP.

In the article, Mr. Lyons mentions that Linksys sold a router which, "Aimed at home users, the $129 device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units in the first quarter of this year alone." But how much more expensive would this router have been if it included the cost of paying for the ten years and thousands of developers that wrote the code that makes it function. Linksys decided that it would be able to save money, and make a less expensive router, by not paying cash for that development time, and decided that Linux would be an efficient means to produce a low cost router. It read the license for the software, and then decided that it would go forward with the terms of the licensing agreement. Then, after making lots of money, decided that it no longer wanted to abide by its agreement. The agreement was that it would turn over any "derivative works" of the software in question, in this case the Linux operating system to the public. These "derivative works" do not belong to Linksys, but rather to the copyright holders of the Linux operating system and the public at large. This is the price that Linksys agreed to pay for using Linux, and by not doing so, they are in violation of the licensing agreement.

In the article, Mr. Lyons describes the efforts of the FSF to enforce the terms of the GNU public license as "the dark side of the free software movement". When other companies attempt to enforce their licensing agreements by utilizing the resources of organizations such as the Business Software Alliance to audit software, and force compliance, typically the offending companies are looked at in a negative light. If instead of using Linux in its routers, Linksys decided to use an embedded Microsoft operating system, and then did not pay Microsoft for the use of their operating system, Microsoft would probably demand payment. If Linksys did not pay them, they would probably take them to court and the court would force payment. Why are the efforts of the FSF to demand payment not looked at with the same light? Is this due to the fact that the payment is in the form of software code and IP rather than cash? This is the price that Linksys agreed to pay for use of the licensed code.

Mr. Lyons demonstrates his lack of knowledge regarding the Gnu Public License by stating, "Or maybe, as some suggest, the foundation wants GPL-covered code to creep into commercial products so it can use GPL to force open those products." The GPL cannot force open any products. If GPL software is on a system, it DOES NOT make all of the software on the system public domain. In fact, the Linksys software, may not even be public domain. In other words, it may not even be a "derivative work". This concept can be demonstrated by looking at the efforts of NVIDIA. NVIDIA writes software drivers for its video hardware that integrate with the Linux operating system at the lowest level. These drivers are not derivative works since they do not include any Linux code, and are therefore NVIDIA's IP. What the FSF wants is to be shown that Linksys is not violating the licensing agreement. If Linksys hasn't made derivative works, then they have nothing to pay. If they have, then they need to pay up. This concept is not new, and should have nothing to do with the fact that Linksys decided to utilize a non-standard method for payment.

Forrest Tiffany
Linux User since 1995
Software Developer since 1981
Re:WTF? by hqm · 2003-10-14 03:18 · Score: 1

Well said! Saves me the trouble of tearing the guy a new asshoxxxx I mean educating him as to the shortcomings in his article.
Re:WTF? by Ivan+Raikov · 2003-10-14 03:24 · Score: 1

Copyright law per se just permits authors a time-limited monopoly of control over their work. This does not require putting remunerative or overly restrictive conditions on access to the works. That is more along the lines of copyright-law-as-traditionally-employed.

Good point. Well, I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on Slashdot ;-)

--
Bush Lies Watch
Re:WTF? by epukinsk · 2003-10-14 03:40 · Score: 1

It's worth noting that unlike your friendly neighborhood congressman, Forbes magazine is not beholden to you. They are beholden to your desire to read their publication. You write:
I'm flaming mad! This article you've printed isn't right at all! blah, blah blah...
but they hear:
Your article was provocative and relevant to me. Send more.
So by all means send these letters to Forbes by the barrel. Just don't think they'll do anything but give this writer a raise.

Erik
Re:WTF? by Jaysyn · 2003-10-14 03:46 · Score: 1

The end of your post proves why the Int.Prop. system in the USA is so flawed.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:WTF? by Moraelin · 2003-10-14 03:47 · Score: 1

"Most companies would much rather spend a couple million to make the license problem go away then have to release any intellectual property."
That is probably true, but then they should have used a different operating system instead. I mean, really, did anyone force them to use Linux? Did someone hold them at gunpoint to base their design on Linux in the first place? If they preferred to just throw some money at the problem, I'm sure Microsoft would have been perfectly happy to sell them Windows or Windows CE licenses.
Of course, then the device would have ended up costing a lot more than 129$. Not only because of the licenses, but also because of needing more hardware in that box. Much as KDE can out-bloat even XP, a non-GUI Linux installation can run happily on extremely underpowered hardware.
But the saddest thing is that they're probably the lowest form of clueless PHB. I doubt that they really needed to modify the kernel much. Even if they wanted to link some device drivers in the kernel, they could always just write them as separate .so files, and they're _not_ required to release the source for those. And whatever other applications they have on it (e.g., a management interface), could be just that too: separate applications. Which, again, don't need to be GPL'ed to run on Linux.
Basically with the tiniest ammount of brains, they could not be in this fix in the first place. They could be in a situation where they could say, "OK, get the standard 2.4.XY kernel, you already have the source for that. And we'll show you how we load these non-GPL'ed binary modules and applications on it, and obtain the exact configuration of our device."
No royalties and no proprietary code to release. End of story. Period.
But they just had to (A) be stupid, and then (B) whine about it to the press. It's just sad.

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:52 · Score: 0

The three posters above me, hands up if you're American and are in need of a copy of the OED.

Thought so.
Re:WTF? by aborchers · 2003-10-14 04:15 · Score: 1

Well, I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on Slashdot ;-)

Same here. It's sad we've all had to turn into armchair attorneys. :-/

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Re:WTF? by eric2hill · 2003-10-14 04:24 · Score: 2, Interesting
Most companies would much rather spend a couple million to make the license problem go away then have to release any intellectual property.

And Linksys can spend far, far less to just rip out linux, and use another OS.

Let's say Linksys would replace the firmware with code derived from, oh, say BSD or QNX. Specifically, under a license that is not the GPL.
- Should Linksys /still/ be required to give out the source code to the original firmware since they have products in the marketplace (peoples' homes) that are currently using that software, i.e. with older firmware?
- If so, then does this parallel the current "hot topic" of conversation where SCO demands payment for linux code even though the offending code has been removed, simply because the code is still in use on unpatched servers?
I'm serious, this isn't a troll.
--
LOAD "SIG",8,1
LOADING...
READY.
RUN
Re:WTF? by aborchers · 2003-10-14 04:26 · Score: 1

It's worth noting that unlike your friendly neighborhood congressman, Forbes magazine is not beholden to you.

You've obviously never read the mail I receive from my congressman (R. Wexler, D FL 19, co-sponsor of P2PPPA and other monstrosities of "intellectual property"). :-)

Back on topic: if Forbes makes the assumption you suggest, they will be wrong. The article has soured me to reading anything but a retraction by this Lyons fellow and reduced the editorial credibility of Forbes itself in my eyes. If they draw an opposite conclusion based on my (hopefully clear) letter, then they are mistaken. I can't help that.

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Re:WTF? by screenrc · 2003-10-14 04:53 · Score: 1

Nobody is forcing companies to use GPL software.
If they dislike the terms of the GPL, they
should not write their own software and
stop complaining.
Re:WTF? by KenSeymour · 2003-10-14 05:15 · Score: 1

Everyone seems to think that CISCO/Broadcom knowingly violated the GPL.
Although they should be more careful, I could imagine some engineer saying to his manager:
"Linux and open source are great, lets use it in our next product."
The manager (and perhaps even the engineer) should have asked "Are there any legal ramifications?"

Maybe the questions didn't get asked. The Forbes article may have the effect of more managers asking the question.
Sometimes GPL software fits your employer's business approach. Sometimes it doesn't.
This article should get more managers asking the question.

Whether they knew they were violating a copyright or not, now they know about the costs.
Now they are highly interested in learning the finer points of free software licensing.

--
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:19 · Score: 0

You misspelled "FOX".
Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:24 · Score: 0

Just don't think they'll do anything but give this writer a raise.

Considering that this guy comes close to advocating piracy and corporate contract-breaking, I wouldn't be so sure of that. I am forwarding this article to my journalism ethics professor to get his opinion on the matter.
Re:WTF? by arkanes · 2003-10-14 05:29 · Score: 1

Simply put - so fucking what? Theres a reason for all those layers of red tape in corporations. There's something called due dilligence, and basic responsibility.
In any case, the buisness decision for a major new product is hardly going to be decided by an informal discussion between an engineer and a manager. One of the reasons why not is that the engineer isn't the one taking the risk if he makes an improper decision - it's the manager. Thats what they're for.
Re:WTF? by Paul+Jakma · 2003-10-14 06:27 · Score: 1

Because he compares the FSF chasing GPL violators to people wanting to "burn your house down" - the house never belonged to the infringers in the first place.

--
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:50 · Score: 0

Wow. I just have to compliment you on how professional that sounds :)

I just hope whoever reads it actually cares :/
Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 08:46 · Score: 0

But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.

That was implicit in the license. And we don't want you to burn down the house. We want you share with others, or remove the lumber we provided for the frame.
What you replace it with, and where you get it, is your business. We provided your framing and foundation with the understanding that you would share it, and if you choose to renege we will settle for its removal.
Re:WTF? by Sj0 · 2003-10-14 09:59 · Score: 1

Perhaps the most fitting analogy would be, GPL'd software is like a house without locks. You can use it all you like, and you can let your freinds use it, but you're not allowed to put locks on the doors. Cisco/Linksys put locks on the doors, the FSF is telling them to take them off or get out, and this guy finds it unreasonable that the FSF would get mad that Cisco would break the simple, one page agreement.

--
It's been a long time.
Re:WTF? by Alsee · 2003-10-14 11:07 · Score: 1

Actually his argument about releasing code is entirely bogus. Any company that has violated the GPL is perfectly free to lose in court, PAY CASH DAMAGES for copyright infringment and NEVER RELEASE A SINGLE LINE OF CODE. Of course at that point they have to cease infringing or get sued again.

When the Free Software Foundation asks people to comply with the GPL and release their code that is merely a request, a voluntary alternative to paying court damages. Thus far every single company has CHOSEN to take that alternative. Apparently they have all decided that releasing their code and continuing to use GPL software is prefferable to paying cash and losing the use of the GPL software.

Any company that violates the law has to deal with negative consequences. Even if we accept his comment about "buring down your house", apparently that is still prefferable to the legal concequences of the same violation infringing non-GPL software.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:WTF? by evilviper · 2003-10-14 19:56 · Score: 1

Should Linksys /still/ be required to give out the source code to the original firmware since they have products in the marketplace (peoples' homes) that are currently using that software, i.e. with older firmware?

As soon as they distributed the product, they were required to provide full sorce code to anyone that requested it. Even if they recall all their products, they need to make the code available to those that want it.

If so, then does this parallel the current "hot topic" of conversation where SCO demands payment for linux code even though the offending code has been removed, simply because the code is still in use on unpatched servers?

I think there are differences. There was a law broken when whomever used Unix code in Linux, and they should be fined, under the terms of whatever contract they had. Since nobody else had ANY way of knowing that code was propritary, how can they claim that anyone else was at fault, and should pay-up?

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Questionable Article by fuzzybunny · 2003-10-14 01:32 · Score: 1

Joseph Alsop [PersonId=142453], chief executive of Progress...

What's 'PersonId'? They're keeping track of you :)

But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.

I think RMS is a kook, with some fairly questionable ideas, but this sort of imagery does not contribute to the idea of objective journalism.

--
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage

Re:Questionable Article by Croaker · 2003-10-14 01:45 · Score: 1

He's number 142453? Man, The Village must have been getting pretty crowded over the last few decades... "I'm not a number! I am a free man!" "Ah-hahahahahaha!"

Ahem... by ActiveSX · 2003-10-14 01:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Such a pity, comrade.

(-1, Troll)

Re:Ahem... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:47 · Score: 0

What did you expect after the claim that we sing the "Internationale"? I think that the GPL is hated because it turns the same system which propietizes information around to enforce openness of information. The power of the GPL is similarly inevitable as that of commercial licenses. GPL software is not free for the taking, which is what the industry obviously wants.

use of GPL code by nattt · 2003-10-14 01:33 · Score: 1

It seems to make sense that if you save lots of money by basing your code on GPL code, or modifying GPL code to make things work for your circumstance or customers, then it's only fair that you give back to the community that developed the GPL code in the first place.

If you don't want to get caught using GPL code and breaking the GPL license, then spend the money to hire the programmers to write new code from scratch.

--
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc

I'm a zealot by wazzzup · 2003-10-14 01:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

[Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.]

I only read what I want to hear and ignore others perspectives, right or wrong.

Re:I'm a zealot by JWW · 2003-10-14 01:46 · Score: 1

Well, I read it anyway, and it is wrong.

So, I'm not a zealot ;-)
Re:I'm a zealot by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:47 · Score: 0

Yes you're right, the dirty little secret is out. We protect our IP and enforce our licences just like the other guys! We have an agenda, darn us! Nobody told the poor people using GPL code this. Apart from the LICENCE file. Nobody reads those though, right?

Who'd have thought? Apart from this guy at Forbes, obviously.
Re:I'm a zealot by abe+ferlman · 2003-10-14 02:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm fairly an fsf/linux advocate, but I'll tell you brother, it's not because I close my eyes- it's because they're open, and I'm dying to hear an excuse for Microsoft et. al.'s behavior.

Got that? I WANT to be told things aren't as bad as they seem. But I won't believe it unless it's credible.

I think PrimeNumber was foolish to suggest one shouldn't read the article. I agree with your implication that one should read the article. However, I'm concerned that peopel don't know the difference between advocates and zealots.

Unfortunately, the terms "advocate" and "zealot" have been conflated lately on slashdot by pro-Microsoft folks. It's time we start separating them. An advocate is one who vocally supports a position. A zealot is one who loudly ignores contrary evidence. There is a difference, and in this case the zealot is Daniel Lyons, who has not yet to my knowledge issued a correction to his misleading story.

--
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Re:I'm a zealot by gravelpup · 2003-10-14 02:31 · Score: 1

[Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.] yeah, under this logic, no windows user would come within two subnets of Slashdot...

--
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.
Re:I'm a zealot by SlashDread · 2003-10-14 03:05 · Score: 1

OTOH..

skipping wrongfully marked trolls as insightfull just makes sense.

"/Dread"
Re:I'm a zealot by goldspider · 2003-10-14 03:20 · Score: 0, Offtopic

How is that a troll, he's 100% correct!
Zealots always prefer to ignore/silence an opposing opinion over understanding/refuting it. And there's no shortage of that here on Slashdot!

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Re:I'm a zealot by s20451 · 2003-10-14 04:43 · Score: 1

the terms "advocate" and "zealot" have been conflated lately on slashdot by pro-Microsoft folks ... An advocate is one who vocally supports a position. A zealot is one who loudly ignores contrary evidence.

Those two properties are not mutually exclusive.

I would argue that a sign of a zealot is a person who obsessively views the world in terms of "us" and "them". Your view that the confusion of "advocate" and "zealot" is the responsibility of pro-Microsoft forces implies to me that you are not only an advocate, but also a zealot.

--
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Re:I'm a zealot by Ian+Bicking · 2003-10-14 06:27 · Score: 1

Mature thinkers eventually get tired of studying radically opposed opinions. When you disagree with someone axiomatically there's no point to argument. You can try to empathize with the person -- but the substance of your opponents' arguments becomes irrrelevant.
People who study axiomatically opposed arguments and dissect them for accuracy and flaws are wasting their time unless they are preparing to debate the issue publically. Slashdot is a lame place to debate this publically. Many of us aren't in the mood to dive into debates, nor of the public stature to make our yet-another-opinion very meaningful -- at least to an audience that would find this article compelling.
People who are enthusiastic about debate think that a reasoned argument is important, that winning a debate is possible. These people are either naive, or they have not been very thoughtful about their past experiences. They are deluded into thinking that if they could just get someone to understand what they are arguing, the compelling wisdom of it would overwhealm the person into agreeing. This is not possible. People's beliefs are not analytical -- even among those inclined to debate. Analysis follows belief, we construct reasons to justify our desires.
This article will only make me feel frustrated and annoyed, and railing against its inaccuracies or even trying to understand its perspective will be constructive. I am glad the original poster made this clear. I prefer constructive and informative thought, which this article will not provide me. Avoiding this sort of thing is what you need to do to be intellectually constructive in this internet age -- it's not zealotry.
Re:I'm a zealot by abe+ferlman · 2003-10-14 06:37 · Score: 1

Your definition stinks- it is zeal that sets zealots apart, not their scheme for classifying ideologies. In fact you can't have zealots without contrasting ideologies, because what would their zeal be for if not for one ideology over the other? Nor can you have advocates, of course.

Here's a useful definition from dictionary.com:

zealot
\Zeal"ot\, n. [F. z['e]lote, L. zelotes, Gr. ?. See Zeal.] One who is zealous; one who engages warmly in any cause, and pursues his object with earnestness and ardor; especially, one who is overzealous, or carried away by his zeal; one absorbed in devotion to anything; an enthusiast; a fanatical partisan.

But let's run with your definition anyway Dr. Psychologist Man; put me on your couch and tell me what else is wrong with me.

I must be in very bad shape to have divided slashdot readers into two groups of people, and identified myself as in one of them and out of another. I would dare say that my classification is a useful one based on observation rather than a fanciful one based on religous faith.

But your point is well taken- perhaps even some folks who are not Microsoft supporters have been confusing zealots and advocates. Education all around.

--
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Re:I'm a zealot by s20451 · 2003-10-14 06:50 · Score: 1

Your definition stinks

I wasn't claiming that it was a definition, merely an indicator. Similarly, an acid is not defined as any substance that turns litmus paper red, though red litmus paper is an excellent indicator for acid.

I would dare say that my classification is a useful one based on observation rather than a fanciful one based on religous faith.

Most classifications are based on observation, and even a layperson could form a useful classification of X versus not-X based on careful observation. Whether the X is itself useless is irrelevant to the classification. As a person of faith myself, I don't find religion "fanciful", but that's a discussion for another time.

To reiterate, it is my observations that zealots -- particularly religious zealots, or pseudo-religious zealots such as those in the FSF -- tend to categorize the world into us-versus-them. However, this is not how I define zealotry. The dictionary definition you gave is perfectly fine.

And for the record, I've been using Linux exclusively since 1998, and have even released software under the GPL.

--
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Re:I'm a zealot by abe+ferlman · 2003-10-14 07:13 · Score: 1

Whatever dude. I don't have time for a deep thread on this.

Everyone finds themselves in a disagrement at some time in their lives. Announcing their position does not make them a zealot. Pushing on with their position to an extreme (i.e. beyond what is justifiable in light of facts, or in inappropriate fora) makes them a zealot.

This is a discussion forum. Expressing a position and differentiating it from that of others does not a zealot make.

--
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Re:I'm a zealot by TomHoward · 2003-10-14 17:35 · Score: 1

I think PrimeNumber was foolish to suggest one shouldn't read the article. I agree with your implication that one should read the article. However, I'm concerned that peopel don't know the difference between advocates and zealots.

PrimeNumbers suggestion may have been exectly was was required to get your average slashdotter to actually read the article. I know it worked for me.

--
Do you really think I'm go to put something novel here?
Re:I'm a zealot by SlashDread · 2003-10-14 19:05 · Score: 1

No he is not.

If I were to describe Forbes as Lying Nazi Greedy Capatalist Pigs, _I_ would be modded down rightfully as -1 troll.

The article, and I have read it, is basically a troll on that level.

Stating that the article is an "opinion" is saying that the BOFH attitude (see thereg) is an "opinion".

It is not. Its a lying bastard troll article, and is NOT newsworthy.

"/Dread"

So, let me see... by Dehumanizer · 2003-10-14 01:33 · Score: 1

Those companies wanted to use GPLed software while violating the GPL, and then are shocked when they aren't allowed to?

--
The Tlog - a technology blog

I should point out... by Short+Circuit · 2003-10-14 01:34 · Score: 1

...that by "our", I mean everyone. We all have a right to use the kernel, so I'd say that gives us the right to defend it to its licensed lettter.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)

Forbes should shut it by abartlett_219 · 2003-10-14 01:34 · Score: 1

OK...so basically Forbes is bashing Linux and the FSF for protecting it's IP. Hrm...maybe they should bash the entire software industry for suing one another.

Furthermore, what good is the source code to a router? Most of the code they are using in it anyway will already be open. Only thing Broadcom/Cisco wrote more than likely was the modules to control the chipset.

Re:Forbes should shut it by MickLinux · 2003-10-14 01:43 · Score: 1

Forget reputation, though you can look for that too if you want. Take a look at the other articles linked to under that "Linux at Work" inset.

Then judge for yourself.

It's always a bad idea to say something that could be taken out of context as slander, so why not just let their own words speak for themselves.

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's

You just know by kurosawdust · 2003-10-14 01:34 · Score: 1

Somewhere right now Stallman is reading this and smacking his head saying "I knew I never should've hired programmers named 'Icepick' and 'Knuckles'!"

What a bunch of Jerks! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:35 · Score: 0

The article describes action taken by the FSF to protect the GPL and the community. I am happy that the FSF is there working for us all. Any godamn suited vulture that tries to take our rights away is gonna get his ass fried in court. GOOD. Fuck the suits.

The Dark Side? by countach · 2003-10-14 01:35 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm crazy, but why is forcing someone to share "the dark side of free software???"

Furthermore, the FSF isn't demanding damages or money, they're only asking their licence to be obeyed. How is this "worse than commercial" like those clowns at SCO asking for big $$$ for supposed harm?

They should get a clue. Nobody strapped anybody down and forced them to use free software. And nobody is now trying to enforce some obscure clause in some new way. They are simply asking for the #1 tenet of the GPL to be upheld. Sheesh.

Re:The Dark Side? by rknop · 2003-10-14 01:43 · Score: 1

Furthermore, the FSF isn't demanding damages or money, they're only asking their licence to be obeyed. How is this "worse than commercial" like those clowns at SCO asking for big $$$ for supposed harm?

Indeed. On one side, we have the FSF saying, "everybody play fair and play by the rules." On the other side, we have proprietary companies saying, "Aha! You were caught! Cough up the protection money!"

And, yet, somehow, the author of the article seems to think that the FSF's approach is the more onerous and the more damaging to society.

Hello?

A fine example, in my opinion, of the complete perspective that a lot of American society has lost. What matters is the stock market and the business bottom line and how various people can fit into an economic model. Honesty, playing fair, and individual rights and responsibilities are laughed at as irrelevant at bessed, dismissed as intrusive and onerous at worst. Depressing, really.

-Rob
Re:The Dark Side? by DAldredge · 2003-10-14 01:59 · Score: 1

The FSF doesn't buy ads in Forbes.
Re:The Dark Side? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:15 · Score: 0

What I'll never understand is why those companies didn't use FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or some other *BSD for those appliances. There are many small router systems based on those OS's and they truely are FREE. No worries about licensing issues.

The only thing I can think of is that the PHB's in those companies must have gone for Linux because 'it's popular' and gets the press rather than thinking through the implications. If they'd used OpenBSD they would have just as an effective router (and possibly even more secure), and be having zero worries about lawsuits right now.

FSF to much hype fo rnothing. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:35 · Score: 0

Really, I can't listen to this crap anymore the good FSF and the fine GNU/GPL and how much they kiss arse each other.

Where is the FSF when we need them ? All their shouting is nothing more than spreading a religion in the public. Where is the FSF finally putting a lock behind SCO ? Where is the FSF protecting us from being ripped off for our work ? I saw so many closed source programs where open source code has been abused (e.g. niche marked operating systems who has been ripping off open source drivers)...

I think you people shouldn't hype the FSF that big and carry their shit with bells and whistles outside. They are not more than a little organisation with RMS ontop of that who made a big 'marketing' out of all this. Look at their membership prices, their CD prices and book prices. For an organisation who pray the open source mentality I can tell you that they are sitting at the top to rippoff peoples work.

I also bet they are cooperating with SCO. I know this may sound like a rant for advocates, zealots and people following an religion and hype but on the otherhand this makes a lot of sense.

Such a pity, comrade. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:35 · Score: 0

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Daniel Lyons by AsparagusChallenge · 2003-10-14 01:35 · Score: 5, Informative

Remember "What SCO wants, SCO gets"? Same author. Don't expect any love from him.

Re:Daniel Lyons by Sigl · 2003-10-14 02:03 · Score: 1

Wow, he seems to be deciding the fate of the lawsuit based purely on SCO past success (really what good are all those settlements?) Regardless of IBM's track record and regardless of the merits of the case... I hope that's not all the judge goes on.
Re:Daniel Lyons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:16 · Score: 0

Apparently, Daniel Lyons is an "auteur":

http://www.penguinputnam.com/Author/AuthorFrame/ 0, 1020,,00.html?id=1000038322
Re:Daniel Lyons by Marcus+Erroneous · 2003-10-14 02:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

The original article was interesting enough. Protecting your IP in order to make money is okay, protecting your IP not to make money is not. Then you read "What SCO wants, SCO gets" and you see the same theme. It's okay to sue the pants off of someone in the name of greed, or to attack someone for failing to live up to your licensing agreements when it costs you money, but the upholding of the license on legal grounds without greed as the fundamental motive is unAmerican and wrong? WTF?
Either a license is legal and a company has the right to enforce the terms that were entered into, or it's not. Either it's okay to rip off someones IP or it's not. The idea that it's okay to rip off someone elses IP if you're going to make a buck is hollow.
Then again, these guys thought Enron was wonderful. Forbes isn't targeting the type of person that is furthering the world, just themselves. What I find really sad is that the author completely skips over the fact that companies can develop internal applications based on GPLcode then deploy and use them enterprise wide without paying the onerous licensing fees that would normally be required by proprietary software. That would save a lot of businesses a lot of money, improving their margins and boosting profits and bonuses. I don't think that it would really be against Forbes targetted readership to have an article that shows both sides of the issue. If you use it to sell a product based on GPL you have obligations that you don't normally take into account and that you might well decide are too steep for you. That's an informed business decision for you to make. And, that same software deployed internally you can keep to yourself and still save a bundle on licensing costs. Again, another informed business decision.
It's not outside of Forbe's scope to present a balanced article to help its readership make informed decisions. They miss the point that the GPL is about allowing businesses to have more options in the tools that they use to conduct business. It's all about lowering costs, being more efficient and freeing you to spend less money while keeping more of what you make. And that truly is what business is about.

--
You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi
Re:Daniel Lyons by cyranoVR · 2003-10-14 02:28 · Score: 1

Having read that article, I have to agree with Lyons' general point...SCO "gets its way" not by being right but by suing the f*** out of other companies using its bastion of lawyers. The "linux community" should therefore not waste so much energy on there is no stolen code in linux! rant and start thinking how do we beat them at their own game? (that is, the courts - judges don't always care about "the facts" - i.e. whether the code was "stolen" or not - so time to bone up on legalese and get ready for legal dirty tricks).

Of course, Lyons seems to underestimate IBM's army of lawyers. It would be interesting to see how IBM has fared in copyright disputes over the years vs. SCO's track-record...
Re:Daniel Lyons by cyranoVR · 2003-10-14 02:35 · Score: 1

Thanks for the link. Check out the zinger from this article

No doubt the most paranoid Linux fans will view this indemnification issue as just another example of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) being spread by the invisible hands of companies like Microsoft and Sun, whose proprietary systems are threatened by Linux.

But some CEOs might fret. They are, after all, writing hefty checks to companies like IBM and Red Hat for maintenance and support. Red Hat charges up to $2,500 per server per year for maintenance and in its last fiscal year (ended February 2003) generated $91 million in revenue.

Wow, he has already silenced his critics in advance! "Take that Slashdot." This guy must get reams of anonymous hate-spam.
Re:Daniel Lyons by corbettw · 2003-10-14 02:39 · Score: 1

OMFG, I can't believe a mainstream, reputable newsrag would allow one of their flunkies to throw around epithets all day long like that. "Linux crunchies"??? WTF, are we some kind of breakfast cereal, now?

I wish I had a subscription to Forbes, so I could cancel it.

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:Daniel Lyons by oll · 2003-10-14 02:43 · Score: 1

Hehe, he's in playboy!

Daniel Lyons is a journalist who has worked for various newspapers and magazines, including the Boston Herald and Forbes. The short story on which Daniel Lyons based Dog Days won the Playboy College fiction award, and he was short-listed for Granta's "Best of the Young American Novelists" competition. He lives in Charlestown, Massachusetts.
Re:Daniel Lyons by turbosk · 2003-10-14 02:47 · Score: 1

another good lyons quote regarding red hat's decision to go after SCO:

"So now he has gone to court asking a judge to declare that his product does not infringe on SCO's intellectual property. It's a bit like asking a judge to declare that you didn't rob a bank, even before the police have charged you with a crime."

um, i think it's more like asking a judge to tell your neighbor to stop shouting into his bullhorn that you raped his sister when you didn't.

but i don't have a column in Forbes.
Re:Daniel Lyons by the_mad_poster · 2003-10-14 03:55 · Score: 1

That's easy. Just buy one and cancel it right away. I did the same thing to my Verizon telephone account - cancelled it in indignation, that is. As you can see, they've been badly wounded by it. Last legs and all that - you just watch.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:Daniel Lyons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:10 · Score: 0

Is this necessarily true? I mean what constitutes distribution? If you write an application and distribute it enterprise wide with gpl violations, what happens when part of the company gets sold to another? What happens when the employee that is using the code asks for the source? What constitutes distribution? This has been a sore spot for me since I feel even internal deployment amongst a few people could mean big trouble.
Re:Daniel Lyons by docl · 2003-10-14 04:35 · Score: 1
He's also the author of other great journalism:
- IBM Refuses To Indemnify Linux Users
- Red Hat's Mad Matt Vs. Humongous SCO Lawsuit
Re:Daniel Lyons by jak163 · 2003-10-14 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's all about lowering costs, being more efficient and freeing you to spend less money while keeping more of what you make. And that truly is what business is about.

That is correct, and that is the basic misunderstanding of the article and of much of the advocacy of much of open source. Open source is not about disrupting private property rights or communism. It is about enhancing competition and reducing anti-competitive monopoly power and monopoly profits. It is an attempt to bring to commercial software the same system of ethics that governs programming or other kinds of research in a scientific or academic setting. Those settings are not anticapitalist in principle, and authorship is respected there, but what is not possible is on the one hand secrecy and on the other hand general acceptance of valid results. GPL is a form of private property, not a disavowal of ownership. It is a restriction upon how the use may be restricted, which is itself precisely what property rights are--en enforceable claim to exclude someone from the use of something.

The author is trying to point out a contradiction between the rhetoric of the open source community as anticapitalist and anti-private property and the reality. In this he is correct--there is such hypocrisy. But he is wrong in saying that the contradiction goes to the heart of open source. It's the rhetoric of some open source advocacy and some representation of open source that contradicts this enforcement action, not the core of open source.

He is also wrong in suggesting that there is something wrong with this enforcement action. What he is really implying is that a corporation should have its IP enforced, but that a far-flung network of volunteers should not. Asking a corporation to pay them or abide by the restriction they place on use of their IP is unfair if it prevents the corporation from making money. The proof of the corporation's merit is that it sold 400,000 units. If releasing the code will remove an advantage over its competitors, that's just too bad for the volunteers.

This is why some in the open source movement embrace libertarianism and social darwinism and speak of the results of unrestricted competition under a regime of private property rights as if they genuinely reward merit. Private property and corporations are legal entities, creations of the state. Laissez-faire and perfect competition is no more absent government intervention than state-directed communism. It is a different set of rules governing contracts and property, not the absence of such rules in either case.
Re:Daniel Lyons by Wun+Hung+Lo · 2003-10-14 05:36 · Score: 0

Didn't you watch Wall Street? How do you think Steve Forbes got to be a billionaire?

Greed is what these people understand. Anything not involving the profit motive scares the hell out of them.
Re:Daniel Lyons by blibbleblobble · 2003-10-14 08:14 · Score: 1

"Remember "What SCO wants, SCO gets"? Same author."

Same author, same 220-pixel (7 cm) wide text.

On some websites, you can take advantage of advances in computer technology within the last 40 years, using monitor resolutions a whole 8 times larger than the ones Forbes seem to have done their typesetting on...
Re:Daniel Lyons by Nodatadj · 2003-10-14 09:51 · Score: 1

How do you think Steve Forbes got to be a billionaire?

IIRC his daddy gave him it.

But he's not a billionaire, he's only got a 400,000,000$ fortune or at least he did a few years ago. Dunno how much he has now, but I doubt if it's grown to over a billion in 3 years. It might have...

Just go ahead and censor things... by KDan · 2003-10-14 01:36 · Score: 1

Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.

So are you saying we can't deal with negative criticism (even if it's structured like a falling card castle - haven't read the article yet, I don't know).

Daniel

--
Carpe Diem

Re:Just go ahead and censor things... by NineNine · 2003-10-14 01:37 · Score: 1

Of course not. All ready, all of the posts about this article have been screaming "TROLL!!" without even reading the fucking article. OSS zealots tend to be a bunch of immature kids.
Re:Just go ahead and censor things... by rknop · 2003-10-14 01:46 · Score: 1

Of course not. All ready, all of the posts about this article have been screaming "TROLL!!" without even reading the fucking article. OSS zealots tend to be a bunch of immature kids.

Meanwhile, we've got NineNine here making a blanket statement about all the posts, clearly without having read them.

You can find immature kids everywhere.

-Rob
Re:Just go ahead and censor things... by r00zky · 2003-10-14 01:48 · Score: 1

Negative criticism??
No way, i have read the article, and it's more like freakin' double standards.

The article in short: Authors protected by the GPL deserve no rights coz they're a bunch of pinko commies, and don't even try to enforce that rights!! don't you see you're making big corporations to lose money? you terrorist!

--
I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
Re:Just go ahead and censor things... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:49 · Score: 0

I think a lot of people have read the article. A lot of people are rightly pointing out that it's merely saying "the FSF are enforcing the GPL", and this isn't particularly surprising.
Re:Just go ahead and censor things... by ekuns · 2003-10-14 01:50 · Score: 1

OSS zealots tend to be a bunch of immature kids.

Yeah, completely unlike other kinds of zealots. (grin) If you remove "OSS" from that sentence it is just as true.

Having read the FA, I can understand why people would shout "TROLL!!!" It's an opinion piece thinly disguised as a news article. I would have thought that when reporting news one wouldn't cast aspersions at or call names of one side of a news story.

I'm not a zealot. (Most of the time!) But I agree with you that zealots of all stripes tend to act like a bunch of immature kids. But you know, it's just part of the definion of "zealot."
Re:Just go ahead and censor things... by Zigg · 2003-10-14 01:57 · Score: 0

I'm screaming "troll" after reading the article.

Trying to portray companies that have not done their due diligence towards licensing of software they want to use as some kind of victim is just plain irresponsible.
Re:Just go ahead and censor things... by SpacePunk · 2003-10-14 02:00 · Score: 0

the open source community can't deal with criticism. They view themselves a the 'knights in shining armor' or 'white hats'. When in reality their a bunch of misfits and rogues.

--
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Re:Just go ahead and censor things... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:08 · Score: 0

And you view yourself as a sex stud for your next door neighbors poodle.....

So... by beady · 2003-10-14 01:36 · Score: 1

The GPL isn't allowed to be upheld then? Is that what Forbes is trying to say?
I mean, its not like linksys were forced into using and adapting GPL software, and now Forbes, and clearly lynksys et al. feel that they should be allowed to renege on the deal? No way.
Seriously, why could they not use bsd licensed stuff from the word go. Hell I would if I was in that kind of business.
And the word Comrade at the end of the article. Come on, thats just stereotyping of the worst variety.

stupid article by blueskies · 2003-10-14 01:36 · Score: 1

the tone of this article is ridiculous. Open source doesn't mean Public Domain!

Re:stupid article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:45 · Score: 0

the tone of this article is ridiculous.

Please note the this is slashdot and around here we spell it "rediculous." Your future compliance would be appreciated. Thanks.

FSF Mafia by DasAlbatross · 2003-10-14 01:36 · Score: 1

This author makes it sound like the FSF put a gun to these people's head, made them usen open source software, then tried to nail them for it. They could have written their own proprietary code and never had to release it. The chose to use GPL code, now they have to play by the rules. It's that simple.

shouldn't read it? by derrith · 2003-10-14 01:36 · Score: 1

okay, the suggestion that because the OSS community isn't portrayed as a nice and friendly group of folks and therefore we shouldn't read the article annoys me. If open source is to appeal to everybody and their mother, shouldn't they community learn what it is other people think of it? Because an article portrays the community in a negative light, it's different, and I think that it might behoove the community to learn why people dislike open source and whether or not htere is a good reason

--
why does the porridge bird lay his eggs in the air?

Re:shouldn't read it? by The+One+KEA · 2003-10-14 01:48 · Score: 1

That makes a lot of sense. Why should we avoid literature that portrays the OSS community in a bad light? "Gasp, horror, someone wrote nasty things about us!"

Reading this stuff, while distasteful to some people, is very important; I'm reading it right now. Learning about ourselves from a different perspective will allow us to remove the myths and misconceptions and tell people the truth about ourselves. Avoiding this type of stuff only guarantees that we'll continue acting in a way that the corporate world doesn't like, which is not a Good Thing.

Although I must take exception to the title of the article, "Linux Hit Men."

--
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618

Slashdot: the free fifth column by sammyo · 2003-10-14 01:37 · Score: 1

To quote the article:

"For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free" programs, has been making threats to Cisco Systems..."

Clearly we are a subversive crowd, WOO!

The business community does not get it. And they will PAY!

There are so many misunderstandings in the first paragraph, really someone should get a paper letter to the editor, I'm sure they discount anything from email.

Way to have an open mind...... by TJ6581 · 2003-10-14 01:37 · Score: 1

Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.

So instead of reading things which can cause us to question our preconceptions we should label all Slashdot stories like so:

RMS Approved!

Guaranteed not to cause terrorism in children!

NCH (Nothing controversial here!)

Telling other people not to read something because you don't agree with it is moronic. Submitting a story to Slashdot and then telling people not to read it it just asinine.

--
"Freedom of speech has always been the abstract red-headed stepchild of the Constitution"
-Suck

Re:Way to have an open mind...... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:57 · Score: 0

Submitting a story to Slashdot and then telling people not to read it it just asinine.
Yeah - people on Slashdot are perfectly capable of not reading the posted articles all by themselves, they don't need to be told.
Re:Way to have an open mind...... by ThogScully · 2003-10-14 01:59 · Score: 1

Submitting a story to Slashdot and then telling people not to read it it just asinine.
I'd say it's a prediction.
-N

--
I've nothing to say here...
Re:Way to have an open mind...... by SpacePunk · 2003-10-14 02:04 · Score: 1

Thank you for the idea for my sig.

--
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM

I really don'to understand this article by moderators_are_w*nke · 2003-10-14 01:37 · Score: 1

What is the problem here. I'm not a fan of the GPL myself, but I can't understand what this article is on about. If you use GPLed software, or create derivative works based on it, you have to abide by the conditions in the licence. Its exactly the same as if you use commercial software.

Its really not that difficult, If you don't agree to the licence, don't use the code.

--
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward

Re:I really don'to understand this article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:40 · Score: 0

Its quite straightforward really, they just defending the big corporatitons right to break the law as and when it pleases and pay off anyone who argues.
Re:I really don'to understand this article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:54 · Score: 0

Well, you're not alone in not understanding the article. But one thing is for sure. The author has not understood the GPL.
Re:I really don'to understand this article by Dashing+Leech · 2003-10-14 04:12 · Score: 1

What I believe Daniel Lyons is trying to say, and doing a very poor job at it, is the the "payment" required by the GPL is not good, implying that it is better to pay for proprietary software than to use GPL software for free and "pay" by having to release your source code.
He doesn't state it as clearly as that, but that's what I get out of it. He misses several big things:
Would the router have been such a success, including as cheap and high quality, if they had developed it all in-house or paid for proprietary software.
Cisco and Broadcom made a shitload of cash (as even he states), but did it off the work of others. Is that fair? Shouldn't Cisco & Broadcom pay? (In this case, the payment is not monetary, but sharing of their code.)
The Linksys router was a success because it was a good product and cheap, not because the software on it was a secret.
Ironically, he wraps it in a communist insult, when in fact his position -- that companies should have to pay for the works of others -- is closer to communistic. The GPL does require payment in the form of sharing back what you have developed. Pretty cheap if you ask me. It also works on the princple that commercial success should be built on making a better mousetrap, not keeping the plans secret.

Bad light? Where? by Jaysyn · 2003-10-14 01:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

This is exactly what I want to see in print about FSF. Yes, you can use our stuff to make money, but if you get greedy & don't share we're going to take your ass down. Any other company in the world would do the same thing, why shouldn't the FSF do the same?

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.

Boo hoo. by Unknown+Kadath · 2003-10-14 01:37 · Score: 1

So it's only okay to use the court system in defense of a monopoly or proprietary information?

The FSF's attempts to enforce their licensing is fair, not knee-breaking or Communism, as the writer implies. You used the code, you're bound by the license--which is not kind to closed-source business models. Cry me a fuckin' river.

-Carolyn

--
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.

How is this Useful? by Azghoul · 2003-10-14 01:38 · Score: 1

"Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this."

How in the world is this useful? The idea that reading something that you might not agree with is "bad" is bad for you is incredible on a site that most people might think is open-minded.

Please! Read this! If you ask me (which of course noone did, hehe) I'd think everyone here /ought/ to read it just to see the community's reputation from another point of view.

My comments to the writer. by smkndrkn · 2003-10-14 01:39 · Score: 1

Keep in mind that whoever uses software released under the GPL must read it first. If you do not agree...you don't have to use it and you can write your own code for whatever purpose you desire. Just because said companies are now at risk of "knock-offs" by releasing the code does make me feel any sympathy for them and this article is basically saying that they didn't play by the rules and now they shouldn't have to follow them because its not fair...oh boo hoo.

--
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========

There is always two sides to a story... by Noryungi · 2003-10-14 01:40 · Score: 1

Frankly, what did you expect from Forbes magazine? These people looooove closed-source companies making lots of $$$.

They also do not understand the business benefits of GPL: strong, stable, mature code that is freely modifiable and that will actuall ensure that your competitors will have to share whatever modifications and improvements they make to the code with you.

This is the basis for much "coopetition" between firms, which has produced some fairly advanced open standards. This is also why IBM is invested in Linux in such a big way.

Actually, I think this may have an interesting effect: it will get people (maybe even PHBs) interested in the work of the FSF. And maybe some will see though all the FUD and exclaim: "A 'free' operating system?! That's too good to be true!".

Besides, I do think the solution is, for Cisco, quite easy: release the Linksys/Broadcom code that is under GPL. Then, if they don't like the GPL, they can always either replace it or use a code that's under a different license (BSD).

If it takes "hit men" to enforce the GPL, then so be it! What makes it bad when these people enforce the GPL, and not when they "protect their Intellectual Property"? (think *cough* SCO *cough*)

--
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)

Re:There is always two sides to a story... by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2003-10-14 02:24 · Score: 1

There's a "send us a comment" link at the bottom of the story. Everyone should use it, as long as they can refrain from frothing at the mouth. Here's what I sent:
Why are attorneys and software engineers doing their jobs being portrayed as Mafiosi and/or KGB agents? The GPL is a software license like any other; companies which violate its terms are just as guilty as those which pirate software from proprietary vendors such as Cisco, Oracle, and Microsoft. If you don't like the terms, don't use the code -- it's that simple. I and millions of other software developers make a good living using open-source software. This is because the vast bulk of software development is done in-house for specific corporate applications. I have found, as many others have, that open-source applications (in my case, Linux, Apache, PHP, and MySQL) allow us to be more productive than proprietary applications. This approach saves my employer money and keeps our products rolling out the door. Free and open-source software is not a one-size-fits-all answer -- but neither is proprietary software. Take away either, and the world will be a poorer place. Articles like this one seem designed to ensure that corporate and individual users will continue to pay more than they have to for the tools that enable them to get their work done.
Maybe if they get a few thousand reasonable, literate letters (no "c15C0 5uX0Rz!" or "soon you capitalist scum shall be swept into the dustbin of history" rants) it'll make a difference. Or maybe not, but it's worth a shot.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:There is always two sides to a story... by the_mad_poster · 2003-10-14 04:01 · Score: 1

I took a different approach (criticism welcome):

The article "Linux's Hit Men" is in particularly poor taste - particularly the highly unprofessional "comrade" jab at the end - and is badly misinformed. I have to wonder: what are the writer's views on organizations such as the BSA? The BSA employs S.W.A.T. style tactics to "raid" organizations and ensure compliance with convoluted, difficult to understand EULAs. They slap egregious fines on companies for minor mistakes that result in non-compliance with Draconian licensing schemes. They have attacked companies' pockets hard to make "examples" of them. They have even been known to show up on a company's doorstep with armed law enforcement officials to perform their audits. I see none of this from the FSF. Instead, I see an organization that is applying reasonable pressure to ensure voluntary compliance with a clear, concise, and up-front license that companies have agreed to. When this fails, the FSF is capable of flexing legal muscle to ensure that companies do not break these agreements. If a developer chooses to release the fruits of his or her labor for free, why does Forbes feel that this individual should not have the benefit of asking the people who take advantage of this free base to comply with a clear set of guidelines for using and distributing it? If companies such as Linksys do not wish to agree to these terms, they should not expect to be allowed to reap the rewards of using someone else's hard work for free. They are free to do their own development or find an alternative - they are by no means bound to the GPL before they choose to use any GPL'ed software. Like any other model, Open Source is not perfect. However, when it comes to cases such as this, I'd rather deal with the FSF's very reasonable demands for resolution rather than the BSA's unbelievable fines and lawsuits any day.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!

This kind of propaganda is scary! by GuardianBob420 · 2003-10-14 01:40 · Score: 1

This is propaganda from the world of the 'haves', make no mistake. This is the same type of BS people heard about the EPA back in the 80's - that they were militant, annoying buearocrats that are just looking to cause trouble for others for basically no good reason. Of course, that's crap - and the propaganda war fought on these issues has resulted in (1) DMCA, (2) PATRIOT Act, (3) 'Clear Skies' initiatives that sour our air and water...
The point being: we must understand the enemy, we must understand his message, we must make our message heard, and we need to let your average American (or whereever you may be) make an informed, rational decision about who's speaking up for your better interests...

Re:This kind of propaganda is scary! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:54 · Score: 0

This is the same type of BS people heard about the EPA back in the 80's - that they were militant, annoying buearocrats that are just looking to cause trouble for others for basically no good reason.

Umm, dude, the EPA *IS* a group of militant annoying bureacrats just looking to cause trouble. Check your watch, I think it's a decade slow.
Re:This kind of propaganda is scary! by GuardianBob420 · 2003-10-14 02:00 · Score: 1

You've got a point in that they are NOW - I meant that the EPA was set up to protect the interests of the average American and help prevent the further unplanned overexploitatoin of our natural resources... because people bought into the propaganda back when they WERE doing a good job, we're stuck with the impotent organization we have today because people UNDERESTIMATED it's importance as well as the capabilities of big industry to trash our backyards at in incredible rate!!! People need to understand the reasons for creating and supporting organizations such as the FSF and the EFF, etc. or we may be left with no advocate looking out for the law abiding little guy. Please think about it!

"Hit men", "dark side", "in secret" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:41 · Score: 0

Yes, what demon RMS is. This naive journalist thinks the FSF is a lawyers' cartel. Imagine that, RMS the Suit.

Hired enforcer? by Geeky · 2003-10-14 01:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sometimes it's the other way around--the foundation gets paid by private companies for whom it acts as a sort of hired enforcer

So to the PHBs at Forbes it's presumably OK for the BSA to act as an enforcer for one type of license but not for the FSF to act as an enforcer for another?

--
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.

Balanced Views by Letch · 2003-10-14 01:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.

What a stupid thing to say. How can anyone claim to have a balanced view of an issue if they refuse to read any articles that oppose them?

Re:Balanced Views by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:30 · Score: 0

Balance view? On slashdot? But all here must praise our Overloard Stallman.

Seriously, although the FSF does have good points on some issues, they come across as fanatics on some points. Fanaticism is never good, in any area. The quote from one of them "We'd like people to stop selling proprietary software. It's bad for the world", is just way out there in the extreme. Propriatary software in and of itself is not bad. Some of the monopolistic practices some of the companies use with their proprietary software is. But comments like the above are certainly going to be seen as stuff from the lunatic fringe to the audience of Forbes.
Re:Balanced Views by albanac · 2003-10-14 02:46 · Score: 1

What a stupid thing to say. How can anyone claim to have a balanced view of an issue if they refuse to read any articles that oppose them?

How many people on slashdot even remotely claim to have a balanced view of any issue?

The editors know their user base.
~cHris

Beautiful by 12357bd · 2003-10-14 01:41 · Score: 1

10.000.000$ vs 25.000$

Beautiful.

Sig? Katma??

--
What's in a sig?

Generate dollars? by benjj · 2003-10-14 01:41 · Score: 1

But he concedes that his foundation hates the way companies like Oracle (nasdaq: ORCL - news - people ) and Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) generate billions of dollars by selling software licenses. "We'd like people to stop selling proprietary software. It's bad for the world," Kuhn says.

Nice use of the word "generate". It leaves the impression that those no-good opensourceniks want to stop Microsoft from "generating" money - that is - making money out of nothing.

Poor old Microsoft is there, generating money for the economy, doing nothing wrong! And these hippies want to stop it! Communists! It's not like it charges obscene amounts to businesses through its monopolistic practises.

Re:Generate dollars? by NineNine · 2003-10-14 01:44 · Score: 1

What, and MS and Oracle doesn't generate income? Of course they do! Last I checked, college kids writing software for free most definitely have an adverse effect on the economy. But if you don't think so, just tell me where you work, and I'll follow you around, offering to your managers to do your job for free. Then you can tell me about "generating" money.
Re:Generate dollars? by benjj · 2003-10-14 01:57 · Score: 1

Last I checked, college kids writing software for free most definitely have an adverse effect on the economy.

How is that exactly?

But if you don't think so, just tell me where you work, and I'll follow you around, offering to your managers to do your job for free. Then you can tell me about "generating" money.

Hmmm. Non-sequitur. Just because I lost my job because someone was coding for free, doesn't mean that the economy was damaged. If I lost my job because a machine could do it, did that damage the economy?

At any rate, the people working on Linux at IBM etc. do get paid. And when a company takes the source code and doesn't give its modifications back, they are damaging those other businesses. IBM/RedHat work on Linux under the understanding that other modifications will be released.
Re:Generate dollars? by NineNine · 2003-10-14 02:10 · Score: 1

If you lost your job because somebody did your job for free, you wouldn't be able to consumeor invest, thus hurting the economy. It hasn't been proved that the savings that a company reaps from using open source software as opposed to buying open source software offsets the damage done.

Your other point, when a company takes OSS code and doesn't give modifications back, they're not hurting anybody. They're jsut not living up to an implied agreement.
Re:Generate dollars? by ekuns · 2003-10-14 02:15 · Score: 1

Last I checked, college kids writing software for free most definitely have an adverse effect on the economy. But if you don't think so, just tell me where you work, and I'll follow you around, offering to your managers to do your job for free.

You're confusing the economy with the jobless rate. By your same argument, factories that automated -- putting people out of work -- had an adverse affect on the economy. At worst, open source turns software from a capital purchase into a commodity. That lowers the amount those companies have to pay for their business needs, so they have more money available to hire.

Thus, it's quite likely that open source will cause jobe to move from this to that, but that doesn't mean it will destroy jobs. And at a time when US (I don't know about other countries) companies are outsourcing to other countries, I don't know that open source is really a cause of high tech unenployment.

What open source does is free up resource in the economy that would otherwise be spent on certain commodity parts -- operating systems, web servers, and so on -- so those resource can instead be spent hiring people to do what the company needs done. It's not like money disappears from the economy. It's just spent elsewhere.

Also, really, open source benefits the economy. Rather than having dozens of companies each having their own internal development trying to rebuild the wheel, they all can share one developement model for the fundamentals of their business and can focus on their real business needs.

In some ways, this is the same effect that public standards have on business. They allow businesses to spend their dollars on what distinguishes them from others. It's more efficient. I opens up money to be spent elsewhere.

When you talk about open source harming the economy, you seem to believe that the money those companies would have spent on employees to do that task has just disappeared. Nope. That have that money available to hire employees to do something else. Like install or customize or mainain that open source application. Or build the custom applications that the business actually cares about.
Re:Generate dollars? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:25 · Score: 0

Offering to your managers to do your job for free.

Boo hoo, cry me a river. If someone else is willing to do your job for free, thats a pretty good indication that you're overpaid and un-needed. This is especially interesting coming from a guy who runs a porn website which pronounces "Are you a broke ass who wants porn for free?" You're taking money away from all those pay-per-view porn producers! You bastard!
Re:Generate dollars? by schon · 2003-10-14 02:40 · Score: 1

when a company takes OSS code and doesn't give modifications back, they're not hurting anybody.

Yes they are - they are hurting ME.. and anyone else who sells service for that software.
Re:Generate dollars? by benjj · 2003-10-14 02:51 · Score: 1

Gee, I glad someone here could make the point I was trying to make coherently :-)
Re:Generate dollars? by NineNine · 2003-10-14 03:01 · Score: 1

A couple of points... first, as far as replacing people with machinery, that machinery has to be designed, manufactured, and purchased... all adding jobs and creating income for the various companies involved in that machinery. Writing software is not being replaced by anything comprable. It's essentially being produced out of thin air (ie: college kids with lots of free time).

Secondly, I see what you're saying about money being spent elsewhere in the company that consumes software, but there's no guarantee that that extra profit that they make is even going back into the economy. More than likely, it's going into some executive's bank account. You're assuming that a company says, "We saved $2 million on software this year, let's spend that $2 million on more specific software, or on new equipment, etc.". I'm saying that it's entirely likely that that money is just gravy that gets pissed away.

Never before in the history of capitalism has a product been produced and given away entirely for free. This is a new concept, and whether or not it's a good thing is still to be seen. It's a good thing for the company using the software, sure, because it saves them money. Whether or not it's good for the economy as a whole... who knows?
Re:Generate dollars? by ekuns · 2003-10-14 13:17 · Score: 1

Never before in the history of capitalism has a product been produced and given away entirely for free. This is a new concept, and whether or not it's a good thing is still to be seen.

Look at science, a necessary part of capitalism as we know it. Without science, our economy would not be anywhere close to where it is. Science and Open Source resemble one another because there is overlap in thinking and overlap in population. If, instead of open scientific progress, we had each organization doing private research and not publishing results, companies might in the short term make more money -- maybe far more money -- than with public science. However, the long term is much, much better with science open to the public.

The product of information has a long history of being given away for free in capitalism, and capitalism benefits from this cooperation more than it would benefit from the competition that would otherwise replace it.

As one example of Open Source software, in the 21st century should we still be paying a lot of money for the operating system? That's just part of the platform. The cost of hardware has dropped. The cost of fundamentally required software has not. Not really. This doesn't make sense. Software prices do not seem to benefit from the same economies of scale that physically manufactured items benefit from. If Microsoft sells twice as many copies of Office in a year, do you think they will drop the price? No, because it costs them no more and no less to make twice as many boxes, compared to the sale price of those boxes. However, if GM sold twice as many cars, they would drop the price somewhat due to economies of scale. (Unless demand was higher than supply.)

In the day and age where you can spend more on an operating system to run on it than you would spend on a 3.0 GHz processor... something isn't right. This doesn't seem good for the economy. It's only good for the few companies selling the operating systems.

The economy is more efficient when people are employed solving different problems, as opposed to people solving the same problems over and over again at different companies. Open source gives this efficiency as an option.

And yes, in the worst case, a company who spends less on software by using open source might piss away the saved cash. But that money still goes into the economy, either as cash in the economy or as capital. In the worst case, that money goes somewhere other than the tech economy. That is the case where programmers are hurt by "giving it away for free." Talking of locking money out of the economy, what about Microsoft and Sun and certain other tech companies sitting on many billions of dollars? How does that benefit the economy? (Unless indirectly by being saved or invested in a way that provides capital to the economy)

For the computing fundamentals, it makes more sense IMO to pay for support and customization than it does to pay for the operating system, a web browser, a web server, a database server, a file server, and so on. Yes, this changes the tech landscape in a disruptive way, but IMO open source is only hastening this change, not bringing it about. I believe this is good for the economy, but not good for all workers. It's like any other disruptive technological change -- some careers go away or become less prominant, other careers are created.

What did they expect? by infiniti99 · 2003-10-14 01:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

They used some code, and now they have to abide by the licensing rules of that code. This is no different than if it were some proprietary code like Windows. I don't understand this "GPL-creep" bullshit, as if these companies are using GPL code by accident. There is no way such code can wind up in your program unintentionally. Anytime you pull code from the internet, check the license. If there is no license mentioned, don't use it! Only use code if it says you can, not because it doesn't say you can't.

Forbes may be making the FSF look like the bad guys here, but really, what are the alternatives? If this were Windows or some proprietary software, you'd have the BSA breathing down their neck.

Re:What did they expect? by Red+Rocket · 2003-10-14 08:41 · Score: 1

If this were Windows or some proprietary software, you'd have the BSA breathing down their neck.

Breathing, hell. They'd be ripping their head off and shitting down their neck.

--
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!

What a slant! by Art_XIV · 2003-10-14 01:42 · Score: 1

This is a fine example of journalism with a 'slant'.

I don't see the Big Deal, Forbes magazine. If these companies didn't want to make their source code open and public, they shouldn't have used GPL'd code.

Maybe Linksys & company should have used SCO instead of Linux for their devices? ;)

--
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.

Pointer? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:42 · Score: 0

The article mentions a "leaked" discussion of the dispute. Anyone have a pointer?

Happy Coders by camliner · 2003-10-14 01:43 · Score: 1

--a view that contrasts with the movement's usual public image of happy software proles linking arms and singing the "Internationale" while freely sharing the fruits of their code-writing labor. /sings Tra-la-la-la-la! /skips away

If stealing GPLed code is OK... by Captain+Kirk · 2003-10-14 01:43 · Score: 1

...lets all go down the newsagents and steal copies of Forbes magazine.

Silly article by a silly magazine that is propped up by ads from closed source It vendors.

--
1000s Warcraft Gold while you sleep

God forbid they pay for something by dstutz · 2003-10-14 01:43 · Score: 1

I don't see what the problem is with the FSF going after these companies for using GPL'd code. How is it a bad thing? These companies have 2 choices, use GPL'd code and get their product out the door faster and cheaper BUT they have to now share their code. Or they can spend a LOT more time and develop everything in-house so it really is their product and they can earn all the proceeds. Why do they expect that they can just grab up this "free" code and expect to make tons of money off it?

Killer penguins by AtariAmarok · 2003-10-14 01:43 · Score: 2, Funny

Linux hitmen? The image comes to mind of The Penguin's army of radio-controlled penguins in "Batman 2".

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:Killer penguins by DaneelGiskard · 2003-10-14 02:44 · Score: 1

Remember the shotgun-equipped penguins from that futurama episode? :))

Arrgh! by American+AC+in+Paris · 2003-10-14 01:43 · Score: 1

Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.

Because ya know, we don't ever wanna hear nuthin' bad 'bout our boys, no sir, no sir.

Whatever happened to "know thy enemy"? Instead of telling people to not read this piece because it has bad things to say about the open source community, why not advocate reading it carefully to pick out the other side's arguments, analyze them, and learn how to counter them when your own boss starts quoting the article?

...cuz' simply saying, "They're full of shit! open source is great!" isn't gonna change any minds, folks. Learn how they think, study their arguments, and develop good responses, and you're in the game. Ignore it because it doesn't agree with What You Know Is True, you're just that shirtless, fat, face-painted idiot in the stands.

--

Obliteracy: Words with explosions

Oh yes... by johneee · 2003-10-14 01:44 · Score: 1

" Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this."

Because god forbid you actually read something that you might not like. What on earth is that?

Better to say, "Forewarning: this has viewpoints that right or wrong, run directly contrary to your own. You should read this to see what some people out there think and are reading in an influential magazine."

--
- ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?

Forbes have some mighty strange views by azaris · 2003-10-14 01:44 · Score: 1

Too bad they left out angles like "large multinationals ripping off independent OSS dev teams to boost profits" and "blatant copyright violations". At least the article makes it clear you shouldn't attempt to violate the GPL because the FSF will come after you. Maybe they'll follow this article with a similar blather about the BSA?

I guess we've entered a stage where it's bad to steal for profit but even worse to share something for free.

I don't get it by zr-rifle · 2003-10-14 01:44 · Score: 1

What's Forbes' poin after all? In their article they picture the FSF as some kind of Al's Hit squad that settles out any dispute over it's own goods.

It's not like the FSF puts decapitated horse heads in the beds of Cisco CEOs.

It's more like this: I'm a young software programmer. I contributed free software by writing a driver for some random hardware and distributing it under the GPL. Now the manufactorer has taken this driver, modified it to make it work with it's new line of hardware and made it proprietary. Since I am a student I can't afford to pay the costs of a lawsuit against some major hardware manufactorer, so the FSF acts on my behalf to make my rights stand out.

--
Hack your mind out of its sandbox.

Libre Society by locarecords.com · 2003-10-14 01:44 · Score: 1

...

This might be found interesting in lieu of the comments about free/libre/open-source ness... The Libre Society

--
---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM

This is a good article for the /. community by jbelcher56 · 2003-10-14 01:45 · Score: 1

I think that this community insulates itself too much from what is going on in the business world. This is a good representation of how the business world views the open source model. Its good to see some constructive discussion on the issue, since these are the real people running the world, as much as we would love to deny it! The first step in fixing a problem is identifying the problem.

--
Don't get off the boat. Absolutely, goddamn right.

Re:This is a good article for the /. community by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:49 · Score: 0

The problem is that these guys are under the impression that stealing from someone trying to make money=bad, while stealing from someone not trying to make money=ok.

I'm sorry if it seems in retrospect that the terms of the GPL are more burdensome, but unlike proprietary licenses you have the license available to you up front, so there is no excuse for not knowing what you got yourself into.

Good Article, Bad Publicity by EchoMirage · 2003-10-14 01:45 · Score: 0, Offtopic

This article will be met with much dispute on Slashdot, and rightly so, to an extent. However, there are a few well-made points in the article, and there are some things that the FSF has clearly gone overboard (again) with. Take this quote from FSF Director Bradley Kuhn:

"And if they [Cisco] balk? Kuhn raises the threat of legal action. 'We defend the rights protected by the GPL license,' he says. 'We have legal teeth, so if someone does not share and share alike, we can make them obey the rules.'"

Make them obey the rules? Yes, technically that's what legal enforcement of a license does, but Brad could definetely have phrased it in a way that didn't make the FSF look like a schoolyard bully. A better way to say this would be: "We would, if necessary, defend the code-sharing clauses of the GPL, but we would of course want to work with Cisco before that to have them see the benefits of voluntarily sharing this code, as many other companies have done."

I've met Brad before, and while he's a decent and friendly guy, he's pretty deeply into the free software zealotry. As has been hashed and rehashed multiple times, the zealotry that exists within certain wings of the free software movement is a prime reason why many businesses are still extremely skeptical about the whole free software/Linux thing. Making wild-eyed threats like this and having them appear in Forbes (which more than a few CFOs and CIOs read) is a pretty big black eye for the FSF and the free software movement...

Re:Good Article, Bad Publicity by RyoSaeba · 2003-10-14 01:49 · Score: 1

(+1 insightful)

--
Tsuyoikoto ha taisetsu da ne, dakedo namida mo hitsuyousa (Strength is an important thing, but tears too are necessary)
Re:Good Article, Bad Publicity by jtn · 2003-10-14 07:34 · Score: 1

If the FSF's mission in life was to "have them see the benefits ov voluntarily sharing this code", then they would actively back the BSD and BSD-like licenses. The GPL is not about voluntary anything. It is about destroying the economy of paying-for-software. Companies like Apple, IBM and others have benefited from BSD-licensed code and have given back to the community without a specific clause stating that you MUST. So why would he say anything other than "we will make you obey"?

This is irony... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:46 · Score: 0

After years of railing at Microsoft and its ilk for being a bit TOO vigorous in "protecting their IP", /.ers now rail against Forbes for bashing the GPL for being vigorous in "protecting their IP".

I thought the whole purpose of the open source movement was to make IP more about the technical personnel who support the systems than the systems themselves...

What is the world coming to?

That is a good description of the EPA by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:46 · Score: 0

"that they were militant, annoying buearocrats that are just looking to cause trouble for others for basically no good reason"

That is a pretty good description of the EPA. The EPA exists primarily to protect and increase its own power. That is not propaganda, it is just the truth about the nature of bureacracies.

Poor, dumb bastards by Headius · 2003-10-14 01:46 · Score: 1

The article is so blind to the truth it's absurd. Yeah, the FSF flexes a little muscle once in a while to rein in companies that violate GPL. Yeah, it's a tough burden to either switch operating systems or release your modified source to the world. Yeah, it would be great for those companies if they could just use GPL'ed code without following any rules.

The bottom line, however, is that companies that use GPL'ed software are saving millions in development costs they'd otherwise have to swallow. Developing an embedded OS with the feature set and robustness of Linux would take hundreds if not thousands of man-months. That adds up to a lot of dough saved by going with available, open-source solutions.

And then, true to form, the PHBs, Executives, Suits all decide that they're not going to give back to the community. They're going to break the very rules that allow them to use such powerful software without paying cent one for the right. I support FSF's efforts to put the smack down on these companies at every turn. If you get something for free and then refuse to follow the rules under which you are allowed to use it, what right do you have to keep it?

Forbes, Proud Guadians of Deception by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:47 · Score: 0

Ah, the sweet smell of scum.

Here's some interesting facts about old Steve-O:

1. Steve-O owns a cattle farm on his 100 acre+ Bedminster estate.

2. Steve-O, despite living in the own of the richest little suburbs in the world, PAYS NO PROPERTY TAXES!

Just thought you should know that, because this is corporate culture which obviously extoles the virtues of screwing over the bottom half - and telling the bottom half "its their fault" for being not rich, and the only way to fix it, is to become rich and to join them in screwing.

So in this case, Forbes peppers otherwise good reporting with: "Linux developers spend time in their mother's basement playing..." etc. Nice, huh?

This has more to do with the tired old fogeys who make their money via extortion and pollution being pissed off at seeing "computer" people - Linux and Microsoftie alike - at their country clubs. They never did quite embrace the fact that technology can make or break a company (Walmart v. Kmart), and are obviously looking at this without any understanding of the need of reliable technology in the Enterprise.

They do recognize that SCO is nothing more than a legal FUD machine - but they admire them for it! But all they see in our camp is a bunch of commies, not Libertarians. Which shows us Libertarians how many enemies we really have.

Bias by linuxislandsucks · 2003-10-14 01:47 · Score: 1

I sent email this morning to the editor on his bias..lets flood the email box..shall we?

--
Don't Tread on OpenSource

And what Cisco had used Microsoft code? by thisissilly · 2003-10-14 01:48 · Score: 1

If Cisco had used Microsoft's code without following the license, would Forbes be so upset with MS efforts to get Cisco to follow the license?

Look, if you don't want to comply with the GPL, don't use GPL'd code. It's that simple.

irrational arguments by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:48 · Score: 0

I have never read so much bullocks about the GPL in one article.

"But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners."

No, it wants that people who use GPLed software comply with the licence OR stop using it. It is as simple as that.

I do not understand what the author is making such a fuzz about: the licence is clear, the consequences too. If he respects the concept of licences for proprietary software, I really do not understand why he is writing all this crap about the GPL. what would he have us do? Let compagnies get away with a clear breachement og the licence?

Fine, but then he should also accept people can break licenses of MS and consorts, with impunity.

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough* by TheSHAD0W · 2003-10-14 01:49 · Score: 1

In Cisco's case, it's even trickier, because the disputed code resides on chips that Linksys buys from Broadcom.

Well, it's certain Forbes has been led astray. At SOME point that code had to be external and compiled into the kernel before it's loaded into firmware; this article makes it seem like any program run with Linux has to be made open source and freely available.

The fact is: Linksys saved themselves a whole lot of money by using Linux instead of some commercial OS product to drive their router. They tout its using Linux, and people are attracted to their product because they think it's "open source". But what's the use of it being partially open source if people can't apply their own patches and rebuild it?

Author is a jerk by n1ywb · 2003-10-14 01:49 · Score: 1

This is the same guy who's been calling for an end to government funding of PBS. He mistated several facts and twisted a few issues and came to the conclusion that PBS is a waste of time and money because they broadcast Barney. Now we ALL hate Barney, but Daniel Lyons is basically an ignorant prick and should be furiously ignored, in the hopes that he'll just go away.

--
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com

Re:Author is a jerk by Zigg · 2003-10-14 02:04 · Score: 1

Whoa, hold on a minute here. There's good reason to end government funding of PBS. If people think it's worthwhile, they can fund it themselves. Which is, essentially, what the other kid-aimed networks are doing.

Maybe, instead of launching into the namecalling, you could provide some compelling case for Congress supporting the bread and circuses?
Re:Author is a jerk by n1ywb · 2003-10-14 02:22 · Score: 1

Congress funds PBS. Congress is empowered by The People. Therefore The People fund PBS. The people DO think it's worthwhile which is WHY Congress continues to fund it. Welcome to democracy.

Regardless, this guy taking pot shots at PBS is about as low as Bill O'Reilly taking pot shots at the Red Cross. Way to fuck a benevolent organization run primarily by low paid and unpaid volunteers.

And if you STILL don't belive me that this guy is a jerk, just read some more of his "articles".

--
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com

Hmm, Forbes missed a bit... by dnnrly · 2003-10-14 01:49 · Score: 1

y'know that bit about how LinkSys didn't have to use GPL software in the first place. It very comprehensively avoids the whole issue, not even an overview of what the GPL is.

I think this article is very damaging to the perception of GPL software because this article will mostly be read by executives whitout any knowledge of the background and will now think twice about using GPL software out of their own sense of morals. I'm sure I would if had a choice but no knowledge.

Worried About Big Brother? by devnullkac · 2003-10-14 01:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Are you worried about Big Brother? Worry about Forbes:

Joseph Alsop [PersonId=142453], chief executive of Progress...

Apparently they give everyone a PersonID. Guess they slipped up revealing it this time. I actually subscribe to the magazine; I wonder what my PersonID is.

--
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!

Re:Worried About Big Brother? by Omnifarious · 2003-10-14 02:00 · Score: 1

When I communicate with people on the net, they all get a person ID. It's called an email address.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Worried About Big Brother? by ekuns · 2003-10-14 02:02 · Score: 1

As a subscriber to the magazine, maybe you can tell us -- is this slant against the GPL a quirk in an otherwise balanced publication? Or do they have several well known biases but are otherwise well balanced. Like JAMA, for example, that has a couple well known and not even disguised biases, but on other topics is a fair and reliable publication.

P.S. They can't give EVERYONE a person ID. Even slashdot's member IDs go higher than 142453. Oh, unless Forbes only gives person IDs to people who matter to the world of business. Hmm. That must be it. Probably well under 1/4 million of those. :)
Re:Worried About Big Brother? by Zocalo · 2003-10-14 02:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Holy tracking numbers "devnullkac" [SlashdotID=223246]! It looks like Slashdot is assigning you a number as well; who knows what invasions of privacy they are using it for!
Or maybe it just has something to do with it being easier to cross-reference records stored in a database with a unique key, huh? ;)

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:Worried About Big Brother? by quigonn · 2003-10-14 02:13 · Score: 1

Not exactly. An inherent property of an ID is that it's unique. This is not the case with email addresses. Take role accounts (postmaster@, usenet@, abuse@): they aren't associated with a single person, and in fact might be read by a number of people.

--
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
Re:Worried About Big Brother? by Zak3056 · 2003-10-14 02:20 · Score: 1

Apparently they give everyone a PersonID. Guess they slipped up revealing it this time. I actually subscribe to the magazine; I wonder what my PersonID is

I'm assuming that Forbes, like most web news sites, turn the names of companies and prominent individuals into hyperlinks to direct the reader to more stories about same. The PersonID is probably put there by the author or the editor so whoever formats the stories can link appropriately.

In short, if you're serious about the above post, buy some more tinfoil.

--
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Re:Worried About Big Brother? by Larsing · 2003-10-14 02:24 · Score: 1

In Soviet Sweden, EVERYONE has a PersonID#!

--
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
Re:Worried About Big Brother? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:44 · Score: 0

I do not subscribe to Forbes, so I do not have a PersonID. Does this mean I am not a person?
Re:Worried About Big Brother? by Talla · 2003-10-14 03:31 · Score: 1

In Soviet Sweden, EVERYONE has a PersonID#!

I don't think you will find many western countries where they don't use some variant of a unique personal ID.
Re:Worried About Big Brother? by Captain+Large+Face · 2003-10-14 04:22 · Score: 1

Is this really that worrying? Does this not make it easier to link articles together? In fact, if you look here, you'll notice that Joseph Alsop is only tracked because he's the CEO of Progress Software. If you were the CEO of a corporation, I imagine you'd get tracked as well.

Start worrying when you're assigned a tracking number in the billions, not the thousands. ;)
Re:Worried About Big Brother? by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2003-10-14 06:13 · Score: 1

To use this yet again...

They looked deep inside my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
- Homer Simpson, new Stonecutter.
Re:Worried About Big Brother? by Error27 · 2003-10-14 07:12 · Score: 1

I have no problem with slashdot tracking slashdot readers through the use of a "slashdot id". My problem is with forbes.com tracking individuals through a world wide "person id" system.

It is utterly offensive to me how they use their "person id" system to target outer space death laser beams on people who don't share their marxist world view.
Re:Worried About Big Brother? by wrmrxxx · 2003-10-14 09:31 · Score: 1

Far freaking out - I've been assigned one too! My number seems to be some sort of cleverly encoded message, specially designed to implant particular thoughts into my mind...
Re:Worried About Big Brother? by Larsing · 2003-10-14 18:14 · Score: 1

How about the UK?
They use gas bills and other utility bills as unique proof of identity.
If you don't have one, you just don't exsist!

--
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.

Didn't look too bad to me. by ahfoo · 2003-10-14 01:49 · Score: 1

It's all good. The bottom line is that from the beginning the GPL is about playing ball with the corporate, legal world. Instead of just saying screw those guys we're just going to ignore their rules, the GPL is all about playing by the rules and making the rules work.
I think a similar strategy can work in the P2P mess. People who get their networks scanned by vigilante enforcement agencies need to stand up and resist instead of just playing dumb and ignoring it or pretending to hide. You can just write up a network policy and contact the admins of the violating networks and let them know they're violating your network policy. The law works both ways. That's what the GPL is all about.
So, I didn't think the article was too harsh. Sure, maybe Kuhn's quote at the end about not selling proprietary software is going to piss people off, but whatever. The fact is, the FSF is working within the law. The suits should be pleased that they've at least got the opportunity to define the battlefield. Just because they're still losers, well whose fault is that?

What? by tjensor · 2003-10-14 01:49 · Score: 1

Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.

Yeah, because I only want to read sycophantic fauning positive press. Jesus if you cant take a little criticism you should stop readind /. now.

--
<fnord>OBEY</fnord>

Re:What? by tjensor · 2003-10-14 02:17 · Score: 1

Haha, yes how clever you are - typos invalidate my point! How didnt I think of that? Thank you for pointing that out Mr... oh, wait you were an AC. Now how will I give you the gratitude you deserve?

--
<fnord>OBEY</fnord>

Lies and bad journalism by Medievalist · 2003-10-14 01:49 · Score: 1

For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free" programs, has been making threats to Cisco Systems (nasdaq: CSCO - news - people ) and Broadcom (nasdaq: BRCM - news - people ) over a networking router that runs the Linux operating system.

First thing I spotted, but this farrago of FUD is loaded with inaccuracies (like, claiming the code is embedded in a Broadcom chip, and claiming the SCO suit and the FSF's attempts to get Linksys to clean up their shop are equivalent).

There has been no secret about the pressure that's been put on Linksys to divulge their code!

And, the reason Cisco is pissed off is not that the FSF is going to make them reveal source for a product from their recent acquisition (linksys) but because the idiots at Linksys have apparently lost the source code so they couldn't post it if they wanted to!

Daniel Lyons, the author by leming · 2003-10-14 01:50 · Score: 5, Informative

If you look at other articles that Daniel Lyons has written for Forbes, you will see that this man is more or less anti-free software. He wrote an article back in June about SCO vs. Linux. In that article he describes linux users as: "like many religious folk, Linux-loving crunchies [are] convinced of their own rightousness..." This is just another article written by a another man who thinks that Linux will go nowhere because it isn't backed by a major corporation starting with an M.

It's my personal opinion not to read too much into the article, and take it just as it is, an opinion -- someone else's view on what is happening.

Re:Daniel Lyons, the author by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:13 · Score: 0

The problem, though, is that it's billed as news, even though it's basically an opinion piece.
Re:Daniel Lyons, the author by Larsing · 2003-10-14 02:26 · Score: 1

...Linux will go nowhere because it isn't backed by a major corporation starting with an M.

No, but ending with one...

--
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
Re:Daniel Lyons, the author by Citizen+of+Earth · 2003-10-14 04:52 · Score: 1

"like many religious folk, Linux-loving crunchies [are] convinced of their own rightousness..."

Oh, he's the "crunchies" guy! I guess Forbes brings him in when they want to increase circulation by pissing off Linux folks.

(BTW, what is a "crunchie"? Maybe in addition to soap, they could have Linux Crunchies breakfast cereal.)
Re:Daniel Lyons, the author by docwhat · 2003-10-14 05:18 · Score: 1

Does someone have Mr. Lyons's email address? Or some more info on him? I am not familiar with this gentleman, and would like an opertunity to explain some of the mistakes, if he indeed cares.

If he doesn't, then his editor's email address would be needed too....

Ciao!

--
The Doctor What (KF6VNC)
Re:Daniel Lyons, the author by justins · 2003-10-14 05:24 · Score: 1

Well that's good to know. I sure care more about the background of the guy who wrote the article than the points raised in it!

--
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Re:Daniel Lyons, the author by cpeterso · 2003-10-14 08:17 · Score: 1

it isn't backed by a major corporation starting with an M.

McDonald's?

--
cpeterso
Re:Daniel Lyons, the author by fname · 2003-10-14 10:46 · Score: 1

Forbes support SCO against Linux et.al. User of Linux should have to pay SCO license fees.

Forbers supports Cisco against Linux. Cisco should be able to take Linux code and do whatever they want.

So riddle me this: should Cisco have to pay SCO for using GPL'ed Linux code? Or should Cisco be able to use it for free, since they don't want to share? I'm sure Forbes will tackle this issue in their next article. I'll be holding my breath waiting for the un-biased writer on the SCO/Linux beat to do his typical bang-up job.
Re:Daniel Lyons, the author by eniu!uine · 2003-10-14 14:34 · Score: 1

"go nowhere because it isn't backed by a major corporation starting with an M."

Motorola is coming out with a linux based phone. There you go... someone tell this Lyons guy that we have major support starting with M!

--
My Blog

Is he seriously saying don't read the article? by Burb · 2003-10-14 01:51 · Score: 1

Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this

Hmmm. So what you're saying is "if you don't like this bit of reporting, don't read it". Quite bizarre. It may be biased/wrong or whatever, but you won't do yourself any favours by sticking your head in the sand. There are quite enough people who don't RTFA at the moment. Please don't make it worse.

--

Re:Is he seriously saying don't read the article? by standbypowerguy · 2003-10-14 02:24 · Score: 1

His statement had the opposite effect on me; it piqued my curiosity. As I'm sure it did others'.

--
This isn't the sig you're looking for... Move along.
Re:Is he seriously saying don't read the article? by PrimeNumber · 2003-10-14 02:42 · Score: 1

No what I was saying was (which I probably should have made clearer, hindsight is 20/20...) this:

I didnt want this to be "lets submit this to Slashdot and get everyone riled up", so read it knowing what type of article this will be.
Intended to be "you will most likely either get pissed off or disgusted by this type of thinking". I know I did.

Case in point: The comrades comment by the author was a real winner, real non-biased journalistic integrity there dont you think?

Jealous and greedy, aren't you. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:51 · Score: 0

"2. Steve-O, despite living in the own of the richest little suburbs in the world, PAYS NO PROPERTY TAXES!"

So? There are many who live in towns (or even states) with no property taxes that do not pay tem either.

Steve O., rest assured, is overtaxed like the rest of us, and pays his fair share.

like it or not... by thoolihan · 2003-10-14 01:51 · Score: 1

Love or hate the GPL, if you want to use GPL'd software in your product, you better be ready to abide by it. Just because Forbes doesn't like the motivation of the license, they lay into it. Other license violations (like when Ernie Ball guitar strings inadvertantly violated an MS license) have led to armed federal officers entering the company premises. Personally, I think the FSF is a tad more polite than that.
-t

--
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"

OpenTV by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:52 · Score: 0

OpenTV, a San Francisco company that ships a set-top box containing Linux, was violating the GPL. The drama took months to resolve and ended with OpenTV writing a check for $65,000 to the Free Software Foundation. "They paid us a very substantial payment for our time and trouble," Moglen says.

I don't recall this case, but if it was settled by the writing of a check *instead of* the remedies sought here by the FSF vs Cisco (i.e. opening of source or removal of GPL'ed code) then it seems to be the FSF may be doing a disservice to people releasing their code under the GPL. How does a check in the pocket of the FSF help the author of the code keep it "Free" ? Presumably, people put their code under the GPL for reasons other than subsidizing the FSF, so I hope the FSF did not just settle for a check.

It's a useful article by 91degrees · 2003-10-14 01:52 · Score: 1

It warns people about the price of open source software, and that while the cost should be obvious, some people seem to have failed to take into account.

If people want to use linux, purely to avoid developing their own code, and don't want to give back to the community, then we really don't want them to use it in the first palce, and if they don't want to share their code, then they should know Linux is not for them.

Forbes is incompetent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:52 · Score: 0

Several years ago Forbes did an article on 64 bit computing. They claimed that a 64 bit machine could address 64! bytes of ram. The same article had several other similar idiocies. Don't believe any non-financial articles they write.

MOD PARENT UP by The+One+KEA · 2003-10-14 01:52 · Score: 0

You're right. Like I said somewhere else, ignoring this stuff is only going to hurt us in the long run.

--
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618

Re:MOD PARENT UP by man_of_mr_e · 2003-10-14 05:20 · Score: 1

You are incorrect. You can enhance the product all you like without distributing anything. If you distribute a derived work in binary form, you must give your changes to whomever you distribute the binary to. There is no requirement to give your changes to whomever or whatever you got the original from, unless they acquire a copy of the modified binaries and request said source from you.

--
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Re:MOD PARENT UP by Performer+Guy · 2003-10-14 06:11 · Score: 1

Thanks for the correction, I knew this but I wasn't specific enough.

What about Software Patents? by pirhana · 2003-10-14 01:53 · Score: 1

Its amazing that the author speaks so much against GPL enforcement and the FSF way of dealing with issues. How about big companies enforcing their patents ? How about demanding royalties for everything under the sun (which may be covered by some submarine patents)? How about BSA terrorizing everyone with their raids ? People like him find problem when somebody is asking to release the modifications he made to something which he has got FREE. How is it is so bad ? If companies like cisco can employ armies of lawyers to find out possible patents , why cant they hire some grad student to go through the GPL and be compliant with it beofre taking GPL code ? The level of hypocrisy is sickening !

--
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/

This is very bad stuff by Fnkmaster · 2003-10-14 01:53 · Score: 1

It doesn't help that the FSF is such a batch of loonies, but the writer of this piece is spewing pure venom here. Jeez, you'd think these evil people that he describes (flagrantly no less) as a bunch of arm-in-arm hippies were hurting him in some way. Or hurting somebody.

The whole spiel about the enforcer bit is somewhat strange - companies that use GPLed products and make money off of them often give money to the FSF. Sure, they may do it in part because they know the FSF will help keep the playing field level for them with respect to their competitors, but so what? That's only fair. They can't force their competitors to NOT release GPL software or to take stuff off the market, since it's GPLed.

Again, the point is proved that RMS and the FSF should not be allowed to represent the FOSS community in any sort of public forum. These guys get on the phone with a reporter and they are so eager to spread their philosophy that they say foolish things that get taken out of context about Microsoft and Oracle, and generally don't understand how to package sound bites properly. I think there needs to be some sort of "Chinese wall" between evangelism and enforcement - like they shouldn't both be done under the heading of the FSF.

Perspective by Shadowhawk · 2003-10-14 01:53 · Score: 1

"However it did help me gain insight into software from a PHB and suit perspective."

NO!

That's the first step along the path to becoming one of them! Save your intelligence while you can!

--
My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.

Warning to you college kids by 110010001000 · 2003-10-14 01:54 · Score: 0

Take heed of this quote from Mr. Kuhn:

"We'd like people to stop selling proprietary software. It's bad for the world," Kuhn says.

For all you kids graduating college, this is the enemy. How can you be expected to earn any kind of living without proprietary software? Mr. Kuhn doesn't care -- he is getting paid to be a lawyer. These people ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS.

Re:Warning to you college kids by Queuetue · 2003-10-14 03:31 · Score: 1

You are mistaken. A small and dwindling percentage of people make money from selling software.

Most people in the IT sector make money supporting, installing and integrating with software. The model of selling software secrets will represent only a short hiccup in the growth of the business models surrounding technology, and it will be looked back upon by historians as a period of greed, monopolism, and evil.
Re:Warning to you college kids by 110010001000 · 2003-10-14 03:55 · Score: 0

Yeah, right. Well guess what - we don't want to make money supporting and installing software. We didn't go to college to become IT support monkeys. We don't give away art, music, books, architectural drawings, why would software be ANY DIFFERENT?

Why is it OK for an author sell copies of his books, but a software author shouldn't sell copies of his software? Thats just stupid. Of course the PHB love you guys. They get all that software for free, and who doesn't like free? It improves the bottom line, and executives love that. Maybe they can get a new Porsche this year by going with a "free" software option!
Re:Warning to you college kids by Queuetue · 2003-10-14 04:13 · Score: 1

Ah, I should have looked at your blog earlier - I thought you were actually trying to help people, and I didn't realize you were a dedicated proprietary software apologist.

Carry on.

You SHOULD read this article. by GoofyBoy · 2003-10-14 01:54 · Score: 1

>The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.

Why? So people can have a warm-fuzzy feeling about OpenSource?

How about reading the article, think about it and judge for your self.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.

GPL code and derivative works by Ec|ipse · 2003-10-14 01:54 · Score: 1

Under the license, if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any "derivative works" you've created--even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product.

That doesn't sound right, I was under the impression the only portion that they had an obligation to release is the part that was free in the first place. If they create something proprietary that they insert that wasn't taken from a GPL source, then they only need to provide the portion that was originally GPL'd, not their proprietary portions.

Am I misunderstanding the purpose the the GPL or did it change somewhere along the lines?

Re:GPL code and derivative works by nuggz · 2003-10-14 02:00 · Score: 1

You misunderstand.
If you modify GPL code then release it, you must release it under the GPL, which includes the source of the origional, plus your changes.
Re:GPL code and derivative works by Ec|ipse · 2003-10-14 07:22 · Score: 1

But what if your not modifying the GPL code, what if your only using the GPL code as the operating system it is and your proprietary code/program never consisted of GPL code, it just runs on it.
Re:GPL code and derivative works by nuggz · 2003-10-14 07:57 · Score: 1

Then you are okay.

The GPL only covers derived works, not works that use.

Dell 2300 AP/Router... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:54 · Score: 0

...has (what appears to be) all the source code on the CD and Broadcom chips inside.

Dunno if that help Broadcom in this situation, though.

A negative light on something true by mnmn · 2003-10-14 01:54 · Score: 1

That was a bunch of negative words but the facts were all real. FSF's enthuisiasm about Linux has probably turned it into an armtwister. After all the legal stories we hear on slashdot are all too one-sided, and theres obviously some backlash going on behind the stories.

--
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky

"news" by akb · 2003-10-14 01:54 · Score: 1

Well this is obviously not a news article with stuff like "such a pity comrade" in it. I like how the first few words seemed purposefully designed to incur the wrath of FSF, "In the world of "free" open source software". Forbes should really mark commentary as such.

If it was a news article then it might have written about how some companies will only release code as GPL as opposed to BSD because they do not want their competitors to incoporate the code into their proprietary product. For instance, SGI would not release XFS under BSD because Sun could include it in Solaris.

This is very good by heironymouscoward · 2003-10-14 01:55 · Score: 1

Businesses only respect those parties who fight and win. The FSF must defend the GPL, it is not about sappy-minded communism but about assuring the free flow of information and ideas needed to sustain a technological revolution.

A revolution, one might add, on which the fortunes of many large companies depend today. The FSF has indirectly added more dollars to the value of the companies that Forbes speaks to than any other single group in the last 20 years.

This article sounds suspiciously like it's been sponsored by someone who wants to hit at the GPL: rather than looking at the quite astonishing savings that people make by using Linux (for free) in their products, they highlight the somewhat "annoying" fact that there is actually a payback for those free goodies, and the GPL is the guarantor of that payback.

Forbes should really be better informed: it's a free market and everyone has the right to write their own commercial software instead of profiting from the work of others and then complaining when the well-established conditions are enforced.

As for Cisco buying a company that had relied on Linux for their key product? Stupid, maybe. But that surely is their problem, not the fault of the FSF.

As an author of many GPL'd products, I'd certainly pay the FSF to enforce my rights. Go for it, hit men!!!

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature

My letter to the editor by YetAnotherName · 2003-10-14 01:55 · Score: 1

Submit yours to Forbes's contact page. Here's mine:

Daniel Lyons's article, "Linux Hit Men," seemed to conclude that the legal actions of the free software front were somehow onerous, part of its "dark side."

When Microsoft, IBM, Intuit, and other software publishers press legal action for license violations, they're doing so under the auspices of copyright law. They're doing so to protect their profits. That's a good thing; competition is what business is about.

When free software presses legal action for license violations, they're also doing so under the aegis of copyright law. But they're doing so to protect everyone else's ability to refine, improve, alter, amend, and better the state of software for everyone else. That's not a good thing?

If you're Daniel Lyons, apparently not. "Such a pity, comrade."

FSF, I renounce thee by pantsmonkey · 2003-10-14 01:55 · Score: 0, Funny

After reading the Forbes article, I'm now totally disillusioned with the whole free software movement. What kind of sick organization would have the nerve to enforce a legally binding contract that another party entered into willingly. My God, one or more of the F's in FSF must stand for facist. If I were a Microsoft spin doctor, I'd use this opportunity to strike a blow to free software by offering my company as an alternative for those out there who shun companies that use legal trickery for the purpose of world domination.

Feedback by tagishsimon · 2003-10-14 01:56 · Score: 1

Forbes.com employee e-mail addresses are formatted: first initial last name@forbes.net (jdoe@forbes.net).

So that would be DLyons@forbes.net.

Re:Feedback by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:46 · Score: 0

I like it!!! This is an extremely potent set of memes... Free them, make them heard... Yeah baby!

Stabbing at air by BlackFireBullet · 2003-10-14 01:56 · Score: 1

While I am far from the most devout linux supporter, this article is a simple attempt to propagate the viral-gpl myth.

There are many areas to attack linux on: desktop inconsistancy, lack of UI standerds, an uncompromisingly hard learning curve, however the legal basis for its existance is not one of them.

The idea that an organisation is morally wrong for taking legal action over a breach of contract is completely inane. What will we see next on forbes? "The Police: If you commit a crime they will arrest you! The nerve of this armed group...".

Linksys says: we just clicked "I agree with GPL" by dcordeiro · 2003-10-14 01:57 · Score: 1

The examples given in this document make me LOL. I can translate them, if you don't get it.

This is what they say:
" Well, we took the from the internet, and we just used it because is "free". Now, there area some guys around who say that we can't sell the without making available our source code.
If we do that, we're going to ruin our company. We lost millions developping our software. We're having second thoughts about GPL.

This is what they did:
1 - Instead of paying millions for some commercial software they just downloaded some GPL code. 2 - They modified it (or not). 3 - Sold "things" with the software bundled, without respecting GPL policy. 4 - Complain that somebody is trying to enforce the GPL on them... uau.. they're really bad bad boys.

Article Bottom line: You can't take code that you don't own and do watever you want with it.

And if Cisco bought Linksys for $500 million based on their "stolen software", they just are plain stupid. This is the problem with big companies: they don't invent the wheel. They just try to buy who invented it. But sometimes they just buy a bunch of powerpoints or (in this case) a bunch of problems.

funny stuff! NOT by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 01:57 · Score: 0

i liked this article. it gave me a chuckle :) seriously, it presented what the FSF is doing in a factual manner, but it tried to paint it in a "those mean guys" kinda way. like we're mean for trying to enforce the license we use and tell everyone we use in our software. like we're bastards for trying to make sure other linux users can benefit from Broadcom code as they and linksys have benefitted from Linux code. there's a reason the GPL was invented, and it was for this exact situation.

In some ways, these Free Software Foundation "enforcement actions" can be more dangerous than a typical copyright spat, because usually copyright holders seek money--say, royalties on the product that infringing companies are selling. But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.

It doesn't want you to "burn down your house," or whatever the fuck that means Mr. Daniel Lyons. Share it with "cloners"? What the fuck is a cloner? I'm an open source developer you putz. I write code which I intend for others to use so long as they make sure everyone else can use it, change it, fix it, and benefit from it. Not so that some company can cram it into it's products, make millions of dollars in revenue, give me jack shit, and not even TELL anybody they used it much less redistribute the original code or their obvious changes to the code.

Will Cisco and Broadcom be the first? Probably they'll decide, like everyone else, that it's cheaper to settle than to fight.

Such a pity, comrade.

Why don't you stop being a pussy and come out and say what you're thinking? You're calling Free Software communist, aren't you? Well you can eat my ass, capitalist boy. Free Software is not communist. It's not even political, it's philosophical. The idea behind Free Software is that "we can make the world a better place..." How a company could take that code WITHOUT any monetary reimbursement, use it for their own gains, and not even follow the guidelines of the copyright and license included with that code is either a tremendous blunder on the part of the IT manager and all the programmers working on the code or it's a company that simply wants to create the assumption that nobody cares about Free Software developers' rights and if we trample upon them nobody's gonna do jack shit. Well it turns out we have bodyguards for a good reason: sometimes we actually need them.

So now infringing should pay by elgaard · 2003-10-14 01:57 · Score: 1

===
In some ways, these Free Software Foundation "enforcement actions" can be more dangerous than a typical copyright spat, because usually copyright holders seek money--say, royalties on the product that infringing companies are selling.
===

So Forbes is saying that a company should be able to violate the copyright of others work if when it is suet it is willing to share some of the profit it made.

GPL is an incentive, not an encumbrance by SquareOfS · 2003-10-14 01:57 · Score: 1

The article is fundamentally unbalanced. No one ever asks the question of what Cisco/LinkSys/Broadcom thought they were doing when they used Linux in the product. It's written as if the GPL was sprung on them after they had committed to Linux. They have lawyers. Said lawyers are presumably capable of reading the GPL.

What's the story here? The story is they got caught.

Turning this into GPL-badness is completely ignorant. The GPL is a large part of the incentive for Linux development -- one of the reasons Linux developed so fast and so well.

In proprietary software, the incentive to invest is development is monetary return upon sale. In GPL software, the incentive is the return of better-developed source. If there was no return for the investment (if Open Source were, BSD-style, just a donation), fewer individuals and organizations would make the investment. Basic economics.

spewing vitriol by Medievalist · 2003-10-14 01:57 · Score: 1

Yow, I see your point. Thanks for the link!

I'd say this guy has a personal beef with the Free Software community. Did RMS pee in his wheaties or something?

Killing the goose by Omnifarious · 2003-10-14 01:58 · Score: 1

Those companies, by not sharing, are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. They have this fantastic piece of software that works well for their needs. It was created using this open process. Taking the software away, and hiding it from that process is making the process that created it for you in the first place significantly less effective, and will ultimately kill it.

They are making stupid business decisions. They don't fight because I bet the people at the FSF are wise, and point this out to them.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop

Re:Killing the goose by evilviper · 2003-10-14 02:28 · Score: 1

aking the software away, and hiding it from that process is making the process that created it for you in the first place significantly less effective, and will ultimately kill it.

That's odd... The BSDs don't force you to release your code, and they are still going strong. Reality contradicts your point...

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Killing the goose by Omnifarious · 2003-10-14 02:46 · Score: 1

So, do all the BSD players who matter hide their code, or do they contribute it back to the project? My point is not that it needs to be enforced by law, but that if they do it, they hurt themselves, and ultimately the project as a whole.

I certainly would never even consider targetting BSD, or putting my stuff under a BSD license because it's possible for companies to steal my work and sell it back to me. Judging by the available software, it seems like a lot of people agree with me.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Killing the goose by evilviper · 2003-10-14 19:51 · Score: 1

I certainly would never even consider targetting BSD, or putting my stuff under a BSD license because it's possible for companies to steal my work and sell it back to me.

You act like you are required to buy it. If you have a better version (for free) then they are selling, why would you, or anybody buy from them? Also, it's not like allowing them to use your code, then deprives you or anyone else from the code you wrote. Additionally, your code has no chance of ever being widely accepted under a license like the GPL, meanwhile, many BSD-licensed products have gained popularity. If TCP/IP, or any other major internet technology was GPL'd, we wouldn't have an internet today.

I have a hard time believing that RMS has actually got many people believing it is their god-given right to get a copy of anything based on their code.

Judging by the available software, it seems like a lot of people agree with me.

Yes, most people really don't understand the cansequences of their licensing decisions, and buy in to Stallman's insane rants.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Killing the goose by Omnifarious · 2003-10-15 01:14 · Score: 1

Since so much good GPLed software is both widely available and widely used, your complaint about it not being widely accepted seems hollow and bitter. I would go so far as to say that none of the freely available BSD projects would be anywhere near as popular today were it not for the GPLed Linux showing the way by forcing people to adhere to the ethos.

I think the wide acceptance of TCP/IP has had more to do with clearly written specs than it has had to do with the BSD license the most widely used stack was written under.

Besides, for some technologies, like ogg Vorbis, even Stallman considers the advantages of widespread use to be more important than the enforcement of sharing provided by the GPL. He gave his blessing to making that project available under the BSD license.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Killing the goose by evilviper · 2003-10-15 02:20 · Score: 1

Since so much good GPLed software is both widely available and widely used [...] I think the wide acceptance of TCP/IP has had more to do with clearly written specs than it has had to do with the BSD license the most widely used stack was written under.

I think the best example is NFS and SSH...

NFS is widely used, despite it's flaws, and lack of encryption. Why is that? Because all the alternatives have been under not-so-free licenses like the GPL. Just about any of them would make a decent replacement, but when the license isn't really free, few are willing to adopt it.

Now, I've heard arguements that NFS hasn't been replaced because it's old, works well, and what-not, so I would also like to mention SSH.

Telnet, and Rlogin/Rcp have been around forever. However, the instant a BSD-licensed SSH server came along, they were dumped so quick, it's almost like there was no transition period. Everyone hates unsecure, unencrypted, hacky applications, and telnet, rlogin/rcp, and NFS are all perfect examples.

There's millions of similar examples. Why do you think Sun chose GNOME as their desktop, over KDE, and everything else?

I would like to hear of some GPL'd programs that have gained such acceptance as BSD programs. I would like to hear of places where the GPL hasn't been a major hurdle, that hasn't prevented adoption... Outside of Linux, you just don't see GPL'd programs getting adopted at all.

Besides, for some technologies, like ogg Vorbis, even Stallman considers the advantages of widespread use to be more important than the enforcement of sharing provided by the GPL.

Stallman only believes a license less restrictive than the GPL should be chosen, when the project has no other way to compete. I can point you to that line on gnu.org if you like.

He gave his blessing to making that project available under the BSD license.

I've read RMS' e-mails, on the subject. His acceptance of the change is anything but a shining endorsement. To me, it looks like he saw that no ammount of ranting on his part would change their minds, so he accepted the change, to save face.

From private conversations with RMS, I can assure you that he will not accept anything but the GPL, unless he has no choice in the matter.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Killing the goose by Omnifarious · 2003-10-15 12:09 · Score: 1

I think NFS has yet to be replaced because nobody has come up with a really effective alternative. Almost all the replacements I've seen have semantics that make them unsuitable for the job NFS does. They do not write to a file when it is written to, but instead update the file when it is closed. These are not semantics I want, and have been a big factor in my decision to not use the tools. That, and their immaturity.

GNOME is GPLed.

I will purposely drop the use of a BSD licensed program when there is a decent GPL alternative.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Killing the goose by evilviper · 2003-10-16 00:55 · Score: 1

I think NFS has yet to be replaced because nobody has come up with a really effective alternative.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I'm sure you don't know the intimate details of the dozens of alternatives that have sprung up.

I would point to AFS as the net-fs that has the best chance of becomming standard, if only it didn't have a few nasty license clauses.

Also, NFS was only one example, there are many many others.

GNOME is GPLed.
It certainly is not. There are several apps for GNOME that are GPL'd, but the majority of it all, is under a less restrictive license. In fact, it required that all libraries be under a less-restrictive license: .* All libraries that become part of the GNOME Development Platform must have a license that allows for use by both GPL code and proprietary code. --.gnome.org

I will purposely drop the use of a BSD licensed program when there is a decent GPL alternative.

So what? You do not represent the majority. You do not represent a large company, or anyone else who's decisions will have a major impact. Sure, there are GPL zealots, but not many of them, and they certainly aren't in positions of influence.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Killing the goose by Omnifarious · 2003-10-16 02:57 · Score: 1

I feel sorry for any large company that publishes non-proprietary code under proprietary license because they too are killing the goose that lays the golden egg. They shouldn't be allowed to exist. I don't want their products. If you work for such a company, you are a fool.

BSD will die of its stupid licensing.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop

Self censure?!? by jbwiv · 2003-10-14 01:58 · Score: 1

Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.

Oh yeah..that makes sense. I'll hastily turn my head away so as to avoid any negative anti-FSF vibes. After all, I can't think for myself. I need you to tell me what's ok to read. Thanks

Just like any other SW license by earthforce_1 · 2003-10-14 02:00 · Score: 1

GPL software is licenced according to specific terms and conditions. Don't like it - don't use it, simple as that. Use BSD code or rewrite from scratch.

How to you think MS or Oracle would react if they found out you were incorporating some of their code in your product with stripped out copyright notices? If it doesn't bother them to adhere to proprietary licences, (which are much more restrictive in your rights) then why do they think they can violate the terms of free software licences at will?

--
My rights don't need management.

Soviet Russia Comparisons by Saint+Stephen · 2003-10-14 02:00 · Score: 1

The shitty thing about living in the Soviet Union was (1) the fear of being shot by your own government, (2) waiting in lines for hours for toilet paper, only to find out its rough and awful quality, and (3) having to get basic supplies on the black market.

The great thing about living in America is going to the supermarket and the endless choices of great things to consume, all there for the taking.

Now, which of these sounds like the Microsoft community and which sounds like Linux?

Re:Soviet Russia Comparisons by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2003-10-14 02:32 · Score: 0

That may be the single best refutation of the "open source is communism" FUD I've ever read. Thank you.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Soviet Russia Comparisons by ahfoo · 2003-10-14 06:16 · Score: 1

That was beautiful man. It clearly illustrates something that perhaps surprisingly for some, was foretold by Marx.
Marx was the first to suggest that a society that tried to go straight from an agricultural base to full blown communist utopia would have to either fail or at least go through an extended period of intolerable despotism like the Soviet Union or Red China.
Marx assumed that England, or perhaps America would be the countries that would lead the world into genuine Communism simply because real Communism required a post-industrial stage of the economy like we clearly have in the States.
When you read his works, you find that Marx was a critic and a philosopher, but not really a revolutionary like those who followed him, say Trotsky or a militant like Che Guevara.
I think Open Source is communist in the sense that Communism is like Heaven. Your comment illustrates that nicely.

My letter to the editor by tarranp · 2003-10-14 02:00 · Score: 1

I read your recent article on "the dark side of Free Software" with considerable amusement. The authors of software that is available under the Gnu Public License allow us to use their copyrighted work with one proviso. If we make a derivative work based on their work, we too must release it under the GPL.

No one is forced to use products containing Linux as the basis for their software. If one is concerned that releasing a product will allow "anyone to make cheap knockoffs" one is free to write their own software and keep it close to their chest.

I find it rather ironic that the author implies that the developers of open source software are communists with no respect for private property, when in fact he seems outraged that Cisco cannot take someone else's work and use it in violation of their license much the way the Marxists advocate siezing people's private property by force for the good of the state.

At least one interesting point by Syphtor · 2003-10-14 02:00 · Score: 1

Aside from the obvious anti-Open Source slant of the write (I mean such pearls as 'In the world of "free" open source software' WTF?!)

I did think it interesting that the writer was claiming: '... because the disputed code resides on chips that Linksys buys from Broadcom'

Which, if I'm reading it right means that because Cisco adds chips to its routers from Linksys (now owned by Cisco), and those chips are bought from Broadcom who put Linux into those chips, Cisco is now being 'asked' to conform to the GPL, when Cisco itself hasn't used any GPL? (other than indirectly by using a chip that through 2 other companies had a GPL component)

So: GPL -> used by -> Broadcom -> sold to -> Linksys -> sold to -> Cisco

If that's so, maybe the author has a point? I mean, at what point does the GPL stop? If I buy a printer that has a smart chip with some GPL'd code on it, and then I write some nice app to print out on said printer, does my whole app then come under the GPL?

Yeah I know, taken to the extreme, but you get my point! Actually not even that extreme...

--
It's in that place where I put that thing that time

Re:At least one interesting point by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:38 · Score: 0

If you buy stolen goods, those goods are no longer yours.

Lost money on that? Tough.

At least that's what the law says in the land of "real property".

So how well does the system work with no software?

Just ignore this FUD parrot! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:01 · Score: 0

Query "Daniel Lyons" using Forbes' search engine and find the mental diarrhoe he produced:

15. # What SCO Wants, SCO Gets
June 18, 2003
Linux companies face a nasty foe, yet claim they're not worried. They should be.

Do you need more?
Just ignore this moron!

Interesting Scenerio by Quill_28 · 2003-10-14 02:01 · Score: 1

So you have three companies, each makes a router.

All, three use some GPL code in the router because of time and money saved.

FSF knows all three companies are using GPL 'd software.

Company 1 slips FSF a cool million, FSF ignores Company 1, goes after compoany 2 and 3, like wildfire.

Do I think it's happening? No, but it could.

Company 1 save money using GPL'd software and gets their competition in hot water.

Re:Interesting Scenerio by Novus · 2003-10-14 02:39 · Score: 1

Paying off the FSF only helps if the FSF is the copyright holder. The copyright on many GPLed projects belongs to their authors, in which case Company 1 in your example doesn't gain anything, as it can still be sued by the authors.

Forbes: The White Collar Criminal's Handbook by teamhasnoi · 2003-10-14 02:01 · Score: 1

Oh, poor Cisco. Why can't people just allow companies to do whatever they want? We could finally make the Forbes 50000 Best Baby-Eaters list.

Basically, this 'author' is bemoaning the fact that someone is protecting their IP. "In secret", too? I hardly think it's a secret if *I* knew about it months ago. Why is it ok for the '500' to sue and defend their licenses and not ok for the FSF?

This article is no better than an episode of Fear Factor. Snore. I score this high school paper D-. He did spell FSF correctly.

My response to Forbes by aridhol · 2003-10-14 02:01 · Score: 1

I replied to Forbes using their "Send comments" link:

Subject: Licensing
Your article seems to miss one very important point. This point is that, in order to distribute Linux, Broadcom, Linksys, and Cisco were required to comply with the GPL. This is the license that allows them to distribute Linux without paying for it.
With most software, you pay for it and receive a list of rules (generally referred to as an End User License Agreement, or EULA). This tells you what you may or may not do with the software. It may prohibit you from duplicating it, for example, or from reverse-engineering it, or even writing a negative review about it. If you break the rules, you are subject to litigation.
The GPL, under which Linux is licensed, also comes with a set of rules. However, unlike with commercial software, the GPL only takes effect when you modify and distribute the software. At that point, it is required that you distribute the source code for that software. It is part of the agreement that comes with receiving the software. As with the commercial examples, if you break the rule, you are subject to litigation.
Before you write another article regarding software license issues, please ensure that you know what the licenses entail.

--
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.

Code released ? by FeydReutha · 2003-10-14 02:01 · Score: 1

Isn't the code already released under GPL Or maybe it is another one....

My reply to them: by 10Ghz · 2003-10-14 02:02 · Score: 1

I just sent them this:

I just read your article "Linux's Hit Men". I must say that you have some strange ideas when it come sto Linux and the GPL.

Basically, what the GPL is, is a license that says "you can use this software. But in return, you must give your changes and improvements back to the community that gave you this software". When companies (Cisco etc.) use that software, they agree to that license. But for some reason you seem to think that they must have the right to use and modify that software eny way they wish. Why? Do you advocate a way of thinking where corporations could do whatever they want? They could disregard agreements that they have made at whim? So by that logic, I should have the right to copy and sell MS Windows as much as I want? After all, according to you, I should have the right to disregard the EULA MS makes me accept when I use their OS, right?

What do you suppose FSF should do? Just let people disregard the license? Why should they do that? Seriously, why?

And I find it rather funny that you hint towards connection between open-source software and communism. Just how misleaded can you be? Open-source is a form of software development. How can it be communistic when IBM has made cool 1 billion from it, and HP has made 2? Thousands of companies around the world save billions through the use of open-source software. Doesn't sound very communistic to me.

What makes you think it's communistic? Because the software is shared? that doesn't make it communistic. each piece of software has a copyright-holder who can change the license to a closed-license. They are free to do so. Why do you have a problem with it if they choose to use GPL? Besides, they can still sell the software for profit, and they can freely sell related tech-support to that software. By using GPL they ensure that the software in question is rapidly developed, it gets large userbase and it keeps on getting improved, even if the original autthor loses interest.

Seriously, I expected more from a magazine of your calibre. I'm saddened to see you resort to such sad mud-slinging. Hopefully I will hear your insights on this matters, as I'm interested to find out what prompted you to write such a misguided article.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.

What does Daniel Lyons have against Linux? by Spunk · 2003-10-14 02:03 · Score: 2, Informative

It isn't the first time he's cheered on SCO. Here he goes again.

Re:What does Daniel Lyons have against Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:09 · Score: 0

Wow. Daniel Lyons has an even bigger chip on his shoulder in this older article. What ever happened to objectivity in news reporting, or at least the semblance of it? It's good to see that stereotyping is alive and well in journalism:

"Linux geeks howled a bit, but then wrote off SCO as a bunch of sleazebags and went back to playing live-action roleplaying (LARP) games in their mothers' basements, or whatever it is they do when they're not writing device drivers and complaining about clueless end users."
Re:What does Daniel Lyons have against Linux? by vistic · 2003-10-14 04:36 · Score: 1

Maybe he couldn't get it to install or he got frustrated with it once a long time ago.

Pot, Kettle, Black by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:03 · Score: 0

Basically what is going on here is the FSF is protecting its IP (or the IP of its Open source community)

(Insert all the hate speech by the anti propriatary code crowd)

And that is why linux costs more than more standard solutions.

IP is an ugly business no matter who is enforcing it.

The article (here's how it feels, Forbes) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:03 · Score: 0

I don't normally do this, but here's a copy of the article, without going to the site. To say "here's a small taste of how it feels" to Forbes. The GPL is an open and public document. If you want to code and used it, you should also live by the license. Why aren't we seeing Forbes crying "pirate" when companies "steal"? They are anti-linux, from the articles you see on their site. Why would "the spread of Linux be hurt?" - does he mean the stealing of GPLed Linux code? How does it feel to have your article posted here, Forbes? (Daniel Lyons is probably a made up name, anyway).

[Formatting might not be exactly per the article.]
=====
Software
Linux's Hit Men
Daniel Lyons, 10.14.03, 7:00 AM ET

In the world of "free" open source software, there is no greater villain than SCO, owner of the Unix operating system.

The Lindon, Utah, company has outraged Linux lovers by suing IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ), claiming IBM stole Unix code and put it into Linux. Some fear the lawsuit by SCO (nasdaq: SCOX - news - people ) will impede the adoption of Linux.

But the spread of Linux could be hurt by another group--and ironically, it's the free-software proponents themselves.

For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free" programs, has been making threats to Cisco Systems (nasdaq: CSCO - news - people ) and Broadcom (nasdaq: BRCM - news - people ) over a networking router that runs the Linux operating system. The router is made by Linksys, a company Cisco acquired in June. It lets you hook computers together on a wireless Wi-Fi network, employing a high-speed standard called 802.11g. Aimed at home users, the $129 device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units in the first quarter of this year alone.

But now there's a problem. The Linux software in the router is distributed under the GNU General Public License (GPL), which the Free Software Foundation created in 1991.
Under the license, if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any "derivative works" you've created--even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product.

Not great news if you're Cisco, which paid $500 million for Linksys. In Cisco's case, it's even trickier, because the disputed code resides on chips that Linksys buys from Broadcom. So now Cisco is caught between the Free Software Foundation and one of its big suppliers.

For several months, officials from the Free Software Foundation have been quietly pushing Cisco and Broadcom for a resolution. According to Free Software Foundation Executive Director Bradley Kuhn, the foundation is demanding that Cisco and Broadcom either a) rip out all the Linux code in the router and use some other operating system, or b) make their code available to the entire world.

And if they balk? Kuhn raises the threat of legal action. "We defend the rights protected by the GPL license," he says. "We have legal teeth, so if someone does not share and share alike, we can make them obey the rules."

The legal teeth belong to Eben Moglen, a Columbia Law School professor who acts as pro bono counsel for the foundation. Moglen says his chats with Cisco have been friendly, and he believes the matter will be settled without a court fight. Cisco and Broadcom wouldn't comment.

The dispute, which was leaked to an Internet message board, offers a rare peek into the dark side of the free software movement--a view that contrasts with the movement's usual public image of happy software proles linking arms and singing the "Internationale" while freely sharing the fruits of their code-writing labor.

In fact, the Free Software Foundation runs a lot of these "enforcement actions." There are 30 to 40 going on right now, and there were 50 last year, Kuhn says. There have been hundreds since 1991, when the current version of

This is just a hatchet job on the FSF. by ivaldes3 · 2003-10-14 02:04 · Score: 1

Pure sensationalism. The article contradicts itself many times and attributes sinister motives to the FSF for enforcing the GPL. Just move along.

-- IV

--
http://www.LinuxMedNews.com Revolutionizing Medical Education and Practice.

GPL benefits companies like Cisco by Cesare+Ferrari · 2003-10-14 02:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

The really odd thing is that the defence of the GPL licence will ultimately benefit companies like Cisco if they played the game correctly. These are commodity items, routers, switches etc. By moving to a GPL software base they reduce cost, risk in producing the software for their products, and then can concentrate on the value added parts. Config tools, reliability etc. For example, take the disputed Linksys router. I would have expected Linksys to have plenty ways of defending their product from competition rather than withholding the GPL updates (design rights, patents, trademarks etc). Ok, so it looks like they have messed up in this case with the way they have written their driver, but that shouldn't cloud the fact that *if* they had correctly written their driver they would be able to keep it proprietry.

Re:GPL benefits companies like Cisco by Cramer · 2003-10-14 02:25 · Score: 4, Informative

You've obviously never worked with Cisco. Cisco wants to sell you everything. Repeatedly. Look what happened to the guys that ported Linux to a Cat 6500... they now work for Cisco and the code never left the building. If end users could recompile "IOS", Cisco loses a substantial source of income -- even if most people wouldn't know what to do with the source, someone would and that'd be the end of Cisco getting paid for their development. (In my opinion, Cisco has done such a piss poor job of development and testing in recent years, "open source" couldn't do any worse.) Cisco makes great hardware (and always has), however, their software just makes me want to shoot someone -- really, what the f*** are they testing?!

As a company, "we" once toyed with the idea of loading our own code on Linksys hardware (it's simple really, even before the whole GPL BS.) But that didn't make it past the lawyer(s) :-)

PS: Cisco is terrified of all the old, "obsolete", "used" hardware floating around. And with all the failed dot-coms, there's tones of it available. Some of it never came out of the box/off the pallet. It might be several years old, but it works perfectly (2500's, 5000's, etc.)
Re:GPL benefits companies like Cisco by vsprintf · 2003-10-14 05:03 · Score: 1

Cisco is terrified of all the old, "obsolete", "used" hardware floating around. And with all the failed dot-coms, there's tones of it available. Some of it never came out of the box/off the pallet. It might be several years old, but it works perfectly (2500's, 5000's, etc.)

A number of people have been burned buying used Cisco equipment because Cisco demands that you buy a new license for the "software". This is despite the fact that it doesn't work without the hardware, and the original buyer already paid for both.
Re:GPL benefits companies like Cisco by Cramer · 2003-10-14 05:13 · Score: 1

That's exactly the point. Cisco started this practice recently (over a year ago now.) All that hardware sold on credit that no one is left to cover is coming back to haunt them.
Re:GPL benefits companies like Cisco by sn00ker · 2003-10-14 14:37 · Score: 1

A number of people have been burned buying used Cisco equipment because Cisco demands that you buy a new license for the "software". This is despite the fact that it doesn't work without the hardware, and the original buyer already paid for both.
Cisco only require you to buy a new software licence if you want support. If you're happy to operate without support then you can get by quite happily without paying Cisco a cent.
Of course, if you have a hardware failure then you're up shit creek with leaky gumboots.
An accquaintance has just bought some second-hand Cisco 5000 Catalyst switches. He's buying several, trading off the cost of them by not getting a formal support agreement - He'll keep one which is fully functional as a parts store, forego the cost of a support contract, and save butt loads. If he gets really stuck on a software problem, first-name-terms contacts at Cisco and the main national Cisco support vendor can probably give him a hint.

--
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
Re:GPL benefits companies like Cisco by vsprintf · 2003-10-15 10:15 · Score: 1

That's interesting. There have been a couple of complaints on Ed Foster's Gripe Line that said Cisco was demanding the software license fees just because the customer installed the used router (and the customer already had a support agreement with Cisco). I suppose Cisco could claim that the used equipment somehow added to their support burden, but it still seems shady to me.
Re:GPL benefits companies like Cisco by Cramer · 2003-10-15 15:29 · Score: 1
- Cisco only require you to buy a new software licence if you want support.
Not true. Cisco wants you to pay for a software license and support for every molecule of Cisco hardware you own. For the stuff purchased directly through the Cisco distribution network, you've already paid that fee (and for the hardware about 5x over.) If you have existing support contracts and Cisco finds out you have purchased any used hardware, they will threaten to cancel all the contracts. And until your lawyers, without blinking, tell Cisco to "shut the f*** up", they will continue to reiterate that threat.

As I was told (by an actual lawyer), Cisco can not bar the transfer of the hardware plus software. In selling you used Cisco gear, I'm transfering exactly what I've purchased from Cisco -- the physical hardware and all the associated integrated components of which the internal IOS/CatOS/PixOS is but one. (Go look up stuff pertaining to the doctrine of first sale.) HOWEVER, Cisco pays their lawyers good money; I know they've changed the ordering process and they've probably changed the wording of their contracts. So, I'd recommend reading any new Cisco contracts very closely.

Not suprising... by niola · 2003-10-14 02:04 · Score: 1

This article is in what is arguably the most pro-big business magazine published by a man who actually thinks rich people should not have to pay taxes since they "create jobs"

I wish slashdot would not bother giving that POS magazine's site a traffic bump. All it does is make those dicks think that we are validating their BS...

Completely misses the point by BenjyD · 2003-10-14 02:04 · Score: 1

So, what Forbes are basically saying is that people who work on Open Source projects should just roll over and let any company benefit from their work for free, because then the company makes more money?

How many times do we have to say it:

If you don't want to abide by the GPL, don't use GPL code

Hardly rocket science, is it? Linksys (apparently) saves hundreds of thousands in software development by violating the chosen licence on the work of hundreds of volunteers, and that's meant to be acceptable?

My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Featureless · 2003-10-14 02:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

I am surprised and saddened to see what appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the GPL in Forbes.

I am a technology expert with development and management experience, who has used and overseen the use of GPL software in a variety of very large, very recognizable organizations.

If you choose to use GPL software, the rule is simple and straightforward. You are choosing to take some work for free. The authors gave it away. All they ask is that you, too, give it away.

The GPL is the legal manifestation of the idea that it is wrong to take free work and sell it.

If you read some GPL'd work, and then threw it away and wrote something of your own, having taken nothing, you would owe nothing. But if you take this particular work, you must respect the wishes of those who gave it, and add to their collective efforts in the same way.

The popularity of the GPL is such now that many organizations begin to feel threatend by it. In some few cases, a response to this perceived threat has been a remarkably crafted item of disinformation: that the GPL is "viral."

This is a beautiful piece of propaganda, because it conveys, with gorgeous sleight of hand, that, like a virus, the GPL infects without your permission, or perhaps even without your knowledge.

This is a stunning act of deception. From the front lines, with the benefit of over a decade of experience, I can tell that it is unlikely anyone "accidentally" or "unknowingly" takes from this particular pool of free work. One _chooses_ to take it because it's there, it's free, it's been crafted by a community of people without regard for deadlines or profit margins, and because you can fix it yourself if there are problems. You do this only if you find the compromise of giving away any of your changes or improvements on it to be acceptable. Many places do not take this bargain - as well they should not! And many more places find this kind of cooperation is exactly what the doctor ordered.

If, as a manager, you discovered that GPL code has "appeared" in your program against your wishes, you will never find, in the history of the "Free Software Foundation" any situation where, like SCO, all redress is deemed impossible, and blackmail is demanded. (Indeed, metaphorically speaking, SCO demands it not just from you, but all your customers!) Rather, you will find a patient, polite group of academics and engineers, who are eager to avoid conflict, and happy to let you simply correct your mistake, if that's what it is, by removing the free work from your own.

And you will find that this is so even when, though the obstinacy, momentum and ignorance of a large organization, some people dabble with the idea of stealing this free work from and then not giving their changes back - breaking the rule.

There are, as the author points out, many "open source" organizations and licensees that are less restrictive than the GPL, from which an individual or company may choose from in the event that they still wish to get software for free, yet find the GPL rules unsuitable.

But there is nothing more normal and harmless than the GPL, or the people who enforce it. And I must say, none of their actions do damage to the GPL or its continuing, widespread adoption - in fact, they enhance it, since by making people follow the rules, everyone feels more comfortable in sharing their work. Everyone knows that their contribution won't be simply appropriated by SCO or another unscrupulous party and charged for. Only articles like this, which through what I'm sure are a series of honest misunderstandings, can convey a mistaken impression of how the process works, that might give pause to the concept of sharing labor.

Thank you for your time.

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!

Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:35 · Score: 0

Here's mine: Today's article regarding the Free Software Foundation and its efforts to defend the copyrights of free software is disturbingly biased. I'm aware that most of your readers are accustomed to more traditional software business models, but the blatant attacks and hyperbole regarding the GPL and free software go so far as to call the journalistic integrity of Forbes into question. Issues: 1) Including the word "free" in quotation marks, implying but not saying outright that the software is something other than free. 2) Using loaded language to describe the FSF's actions, such as "secret", "threats", "knockoff", and "dark side". Additionally, using images of communism, such as "singing the 'Internationale'" and "comrade". These are all cheap, unsubstantiated attacks. 3) Implying that Cisco is somehow innocent and under attack. The fact that Cisco is using free software in violation of its license, in its efforts to reduce production costs, is simply glossed over. 4) Criticizing the FSF's donation-based income stream, and the fact that it has $750,000 in the bank. Cisco's assets are nearly 50,000 times greater, and even just the income from the one device that is the focus of the dispute (the Linksys Linux-based router) totals 68.8 times more than the $750,000. The FSF is tiny compared to any of the companies mentioned in the article. Overall, the bias of this article is very disappointing. The writer seems to have an agenda to cast free software in a negative light, and to scare business readers away from using it. The reality is that Cisco chose to use free software, but chose not to honor the license it came with. The proper action would have been to either honor the license, or use a different (and more expensive) operating system for their product. They chose to violate the license in an attempt to save money, and Forbes seems to support them on this decision. I can no longer view Forbes as a legitimate source for objective information.
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:39 · Score: 0

Here's mine (previewed this time):

Today's article regarding the Free Software Foundation and its efforts to defend the copyrights of free software is disturbingly biased. I'm aware that most of your readers are accustomed to more traditional software business models, but the blatant attacks and hyperbole regarding the GPL and free software go so far as to call the journalistic integrity of Forbes into question.

Issues:

1) Including the word "free" in quotation marks, implying but not saying outright that the software is something other than free.

2) Using loaded language to describe the FSF's actions, such as "secret", "threats", "knockoff", and "dark side". Additionally, using images of communism, such as "singing the 'Internationale'" and "comrade". These are all cheap, unsubstantiated attacks.

3) Implying that Cisco is somehow innocent and under attack. The fact that Cisco is using free software in violation of its license, in its efforts to reduce production costs, is simply glossed over.

4) Criticizing the FSF's donation-based income stream, and the fact that it has $750,000 in the bank. Cisco's assets are nearly 50,000 times greater, and even just the income from the one device that is the focus of the dispute (the Linksys Linux-based router) totals 68.8 times more than the $750,000. The FSF is tiny compared to any of the companies mentioned in the article.

Overall, the bias of this article is very disappointing. The writer seems to have an agenda to cast free software in a negative light, and to scare business readers away from using it. The reality is that Cisco chose to use free software, but chose not to honor the license it came with. The proper action would have been to either honor the license, or use a different (and more expensive) operating system for their product. They chose to violate the license in an attempt to save money, and Forbes seems to support them on this decision. I can no longer view Forbes as a legitimate source for objective information.
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:41 · Score: 0

This is what I sent them:

The story is sufficiently slanted that it should have been run as an editorial, not as an article.

Software available under the GPL is immensely valuable. Independent studies have put its value in excess of a billion dollars. There is enough software available under the GPL to make a fully-functional operating system that competes well with the best closed-source software solutions, and all of it is freely available.

In essence, the way GPL software is "paid for" is by a forced pay-it-forward scheme. If you choose to incorporate the incredibly valuable GPL code code in your product, then you are obligated, under the terms of the GPL, to release any changes you make to that source code, also under the GPL, to anyone to whom you distribute the binaries.

This allows anyone to use GPLed software internally, and make any changes they wish, without releasing said changes. If you wish, say, to modify your Linux kernel to add a new feature, you do not have to release the code for that feature, unless you give or sell your binaries to someone else. If you do, you are obligated under the GPL to transfer the source code to your changes, and you cannot restrict the rights of those to whom you have transferred it.

This only applies if you incorporate actual GPLed code in your product. If you write wholly new software and release it to run under Linux, you are welcome to keep it closed-source if you wish. You are only bound by the GPL if you incorporate actual GPL code in your product. Merely running on a GPLed platform does not obligate source code release.

Linksys took advantage of the vast amount of effort invested in Linux by shipping it in their router. They are free to do so, and most likely saved many millions of dollars in licensing costs. But in so doing, they also obligated themselves to release any changes they made to the Linux kernel to get it to run on their hardware. That is their licensing cost.

The FSF is merely trying to hold Linksys (now Cisco) to their agreement. Linksys did not have to choose Linux; they could have chosen a commercial operating system (and paid licensing costs) or chosen a BSD kernel, which is under a much less restrictive license. However, they chose to use GPL code, and that choice entails certain obligations.

If Linksys had stolen Microsoft code, and Microsoft was suing them, it is unlikely you'd write an article slamming Microsoft for expecting payment for the use of their software. This is exactly the same thing, but the payment is not in money, but in source code.

In essence, Daniel Lyons is arguing that Linksys should be allowed to steal code without recompense to the authors. That may be well-suited to the editorial page, but it does not belong in a mainstream article.
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by ndogg · 2003-10-14 03:00 · Score: 2, Informative

The GPL is the legal manifestation of the idea that it is wrong to take free work and sell it.
...

Only articles like this, which through what I'm sure are a series of honest misunderstandings, can convey a mistaken impression of how the process works...

Fighting misunderstanding with misunderstanding only perpetuates problems rather than solve them.

The FSF, and most people who use the GPL, are not against making money (see Tivo), but rather are against the violation of the social contract that the GPL puts forth.

--
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by BESTouff · 2003-10-14 03:07 · Score: 1

The GPL is the legal manifestation of the idea that it is wrong to take free work and sell it.
Hey man ! At least tell the truth, the GPL doesn't prevent anyone from selling free software.
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Featureless · 2003-10-14 03:20 · Score: 1

I did not say that the GPL prohibits people from making money. Merely from selling the free work. (And I hope is clear, derivatives that use that work.)

I trust you are not confusing sale with redistribution fees.

I am in that sentence neglecting to repeat the other duties also inherent in the GPL social contract (i.e. distributing the source) - I hoped it was clear. We are certainly in agreement about your final point.

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Featureless · 2003-10-14 03:31 · Score: 1

Really? Let's see if I understand this correctly:

I quote the GPL: "...the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users."

Maybe there is confusion on the matter of a distribution fee versus a sale.

"Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it..."

See also sections 2b, 3b.

You may charge for distribution. This is intended to cover the costs of media or other means of transmission. However, you cannot conceal the source code once you engage in distribution or modification. Incidentally, where these fees are concerned, this creates a market where anyone can compete against your "distribution fees"... Given the internet, etc. etc. this competition almost always reaches the "zero fee" mark.

At no time can you restrict the freedom (as in speech) of the code itself - including by "selling it" - that is, by withholding it until you collect a ransom.

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by JCholewa · 2003-10-14 04:17 · Score: 1

> I did not say that the GPL prohibits people from making money. Merely from selling
> the free work. (And I hope is clear, derivatives that use that work.)

That's not entirely accurate. You *can* sell a GPL'd work. If I made my own linux distro called "GNU/goatsicx" (with modifications to the code of several portions of the code involving display of graphical images), I could sell it to anybody I wanted for any price I wanted. The license, as I understand it, merely requires that I *also* allow the recipient to whom I distribute the distro access to the source code, also licensed under the
GPL.

So, yeah, the purchasee could just use the code for subsequent versions and tell me to piss off from that point on, but it doesn't work that way. When I sell my distro, it's with the foreknowledge (unless I'm dumb) that I'm also being paid to support the software to that specific person as well as for the customization.

So, yeah, you can sell Free Software. You just have to pass the code along and re-GPL the changes.

--
-JC
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Featureless · 2003-10-14 04:29 · Score: 1

I will just post a link to my answer to this... I hope you can help me clear this up:

I don't believe that's correct.

Perhaps I also need to clear up confusion about selling vs. distributing but simply withholding the source, which are both violations, as well as confusion over the problem with selling/withholding the modified GPL code in the router's OS, versus the router itself, which is not (IMO) governed by the GPL, even if part of its software is.

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by gmhowell · 2003-10-14 04:38 · Score: 1

You may charge whatever you like for the software. You may charge only reasonable distribution fees (such as media costs) for the source. You only have to give the source to people who have purchased the software. You may not prevent your customer from redistributing that source (not sure about binaries).

The intents of the license and the wording are not necessarily 100% in sync with each other. I assume that's why they've been working on GPL v3 for several years now. (However, Linux, among other projects, has preemptively refused to use anything other than GPL v2.)

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by gmhowell · 2003-10-14 04:40 · Score: 1

I thought about writing a letter to the editor, but after reading not only your high quality effort, but those others in the thread, I figured that 'Daniel Lyons !5 TEH SUXXOR!!!!' wouldn't go over quite as well.

Teh intarweb has killed my ability to write in anything other than soundbites:(

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by tiger_omega · 2003-10-14 05:01 · Score: 1

I would have to disagree about describing the GPL as being viral as being misinformation.

The reason I say this comes from the pratical experience of desiding weither or not to use a particular library that was distrubted under the GPL.

The problem arose from the fact that the embedded OS that we were using didn't implement the proper concept of libraries. Thus we would have to include the source code as part of the overall project. Now by the terms of the GPL by making this library part of the overall product would have implied that the entire project would fall under the GPL.

This and other similar kind of situations gives rise to the description of the GPL as being viral in that once a single piece of GPL'd code is add into a project then entire project must fall under the GPL.

As for the example given above the GPL library was not used and another library that had a more favourable license agreement, as far the requirements of the project, was used.
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by man_of_mr_e · 2003-10-14 05:17 · Score: 1

The GPL does not prohibit you from selling your work in any way. What it does, is compel you to give the source code to any derived work to anyone that also receives the binaries, and you are allowed to charge a modest fee for *THAT*. It says nothing about selling the original work, only that the source must be available at no cost or for a minimal distribution fee.

--
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Featureless · 2003-10-14 05:37 · Score: 1

This doesn't make sense to me. You can "sell" the GPL work or your derivative, but you must give away the sources?

What are you selling; your compilation services?

I am aware that you are not required to do anything as long as you don't distribute. Clearly, in this case the distribution is obvious and assumed.

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by randomencounter · 2003-10-14 05:42 · Score: 1

"Free" as in liberty. I am at liberty to sell copies of the code that I have made, but if I am selling binary (compiled) copies I _must_ make the source code available to everyone I sell the binary to. I can even charge what it costs me to give them this access.
Where this seems to bite people is the lack of understanding that if you distribute binaries, the source code available to those receiving the binaries has to be the code they were compiled from. No "secret sauce".
OTOH, you _can_ distribute closed source binaries in conjunction with GPL binaries and there is no "cross infection" as long as the closed source binaries only interact with GPL'd binaries through public interfaces and are not linked together. The linking problem is why a lot of libraries are distributed under the LGPL which allows linking as long as there is no modification of the library. But the public interface interaction is why the Linux kernel does not infect user-space programs.

--
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Featureless · 2003-10-14 05:51 · Score: 1

The net effect is that once you redistribute, you must release your source. I am not aware of the stipulation that you may only release it to the redistributee (or you would argue "buyer"); I may have missed this in my readings of the GPL. Can you try to help me find where this is stipulated in the GPL?

Regardless, once the source is released to anyone, they cannot be stopped from themselves redistributing it. At that point, after the first redistribution, the sources are "out" (or more technically, they cannot be kept "in" except by the whim of all involved parties). When the sources are out, anyone can compile them, and anyone can redistribute the resulting binaries for free.

And so, I am not clear on what, exactly, you are selling. Your compilation services?

I am aware that you are not required to do anything if you do not redistribute. The redistribution was obvious and assumed in this case.

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Eric+Ass+Raymond · 2003-10-14 05:53 · Score: 1

Why did you post this as an AC?
I don't like GPL, that's no secret to anyone who has read my posts on /., but I'd say that your post is one of the most lucid and impactful summaries of this situation. If I were the Editor of Forbes, this would be one of the letters I'd consider publishing.

--
BOO! TERRO
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Featureless · 2003-10-14 06:05 · Score: 1

Exactly.

And once the source is out, others can compile it, and use (and distribute) the binaries and sources without "buying" (although I still do not believe that is the correct or legal term) yours.

So in effect, if this were allowed, you would only be selling your compilation services. It doesn't make sense.

As you very wisely point out, this is still not a barrier to using GPL work in commercial projects, since you have the option of separating your proprietary work through "public interfaces" and by not linking it, or you can use the body of work covered under the LGPL.

As I continue to discuss this I am struck by a growing sense of how assinine the Forbes article really is. GPL and LGPL work is simply one of the most significant bodies of software engineering possessed by humankind. It is everywhere, unassuming, and apparently unnoticed. Without it, huge swaths of all software development, engineering, computer science, and all the disciplines affected by those fields (use your imagination) would be set back by decades. As a minor example I venture to guess that the internet as we know it would largely not exist.

All we did we elect to cooperate and share our work, like the scientists we were trained to be. A few big players would rather be lazy, and then play dirty than get with the program. And it triggers this guy's McCarthy reflex because collaboration isn't in the Forbes mental playbook, apparently.

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by sean23007 · 2003-10-14 06:12 · Score: 1

You have to give away the sources along with the work when you sell it. I don't believe you have to release the source code to everyone, just the people who buy your product; can someone correct me if I'm wrong on that?

--

Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Featureless · 2003-10-14 06:15 · Score: 1

But you are quite wrong! And I would say so because of the the subtle implications of the word "viral" - from "virus" - which is something you catch without your knowledge or consent.

You are choosing to use GPL'd code in your project, or not. That is not comparable to catching a disease.

How bad can we feel for you, honestly, that you could't take the work others had done for free, incorporate it into some of your proprietary code, and then not share with others as they had shared with you? It was the only thing that was asked in return.

Your own example illustrates the point most beautifully. In this case, there were others who placed even fewer restrictions on their work, and that's great! In other cases, there may not be. But there is no need, no obligation, to use GPL'd code. Clean rooms are more viral than this.

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Featureless · 2003-10-14 06:18 · Score: 1

Interesting. I hadn't thought this, and I can't find it in the text, but IANAL, and one other person raised the same issue. The problem is that I don't think it matters. Read more here.

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by gmhowell · 2003-10-14 06:20 · Score: 1

Mostly, it lies in section 3 of the GPL.

First, notice that only mention of source code redistribution is mentioned. You don't have to supply binaries free of charge. Upon further reading, it looks like things like make files do have to be included. However, who's to say you don't use a custom compiler?

The curious part is section 3b. You have to provide any third party a copy of the source. I assume this means anyone. I can see where that can raise costs to the licensor (seller) substantially. If I have to set up a kernel or apache mirror because I twiddled a few lines of source.

BTW, I used term 'buyer' to use a 10 cent word instead of a 25 cent word.

And so, I am not clear on what, exactly, you are selling. Your compilation services?

Presumably:)

Hey, look, I think the GPL is a marvelous bit. I just like playing devil's advocate. Like it says in the essays in CatB, sell your services, not the code. Or sell customized code.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:24 · Score: 0

This is so wrong, that it isn't even funny. From what I gather from what you said, you're doing no modifications to the library itself. If that's the case, then you only need to release the source code for the libraries, not the program that you designed to use those libraries. You can release software under a proprietary license even though you use libraies that are under the GPL. If we were to go with your misinterpretation, then EVERYTHING that runs on the Linux kernel would be forced to be released under the GPL...and we all KNOW that this is NOT the case. No more FUD for j00! :P
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Phrogger · 2003-10-14 06:52 · Score: 1

I enjoyed reading that post. However the statement: "The GPL is the legal manifestation of the idea that it is wrong to take free work and sell it." is incorrect.

I think a better way to put it would be:

The GPL is the legal manifestation of the idea that it is wrong to take free work and proprietorize it.
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by Featureless · 2003-10-14 07:04 · Score: 1

It seems like we are in agreement. :)

I confess that your point about custom compilers is too subtle for me; we'd need a very smart attorney to answer that one. But something tells me that ruse won't work.

I don't think the cost of distributing the source is substantial. You needn't do anything that you can't ask reimbursement for. Also, I wonder if distributing just a patch file would meet your obligations?

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by eXtro · 2003-10-14 07:35 · Score: 1

I think you're correct, but this restriction is weakened since you also can't restrict somebody else from distributing it.

--
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
Re:My Letter to the Forbes Editors by yourmom16 · 2003-10-14 17:18 · Score: 1

I dont think you could legally sell GNU/goatsicx to a minor, due to your modifications.

--
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park

License enforcement by Todd+Knarr · 2003-10-14 02:05 · Score: 1

My reply to the author would be this: The GPL is a license, just like the license on any piece of software. Cisco and Broadcom knew it's terms and accepted them when they used GPL'd software in their products, just like any other company would know the terms of the licenses of software they use in their products. Are you saying that people who pirate Windows, who pirate songs and movies, who pirate any software in violation of the license terms, are right and that Microsoft, the RIAA and MPAA, Eolas and the rest are wrong in trying to enforce their licenses and prevent license violations?

They have a comments section by GrouchoMarx · 2003-10-14 02:06 · Score: 1

I've already submitted a reply as a letter to the editor. Don't post a reply here on Slashdot. Get your butt over to the bottom of the article (you DID, read it, didn't you?), hit the reply link, and write a brief, intellient, non-troll reply explaining why the article in question is bunk. Convince Forbes that at least a fair portion of its readers know what they are talking about and are not that stupid, and they may change their tune in time.

They certainly won't change it by coming to Slashdot to look for feedback.

--

--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?

Dark Humor by Euphonious+Coward · 2003-10-14 02:07 · Score: 1

Does no one see the sardonic humor in this article? The quotes are all straight up, revealing normal people speaking reasonably. The contrast with the narration is comical. I think the author is having fun with the idea, maybe playing a trick on his own editors.

It's funny. Laugh.

They see open-source as a public domain...!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:08 · Score: 0

They don't just seem to understand the difference between "public domain" and "open source". Maybe because of the word "free"?? Just like the word "hacker" may sound so great in the ears of young programmers - but is horrifying the grandmothers.. ;)

From the department of redundancy department by MarkGriz · 2003-10-14 02:08 · Score: 1

"Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this"

No need to state the obvious. Since when do /.ers actually read the articles anyway?

--
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.

Do not trust FAIR by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:08 · Score: 0

"Read medialens, FAIR or any of the other media monitoring organisations and then tell me you trust any of them anymore.

I do no trust FAIR at all. They believe that news and media should only make reports and show opinions that agree with FAIR's extremist views, and they advocate censoring those who have different opinions or perceived agendas (such as moderate leftists, centrists, and rightists...or even organizations that try to be purely objective).

Media Lens is similar: contempt for any information and facts that do not meet their specific agenda.

Both of these are pro-media-bias organizations. There are right-wing versions as well, like AIM.

Business Week Rules, F0rbeZ Dr00Lz by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:08 · Score: 0

Want some business info ? Read business week or the Wall Street Journal. Forbes is infotainment for Republicans.

This Guy is a Nut by Cpl+Laque · 2003-10-14 02:09 · Score: 1

His other articles include this, this, and this

--
It's all Politics

My response by MarkusQ · 2003-10-14 02:10 · Score: 1

Mine was:

The story "Linux's Hit Men" by Daniel Lyons is so full of errors that it's hard to know where to begin. For example:
1. SCO is not "owner of the Unix operating system"; if you notice, even in their press releases they correctly state that Unix is a trademark of the Open Systems Group. The IBM case is not about Unix but about code contributed to Linux by IBM. Both sides aadmit the code in question was written by IBM; the dispute is over IBM's right (or lack thereof) to distribute it as they see fit. While there has been a lot of wild rhetoric on all sides, the SCO/IBM fight is a contract disute.
2. The FSF's insistance that vendors (including Linksys) abide by the terms of the licences under which they obtain the right to distribute code to which the FSF holds the copyright is hardly secret, nor is it particularly threatening. This particular "secret" negotiation has been goin on for months and has been reported on so frequently that even someone such as myself (who is not in that industry, and has no dealings with Linksys or the FSF other than occasional use of their products) was well aware of it.
Skipping ahead a bit...
3. Setting the $65,000 FSF/OpenTV case against the (claimed) $3,000,000,000 SCO/IBM case, especially when the a priori strength of the former case was so much stronger is odd enough that I began to wonder if the author is being used by Canopy Group as a shill in their SCOX pump-and-dump scheme.
At the very least, you ought to do a little more homework before publicly taking sides in a legal dispute between puclicly traded companies.

-- MarkusQ

Re:My response by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:14 · Score: 0

is there a way too see who is selling sco stock? or who owns it? it would be intresing to see a breakout of these figures. one could do a lot with this info.... muuuhhhaaaa muhhha muhhhaaaa...
Re:My response by TheTomcat · 2003-10-14 02:42 · Score: 1

You can see insider trades here.

Insider only, remember.

S
Re:My response by subsolar2 · 2003-10-14 02:54 · Score: 1

here was mine....

I don't understand your issue with the GPL, the company by using & distributing a GPL derived product has to agree by the terms. This is no different than any other EULA by Microsoft, Oracle or other software vendor. Would you write a similar anti-Microsoft article because of the BSA's (Business Software Alliance) raids on Schools & Businesses forcing them to pay up for unlicensed versions of their products, or worse yet shipping counterfeit versions of Windows & Office?

When you use a piece of software there are certain limitations as to what you can do with it based on copyright. The GPL gives the right to do some additional things that normally you would not be allowed to do with somebody else's copyrighted work. You get the right to redistribute it and make derivative copies, the "fee" charged for such rights is that you must release the source code for the derivative work. If Lynksys/Cisco did not want to live with this restriction then they should have either licensed their OS for the router from a traditional vendor, or used an OS licensed under a BSD type license that puts no restrictions on derivative works.

I understand that some companies don't quite understand what the terms of the GPL are, and think that they can do whatever they want with the software. Like any other contract they should have done proper research before agreeing to the contract, and so should not be complaining about having to live up to the terms.
Re:my response by Dalcius · 2003-10-14 04:36 · Score: 1

"Perhaps the OSS community should respond by writing articles implying that Forbes employs a bunch of fascists?"

I wonder if this qualifies for another one of ESR's open letters? Probably not.

What we need is a lobbying agency. The OSAA. :)

All jokes aside, I sincerely imagine that something of this nature will arise with the backing of some big iron.

--
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.

Look in the Mirror by Arbogast_II · 2003-10-14 02:10 · Score: 1

Certainly the article was an unfair effort to slander open source software. But, people around here should look in the mirror. This (excellent and well loved by me) website is overloaded with similar articles mindlessly spewing anti Microsoft (and such companies) slander and disinformation. The article was no more propaganda than many other Slashdot pieces.

PS, with all the negativity Slashdot puts out, I thought it was sad the article said "Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this. ". You know you are a narrow minded fanatic whn you cannot deal with criticism.

--

HenryJamesFeltus.com

Re:Captain's Log: My Anus is too Fucking Tight by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:11 · Score: 0

s/USS Enterprise/Geek Compound/

not portrayed in a good light??? by Rooktoven · 2003-10-14 02:11 · Score: 1

to the contrary-- they are doing exactly as they should be doing-- aggressively defending the GPL and winning.

If Forbes and companies they favor have a problem with the FSF opposing proprietary software, well too fscking bad. No one is twisting Cisco or anyone else's arm into using GPL software. They are subject to the same rules as anyone else.

Time to release the code, Cisco.

--

Acquiescence leads to obliteration

The Biggest Hypocricy by rudy_wayne · 2003-10-14 02:11 · Score: 2, Funny

From the article: "In fact, the Free Software Foundation runs a lot of these "enforcement actions." There are 30 to 40 going on right now, and there were 50 last year, Kuhn says. There have been hundreds since 1991, when the current version of the GPL was published, he says. Tracking down bad guys has become such a big operation that the Free Software Foundation has created a so-called Compliance Lab to snoop out violators and bust them.

Who pays for this? The 12-employee Free Software Foundation has limited resources. So it seeks donations. And sometimes it collects money from companies it has busted. "

Gee, sounds just like the BSA, doesn't it? Except that the BSA extorts -- uh -- I mean collects -- hundreds of millions of dollars from companies that are guilty of various software licensing violations. Funny that the FSF is portrayed as evil and communistic for doing the same exact thing as the BSA.

BSA = Good
FSF = Bad

What a moron.

Re:The Biggest Hypocricy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:20 · Score: 0

Equally funny is it that:

Capitalism = Good
Communism = Bad

You are incorrect about Forbes' tax wishes by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:11 · Score: 0

" This article is in what is arguably the most pro-big business magazine published by a man who actually thinks rich people should not have to pay taxes since they "create jobs""

Actually, Forbes thinks otherwise. He proposed a fair flat tax system in which the poor (through personal exemptions) paid no taxes, but everyone else paid a fair flat rate INCLUDING THE RICH. It cut out loopholes, so many of the rich would have paid more in taxes than they do now.

reputation determines value of free content by tperry256 · 2003-10-14 02:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

The GPL probably has a lot to do with the current success of free software, but I think we need to eventually phase out the GPL in favor releasing content as is without any restrictions. Information will spread about who is using who's code to do useful work, and thanks to services like Google, accurate information will rise to the top without anyone suing or threatening to sue anybody. I believe that we will one day have some kind of futures market for free content producer cards (like baseball cards) and it will efficiently reward those who add the most value to society. The GPL only tempts us to use the law to accomplish what should be accomplished by a free market. Sound familiar?

Article completely ignores exisitng precedent. by brlancer · 2003-10-14 02:12 · Score: 1

[The following is a comment I sent to Forbes via their on-line comment system.]

Your article "Linux's Hit Men" is completely misrepresentative of Linux and other software companies. The article was either written by a) someone not familiar with software companies and their practices or b) someone who already disliked Linux and was finding reasons to support that idea.

The Free Software Foundation is enforcing its license; this is no different than what commercial software companies have been doing for years. SCO, Microsoft, Sun, IBM, et al. have used licenses to limit what could be done with their software and often crush business who innovated with it. However, the FSF is not seeking money nor to "burn down your house" (what an incredibly prejudicial and ignorant remark); the FSF is asking that companies abide by the license: either share code built on top of GPL code, or don't use GPL code. This is entirely fair.

Additionally, this is far from expensive. The article notes that mySQL donated $25,000 to the FSF, and OpenTV paid $65,000 after a dispute over a number of months; if any commercial company were suing to uphold a license, they often deal in the millions of dollars. SCO's current campaign is to sue for hundreds of dollars for each copy of Linux in commercial use--$700 x 1,000 Linux systems = $700,000; I think that is far greater than $65,000.

With a sneer, the article reports that the FSF created a Compliance Lab to enforce their license; this ignores the Business Software Alliance, created by Microsoft and other commercial vendors which exists solely to find infringing companies and sue them for milliones. IBM has a reported practice where it lists possibly infringing copyrights for a company and settles out of court; while the offending company is often not infringing all the listed copyrights, it is cheaper to settle than and earn a reprieve for any possible infringements they may have that IBM has not yet found.

Was the author completely ignorant that commercial software companies do all the things for which he chastises the FSF, or did he simply not care?

The Free Software Foundation wrote the GPL to allow collaboration and development by ensuring that all development would be open; if someone is not willing to abide by the rules, the least they can do is to stop using the software.

I think that's entirely fair.

--
Someone asked if I had patched against MSBlast; I said yes, I installed Linux.

Reply to Forbes about the Article by thenextpresident · 2003-10-14 02:12 · Score: 1

You know, if you read the article, also send in your comments. Most magazines, if they recieve a large enough response to an article, will go back and investigate an article in more detail. While people generally don't want to believe it, most editors and journalists still try and do the right thing (coming from experience). The problem isn't that journalists are one sided, but rather, they are human, and sometimes, in the course of an investigation, only one side really rears it's head.

--
Jason Lotito

awww.. too bad.. by jspectre · 2003-10-14 02:12 · Score: 1

guess what people.. sharing your works derived on GPL code is part of what comes with using GPL'ed code in the first place. don't like the rules? don't use the code! it's as simple as that.

as for this being cisco's problem, someone there should have noticed this before they bought out linksys. if cisco thought it was a show-stopper they could have backed out. they don't like it now? they can settle up with the FSF and publish their code or write their own code and give everyone a nice firmware upgrade (meanwhile i expect they'd have to share the code for already published firmware versions).

companies are smart enough to use gpl'ed code in the first place then they are smart enough to know their responsibilities afterwards. you can't claim ignornace after-the-fact.

as for the forbes article, it is pretty obviously biased and any developer/manager/phb who has an IQ out of the single digits will spot that. wouldn't surprise me to find out that the article was paid-for/commissioned/suggested/offered by sco/microsoft/satan.

jeeze..

--

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Forbes Encourages Software Piracy by OWJones · 2003-10-14 02:12 · Score: 1

Write emphatic -- but polite -- messages to Forbes, pointing out that their article hinted at the acceptability of committing software piracy. Violation of the GPL == violation of a EULA. Period.

Even PHB's understand that violating EULAs is a Bad Thing(tm) can get you into a boatload of trouble.

My letter:

Your article attacking the Free Software Foundation omits one important point: the companies that the FSF spoke out against had violated the terms of Linux's EULA. If these companies found the conditions of the license not to their liking, that does not give them a blank check to violate that license. To do so is to commit software piracy. Period.

It is irresponsible for a Forbes columnist even to hint that the theft of intellectual property is an acceptable business practice. Either abide by the software license -- be it from Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco, or the FSF -- or expect the owner of the code to seek financial or legal remedies.

-jdm

So lets sum up Forbes's position here.... by BlabberMouth · 2003-10-14 02:12 · Score: 1

companies should not use software based on the GPL in their products because they'll have to publish it to the world and open it up for cloners. Ok, that makes sense. The FSF is wrong for trying to enforce the GPL. Ok, that doesn't make sense. They have to step back and see the big picture. These companies don't have to use the software. They didn't develop it, somebody else did, and that somebody else is willing to let them use it for free. They don't have any "right" to that software so they should quit bitching.

I concur by cyranoVR · 2003-10-14 02:13 · Score: 1

Seeing a "zinger" like that in the article's introduction really makes me question the journalistic integrity of the Slashdot's editors (yes, yes, I know I will catch flack from implying that they have any at all...but I believe some of them do...)

They could at least just link to a response from FSF or something criticizing the Forbes article. Or link to the authors previous FSF-bashing articles and say "this guy has an anti-FSF history." Geez...

Forbes by Lagged2Death · 2003-10-14 02:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't think Forbes has a reputation for particularly honest or fair reporting.

Every Forbes story I've ever seen has had a distinct pro-business - or even a pro-rich-entepreneur - slant, much as a car magazine has a pro-cheap-gas slant, or as a nature/travel magazine has a conservationist slant.

If FSF/GPL was a for-profit concern, I'm sure Forbes would be cheering them on. I'm not surprised that they took the stance they did, I'm only surprised that they're so extremist and clueless.

Clueless by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:13 · Score: 0

Can You spell it? The issue was not about getting trade secrets but changes in the core kernel code. It seems obvious that the writer of the Forbes article has no idea of what he is writing about.

Am I surprised?

Unflattering? Lopsided is more like it... by standbypowerguy · 2003-10-14 02:14 · Score: 1

Man, this article really makes my blood boil! The terms of the GPL require the developer(s) to become part of the community by sharing the fruits of their labor. Some for-profit companies want to have their cake and eat it too. They shorten their development cycle by incorporating GPL'd code, but then fail to contribute the source back to the community. IMHO, the GPL needs a good test case. Broadcom may be it, and I don't believe there's a finer bunch of more deserving scoundrels. They use Linux code in the chips they sell to Linux, but won't provide info on their wireless LAN cards to the open source community. The hypocrasy is astounding! Contrast this with NVIDIA: Their willingness to work with open source resulted in the simplest to install/configure, most stable and well-performing drivers for X that I've ever used.

--
This isn't the sig you're looking for... Move along.

Forbes, the bastion of socialism by cwhicks · 2003-10-14 02:14 · Score: 1

I didn't see the bad part. Was it the fact that if you decide to use GPL stuff you have to "pay" for it with your modifications?
Heaven forfend!
What could be more antithetical to GPL than a group like Forbes? I am amazed that it was so positive. It stated the FSF position clearing. It just seems like the author has heard a lot about Linux, but just read the actual GPL text and didn't like what he saw. It is all your perspective on socialism and everyone should already know where Forbes stands.

--
- I like pudding.

Daniel Lyons by turbosk · 2003-10-14 02:15 · Score: 1

thanks again for the link- this lyons guy is out of control! at first i thought it looked like willful ignorance or corporate bias, but after reading his other articles, it obviously goes much deeper than that.

http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/20030806020 26 NWBZLL

still not sure what's going on there- the peeing in the wheaties is a good guess :)

fred

What hypocrites by doomdog · 2003-10-14 02:15 · Score: 1

From the article:

"We'd like people to stop selling proprietary software. It's bad for the world,"

So the losers at the FSF, who claim to support "software freedom", want to eliminate the type of "freedom" that they don't agree with (i.e. to create software that you won't *give* to them for free)... What a bunch of hypocrites. I can't believe there are still enough losers out there that support this communistic group...

Re:What hypocrites by o'reor · 2003-10-14 02:32 · Score: 1

Actually, it's some crappy journalist, supporting the proprietary software business model (you know, the guys who claim to support "copyrights" along with the RIAA and MPAA), who wants to eliminate the type of "copyrights" that he doesn't like. What a thick hypocrite.
You know what? The GPL is a license like any other, and it also protects the author's copyright. If you don't like GPLed software, don't use it.

--
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.

Here's what I sent them by ciaran_o_riordan · 2003-10-14 02:16 · Score: 1

The stupidity of this article makes it hard to write a decent response, but here's what I came up with:

--8-----------
I think the Free Software Foundation were treated very badly by your magazine in the article "Linux's Hit Men". A loose-knit team of thousands of developers have spent the last 19 years writing a completely free operating system (free as in freedom/speech). The deal is simple, anyone can use, alter, and share the software. The only thing you can't do is deny other people these rights.

Now, someone has decided to take this work, make improvements, and not give others the freedoms they were given. Someone has to defend our freedoms, and it's Free Software Foundation stepping up to the plate.
--8--------------

I give me a C-, "could do better".

Ciaran O'Riordan

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!

moron corepirate nazi ?pr? ?firm? hired goons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:18 · Score: 0

they're everywhere. you can smell the fear. they're so aFraUD, they're firing bullindly into the crowd, whilst demanding applause/money. it'll never wwwork.

forbes is inescapabully dependent on the georgewellian fuddite corepirate nazi payper liesense stock markup FraUDFest. so it's not surprising that they would join in the felonious assault on the gnu/linux hobbyist dogooders.

welcome to the gnu millennium. lookout bullow. the daze of the phonIE scriptdead ?pr? ?firm? "business" model is WANing into coolapps/the abyss.

Copy of the comment I sent to forbes by Stone316 · 2003-10-14 02:18 · Score: 1

FYI: Hi, After reading your article I was compelled to email some comments w.r.t. the article "Linux's Hit Men". I'll admit my bias up front, I have been using linux since the early 90's. I must say, I was rather disappointed with the tone of the article. If this was, say, Microsoft persuing a company who had violated their licenses, it would probably only be granted a small mention in the press. The basic fact is when companies decide to use software published under the GPL, then they have to abide by the terms of that license. If they are distributing their final product then they _have_ to provide the source as well.. In exchange they are saved alot of money by not having to buy or develope said software. Why is that so hard to understand? Its a mutually beneficial partnership. (I'm sure this doesn't need to be said, but companies who use GPL software, make modifications but dont' distribute said software doesn't have to publish the source.) Personally, i'm rather disappointed that a magazine as respectable as Forbes is taking pot shots at Linux. Its just another example of ignorance that we, as Linux advocates, have to work through.

--
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."

Good noose for BCOM Owners.... by OneFix+at+Work · 2003-10-14 02:18 · Score: 1

If you own a BCOM 802.11 card of the 430x line, a company called Linuxant has released a driver loader that allows you to use the Windoze drivers under Linux. While not as good as a full GPLed driver, at least it's something. According to Linuxant, the 30 day trial is only temporary, they are supposedly working with BCOM and are aiming to make the driverloader free to end users.

strings attached by lesserunknowngod · 2003-10-14 02:18 · Score: 1

"These disputes might scare companies away from using open source software." No one forces a company to use open source. The thrust of the Forbes article seems to say: OSS is dangerous because this "free" software has strings attached, which could end up costing a company money. This is "such a pity" because wouldn't it be great to use other people's work AND then make a full profit on it? Why don't these "hit men" let us take their code entirely for our own private ends? Actually I have a better idea, you want exclusive control over your product? Why not write the code yourself, the FSF isn't stopping you!

Daniel Lyons is an idiot by univeralifepadre · 2003-10-14 02:18 · Score: 1

More to the point, Daniel Lyons is a foaming-at-the-mouth idiot. the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free" programs - free, in quotes? like maybe it's not free? the $129 device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units - well if it's a hit then maybe we shouldn't vigorously defend our copyright, and maybe the RIAA will decide to just leave 55 million Kazaa usera alone if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any "derivative works" you've created - outragous! why don't you hippies just shut up, let me use your code, and make a lot of money. quit whining about your damn copyright. a rare peek into the dark side of the free software movement - let's not forget who's code is being used by whom the Free Software Foundation runs a lot of these "enforcement actions." - is that like a terrorist action? Progress uses an open source database program distributed under the less onerous Berkeley Software Distribution license - by "less onerous", he means they can just use the code for free without contributing anything back to the community the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house - yes, you've figured it out. the FSF wants to burn down all houses, it was part of the charter. the foundation wants GPL-covered code to creep into commercial products so it can use GPL to force open those products - correct, this was the other reason the FSF was formed, they really wanted to know what made linksys routers tick. thanks for the chuckle comrade.

Can't help but wonder... by nuance9 · 2003-10-14 02:18 · Score: 1

How much stock does Daniel Lyons, the article's author, own in Cisco? All together a pretty shoddy piece of reporting. Submit a comment at the bottom of the article, and let them know what you think!

--
what?

Like it or not, this article is important by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:18 · Score: 0

Look, I know that everybody here is saying "But licensing issues can happen equally often with proprietary software". This is all true, but this article does raise an important point.

I used to work at a company where we sold software that would be integrated into other companies' products. Occasionally we would find somebody using our software without a license agreement. Usually when we would make these discoveries, we would go after them and basically demand that they fork over money. Literally, one of our business people flat out said "I see dollar signs!" when one of these incidents occured. For the most part, we would demand a hefty amount of money but generally not significantly more than if they licensed the software in the first place. This is because we wanted to collect more royalties and we did not want them to strip our software out of their system, for purely financial reasons.

Had the software in question been GPL software, and the FSF discovered the violation, like the article said, the FSF would have no interest in money. They would demand that the entire software be open sourced, or the offending code removed entirely. There would be no way to be bought off, and for many companies (run by PHBs), the FSF's options are much worse than paying off a company.

It is definitely true that we had the same options that the FSF did, and that our rights are the same as the FSF's. However, we were just a profit making entity, and we would have no motivation to simply demand their code be open sourced or anything like that. And for our "customer", forking off a bunch of money to pay us off is much less penalizing than what the FSF would be demanding. All issues of who is "right" and who is entitled to what aside, this is a noteworthy issue.

Refreshing by dimlark · 2003-10-14 02:19 · Score: 1

Ohhh, thank you. The day was getting to serious, and I desperately needed some humour. This article was a riot. Anyone did any research on the author to find out who signs their check?

I've found the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:19 · Score: 0

mysql> SELECT * FROM forbes_authors WHERE clue > 0;
Empty set (0.04 sec)

Skip reading this? by shaka999 · 2003-10-14 02:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this

Does this statement strike anyone else as idiotic? If someone doesn't agree with "the community" we just ignore them? Talk about sticking your head in the sand.

--
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-

Re:Skip reading this? by Lord+of+Ironhand · 2003-10-14 02:54 · Score: 1

Why would actually linking to an article the editors don't agree with be "sticking your head in the sand"? I don't see Forbes linking to /. articles...
Re:Skip reading this? by shaka999 · 2003-10-14 03:53 · Score: 1

The implication of the "skip" quote is that you might now want to read this because of the opinions expressed within the article. Your right, they did link the article. Good for /. , I suppose actions speak louder than words but it was still a stupid thing to say.

--
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
Re:Skip reading this? by leoboiko · 2003-10-14 04:20 · Score: 1

Yes, that's quite a zealotic statement. I believe it was just a bad choice of words by the submitter. I think he meant something like ``the article is pure FUD and has no valid or interesting arguments, so you might want to skip reading this''.

--
Prescriptive grammar:linguistics :: alchemy:chemistry. Stop being a nazi and learn some science.
Re:Skip reading this? by cyberformer · 2003-10-14 06:41 · Score: 1

Forbes is, unfortunately, a magazine that powerful people take seriously, despite its admiration for Enron. Reading the bad guys' propaganda and understanding the arguments they make is useful for anyone who wants to influence PHBs, politicians, etc.

OTOH, many Web sites do print pro-SCO or anti-GPL articles that are essentially trolls: The sites run their own discussion forums and want to generate feedback for these (the more content they get from readers, the fewer writers they need) or they have a heavy tech readership and want to get linked to by /. or pro-Linux bloggers.
Re:Skip reading this? by cpuffer_hammer · 2003-10-14 09:11 · Score: 1

I took this to mean skip this intill you morning meal has settled, so you don't sick as well as angry.

My feedback to Forbes by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:19 · Score: 0

I just wrote feedback to Forbes on their article:

"I believe that the article by Daniel Lyons, entitled "Linux's Hit Men" was very misleading. The article completely neglects and misrepresents the contributions that Open Source software have made to the bottom lines of the companies cited in the article.

The raw fact is simple; The majority of the software code that forms the basis for the product in question was written and distributed under copyright terms that require those who use this intellectual property for profit to share the changes that they have made. When Linksys chose to use Linux as a foundation for their product, they did it with the full understanding that they would be obligated to abide by the terms of the copyright (the GPL). There was never an opportunity for deception on the part of the Open Source community.

It is, in my opinion, irresponsible journalism to portray companies that are attempting to take the work of a vast community, profit from that work and ignore it's responsibilities to that community, as the victims. If Linksys were licensed this software under terms that required royalties to be paid and Cisco refused to honor those terms, I'm certain that it would be troublesome to Daniel Lyons. So why is it not troublesom when those terms are not monetary, but instead involve a moral (not to mention legal) responsibility?"

this is why the GNU license is demonstrative by bmedwar · 2003-10-14 02:19 · Score: 1

The GNU license is barking up the wrong tree. In trying to "free" software it puts shackles on anyone who later uses the software. It's not the software that we are trying to free, it is the humans! The "BSD-style" licenses (minus the advertising clause) are much more reasonable and much more free. There is certainly no sin in making money of software, nor protecting trade secrets. The only problem arises when you sell someone software and then use government force to keep them from doing whatever they want to with it (including copying it, reselling it, cracking copy protection, etc.). This is where our basic freedom's are compromised. The GNU license also compromises these freedoms.

--
--Brian

2001:Free Software Leaders Stand Together by NZheretic · 2003-10-14 02:20 · Score: 1

The SCO Group and toadies are just rehashing the same unsubtantial arguments that Microsoft's Craig Mundie made in May 2001.

In response an unprecedented gathering of the free software/open source development leaders actually agreed on a single statement in reply

The Craig Mundie speech is old news by now, so hopefully this is the last word. A number of the free software evangelists, in informal discussion, felt that the proper response to Microsoft would be to stand together. Mundie's speech shows that Microsoft's strategy is to keep us divided and attack us one at a time, until all are gone. Thus, their emphasis on the GPL this time. While we didn't try to represent every group and project, many major voices of Open Source and Free Software have signed this message. We took a while, because we're not used to this, but we'll be better next time. So, please note the signatures at the bottom of this message - we will stand together, and defend each other.

Bruce Perens

We note a new triumph for Open Source and Free Software: we have become so serious a competitor to Microsoft that their executives publicly announce their fear. However, the only threat that we present to Microsoft is the end of monopoly practices. Microsoft is welcome to participate as an equal partner, a role held today by entities ranging from individuals to transnational corporations like IBM and HP. Equality, however, isn't what Microsoft is looking for. Thus, they have announced Shared Source, a system that could be summarized as Look but don't touch - and we control everything.
Microsoft deceptively compares Open Source to failed dot-com business models. Perhaps they misunderstand the term Free Software. Remember that Free refers to liberty, not price. The dot-coms gave away goods and services as loss-leaders, in unsuccessful efforts to build their market share. In contrast, the business model of Open Source is to reduce the cost of software development and maintenance by distributing it among many collaborators.
The success of the Open Source model arises from copyright holders relaxing their control in exchange for more and better collaboration. Developers allow their software to be freely redistributed and modified, asking only for the same privileges in return.
There is much software that is essential to a business, but which does not differentiate that business from its competitors. Even companies that have not fully embraced the Open Source model can justify collaboration on Free Software projects for this non-differentiating software, because of the money they will save. And such collaborations are often overwhelmingly successful: for example, the project that produces the market-leading Apache web server was started by a group of users who agreed to share the work of maintaining a piece of software that each of their businesses depended on.
The efficiency of this cooperation is in the best interests of the user. But Free Software is also directly in the user's interest, because it means that the users control the software they use. When they do business with Open Source vendors, the vendors do not dominate them.
With very little funding, the GNU/Linux system has become a significant player in many major markets, from Internet servers to embedded devices. Our GUI desktop projects have astounded the software industry by going from zero to being comparable with or superior to others in only 4 years. Workstation manufacturers like Sun and HP have selected our desktops to replace their own consortium projects, because our work was better. An entire industry has been built around Free Software, and is growing rapidly despite an unfavorable market. The success of software companies like Red Hat, and the benefits to vendors such as Dell and IBM, demonstrate that Free Software is not at all incompatible with

Now who's wearing the tinfoil hats? by russotto · 2003-10-14 02:20 · Score: 1

From the article: 'Or maybe, as some suggest, the foundation wants GPL-covered code to creep into commercial products so it can use GPL to force open those products. Kuhn says that's nuts--"pure propaganda rhetoric."'

Uh, yeah. One of the requirements of the GPL is that you clearly label the code as covered by the GPL, and include a copy of the GPL with it. It's not going to "creep" anywhere by accident. Certainly Linux is a bit big to be "creeping"; it's more than a stretch to believe a company would use Linux as their operating system without being aware that it's covered under the GPL and have some idea of what the GPL entails.

I had a commercial company ask me about a driver I had ported that they were interested in. I told them it was under the GPL, they said "No, thank you", and all was well. That's all LinkSys had to do with Linux; there's no shortage of proprietary redistributable (for a fee) operating systems for such devices.

Concisely this is what they were trying to say ? by thrill12 · 2003-10-14 02:20 · Score: 1

[NEW YORK - ... operating system. ]
Hi GPL lovers! Read this article, it will interest you!

[The Lindon, ... the adoption of Linux.]
This is a very interesting article that covers current topics!

[But the ... proponents themselves. ]
Be scared GPL lovers, very scared... of yourselves!

[For months, ... year alone. ]
Those evil GPL lovers are doing very nasty things to one of our fellow rich company !

[But now there's ... knockoff of your product. ]
They are actually implementing a license issue, isn't that what we (rich companies) oppose so much !?

[Not great ... its big suppliers. ]
Poor cisco.

[For several months, ... obey the rules." ]
[ The legal teeth ... wouldn't comment. ]
Ofcourse those GPL lovers insist they are not, blah blah blah.. we don't believe them !

[The dispute, ... code-writing labor. ]
This was so secret and hidden, until one of their commie-bastard-comrades played traitor on those GPL lovers!

[In fact ... bust them. ]
Those commie bastards do even more filthy things!

[Who pays ... Moglen says. ]
They sue to make money ! Isn't that hypocrite!?

[Sometimes it's ... sign of gratitude?" ]
And they even get money from people who like what they are doing, bastards !

[The mySQL ... with cloners. ]
But they want more than money, they want the heart of our filthy rich companies !

[Or maybe, ... Kuhn says. ]
Or they want us all to be commies too, yea behold !!

[So far ... Columbia University. ]
And all our fellow companies have gone scared uptil now!

[Will Cisco ... to fight. ]
Now the latest issue will probably turn out into a win for those commie bastards too!

[Such a pity, comrade. ]
Hey GPL lover, if you read just the beginning and the end of the article, you could actually think it is a positive look on what you are doing! Har har har...

--
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd

Soviet Russia meta-joke by Gulik · 2003-10-14 02:21 · Score: 0

I think my favorite part of the article is right at the end:

Will Cisco and Broadcom be the first? Probably they'll decide, like everyone else, that it's cheaper to settle than to fight.

Such a pity, comrade.

Is this guy actually calling Open Source proponents a bunch of commies? Someone should get the man a wall calendar that shows the year. Before you know it, he'll be telling us we've got cooties or, Heaven forfend, that we're corroded.

BSD by Jason+Earl · 2003-10-14 02:22 · Score: 1

I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic, but you are 100% correct. There are plenty of folks willing to share their source under a more permissive license. Using GPLed code, and then painting the FSF in a bad light because they are protecting their copyrighted material is just poor form.

Chances are good that it was easier to "borrow" Linux than to make the BSD code do what Linksys needed, and now they are paying the piper. The fact of the matter is that licensing matters.

Not portraying OSS badly by jjjefff · 2003-10-14 02:23 · Score: 2, Funny

They're just telling you what risks are involved with using GPL'd software. And, they've got a point. The whole thing is a little socialist, and enforcement actions a little draconian.

Just out of curiosity, why don't more people release their code under the BSD license?

Re:Not portraying OSS badly by nagora · 2003-10-14 02:36 · Score: 1

Just out of curiosity, why don't more people release their code under the BSD license?
Because if you wouldn't work for Bill Gates even if he paid you, you're unlikely to want to work for him for free.
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Re:Not portraying OSS badly by jjjefff · 2003-10-14 02:39 · Score: 1

Hmmm... Good point.
Re:Not portraying OSS badly by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 02:58 · Score: 1

Just out of curiosity, why don't more people release their code under the BSD license?

Because if you license your code under the GPL, you can include GPLed and BSDLed works in it, but if you license your code under the BSDL, you can only include BSDLed works in it.
Re:Not portraying OSS badly by babyrat · 2003-10-14 04:03 · Score: 1

They're just telling you what risks are involved with using GPL'd software.

No they are not telling you the risks of using GPL'd software - they are telling you the risks of breaking license agreements and then portraying GPL license violations as different than any other license violations, which they are not. The ONLY thing they indicated are different is that sometimes the violations of the GPL can not be rectified by throwing money at them, as is generally the case with violations of commercial software ("oops we stole your code, here is the money that we would have had to pay you had we done things legally, and a bit extra for your trouble", versus "hey - we stomped all over your ideals with our unethical and illegal behaviour and money won't fix that, so we will stop redistribution or release our changes as dictated by the license")

Just out of curiosity, why don't more people release their code under the BSD license?

Because they believe in the terms of the GPL and that those are the terms that they choose? Personally I feel that if I create a program and release the source to the public (under some sort of license rather than the public domain) then I'd prefer the GPL - I like the idea that if someone improves the program and wants to distribute the improvements then they also have to distribute the source to those improvements. That really makes sense to me (epsecially if that someone is a commercial entity who is using my code as a base to make $$$).

Not sure why you are modd'ed funny, I don't think you were intending to be. Yes the whole thing is a little socialist - a little socialist isn't such a bad thing (ask any country who has government sponsored healthcare - OK ask anyone who isn't filthy rich in a country that has gov't sponsored healthcare). In this case it is better than a socialist gov't because there is no individual (or relatively small group of indiviudals) in a position to be 'corrupted' by the power, which is generally the weak point socialism.

The enforcement actions aren't draconion at all - the companies were pointed to their infraction and quitely given a chance (multiple chances) to comply. If they don't then it will go to a court of law. Absolutely no different than what would happen with software under any proprietary software license.

Furthermore before using the code, they could have decided to contact the original authors and negotiate a different license. If the copyright holder can be convinced, then the company could have the code released to them under a different set of licensing restrictions, just like normal commercial software.
Re:Not portraying OSS badly by Brandybuck · 2003-10-14 08:06 · Score: 1

I do release my own code under the BSD or MIT licenses. Why? Because I want it to be Free Software. For those of you in Rio Linda, That's Free as in "No Strings Attached".

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

"burn down your house". by CacheHit · 2003-10-14 02:23 · Score: 1

This line is my favorite.

"But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners."

Of course they failed to mention that you stole the wood you used to build your house. Companies know what the rules are before they begin developing their products. Those rules don't change just because that product started producing cash for you.

The FSF might think of taking a stronger stance on these issues. If they don't then I can see a potential business model emerging where software companies violate the GPL and make large sums of cash for one or two years until the FSF takes them to court. They then pay the FSF 100k, release the source, and move on to their next violation. Paying 100k, after the fact, for a proven product code base is not a bad deal.

Daniel Lyons is an idiot by univeralifepadre · 2003-10-14 02:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

More to the point, Daniel Lyons is a foaming-at-the-mouth idiot.

the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free" programs - free, in quotes? like maybe it's not free?

the $129 device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units - well if it's a hit then maybe we shouldn't vigorously defend our copyright, and maybe the RIAA will decide to just leave 55 million Kazaa usera alone

if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any "derivative works" you've created - outragous! why don't you hippies just shut up, let me use your code, and make a lot of money. quit whining about your damn copyright.

a rare peek into the dark side of the free software movement - let's not forget who's code is being used by whom

the Free Software Foundation runs a lot of these "enforcement actions." - is that like a terrorist action?

Progress uses an open source database program distributed under the less onerous Berkeley Software Distribution license - by "less onerous", he means they can just use the code for free without contributing anything back to the community

the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house - yes, you've figured it out. the FSF wants to burn down all houses, it was part of the charter.

the foundation wants GPL-covered code to creep into commercial products so it can use GPL to force open those products - correct, this was the other reason the FSF was formed, they really wanted to know what made linksys routers tick.

thanks for the chuckle comrade.

"Daniel Lyons" and bias by 0x0d0a · 2003-10-14 02:24 · Score: 1

Apparently, the article author, "Daniel Lyons", has had a wonderful time writing anti-OSS articles for some time. His articles generally at least touch on both sides, but his conclusion -- his closing words -- are reliabily anti-OSS, though certainly not fanatically so.

Take a look at his take on the the SCO lawsuit, his opinion on whether Linux will succeed, and an article criticizing IBM for not indemnifying Linux users.

--
May we never see th

Re:"Daniel Lyons" and bias by fenix+down · 2003-10-14 05:31 · Score: 1

Here's a good one.
Linux geeks howled a bit, but then wrote off SCO as a bunch of sleazebags and went back to playing live-action roleplaying (LARP) games in their mothers' basements, or whatever it is they do when they're not writing device drivers and complaining about clueless end users.

But then SCO started making noise about suing Linux customers too, unless they paid licensing fees to SCO. Suddenly the joke wasn't so funny anymore.
DUM DUM DUUUUM! Holy shit, the drama. First paragraph's about right, though.

This one too, from a different author.
The $1 billion in damages and future royalties SCO is seeking won't put a mere dent in the Linux movement: "That's a cost that gets lost in the rounding," says Boies, adding, "The cost efficiency of Linux won't rise or fall."
I don't even know what the hell that's saying.

At least it's legitimate enfringment by Trauma_Hound1 · 2003-10-14 02:25 · Score: 1

What exactly is wrong with enforcing legitimate copyright enfringment cases? It's not like these cases have been seeking damages in the millions, like other companys, that don't actually own the IP.

--
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!

Rubbish by pioneer · 2003-10-14 02:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

>The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this. However it did help me gain insight into software from a PHB and suit perspective."

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Whoever wrote this article doesn't understand the first thing about the FSF. Why wouldn't they protect the GPL? You won't have free software if everyone can just use it without contributing back to the source. I don't feel the least bit sorry for these executives. It's clear to everyone that if you use GPL and release a product then you must release derivative works. Come 'on.

Re:Rubbish by Rozzin · 2003-10-14 03:32 · Score: 1

"You won't have free software if everyone can just use it without contributing back to the source."

One of the premises of the GPL is almost exactly the opposite of what you just said: you don't have free software if everyone can't just use it without being made to contribute back to the source.

--
-rozzin.

50 'enforcement actions' by FSF last year? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:25 · Score: 0

Sounds a little bit too high to me.
Does anyone have details about these cases?

Free Software by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:26 · Score: 0

Have any of you guys heard Richard Stalman, one of the main guys in the free software foundation, speak? He wants ALL software to be free for "the betterment of society." He wants this not only with software, but also for textbooks and other forms of information. His reasoning is that others should be able to change the code/textbook/etc for their own purposes and expand on the knowledge contained therin. I believe that when people sell a product the buyer should get rights to use and modify the code for his or her own personal use. However, that is no reason to deprive the author of the software or book of their rightful income for writing the software or textbooks in the first place. Without some form of personal or financial gain, there is no real motivation (unless one is altruistic, which humans are not by nature) to write solid, bug-free software. Programmers need to be paid for their work... otherwise we should just go into something more relaxing like spending weeks backpacking or water skiing. The way programmers get paid is a) if they sell software they have written or b) some commpany pays them to write software.

Personally, I prefer to have free software just because it is free, but am more than willing to pay a modest price for well designed software.

The open source GPL seems to be a lever that the Free Software Foundation wishes to use to dislodge as much software as possible for public distribution.

The anonymous coward

What is it with people these days? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:26 · Score: 0

OK so after reading the artical, I sat there disgusted. I mean WTF is wrong with these people? OK, RTFL (Read the f**king license!!), if you take GPL code and mess with it and make something better you are accepting GPL right? Well if you accept the GPL you release your code, but if you take linux, make it run without making changes to its sources or any other GPL software and write your own, then there is no problem is there??? GPL is there to stop idiots from taking my source code and claiming it for themselves and making money off it, where it is me who wrote the code in the first place and you are using MY code, so whats wrong with obeying the license I put in, what makes it wrong for the FSF to protect my rights under the GPL as a developer??? If I got hold of Microsoft Source code and used it in a product of mine and they found out, OMG I would be sued into nothingness! So whats wrong with the FSF making sure GPL is not violated?

My response to the article (terse) by botono9 · 2003-10-14 02:26 · Score: 1

Mr. Lyons refers to the enforcement of the GPL as the "dark side" of the Open Source movement, but I fail to see how making companies comply with the legally binding licenses they agreed to be bound to (the act of using GPL'd code makes the license binding) is somehow onerous or underhanded. If Cisco is using code protected under the GPL then they must comply with the terms of the GPL, plain and simple. If they aren't comfortable with sharing their code then they should not use code which is covered under a license which requires them to do so.

Also, Mr. Lyon's closing comment, "Such a pity, comrade", strikes me as reactionary and juvenile. I didn't realize I was reading this article in the editorial section.

Re:Daniel Lyons, the biased author by turbosk · 2003-10-14 02:26 · Score: 1

actual quote from the desk of dan lyons regarding the SCO suits-

"Linux geeks howled a bit, but then wrote off SCO as a bunch of sleazebags and went back to playing live-action roleplaying (LARP) games in their mothers' basements, or whatever it is they do when they're not writing device drivers and complaining about clueless end users."

criminy!

Head... Exploding... by JacquesItch · 2003-10-14 02:27 · Score: 1

"Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this."??? Well hell, Why post the article at all then. From now on... NO MORE NEGATIVE ARTICLES! *blink*

Free as in... by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 02:28 · Score: 1

Free as in we're going to sue you.

Frickin' stupid GPL.

Re:Free as in... by LMCBoy · 2003-10-14 03:15 · Score: 1

Hey, Broadcom of Linksys or whoever knew it was GPL'd when they used it. If they don't like it, they can bloody well write their own software, and license that however they wish. It isn't the GPL that's stupid, it's companies that want their own IP protected while not respecting anyone else's.

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Re:Free as in... by anthony_dipierro · 2003-10-14 03:22 · Score: 1

It isn't the GPL that's stupid, it's companies that want their own IP protected while not respecting anyone else's.

Actually, it's both.

Linux is becoming the OS/2 of its time by BreadMan · 2003-10-14 02:28 · Score: 1

According to the "Why You Won't Be Getting A Linux PC" article in the Linux @ Work sidebar.

Says the article:

Because most PCs are not built from scratch to accommodate Linux, as they are for Windows, almost everything requires extra work. Windows certainly has its quirks, but there are millions of off-the-shelf, readily available hardware and software add-ons for Windows PCs--assuming they're not already built in. That's not true of Linux.

Sigh... Read the whole article for additional PHB enlightenment.

Fscking spelling by skamp · 2003-10-14 02:29 · Score: 0, Troll

Can't anyone spell it right? It's definitely, for crying out loud!

Re:Fscking spelling by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2003-10-14 02:42 · Score: 1

Yup, true. And Coporations? what is that idiot waffling about?

Alternatively, I might have better things to do with my time than get picky about other people's rushed spelling ;)

ha! by Almace · 2003-10-14 02:29 · Score: 1

Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this

If your beliefs can't hold up to some criticism, why hold those beliefs at all.

--
Remember,democracy never lasts long.It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. John Adams (1814)

Re:ha! by tarquin_fim_bim · 2003-10-27 13:47 · Score: 1

Insightful, and erudite comment. Methinks you sir, are a bigot!

Welcome friend

Flawed Reasoning by femto · 2003-10-14 02:29 · Score: 1

From the article:

> But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.

The problem with this argument is that the house isn't yours to burn down, or at the least was built with building materials that you did not have permision to use!

I suspect the author's prejudice (paranoia?) is displayed by the closing comment. Such a pity Fores publishes such drivel.

Well duh.... by LilMikey · 2003-10-14 02:29 · Score: 1

Of course you can't just take GPLed code and do whatever the hell you want with it! Just because it's GPL doesn't mean it's a free code bazaar. They're using the results of thousands of man-hours of work spread across hundreds of people. What did they think was going to happen?

The GPL isn't brain surgery and they should've known full well where this would lead. The code Broadcom spent time and money on belongs under the GPL just like the code they built it upon... the code others spent time and money on.

The GPL isn't designed to protect their business model, it's designed to protect the coders. That fosters innovation. Hiding away code may make you a lot of money but does everyone else no good at all.

--
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto

GPL Squatters by amightywind · 2003-10-14 02:30 · Score: 1

But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.

People who violate the GPL are not the owners of their derivative works in the way Forbes thinks is natural. To use the housing analogy, such violators are more like squatters. Complaining about GPL enforcement is like signing a contract agreeing to communal living then complaining when someone new moves in.

--
an ill wind that blows no good

Biased Article by amerinese · 2003-10-14 02:30 · Score: 1

The problem you should have with this article and it's author Daniel Lyons is not that it doesn't portray free software in a positive light. It's that it's so blatantly biased. "even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product" "Knockoff"? That's certainly not the most neutral way of describing it. Plus, releasing Broadcom drivers under GPL probably doesn't help anyone else out anyway. Is there anything else on the router that is really all that valuable in terms of intellectual property? That line was followed with: "Not great news if you're Cisco, which paid $500 million for Linksys." If it's truly wrong to break the GPL license and thus the law, then does it matter how much they paid? He's appealing to our sense of waste to justify a possible crime... "In some ways, these Free Software Foundation "enforcement actions" can be more dangerous than a typical copyright spat, because usually copyright holders seek money--say, royalties on the product that infringing companies are selling. But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners" Um... burn your house down... meaning that is the primary goal and sharing is FSF and their zealot followers will settle for. Sharing is of course the primary goal. At the very least??? Come on now. The final straw, ending the article with: "Such a pity, comrade." Coming from a capitalist magazine, I think I expect that. But even still, I'm disappointed. Negative associations with communism were produced by the American propaganda machine after World War II (think, for example, McCarthism, how it was possible for it to take hold and it's after effects). Yet, communism has only taken hold in countries where life in the past had been pretty shitty. Russia overthrew royalty a.k.a. a corrupt dictatorship, and China was sick of the West pushing it around, selling it drugs, and supporting it's corrupt Nationalist party. The fact that such poor writing could make it into the mainstream press and prey on even poorer biases is disheartening. Maybe it's time to move to Canada or something.

My Feedback by Outland+Traveller · 2003-10-14 02:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

The sour slant of this article and its sympathy towards intellectual property theft does great harm to the integrity of Forbes Magazine.

The GPL license is very clear and up-front in its terms and conditions, and is far more permissive than traditional copyright licenses. However it does state clearly that if you do not abide by the limited restrictions it does enforce, you cannot distribute the covered work.

This article, in the face of all reason, appears to suggest that readers should feel sympathy for companies who break copyright law by distributing copyrighted works without ahering to the terms of the copyright license.

Furthermore, the article goes on to lambast the Free Software Foundation, a non-profit watchdog group, for attempting to enforce its own copyrights.

The author ludicrously justifies his hostility towards the FSF by stating that the FSF is more "dangerous" than other businesses holding copyrights, because it is insists that violators of its copyright stop distributing its covered works.

The FSF is also derided for apparantly having a limited budget, as if its limited funds are somehow justification for others to violate its copyrights.

The FSF are referred to using terms associated with communist propaganda, which add nothing to the intellectual quality of the article.

The language the article uses appears to make the FSF appear suspicious and nefarious for attempting to come to an amicable resolution with other companies before seeking legal protection.

Finally, the article ends with the authors opinion that it is a "pity" that companies will settle with the FSF when they are caught distributing covered works without a license, instead of going to court.

If this is the kind of article one can expect to find in Forbes these days, I don't know how much longer I will be a reader.

Re:My Feedback by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:05 · Score: 0

The author ludicrously justifies his hostility towards the FSF by stating that the FSF is more "dangerous" than other businesses holding copyrights, because it is insists that violators of its copyright stop distributing its covered works.

Exactly. This is the same thing as someone pirating MS Office and selling the resulting copies. Would the author of this article complain when MS gets the pirate to shutdown his operation instead of cutting a deal with him for licensing revenue?

Making money illegally off FS is bad, m'kay ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:31 · Score: 0

What Forbes editors, as well as many Microsoft/SCO/Canopy execs, do not get, is why would anyone want to enforce the GPL. They don't understand why people would force you to keep something free instead of just ripping it off.

They do not get it. They do not understand that not disclosing the source code of your modified GPL software is damaging the rest of the industry and crippling the very value of this software. Or maybe it is to them that "the rest of the industry" only amounts to paying customers and does not have any right to an opinion. That would explain why they see the FSF as such a dark entity, to the point they equate them to hired killers. Damn FSF dares stop'em from ripping off the rest of the industry for their own profit !

It's all true!...sort of by drinkypoo · 2003-10-14 02:31 · Score: 1

For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free" programs, has been making threats to Cisco Systems (nasdaq: CSCO - news - people ) and Broadcom

Well, this is half true. It hasn't been in secret. If you're the kind of person who cares about these things, then you know about them - I certainly do.

Under the license, if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any "derivative works" you've created--even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product.

Not great news if you're Cisco, which paid $500 million for Linksys.

I think that a line from a certain Outkast song has relevance here: Know what you're sellin', what you bought. Cisco should have done their homework, discovered that these products opened them to liability, and then adjusted their purchase price to suit. In fact, they have likely already done this.

The dispute, which was leaked to an Internet message board, offers a rare peek into the dark side of the free software movement

Leaked to an internet message board? Last I checked, it was openly posted on a number of mailing lists.

Is Forbes upset because the FSF didn't take out a full-page ad in their rag about how Linksys flagrantly violated the GPL?

In some ways, these Free Software Foundation "enforcement actions" can be more dangerous than a typical copyright spat, because usually copyright holders seek money--say, royalties on the product that infringing companies are selling. But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.

Yep. And if people don't like it, they can simply not use GPL-licensed code, which mandates the above. If they want to use code and not give anything back, well, they have two options; Find something licensed under the BSD license or similar, or write it their damn selves like they all had to before linux came along. If you want the shortcut, you have to pay for it. You can pay money for vxWorks, or you can use Linux but pay your contributions for it.

Or maybe, as some suggest, the foundation wants GPL-covered code to creep into commercial products so it can use GPL to force open those products. Kuhn says that's nuts--"pure propaganda rhetoric."

I personally have no problem believing it. Do you really think that no one important at the FSF cackles with glee when it is found that yet another software company has been too lame to comprehend the GPL? Every time the GPL forces someone to open their source, the GPL gets a little stronger because precedent is as significant as anything else in this world, sometimes more.

So far, none of the Free Software Foundation's targets have decided it is bad for the world and gone to court. This despite the fact that the foundation has $750,000 in the bank and one lawyer who works for free, part time, when he's not teaching classes at Columbia University

So the FSF is bad because it has two lawyers, one who works pro bono because he actually believes in a cause? I'd say that assorted companies are much more evil because they are employing more lawyers than should be necessary. After all, why do you need so many lawyers if the facts are on your side? You should only need a super shitload of lawyers to analyze legal documents, or pull a lot of trickery.

Of course we all knew that this was FUD. But it's pretty pathetic FUD.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Linux's Hit Men by dominator · 2003-10-14 02:31 · Score: 1

Don't be afraid to talk-back. I did.

http://www.expressresponse.com/cgi-bin/forbes/di sp layArticleWebForm.cgi

----

As a writer of Free Software and a party to one of these legal actions, I prefer to think of the FSF more of a lobbyist group rather than hit men. This organization serves to protect my interests and copyrights where I have very limited resources to do so myself. They're standing up for the little guys. As such, it would be more accurate and appropriate to compare them with organizations like the ACLU rather than gangsters.

The FSF does not bait companies to incorporate GPL code into their own. Companies do so of their own free will and accord, and do so in spite of the well-known and well-understood GPL license. By doing so, companies like Linksys have violated the author's copyright. They have no more license to steal his/her works in violation of copyright than I do to steal "Ja Rule" songs on Kazaa. And at 400,000 units sold this quarter alone, they stand to benefit far more so from their copyright infringement than I do from downloading music. Consider that at $129 per unit, Linksys has made $51,600,000 more dollars from this code than the author him/herself has.

What's worse still is that, oftentimes, writers of GPL software are willing to re-license their code under a commercial license if provided with the correct incentive.

Messy litigations like this are always avoidable, as corporations always have at least three alternatives:

1. Don't violate another person's copyright; don't be lazy, write your own code
2. Negotiate some sort of commercial license with the author
3. Respect the author's license and release your derived work under the GPL as well

Companies like Linksys have broken the law by violating the author's copyright. As such, they deserve to be punished. No-one deserves to benefit from their own criminal acts. The FSF are our sheriffs. And I, for one, appreciate the job they do patrolling our corner of the 'net.

Re:Linux's Hit Men by martyros · 2003-10-14 06:59 · Score: 1

And I, for one, appreciate the job they do patrolling our corner of the 'net.

And I, for one, welcome our new FSF overlords!
(Sorry... good post, but I couldn't resist.)

--
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

My Comment by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:32 · Score: 0

Here is what i sent to Forbes via the comment thingie:

Perhaps Mr. Lyons should reign in his tongue and spend a bit more time evaluating the situation.

Any company utilizing linux, and building off of it, is using the development of a broad number of contributors from the open source community. By not releasing their additions to this basis, they are essentially co-opting the work of many developers. I have no love of the FSF, and as a software developer myself I can only chuckle at the stupidity of their "all software should be free" ideals, but please do not associate the broader open source community with these ideals, nor the legitimate claims of the contributors to linux over the years who do not feel that linksys has the right to sell what they have created.

There is still plenty of room to build proprietary software on top of an open source operating system; enough to validate the benefits of a reliable, transparent, consistent and stable operating system. Perhaps Mr. Lyons would benefit from investigating why the thrust of industry has been moving towards an open standard, one that is not at the mercy and whim of an unpredictable company, rather than submerging himself in vapid PR statements.

Forbes = corporate shills by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:32 · Score: 0

Forbes is hardly an independent, unbiased source of information no matter how well they've ingratiated themselves with day traders and SE groupies. They are owned by AOL Time-Warner, who have recently become buddy-buddy with Microsoft, settling lawsuits, killing AOL Linux distros and cooking up DRM plans for the future.

The Forbes 500 and 100 and Top X lists are not accurate assessments of wealth and holdings. They at times consider the maximum value of stock holdings over the assesment period as liquid funds, and at other times consider the lowest value over the period. At times they incorporate real estate holdings to deduce total worth, at times they don't. At times they consider off shore holdings, at times they don't. And what's more, the Forbeses have sizable fortunes of their own that can be shifted at the drop of a hat to bump listings up or down.

The lists are bogus, manipulated statistics. Why? Forbes has clients in a nontraditional sense. They barter in prestige. Support in Forbes magazine, by way of recommendation or listing, is as good for these people as a commercial during the super bowl is for beer companies. It can be used to bolster a sagging image, counter bad publicity and stop slow leaks.

Linux may have hit men, but Linux has no prestige merchants. There is no reason for Forbes to support Linux. In fact, considering their clientele, there is no reason for Forbes not to attack Linux. It is a clear and present threat to the status quo, and the status quo is how Forbes' bacon gets brought home.

PHBs are very confused by Jason+Hildebrand · 2003-10-14 02:33 · Score: 1

Why is it the Free software community is seen as showing its "dark side" simply when they defend their own intellectual property? Any commercial entity does exactly the same thing.

Contributors to the Linux kernel have chosen to license their work under the GPL, and that lays down the terms for usage of Linux. If Cisco doesn't want to use the software under these terms, they are obligated to switch to a different OS.

The enforcement of the GPL is not backhanded and should not be unexpected; the FSF is simply ensuring that technology based on GPL code is contributed back to the community. This is the primary goal of the FSF, after all, which they've never tried to hide: to foster development of public software and ensure that it remains public.

Ah, how are you Comrade Linus? by gsurbey · 2003-10-14 02:34 · Score: 1

hahaha rofl "Such a pity, comrade." Forbes wrongly thinks that Linux is anti capitalism. The fact is that communism is an extreme of socialism and Linux is more like socialism. The laws of natural selection favor neither extreme of laissez-fair nor socialism but rather a balance. This is the same reason the cells in your body are communist until you get cancer. With everything you must have a balance and GNU/Linux is a nice balance of capitalism and socialism with companies like RedHat, SuSE, Lindows on one hand, and organizations like kernel.org, GNU, FSF, etc. on the other.

Free software is good for innovation by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:34 · Score: 0

Many free software proponents think that free software is good for innovation. And Linksys shows that yes, it is good for innovation. But by using free software to accelerate your innovation rate, you have to share your results with everyone.

Obviously, many companies are ready to take the benefits, but not to share back. But if your product includes free software, you have to comply with the license, and share back.

What will happen is that smart companies will use free software, share back and innovate quickly. During this time, "closed company" not wanting to share, are not be allowed to use the benefits of free software, and will become obsolete.

This just plain bugs me. by nikal · 2003-10-14 02:35 · Score: 1

The FSF gets hit from every side, first it's complaints that we don't respect people's copyright.

Yeah right. The GPL, as has been said many times, is _built_ around copyrights, period.

Then they turn around and bash us for trying to hold fight for our copyrights. Linksys sells 400,000 units of a product based off of the work on developers around the world. And all those developers have asked for, is that they can see the source code of the derivative work.

The author complains that the GPL doesn't care if competitors can "clone" your product. Well, if the product is based off of Free Software, then they can clone it _anyways_ because the Linux kernel source code is freely available. That's the point. Hopefully then, the company with the best product and product support will win the most marketshare.

The Free Software Community needs to stick up for itself, and I'm glad to hear that it is.

--
kojent

Why not release under BSD license? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:37 · Score: 0

"Just out of curiosity, why don't more people release their code under the BSD license?"

Because of all the bother involved with digging a 6-foot grave and properly burying it.

What is the point of using the GPL for... by c1ay · 2003-10-14 02:38 · Score: 1

your software if it's not enforcable? Who cares about Forbes negative light? BTW, I can see from the list of features in SCO's OpenServer that it includes Samba but I couldn't find the source code to download. Does anyone know where the source code is for Openserver?

--

Socialism is also extreme. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:39 · Score: 0

"The fact is that communism is an extreme of socialism and Linux is more like socialism."

Socialism is as extreme as communism: Marx himself used the two phrases interchangably. Check to see what the 2nd "S" in "USSR" stood for.

Here's the letter I wrote -- see if they print it by tizzyD · 2003-10-14 02:41 · Score: 1

I was disappointed in your recent article regarding the FSF's enforcement of the GPL and Linksys' router code. Mr. Lyons portrays the enforcement of the GPL as at most intellectual property theft or at least providing competitors with your assets. However, it is Linksys and Cisco that have taken goods and not paid for them, something I believe that even Mr. Lyons would agree is not acceptable.

Regardless of your political views on Richard Stallman, one of the foundations of the GPL he pioneered is that if you benefit from its licensed code, you contribute to it. Over time, all who use it gain the benefits. Those are the terms of GPL code's use. Linksys, and thereby Cisco, have benefited from the contributions of others, including possible competitors. They chose to use GPL'd code over some proprietary code as it directly provided business value to their offering.

Since there has been a direct value to Linksys by using the GPL'd code, it seems only fair that they pay for their use through their contribution that the GPL requires. This contribution is no different than a payment another business might ask for from a vendor that uses its products. Both items have value, and they have a price. In one circumstance, you must contribute code back to the community. In the other, you must contribute money. Both have value, and both are payments. To not understand this rationale is to not understand the basic exchange of a free market.

In my opinion, the GPL is not the appropriate license at all times. I would not recommend its use for something that you consider your strategic competitive advantage. However, if you want the benefits it can provide, and you are willing to meet its contribution requirements, it can be a considerable asset to your IT approach. Linksys made that decision.

I see no legitimate basis for Cisco's continued resistance. They have received value; hence, they must provide payment through their contribution. To receive goods and not pay for them in any other business arrangement would be considered theft.

I applaud the FSF for pursuing proper payment for use of GPL'd code, and I hope that organizations can get past the author's childish "comrade" swipes and demagoguery to see that in many cases, GPL'd code can make a valuable addition to your overall IT strategy where appropriate.

--
...tizzyd

You mispelled license once. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:41 · Score: 0

"you misspelled "licence"... twice"

and you mispelled "license" once.

The cost of rolling your own OS by argoff · 2003-10-14 02:42 · Score: 1

I would also like to point out that what the FSF is asking is pittance compaired to the cost of rolling your own opperating system. Some companies have spent over a billion dollars and still cant get it right.

You don't see the FSF throwing arround billion dollar law suits, and milking companies dry. In fact, I would like to know of one company on this planet whose financials have been impacted by FSF lawsuits. Funny, I've seen no companies step up to the plate.

daniel lyons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:43 · Score: 0

http://www.ionicorp.com/web/content/WatchList/Edit orialistTechnocism.pdf

There is no theft involved. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:43 · Score: 0

" The sour slant of this article and its sympathy towards intellectual property theft "

Copyright infringement is a different crime from theft. Duplication does not meet the definition of theft.

Software source allows cheap knock off hardware! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:44 · Score: 0

"Under the license, if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any "derivative works" you've created--even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product."

Of course! All I need is the source code to nvidia's graphics drivers and I can make my own hardware that replaces their card!

my comment/reply, as submitted to Forbes: by deander2 · 2003-10-14 02:45 · Score: 0, Redundant

It appears that Daniel Lyons misunderstands the GPL in his recent article "Linux's Hit Men". Linksys agreed to distribute their code changes to the core (kernel) of Linux when they decided to use Linux for their embedded OS. And they realized a substantial R&D cost savings as a result, helping to reach that $129 cost point. It hardly seems fair to characterize working with Linksys, asking them to uphold their end of the bargain, as acting like "Hit Men". We need to protect multinational corporations from a group of poorly funded, non-profit geeks when (Cisco) breaks international copyright law? Sorry comrade, your comments don't hold water.

--
http://kered.org

I think it's a fair article by semanticgap · 2003-10-14 02:45 · Score: 1

It highlights the big problem with people using GNU software in proprietary closed-source projects without realizing the implications.

I find it very hard to believe that Cisco didn't know that Linksys used Linux-based software at the time of purchase, in fact I'd bet it was a subject of hot debate inside the company, but then the business folks had their last say, and now there are probably cisco techs sending "I told you so" e-mails to their bosses.

But the lesson is - if you're going proprietary, stick to BSD licensed stuff, and never ignore what the license says.

--
grisha.org

The house is yours by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:46 · Score: 0

"The problem with this argument is that the house isn't yours to burn down, or at the least was built with building materials that you did not have permision to use!"

Does not apply, since this "house" is built with your own copies of the building materials.

Re:The house is yours by femto · 2003-10-14 02:58 · Score: 1

In a moral sense I agree with you. Unfortunately for Free Software campaigners (and Cisco), in a legal sense the house is 'owned', and the winner of Cisco/Linksys vs. the FSF will be decided by the law, not morals.

Relevant parts were released... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:46 · Score: 0

1. Parts of software on this machine are BSD licenced and as such, do not require source code to be redistributed.

2. Most of it was released:

http://www.linksys.com/support/gpl.asp

3. There was one battle leftover, a missing module . I believe they've released it as a compiled module.

the story so far... by jspectre · 2003-10-14 02:46 · Score: 2, Informative

cliffnotes version:

broadcom made the chips..

linksys used the chipset in their product. they also used linux as the OS in the product. they wrote drivers for the broadcom chips and patched them into the linux kernel. actually linksys didn't necessarily write the code themselves, they could have contracted it out to consultants, india, broadcom, mars, atlantis.

for months people have been hounding linksys to release the source code for using the broadcom chips (which would greatly enhance open source support for these chips). linksys has been stalling.

cisco recently bought linksys, so they inherited the whole fiasco.

cisco's responsibility now is to provide the source code or write new firmware from scratch, patch every one of the offending products out there and still provide source code for the previous versions of firmware (just because you fixed the problem doesn't mean it didn't exist).

--

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Re:the story so far... by neden · 2003-10-14 07:08 · Score: 1

Broadcom isn't exactly the most open company. At one company I worked for, we were using some Broadcom chips and the datasheets we got from them (as PDF) had a watermark on each and every page that said "Confidential for {Name of Company I worked for}", as well as a password for each file (a different password for each file, no less).

Not that they are entirely alone. We also had hard copy of Intel datasheets for some Ethernet chips that had bright yellow covers that detailed who they had been given to, and what to do if you 'found' them (ie return them to Intel), etc. They also had the ominous warning of "DO NOT REPRODUCE". A fellow I worked with was working on the driver for one of these Intel devices, and was about to be married. I did jokingly ask him if his fiancee knew that he was under strict orders from Intel not to have children. :-)

K.
Re:the story so far... by Haeleth · 2003-10-14 07:44 · Score: 1

> (just because you fixed the problem doesn't mean it didn't exist).

Unfortunately this is precisely the line SCO is taking against SGI right now. Maybe we in the free software community should demonstrate a better ability to compromise, lest they be able to point to our actions to support their lawsuits against us.
Re:the story so far... by jspectre · 2003-10-14 11:08 · Score: 1

please. heh. i don't think anything could stop sco from their rampage. jesus, satan and the man-in-the-moon could all show up at sco's offices begging for sco to stop what their doing and daryl mcb and crew would keep on sueing along i think.

--
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Free as in beer? by Theatetus · 2003-10-14 02:47 · Score: 1

When you use GPL'd software you are getting that software for free (as in beer)

Maybe some GPL'd software is beerfree, but we pay quite a bit for a lot of the GPL software we use (good custom-developed code can cost a good deal of money). The caveat is that if we distribute the binaries we have to distribute the source. We don't distribute the binaries, so we don't distribute the source. Why would we let our competitors get it for free when we paid for it?

Part of the problem is a lot of the "how can people make money giving away code for free" whiners don't seem to realize how much GPL'ed software never ends up on sourceforge or freshmeat; I'd be willing to bet a significant percentage is like the software we used: custom developed, distributed from one development team to one paying end user site, and never again redistributed.

--
All's true that is mistrusted

Re:Free as in beer? by gammoth · 2003-10-14 08:22 · Score: 1

If you do not distribute the software, then you haven't licensed it! You are not under the GPL, you haven't broken the GPL, and you are perfectly within your rights.

This is valid use of Free software. The authors of the GPL and the authors of GPL'd software recognize that this use of GPL'd software is likely to occur, although they do encourage sharing modifications.

um... by paulerdos · 2003-10-14 02:48 · Score: 1

"The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this."

what the hell is that supposed to mean? don't read anything that portrays something in a negative light which i believe should be portrayed in a positive light, i.e. don't read anything that disagrees with my opinions?

lost me in the introduction by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:49 · Score: 0

For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free" programs, has been making threats...

Hmm, so now Linux has a liscensing process? And it's controlled by the FSF? It doesn't look like the author of this article has spent enough quality time with the clue monkey. Makes me wonder yet again about how much misinformation I've absorbed by trusting the media.

Is George Bush really the president? :-)

Controlling the license by sterno · 2003-10-14 02:49 · Score: 1

As far as controlling the license, they obviously wrote the GPL, and they also encourage people to assign copyrights for GPL software to them. This allows them to have standing in court to fight a legal battle over the code and it insures that your code will strictly be released under the GPL.

As far as the article goes I think this is the standard tendancy by for-profit news providers to post news that's dramatic. I do seriously object to the tone of the article that seems to suggest companies like Cisco are the victim here. They paid NOTHING for this software, and the only limitation is that they share alike. If they didn't want to conform to those rules they should have paid somebody for some other embedded OS.

--
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service

Re:Controlling the license by Gleef · 2003-10-14 04:02 · Score: 1

Sterno wrote:

I do seriously object to the tone of the article that seems to suggest companies like Cisco are the victim here.

In many ways Cisco *is* a victim here. They didn't design the router, and I'm reasonably sure that Cisco's development proceedures would have prevented such a gaffe from happening. Someone at Linksys and/or Broadcom made some very bad decisions, and Cisco inherited the resulting problem along with the merger.

They paid NOTHING for this software

Actually, they paid a fair amount ($500 million from what I understand) for a company with a range of hardware products containing embedded software, so yes, they did pay for this software, and they paid for it with the understanding that it wasn't in violation of any licenses.

I completely object to the Forbes' article's tone that the FSF are doing evil things to companies, and the implication that someone with deep pockets should sue them to take them out. The article had many factual inaccuracies on top of a vile tone.

On the other hand the subject matter of the article contains a cautionary tale that really does need to be told to the Forbes readers: when buying the copyrights of software that other people developed, it is critical to carefully review the development materials for possible license violations, of both proprietary and Free licenses. Otherwise you can end up in all sorts of legal hot water. I just wish they told that story better.

--

----
Open mind, insert foot.
Re:Controlling the license by M-G · 2003-10-14 04:15 · Score: 2, Informative

In many ways Cisco *is* a victim here.

Hardly. Before you drop $500 million on a company, you're going to perform due diligence. Which means one or more of the following happened:

* Cisco did a poor job of due diligence

* Cisco knew of the brewing problem, but considered the potential liability to be worth the risk

* Linksys intentionally misled Cisco when it came to their software. This is the only scenario in which Cisco might be considered a victim, but also goes back to Cisco doing a poor job.
Re:Controlling the license by Ohreally_factor · 2003-10-14 04:56 · Score: 1

>Actually, they paid a fair amount ($500 million from what I understand) for a company with a range of hardware products containing embedded software, so yes, they did pay for this software, and they paid for it with the understanding that it wasn't in violation of any licenses.

Linksys didn't OWN the software. Thus not one penny of Cisco's money went to paying for the software. And I don't believe that Linksys lied to them about using embedded linux. It was common knowledge.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Controlling the license by vsprintf · 2003-10-14 05:35 · Score: 1

In many ways Cisco *is* a victim here. They didn't design the router, and I'm reasonably sure that Cisco's development proceedures would have prevented such a gaffe from happening.

Heh. If Cisco had followed their usual development procedures, they would have offshored the work, had it stolen, and the router would now be mass-produced by the Chinese. :)
Re:Controlling the license by WNight · 2003-10-14 06:13 · Score: 1

They actually only encourage (require?) people to assign copyrights to them for certain projects like possibly GCC, to become part of the main distribution. They don't care what you do with your own GPLed software. If you don't want to talk to the FSF they probably don't want to talk to you either.
Re:Controlling the license by WNight · 2003-10-14 06:19 · Score: 1

We'd feel sorry for Cisco if they had paid for software and found out it was compiled against an unlicensed library by ARM, or something else that put them in this position with "Traditional" software licensing, but it wouldn't excuse them from the responsibility of making it right. Why would that change with it being GPLed software?

The only reason this frightens PHBs is that they're devious little fucks by nature. It's the point of business school. They're always looking to exploit something and here they're finding that while the GPL looks like a soft and easy target because the open source community isn't doing businessy things (You know, screwing employees out of their retirement, stock manipulation scams, etc) that there are consequences to using the software and ignoring the license.

Everyone else had planned on honoring the GPL all along so they aren't crying foul when it comes due.
Re:Controlling the license by Gleef · 2003-10-14 08:33 · Score: 1

ohreally factor wrote:

Linksys didn't OWN the software. Thus not one penny of Cisco's money went to paying for the software. And I don't believe that Linksys lied to them about using embedded linux. It was common knowledge.

Linksys owned the copyright to every line of software they wrote, under the GPL, or whatever other license, assuming they didn't assign the copyright to someone else. This was one of the assets that Cisco was paying for in the merger.

What Linksys was originally claiming was in the router was a stock Linux kernel, with some publically available patches and, with binary loadable modules that fit under the Linus Torvalds (in)famous interpretation of the GPL with regards to binary modules, that it's not a derived work as long as it uses the standard ABIs.

What Linksys was actually shipping included proprietary loadable modules that didn't use the standard ABIs, proprietary modules that were directly linked into the kernel, and undisclosed patches to the kernel. As far as I know, the extent of this mess was not common knowledge at the time of the merger (March/April 2003).

--

----
Open mind, insert foot.
Re:Controlling the license by Ohreally_factor · 2003-10-14 18:55 · Score: 1

Fair enough. But didn't anyone outside of Linksys think to compile the code and load it onto a router before March/April 2003?

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Controlling the license by Gleef · 2003-10-14 23:41 · Score: 1

Ohreally_factor suggests:
didn't anyone outside of Linksys think to compile the code and load it onto a router before March/April 2003?

Cisco should have thought to (hence responsibility, but not blame). However, most people look at embedded systems like this router and either:
A) Forget that software is involved; or
B) Realize that they don't have the hardware (or time) to spare for such experiments; and
C) Have little to no reason to bother.

Cisco:
A) Knows better; and
B) Did have the hardware and time to spare; and
C) I feel had fiscal and legal obligations to do things like this as part of the Due Dilligence process.

--

----
Open mind, insert foot.
Re:Controlling the license by Gleef · 2003-10-14 23:57 · Score: 1

WNight wrote:

We'd feel sorry for Cisco if they had paid for software and found out it was compiled against an unlicensed library by ARM,

Actually, one thing I've heard claimed is that the software in question was compiled using an unavailable patched version of GCC by Broadcom.

or something else that put them in this position with "Traditional" software licensing, but it wouldn't excuse them from the responsibility of making it right. Why would that change with it being GPLed software?

The only reason this frightens PHBs is that they're devious little fucks by nature. It's the point of business school. They're always looking to exploit something and here they're finding that while the GPL looks like a soft and easy target because the open source community isn't doing businessy things (You know, screwing employees out of their retirement, stock manipulation scams, etc) that there are consequences to using the software and ignoring the license.

Yes, I suspect that's a big part of it. There have always been two kinds of businessmen in my view:
A) Those who strive to produce (or obtain, if they're retailers) as good a product as possible, as efficiently as possible, and sell it for a fair price to as many people as possible, so they can employ people well and make a fistful of money for themselves.
B) Those who have some products which they sell, which they don't fully care about; muddle through the process of business hoping nobody realizes they really don't know what they're doing, and jumping on any opportunity they find to exploit something and make a quick buck before they move on somewhere else (they often keep moving, if they spend too long in one place people might realize they didn't really offer much).

Sadly, I see B vastly outnumbering A, particularly in big business. B people would be very threatened by FLOSS, partially because it removes opportunities for exploitation, partially because the meritocracy behind FLOSS can point them out for the frauds they are. Only an unimaginative A person is seriously threatened by FLOSS.

--

----
Open mind, insert foot.

How is this different . . . by fajoli · 2003-10-14 02:49 · Score: 1

to what the BSA has been doing? I mean other than the random audits of innocent businesses and the demands for payment of penalties and purchase of software licenses?

One would think the FSF has the same right to enforce copyrights and licenses that the BSA has.

Re:How is this different . . . by jjohnson · 2003-10-14 03:11 · Score: 1

The FSF doesn't rely on federal marshals and no-knock warrants. It also doesn't offer a tips line for disgruntled employees to screw their employer with an accusation. Instead of showing up and blustering about huge "fines", the FSF (according to the article) works to resolve the differences amicably.

Also, they don't eat children.

--
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.

"Free" Software is a Misnomer by Esion+Modnar · 2003-10-14 02:49 · Score: 1

...when it comes to derivative works of GPL software. You get to use the software in your projects under certain licensing terms.

A rough statement of part of the GPL might be "I'm giving you the use of this software for free (of any monetary license fees), but with the provision that you must make any derived works available under the same GPL license."

I suppose this means you can still sell routers with your code, but the code itself has to be freely available. Now if a company has a problem with that, then they should not be using GPL'd software. Unless software is public domain, it's not completely "free."

If I provide my software to you, and it's not public domain (that's why I call it "mine"), then I will do so under certain licensing terms. My terms if GPL, will say, no license fee, but if I'm going to share it with you, then you have to "share and share alike." No exceptions.

Oh, and that "comrade" bullshit at the end... I'm thinking some hateful shit about the author, but I'm trying to be better than that.

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...

Re:"Free" Software is a Misnomer by peeping_Thomist · 2003-10-14 03:19 · Score: 1

"I'm giving you the use of this software for free (of any monetary license fees), but with the provision that you must make any derived works available under the same GPL license."
That's true only if you want to distribute those derived works. If you keep the derived works to yourself, you don't have to distribute the code.

--
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
Re:"Free" Software is a Misnomer by Minna+Kirai · 2003-10-14 04:53 · Score: 1

Unless software is public domain, it's not completely "free."

In the captialistic nations of the developed world, the most common, legally binding definition of "free" is "zero dollars".

Many companies (Microsoft, Real, Apple, Google, Adobe, etc) offer "free" programs on their websites, where "free" is plainly understood to mean "Don't bother reaching for your credit card". Yet they're not public domain, and it would be illegal to redistribute them. (Simple redistribution is unlikely to bother the companies enough to do anything, but passing around a modified version would rapidly get you sued. See "Kazaa Lite")

The term "public domain" means, obviously, "owned by the public". That is not equivalent to "free".
Re:"Free" Software is a Misnomer by demon · 2003-10-15 14:32 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure he means "free" as in both meanings - free as in beer, and as in speech. And yes, then public domain code is the "free-est". It costs you nothing, and you can take it and do ANYTHING you want with it - make your own operating system, make a product for sale, whatever. You don't have to abide by any license terms, because once it's in the public domain, it belongs to everyone, basically.

Remember that "free" has multiple meanings, and that a person can use it to mean more than one of those at a time.

--

Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"

Re: Why shouldn't Cisco use GPL Software by slashnik · 2003-10-14 02:49 · Score: 1

I can see no reason that cisco use GPL software as long as they comply with the licence.

I seem to remember about a year ago a small stink being kicked up about the use of GPL software in their 6500 series Network Analysis Module.

Since the stink there have been references to the following licenses on their website under the NAM and IDS modules

Apache, BSD, expat, GPL, LGPL, JDOM, STLPort

Also the notes for the NAM documents the following

GNU General Public License
The Catalyst 6500 Network Analysis Module contains software covered under the GNU Public License (listed below). If you would like to obtain the source for the modified GPL code in the Network Analysis Module, please send a request to nam_sw_req@Cisco.com.

I think that something similar for the Linksys stuff would be very nice, their probobly working on it internally right now.

slashnik

Then don't use it. by greygent · 2003-10-14 02:51 · Score: 1

I'm hardly one of the Slashdot Linux drones, but:

But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it [GPL'd code and derivatives] with cloners.

Then don't fucking use GPL'd code. This couldn't get any more simpler. Why is it that people constantly bitch about this? If the author didn't want to write code under the GPL, he wouldn't have done so.

If you're going to stand on the shoulders of someone else, and use their code, respect their license. It's not "your" house, you just added a picket fence around it, and maybe a room or two.

Tracking down bad guys has become such a big [lucrative?] operation that the Free Software Foundation has created a so-called Compliance Lab to snoop out violators and bust them.

So? It's perfectly within their rights. Many companies have similar mechanisms.

This all seems simple to me. Cisco buys chips with the offending code from Broadcom. Go after Broadcom. And then shut the fuck up about the GPL, you're perfectly free not to use it.

Not a misnomer: free means free. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:52 · Score: 0

If you don't have to pay for it, it is free. Even if there are limitations on what you can do with it, it is still free if you paid nothing. As long as it is free, calling it free is not a misnomer.

If you pick up your big wheel of free government cheese, and the FDA guy tells you that you are prohibited with clubbing the mailman over the head with it, it is still mmmmmm..... free cheese.

Re:Not a misnomer: free means free. by merdark · 2003-10-14 04:30 · Score: 1

But you *are* paying for GPL software. Even if you just *use* it in a commercial setting, you still have to provide a mirror of the code.
If you derived a new work from it, then you much give out the derived work under the GPL as well.

These two acts are most definatly a form of payment. They simply don't take the form of money. Free is definately a misnomer, except maybe for people who use GPL software for personal or academic use. But then, it's only similar to freeware, becasue derived works still require payment in new source code.
Re:Not a misnomer: free means free. by Minna+Kirai · 2003-10-14 04:47 · Score: 1

Even if you just *use* it in a commercial setting, you still have to provide a mirror of the code.

That is untrue. Where can you get such an idea?

There's a lot of common misconceptions about the GPL, but that's not even one of them! (I can't even find a mention of this concept in the FSF faq, because it's so outlandish)

I can name more than 60 companies which use GPL software in commercial settings without providing a mirror of the code (Microsoft, for example, has used GPL programs, but I'm quite sure they don't have them for download!)

I just wish that everyone who wanted to spout a "fact" about the GPL consider reading it first. Just once, please? It's not all that complicated!
Re:Not a misnomer: free means free. by merdark · 2003-10-14 06:12 · Score: 1

Taken directly from the GPL. Granted part b) allows for recouperation of most of the costs I suppose. But none the less, you are required to provide a copy of the source code. Note that part c) is only far non-commerical people.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

* b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

* c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Re:Not a misnomer: free means free. by Minna+Kirai · 2003-10-14 06:37 · Score: 1

Ok, so you demonstrated an abliity to get the GPL on your screen. That's a good first step!

Now work on reading it sometime, and maybe you can tell me where it states "Any corporation (but not individuals or non-profits) using GPL software must mirror it".

I'll give you a hint: The word "use", which you so delightfully *highlighted* in your untrue post, is nowhere present in the section you just pasted. It has the words "copy" and "distribute", but those are not "use". If you can't tell the difference... you've got serious problems.

The software is *free* because to *use* it, you don't have to pay any money. Just like if Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) XP was *free*, you could obtain it without paying anything. But once you get it, you have no more right to pass out copies than if you'd paid $299.
Re:Not a misnomer: free means free. by Minna+Kirai · 2003-10-14 06:56 · Score: 1
To further clarify, in case you genuinely don't get it and aren't just trying to mislead, here is the most concise explanation in the license, from section 0:
- Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
- covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
  running the Program is not restricted
That is, a corporation may run and *use* a GPL program without distributing any copies whatsoever.

By the time you're reading the GPL license, you've already got the program it was included with on your harddrive. There is no further copying required to make use of it, so no licensing is needed.

Prehaps you're coming from the perspective that a corporate IT department will be unwilling to go to each of their PCs and redownload the program from the distributor's website, and would rather make their own copies to hand out to employees. That is not a prerequist for *use*. But if they want to do this, they can spend 2 minutes to attach a text file offering those employees a copy of the source code. In the unlikely event some employee really wants it, they can email him the original download URL. Only if he's unable to acquire it that way must they make a copy for him. And, giving one copy to an employee is not equivalent to "providing a mirror", which implies operating a public website.

(Note additionally that a manager distributing software to his employees is not a commercial transaction, as it is internal to the company, and is not taxable like true "commerce")
Re:Not a misnomer: free means free. by merdark · 2003-10-14 07:57 · Score: 1

Ok Mr. zealot. I don't speak in dictionary terms so deal with it. By *use* I meant to distribute (i.e. use in a product). It's called interpreting words by the context. If *you* actually read the license you'd see that copy and distribute are referring to program binaries here.

This thread is not about corporations using GPL programs in workstations or similar. This thread is about corporations using GPL programs in their products, which the orignal article is suggesting is a dangourous practice. Basically, GPL software is only free for particular uses. A previous poster was stating that a lot of trouble with the GPL stems from the fact that many people think that free means that they can *use* (not modify) the program in whatever way they wish. This includes giving it away as Linksys did with their routers.

The way the GPL community uses the word free is definatly a misnomer. It is not free software, it is GPL software with numerous very specific restrictions.

Letter to Forbes Editors by electroniceric · 2003-10-14 02:53 · Score: 1

To the Editors of Forbes:

I am writing to express my disappointment that Daniel Lyons' vitriolic, disinformational broadside against the General Public License (GPL) was published as an article, when it is in fact an uninformed editorial.

The author's thorough misunderstanding of the Free Software Foundation's efforts to enforce the terms of a license would be part of the normal ebb and flow of chatter on the Web - if they didn't appear in a respectable business publication. Mr. Lyons attempts to portray the efforts of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to enforce the General Public License for Linux first as conspiratorial, and then inexplicably, as communistic. In fact, the FSF is doing what all effective organizations do - defending its legal rights to the products that fall under its purview, and making use of the most basic principle of intellectual property law to do so. The principle is this: if I come up with something new, I own it and control its disposition; if I take the work of someone else and use it, I have to follow the terms they set. Simple. Which leaves a simple choice for someone wishing to extend Linux: use it under the authors' terms or find something else. Would Mr. Lyons, or any Forbes writer object if Motorola took Nokia's chip and used it, unlicensed, in a cellphone? I hope so.

So Mr. Lyons is not in fact, objecting to (much less reporting on) FSF's enforcing a license, he is objecting the license's ends of promoting a creative commons, or perhaps to the FSF's rhetoric. While he is welcome to his opinon (though it seems to me a very narrow view of the many ways one can run a successful company), I would ask him to take another look at the issues he's writing about. More importantly, I would ask Forbes' editorial staff to refrain from publishing as articles unsubstantiated attacks on a project whose rhetoric they may or may not love, but which produces products of demonstrated value to the business world.

Sincerely,

Eric Ellsworth
Software Developer
Washington, DC

he who is convinced against his will.... by Dr.+Network · 2003-10-14 02:53 · Score: 0

"Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this" yup...I summarily reject anything and everything that doesn't go along with my preconceived notions, and pre-existing opinions.

Forbes funny quote by Fastball · 2003-10-14 02:53 · Score: 1

The dispute, which was leaked to an Internet message board, offers a rare peek into the dark side of the free software movement--a view that contrasts with the movement's usual public image of happy software proles linking arms and singing the "Internationale" while freely sharing the fruits of their code-writing labor.

I busted out in laughter at this paragraph which followed a paragraph explaining how Cisco and the FSF were resolving the issue amicably. WTF, Forbes? Here's another way of looking at this: Cisco either didn't do it's homework on this router and now has to pay the consequences, or Cisco did it's homework and thanks to some stand-up folks at the FSF has to pay the consequences. If you're in the technology sector, and you're dealing with software, you ought to know what the GPL is about, period. Not just from a negative standpoint but how it can have a positive impact.

I know this Bradley Kuhn fella. He was a board member of the Cincinnati Linux Users Group. Very energetic, passionate, knowledgeable dude. Some would say a zealot, but he's just the kind of guy you want to give the GPL some "teeth."

I too the liberty of sending this in.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:53 · Score: 0

Dude, you comment was right to the point. I took the liberty of sending it as a comment to the author of the article....anonymously, since I didn't think it up. Hope you don't mind.

Hear no evil? by Rotten168 · 2003-10-14 02:54 · Score: 1

So I guess open source zealots don't like hear viewpoints that disagree with theirs? "Open" my ass! :)

Re:Hear no evil? by o'reor · 2003-10-14 03:46 · Score: 1

Well, "open source zealots" are a bit puzzled at someone obviously defending SCO's right to protect their IP and copyrights on the one hand, and denying those rights to the Free Software community on the other hand. YMMV.
But then again, it's easier to be nice to poor little Cisco than to blame them when they are wrong -- I suppose Forbes likes it when Cisco pays thousands of bucks for commercial advertizing in their paper, don't they ?
Meanwhile, the FSF may be right, but then again, they don't spend a dime in advertizing -- too bad for them. Aaaah, freedom of speech, as long as it brings money home...

--
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.

No one's mentioned SCO yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:54 · Score: 0

I think SCO should take up the banner to defend their IP from theiving bandits like Cisco and Broadcom! Especially Cisco, they have buttloads of cash!

Give it a rest by thelexx · 2003-10-14 02:55 · Score: 1

It's not that black and white. If it were, I should run to the tv every time Anne Coulter opens her maw and starts braying. I have better things to do with my blood pressure than listen to every idiot with an opinion.

--
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999

Re:Give it a rest by Idarubicin · 2003-10-14 03:09 · Score: 1

I have better things to do with my blood pressure than listen to every idiot with an opinion.
Then why on earth are you reading Slashdot?

--
~Idarubicin
Re:Give it a rest by thelexx · 2003-10-14 03:43 · Score: 1

Hehe, good point. Gotta get yer kicks _somewhere_ though!

--
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999

And mine... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:56 · Score: 0

Mr Lyons,

After reading your recent article on the FSF, I came to the conclusion that there is one part in the process of making money through the use of GPL'd software, that you do not understand in the slightest. Hence this comment, in which I'll try my hardest to explain it. You are not the first to fail to understand why would anyone force some software to remain free for everyone, and unfortunately you are unlikely to be the last.

The process of doing business through the use of free software is to lower the costs to the point that having to release the source code is an acceptable tradeoff. Since you mentioned Linksys in your article, let's keep it as an example: the router, that is at the center of the FSF - Cisco - Broadcom copyright dispute, sold over 400,000 units, because the use of free software made its development tremendously cheap, making the router cheaper than its competitors, for the benefit of their customers. Linksys made a lot more money by lowering costs by use of free software than it supposedly "lost" by releasing the source code. This is the capitalist rationale behind the GPL. No "Internationale" singing in the background.

Not releasing the source code would damage the rest of the industry and depreciate the very value of the software at this stage. Besides, it is a contract clause, much like any more traditional licenses, so the FSF -Cisco - Broadcom issue should only be considered as a contractual dispute.

I hope you now understand the GPL better.

As a side-note I wish you would refrain from equating a not-for-profit organisation such as the FSF to hired killers. This does not help your credibility as a journalist.

Re:And mine... by Featureless · 2003-10-14 03:34 · Score: 1

Very well put! :)

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!

Some in Utah by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 02:57 · Score: 0

At an undisclosed location in Utah

Darl: Ha ha [evil laugh]. Today I terminate the SGI license. Prepare the press release!

Blake: Yesh mashter

David: We got these letters from Novell saying even if we had the right to terminate, which we don't, they are waiving our rights under the asset purchase agreement.

Blake: Ashshet Purchashe Agreement?

Darl: Well we terminated IBM's licenses despite the same thing happening there

David: That's because you didn't tell me about the letters from Novell or the asset purchase agreement.

Darl: And your point is?

Blake: I think he'sh shaying the open shource model is flawed

Ralph: Good point Blakes. Somebody should write a letter to CNET or the New York Times

Chris: or the Register

Blake: or all of them

David: Can we stick to the point. You shouldn't issue a press release like that.

Darl, Chris, Blake, Ralph (in unison): Ok

(Waits for David to leave)

Darl: What's the fax number for PR newswire?

Anti-Linux for Suits... by IA-Outdoors · 2003-10-14 02:58 · Score: 1

For any of you who read Linux Journal, the antithesis of the Linux for Suits section is this Forbes article. Imagine some high level CIO sitting down with a day cramed full of meetings who has only a half hour to read his publications before beginning his day reading that article. All he would get out of it is "Hey, Forbe tells me that FSF and GPL is bad so we better steer clear". This is the real damange this article does.

For us lower-level tech-heads, we can see through this as the FSF simply enforcing the GPL on companies that think they could fly under the radar. This is no different than companies out there who insist on breaking the rules of the proprietary M$ licenses. I mean, seriously, who in IT hasn't see their fair share of a company copying a M$ product to run on an unlicensed server?

--
You never saw a fish on the wall with its mouth shut.

Ralph Nader and Cisco by AtariAmarok · 2003-10-14 02:58 · Score: 0, Troll

Ralph Nader, a big critic of the Microsoft monopoly, is very rich from investments in Cisco, which has much more of a monopoly control in its field ('Net routers) than Microsoft has over the "The Desktop".

Show your displeasure and refuse to vote for Nader. Oops, forgot, he only represents the interest of 1% of the voters already. There has to be some other way to get at this sanctimonions hypocrite. I know, buy yourself a Corvair!

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Submitted my complaint... by guzzloid · 2003-10-14 02:58 · Score: 1

This is what I wrote:

(feel free to use this as a template for your own complaints!)

How many of your readership think it would be morally or legally acceptable for me to take another person's intellectual property without payment or consent and base my product on it? If you break copyright laws, shouldn't you be able to get away with it?

Obviously, this is nonsense. Yet the writer of the "Linux's Hit Men" article is implying that this is exactly what technology companies should be doing!

This is simply a question of licensing. If you base a product on GPL licensed software, the terms of the GPL state that you must also distribute your modified version under the terms of the GPL, thus making it available to the public. You may still sell your product for a profit, and by releasing the source you can benefit from the bug fixes and improvements that may be contributed by the free software community.

If you're not prepared to do this, then you are free to develop your own software, or license software technology elsewhere.

Why should complying with the terms of the GPL be any different from complying from the terms of any other licence?

Of course, the GPL is no different to a commercial software license -- you are free to accept or reject its terms, and these terms are written in plain and simple language in the licence itself. (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.ph p)

The author of this biased and ill-informed article implies that companies should be able to steal the intellectual property of others, merely because that software was available for free! What nonsense!

The Free Software Foundation serves to protect the intellectual property rights of free software developers who do not want to see their hard work stolen, but who may lack the funds and/or time to pursue legal action against infringers. They do a great job at this, and don't deserve to be tarnished with the image of zealous communists that this article portrays.

GPL software gives you a huge head start by providing you with mature, proven software on which to base your product, but you must be willing to give back to the community that developed it.

As opposed to? by koa · 2003-10-14 03:01 · Score: 1

Now he says he is cautious about working with GPL software.

Why would anyone who has a financial interest in a product that uses GPL software, potentially uses GPL software, or any other type NOT be cautious of their actions?

Whenever you bring a commercial product through development whether you are using proprietary OR free software you must calculate the risks of using said software.

No matter what the licensing scheme is, you can't just go whilly nilly and do whatever you want just becuase you feel like it.. (Unless ofcourse your SCO, but thats besides the point...)

--
....move along....nothing to see here....

Indigestion? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:01 · Score: 0

" What's really funny is that forbes itself uses linux internally."

Can't this cause indigestion?

Hypocrisy runs deep by sonofepson · 2003-10-14 03:01 · Score: 1

Well Mr Lyons and Forbes may not like the idea of the GPL, but they sure don't mind using GPLed software to spread their ideas:

www.forbes.com
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:52:09 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.26 (Unix)

--
If Godzilla did not exist, man would have had to create him.

Re:Hypocrisy runs deep by DarkBlack · 2003-10-14 03:50 · Score: 1

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Apache is not licensed under the GNU General Public License. Apache is licensed under the Apache Software License. Also, just because they are running Apache doesn't mean they are using GPL licensed software. I am all for free software, but this is not accurate.
Re:Hypocrisy runs deep by sonofepson · 2003-10-14 05:02 · Score: 1

I stand corrected.

--
If Godzilla did not exist, man would have had to create him.

A letter to forbes by drinkypoo · 2003-10-14 03:02 · Score: 1

I sent this letter hopefully to the editor of the proper department at Forbes, though it will probably end up being sent to Lyons himself, and subsequently rapidly deleted. I have posted it to my livejournal (whee, like anyone reads it) and am now posting it here.

In the article Linux's Hit Men written by Daniel Lyons, you will find nothing but uninformed and misleading statements, punctuated by bits of truth disguised as supposed faults in Free-or-Open-Software. One is thus forced to question the agenda of Mr. Lyons, much as he questions the agenda of the Free Software Foundation.

The FSF is characterized as a shark, swimming quietly through the murky waters of software licensing, surfacing only to strike fear into the very hearts of innocent corporations with the mere sight of its dorsal fin, or perhaps as a mobster shaking companies down on collections day, when in fact neither is true. It is, however, a testament to the strength of the GPL, which so far has been shown to be a brilliantly simple legal document.

The FSF's missives to Linksys (and thus, Cisco) are depicted as a secret threat, but they are anything but. Reports of fact-finding and attempts to bring a violating entity into compliance with a license with which they have already agreed can hardly be seen as malicious. Certainly, were Cisco to distribute software to some group under a given license, and that party did not follow the terms of the license, I would expect an article in Forbes to hold up Cisco as the injured party.

But the fact central to the matter is that the GPL requires that when you make a binary distribution of GPL-licensed software, you make the program's source code readily available to all the recipients of the binary. This fact is hardly hidden, and in fact the GPL requires that the license be included in or alluded to in every file to which it applies, erasing all ambiguity. Linksys could hardly have missed this fact, but simply chose to disregard it. And I think it is clear that in order to get what you pay for, you must know what you are buying, so the blame for the implied devaluation of Cisco's $500M purchase of Linksys can fall only on the shoulders of Cisco. I doubt Cisco's shareholders will thank them for not carrying out due diligence to determine the value of the company which they have just acquired.

I do think however that the third paragraph on NuSphere (which begins "The mySQL versus NuSphere squabble") does an excellent job outlining the real issue. If you violate the terms of the GPL, you should not expect the FSF to stand idly by while you profit from the works of others without respecting their copyright, and in fact, copyright law. If Joseph Alsop is now cautious about working with GPL software, it implies that he was not cautious enough before - particularly in the area of licensing compliance.

And finally, the following paragraph which claims that the FSF "wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners" is pure FUD, or an attempt to sow Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Alleging that the FSF would leave you homeless or require you to let those who would imitate you into it is a plain, simple scare tactic. Put another way, it is no more than a sophomoric attempt to paint the FSF (In actuality, this is about the GPL) as an evil entity, the textual equivalent of the well-known "Alabama Gas Chamber" cartoon which traversed the nation many times before the advent of the internet on fax and photocopy attempting to paint the residents of Alabama as, collectively, redneck buffoons - and it is almost as clever as that sketch as well. Once again, the fact is that GPL software comes with the full text of the Gnu Public License, which is quite clear. Any layman can understand the terms of the license, and any lawyer should be able to comprehend the potential repercussions.

Persons not interested in complying with the GPL always have the choice to write the software themselves. Lyons has the tone of a man who has decided to g

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

I expected to knock the poster over the head... by Salamanders · 2003-10-14 03:02 · Score: 1

After reading the title of this article, I expected to slap the poster upside the head, you ALWAYS want to read articles that put your favorite groups in a bad light, ALWAYS know your enemy, and what your enemy thinks of you!

Then I read the article, and the poster was completely correct... what a load of poorly researched BS.

Fairness is a weak ideal... by almondjoy · 2003-10-14 03:04 · Score: 1

Ivan - I like your impassioned response. Many other posts in this thread are hitting the nail on the head as well.

One comment - you say: "...Now, if a corporation decides to distribute (sell) the modified software, section 3 of the GPL requires them to provide the exact same freedoms that they enjoyed while creating the modified version of the software. I hope you will agree with me that this is perfectly fair."

Pleading about what is and isn't fair just doesn't cut it. If you want to argue business w/the shills at Forbes, then stick to what matters:

...Now, if a corporation decides to distribute (sell) the modified software, section 3 of the GPL requires them to provide the exact same freedoms that they enjoyed while creating the modified version of the software. This is a contractual obligation.

Re:Fairness is a weak ideal... by Ivan+Raikov · 2003-10-14 03:21 · Score: 1

Pleading about what is and isn't fair just doesn't cut it. If you want to argue business w/the shills at Forbes, then stick to what matters:

Well, I suppose I'm operating under the assumption that fairness should be what governs the relations between men in a healthy society. The reason why I wrote this particular sentence was because the author of the article was bemoaning how much the "onerous" GPL is oppressing the helpless corporations. I was trying to show that not only the GPL is not oppressive, but that it is in fact rather fair to all parties involved.

--
Bush Lies Watch
Re:Fairness is a weak ideal... by Tony-A · 2003-10-14 07:27 · Score: 1

bemoaning how much the "onerous" GPL is oppressing the helpless corporations.

On this side we have spare-time, hacker, hobbyist code.
On this side we have MegaCorp with its highly paid Research and Development.
Poor, poor MegaCorp.

Capitalists giving stuff away all the time by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:05 · Score: 0

"Never before in the history of capitalism has a product been produced and given away entirely for free."

You might argue that they don't give enough, but it is true that capitalists, corporations, and robber barons going WAYYY back have given away lots of stuff to charities, poor, etc.

Giveaways are found elsewhere too, such as when commercial networks decide to show certain programming without any advertising at all. It is rare, but it does happen.

Giveaways have always been part of free-market economics, but I would agree that the GPL is a new model of it.

Re:Capitalists giving stuff away all the time by NineNine · 2003-10-14 03:08 · Score: 1

Oh sure... charities and PR is one thing, but this is another. Thousands of anonymous (to anyone outside of their tight knit circle) people attempting to re-create an entire industry (arguably the most important industry in the US right now) for free. It boggles the mind.
Re:Capitalists giving stuff away all the time by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:12 · Score: 0

" Oh sure... charities and PR is one thing, but this is another"

True, but these examples show that there are many exceptions to make your "Never before in the history of capitalism has a product been produced and given away entirely for free" statement inaccurate.

Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:05 · Score: 0

I made the following reply to the Forbes article on their web site:

If Cisco and Broadcom had incorporated any other software than GPL'ed software into theirs, and did not make the required royalty payments, it would be a violation of intellectual property laws. The 'royalty payment' for GPL'ed software is the release of the newly created software for others to use as they see fit, just as Cisco and Broadcom used it as they saw fit.

Cisco and Broadband are doing the equivalent of intellectual property theft, and should be decried as the thieves and hypocrites that they are.

Reverse Psychology by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:05 · Score: 0

I think that was exactly the point.... reverse psychology works.

Settling GPL violations - who wins? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:05 · Score: 0

So, if Broadcom or Cisco decide to settle out of court for a large sum of money, what does this accomplish? The whole point of the litigation is to make the source code available. So a settlement would ensure that the GPL violation is now legal (Cisco gets to keep their code closed), and future violations (new products) easier to make.

Who would receive money? Especially since there are literally thousands of kernel contributers who have had their copyrights violated? Getting an extra $20 in the mail from a settlement still doesn't make the code free!

I just don't see settlement in a GPL violation case as a legitimate option.

Still worth a read by nanojath · 2003-10-14 03:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.

I'd suggest it is very important to read this. I think it's a bit simplistic to say that Forbes is a "Microsoft shill." Rather, Forbes is heavily invested in the status quo of business circa the early 21st century, and is naturally threatened (and apparently not a little confused) by open source and what it represents.

Anyone who bothers to give it a little thought realizes that in the modern economic system, the wealth of the 5% that own 85% of everything is protected by a business environment where the barriers of entry are too high to permit the appearance of significant competition from below. Every once in a while, emerging technologies can be harnessed to create an Apple or a Microsoft to challenge the more traditional, say, IBM.

Now, it's plain enough that we among the 95% are largely responsible for all of this wealth getting shuffled around. We do the work, we buy the products. Our retirement plans sit around for 40 years, a nice capital base in the market while the fat cats try to speculate their way to another billion. In general, we aren't able to muster sufficient organization or marshall enough of our resources together to have a conscious, guided effect on these things.

It's little surprise, then, that Forbes falls back on the rhetoric of Communism and revolution to characterize the Open Source movement, because it represents a similar kind of threat to that system. Labor unions, for example, represent an attempt to collectivize the theoretical power of a group (workers are required for business to be done, workers can choose to see themselves in a collective bargaining position opposite those that own the business) to shift the balance of power between labor and management. Communism represents the attempt to acheive this reordering on the national scale through conventional political means (democratic processes and conquest). Open source has succeeded up to this point by a similar route - harnessing the distributed power of a group of individuals to achieve results normally available only to major players.

Unlike these things, though, while the Open Source "movement" may be informed by an ideology, the integrity of its product is maintained by an adherence to the strictly capitalist, legal definition of intellectual property. What is truly offensive to the Forbes set is that the grubby horde would have the audacity to coopt one of THEIR legal power tools to create a product that nakedly opposes the dynamics of the status quo.

The basic argument of this article, if you strip away the snide asides about the irony of those open source commies suing people for violating their I.P. just like regular businessmen, fercryin'outloud, is that by legally defending it's licenses, the Open Source community will discourage people who don't wish to abide by those licenses from adopting software released under them. Uh, yes, that is correct, sir. Businesses which wish to develop proprietary technologies with closed source software should not use GPL code.

Is Forbes genuinely incapable of understanding that the whole point of Open Source is that it represents a parallel software development strategy that is opposed to the conventional business paradigm of proprietary I.P., or are they engaged in conscious propaganda in defense of the status quo? In the end it doesn't matter, the result is the same. The principle of open source licensed software is a genuine economic threat to the conventional I.P. business paradigm, but it is completely impotent if the licenses are not enforced. So I'd say, don't skip this article - study it carefully and learn the strategy of your oponents.

--

It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

Re:Still worth a read by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:16 · Score: 0

Blah Blah Status Quo Blah Blah Open Source Blah Blah intellectual property Blah Blah communism Blah Blah strategy of your opponents.

Don't you commies get sick of listening to yourselves? I mean, this is software we are talking about, not some world changing political movement.
Re:Still worth a read by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:01 · Score: 0

If you don't think "software" is a world-changing political movement, you haven't been awake for the last twenty years, Rip Van.
Re:Still worth a read by pmz · 2003-10-14 06:15 · Score: 1

while the Open Source "movement" may be informed by an ideology, the integrity of its product is maintained by an adherence to the strictly capitalist, legal definition of intellectual property.

The Open Source ideology really is neither communistic nor capitalistic or anything else. The only thing that matters is that it is a perfect fit in the software free market as it stands in light of companies like Microsoft. When things swing as far as they have with Windows and Office, Linux and OpenOffice.org are merely the only balancing force at a zero-dollar price available to the competition. As Microsoft declines in light of free competition, the health of the software industry will vastly improve as people have overcome the battle of who controls their data and are able to move onto bigger and more interesting things.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:Still worth a read by thales · 2003-10-14 06:38 · Score: 1

"Anyone who bothers to give it a little thought realizes that in the modern economic system, the wealth of the 5% that own 85% of everything is protected by a business environment where the barriers of entry are too high to permit the appearance of significant competition from below."

"Now, it's plain enough that we among the 95% are largely responsible for all of this wealth getting shuffled around. We do the work, we buy the products. Our retirement plans sit around for 40 years, a nice capital base in the market while the fat cats try to speculate their way to another billion."

"Unlike these things, though, while the Open Source "movement" may be informed by an ideology, the integrity of its product is maintained by an adherence to the strictly capitalist, legal definition of intellectual property. What is truly offensive to the Forbes set is that the grubby horde would have the audacity to coopt one of THEIR legal power tools to create a product that nakedly opposes the dynamics of the status quo."

"Is Forbes genuinely incapable of understanding that the whole point of Open Source is that it represents a parallel software development strategy that is opposed to the conventional business paradigm of proprietary I.P., or are they engaged in conscious propaganda in defense of the status quo?"

"It's little surprise, then, that Forbes falls back on the rhetoric of Communism and revolution to characterize the Open Source movement, because it represents a similar kind of threat to that system.

When the proponants of open source spout rhetoric like I've quoted from you, why would you expect them to look at open source as anything other than a Communist or far left movement?

If the proponants of open source insist on making statements that sound like they are channelling Che Guevara, then unfriendlyness towards the movement from the business world can be expected.

--
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Re:Still worth a read by nanojath · 2003-10-14 07:22 · Score: 1

The question of how wealth is distributed among populations is a factual one. The accuracy of the rule of thumb I cite is debatable but the basic trend is not. The majority of wealth is in the hands of the minority of individuals.

That the minority of individuals who control the majority of the wealth do not do the majority of wealth-creating labor, nor do they purchase the majority of products, is also a factual statement.

The fact that I cite facts that have been cited by proponents of various ideologies does not mean that I hold them. I am not a proponent of marxism nor communism, nor am I an opponent of capitalism. I am a pacifist Christian anarchist.

I may be guilty of rhetoric in how I characterize Forbes. On the other hand, at least I argue what my basis for that rhetoric is. Whereas you do not say a single thing about the factual basis of my statments nor the quality of the arguments I make. Your critique, therefore, I will take as merely an expression of your own knee-jerk proclivities unless you demonstrate otherwise by making some kind of substantive argument.

--
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Re:Still worth a read by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 07:28 · Score: 0

"That the minority of individuals who control the majority of the wealth do not do the majority of wealth-creating labor, nor do they purchase the majority of products, is also a factual statement."

No, the majority of the rich are rich as a result of their own wealth-producing labor. So they do indeed do the majority of wealth-creating labor (that is, the labor that is worth more).

Yes, there are idle rich and inheritors (Forbes himself is one) but they are a minority.
Re:Still worth a read by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 12:33 · Score: 0

Though I am not the original poster I will reply to your reply to his reply. His comment was not that you were wrong, but that your rhetoric was also very loaded. And that is ok, but don't be surprised when loaded rhetoric meets loaded rhetoric, such as this Forbes article. And when one side is calling the other communist, who wins the battle of public opinion in the US? Not the pinkos, thats for sure. I recommend you open your mind to that fact. Not that you were wrong, but how you present yourself. If I pointed a random friend to this thread, who do you think he would laught at? I'll give you a hint, the name is "nanojath". Does this mean you were wrong? No. Does this mean you might as well sit alone in your room and curse at the ceiling? Yes. To point out this fact does not need to be supported with an opposite viewpoint. This point stands alone.
Re:Still worth a read by malxau · 2003-10-14 14:25 · Score: 1

Is Forbes genuinely incapable of understanding that the whole point of Open Source is that it represents a parallel software development strategy that is opposed to the conventional business paradigm of proprietary I.P., or are they engaged in conscious propaganda in defense of the status quo?

Or, are Forbes acting in the mistaken belief that the only thing that matters to Open Source developers is popularity, and they are telling us how to be more popular among big business? I think they just don't get the "principle" of Free Software at all.
Re:Still worth a read by thales · 2003-10-14 16:36 · Score: 1

Wealth isn't "distrubited" in a lawful society, it is earned or created, but that is beside the point. A lot of the rhetoric from the free/open source software community is openly hostile towards business. When you make hostile comments towards business you can expect a hostile attitude from business in return.

--
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Re:Still worth a read by nanojath · 2003-10-15 02:47 · Score: 1

anonymous coward parrots simplistic affirmation of status quo. News at eleven.

--
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Re:Still worth a read by nanojath · 2003-10-15 02:50 · Score: 1

It's worth pointing out that the Forbes article is not responding to MY "loaded rhetoric," but vice versa. And believe me, I've never been under any illusion that there is no substantive difference between posting on slashdot and sitting alone in my room cursing at the ceiling.

--
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

This is a job for sed! by Minna+Kirai · 2003-10-14 03:06 · Score: 1

Alright, who wants to copy the Forbes article and change it into an anti-Microsoft parody? Delete the first 3 paragraphs, then search & replace these key words:

s/Linux/Microsoft/g
s/Boston/Washington, DC/g
s/FSF/BSA/g
s/Cisco Systems/public schools/g

etc...

not a positive light? by Captain+Rotundo · 2003-10-14 03:06 · Score: 1

You might want to skip reading it because its written by a moron.

First he interchangably uses "Free" and "open Source" which if your not RMS wouldn'ty matter much, but he is interchanging the GOALS of the FSF with open source when he does so. EXACTLY the reason RMS hates being bunched with open source.

Second he paints it as a payoff almost akin to a bribe when someone donates to the FSF in exchange for the FSF helping to defend their intellectual property rights (although RMS would hate me using that term, and I don't like it either) - we the author similarly damn a company for paying a lawfirn to fight the FSF ?

Third, he says that the FSF actions are worse than normal copyright infringements because they don't want royalties, they want license compliance. WELL DUH! - he says this is bad because it scares companies away from free software (although he calls it "open source") - This is exactly the goal of the FSF, to scare you aware from using the GPL if you are going to violate it.

Fourth he refers to the FSF asking you to "burn down your house" by having to free up the code. well the simplefact is if you built your house from stolen lumber, of course you have to disassemble it to return the property. If I stole microsofts source and released a modified version would it be ok for me to pay a simple royalty and then KEEP the code I took for my own comercial persuits? thats insane, MS would say I have no right to continue developement. Its the same with the GPL, only you don't have to pay a royalty or license fee, the cost is that you HAVE to release your derivative works. simple as that.

The companies the FSF are goign after (if they are in fact in the wrong) are violating a license, sonmething I am sure this author would be against if the license fee was money.

The ignorance of this article is so absurd that it is ridiculus. He is saying cisco should be able to use copyrighted GPLed code for free, without having to honour the original authors license, yet at the same time the FSF is wrong becuase they want people to obey a license that lets you use stuff for 'free' my head is spinning.

They just don't get it. by Tin+Foil+Hat · 2003-10-14 03:08 · Score: 1

The most insulting thing about this article is the way they portray the free software movement; as though it were a collection of naive communistic kooks. They seem to look at us as though we've completely taken leave of our senses and therefore willing to squander our hard work for no benifit at all.

Of course, we know that the real reason we release software under the GPL is so that we can in turn make use of the work that others have done. It makes our jobs as engineers much easier. In return for that, we offer up the derivitive code that we write so that others may to the same. It's called selflessness and it's a good trait in a person, and it's good for society. We also realize that there is still opportunity in such a structure. Someone has to actually bring something to market in a sustainable way.

Consumers will always be willing to pay for good products and services. As long as a company can release good software and offer good support for that software, then the viral nature of the GPL will not kill them. I offer RedHat as an example of this. They have built their entire business around the GPL and they seem to be doing very well despite the fact that others are making (or attempting to make) money off of their hard work. Mandrake is the example here. I don't mean to disparage Mandrake, they are doing a fantastic job, which merely emphasizes the point.

Business people look at the GPL as a way to keep them from capitalizing on a piece of software to it's fullest extent. I suppose that it is true that by embracing the GPL they give their competitors the very tools they need to become better but they fail to realize that their competitors will then be bound by the same rules. The first business can make use of the work the second business did upon the product of the first. And if the second (the competitor) breaks the rules, the first can hold them accountable. Hell, if necessary, they can request the assistance the Free Software Foundation. That's why they exist, and they continue to exist through the largess of the companies they protect.

That brings me to back to being insulted. This article, instead of relying solely upon reasoned argument, attempted to paint the free software movement as some sort of radical communist plot. Lines like "the movement's usual public image of happy software proles linking arms and singing the 'Internationale'" do nothing to further debate but much to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt. It is like asking a man when he stopped beating his wife. It's based on false assumptions and is designed to cast a negative light on the subject.

If you buy into the view espoused by the author of that propagandist tripe, I have one thing to say to you: prepare yourself the Fourth Reich, brother. I hope the father... er, homeland finds you useful.

--
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey

Redundant, but... my comment to Forbes by skandalfo · 2003-10-14 03:10 · Score: 1

Dear gentlemen,

The referenced article has surprised me. Its writer seems to ignore or to have forgotten that the Linux kernel, as well as every GPL-distributed program, is clearly identified (as required by the license itself) as being so.

That means that anyone willing to build on GPL software does (or should do) knowing beforehand in which terms the derivative works may be distributed.

Nobody forced them to use the Linux kernel as the operating core of their product. They could have written their own, used another piece of Free Software with a less restrictive (BSD'ish) license, or licensed a proprietary one.

When they chose to use the Linux kernel, they implicitly agreed on the GPL terms; they got the code in exchange for some distribution obligations. It's almost the same about proprietary software; they would have got the code in exchange for some money.

So, what the FSF is enforcing is a contract implicitly accepted when distributing the embedded Linux kernel. No more, no less.

It's only that it seems easier to identify "stolen and hidden" code when it's Free Software than when it's some obscure and opaque proprietary counterpart. Cases of the latter have been seen, anyway. Just remember the Stac Electronics vs. Microsoft case.

Free Software developers that put their code under the GPL are just like proprietary developers. In both cases the code is "sold". The payment is the only thing that differs. GPL code is sold in exchange for continuous freedom for everybody, whereas proprietary software is sold in exchange for money.

It's the licenser's responsibility and choice to accept the price or not, and that's the point I'd like to make clear to the article author.

Regards,

Juan Jesus.

Agreed by Marc2k · 2003-10-14 03:10 · Score: 1

Kudos, your post inspired me to write my own:

First, let me congratulate Daniel Lyons on an insightful concluding allusion, linking open source licenses to Russian Communism (with a big 'C'). Not only did it make me chuckle, but I'd imagine that you're the first in a long line of zany charicatures of open source portrayed in that light.

Moving on, may I ask: How is it so onerous to expect a company to make good on licensing terms they engaged in? One of the reasons that Linksys was able to make such a technological leap with their 802.11G router was that the software upon which they based its internals was already created for them by an outside source. To top that, they didn't even have to pay outsourcing fees to Bangalore, the software was available to them for free (open source advocates would make note that I mean "free as in beer", not "free as in freedom", regarding the price, not the ideal)!

Even further, the GPL mandates not that software written for the Linux operating system be released, but that software improvments to the operating system itself be released back to the community. Thus, the effort and expenditure put into the product (regarding software, not product design, etc.) on their pales visibly in comparison to the effort of so many bearded men on Saturday nights, toiling away at their computers, so that faceless companies could take advantage of their work by not complying with the one stipulation of their license.

I should have hoped that by now Forbes is well acquainted with the practices of business enough to know that, "there's no such thing as a free lunch". However, this is exactly what your point of view implies. In terms of Linux (which is distributed for free), there is only one cost: returning to the community your improvments on the intellectual property of someone else. Linksys should have recognized this cost at the outset of product development, or walked away from the game altogether.

--
--- What

Forbes using GPLed software by uucpbrain · 2003-10-14 03:11 · Score: 1

From www.webcraft.com:

The site www.forbes.com is running Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) on FreeBSD.

Re:Forbes using GPLed software by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:54 · Score: 0

Apache is under APL and FreeBSD is under BSD license.

I don't get it by dtfinch · 2003-10-14 03:11 · Score: 1

The GPL only infects software that includes or is statically linked to GPL'd source code. So why is everyone upset about them withholding code that could very well not be infringing on the GPL? If it simply runs on top it's theirs. Certainly they could do everything found in those routers without modifying Linux itself. If they made drivers that only supports their proprietary hardware, and embedded them in the kernel rather than using dynamic linking, they may need release those, but everything else, like in house software that run atop of linux, is theirs to hide.

MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:12 · Score: 0

That's exactly what's going on here.

my response by Ender+Ryan · 2003-10-14 03:12 · Score: 1

"Such a pity, comrade."

I am surprised that Forbes employs "writers" who resort to such ridiculous ad hominem rhetoric.

Perhaps the OSS community should respond by writing articles implying that Forbes employs a bunch of fascists?

I would like to know what Mr. Daniel Lyons thinks the FSF should do when companies violate their copyrights? Should OSS authors not get the same protections under copyright that everyone else receives?

Historically, the FSF has been very cooperative when resolving infringements, simply asking for removal of the infringing code or release of the source.

I have authored several OSS projects and contributed to a few others, and if Mr. Lyons thinks I should allow large corporations to walk all over me, then I say to Mr. Lyons, "Hagel Hitler!"

Perhaps Mr. Lyons should stop pretending to be a journalist and get a marketing job for a large proprietary software firm, owned and operated by Neo-Fascists?

See, Mr. Lyons isn't the only one who can make ridiculous, insulting remarks.

--
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden

PHB's by karel1980 · 2003-10-14 03:14 · Score: 1

For those wondering what a PHB is (e.g. me)
http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?p=dict&S tring=exact&Acronym=PHB, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=phb

GPL vs. Music copyrights by Theovon · 2003-10-14 03:14 · Score: 1

Mind you, I think the RIAA is a huge bully and is evil and must die and has an out-dated business model. But the one point they make that is correct is that copying music that you didn't pay for is a violation of copyright law.

You might find it ironic, then, to see that many of the same people who write Free Software and rely on the GPL to protect them from piracy are themselves pirating music. [*]

MP3's and Free Software: Both so easy to pirate.

Don't get me wrong -- there IS a difference. People who pirate music also tend to buy a lot of it and they don't profit from it. People who pirate GPL software make buttloads of profit from it unfairly.

But it's still a double standard we have when you consider this only in terms of copyright infringement.

[*] Disclaimer: I, for instance, am an advocate of both the GPL and P2P, but for legal reasons, I am compelled to state that I do not advocate the use of P2P to violate copyright law. *g*

The real danger is influence by SoopahMan · 2003-10-14 03:16 · Score: 1

The article linked here describes a Doomsday scenario in which Microsoft makes some change that is too technical for most to understand, but completely eliminates all Mono-based software - barring a fee to Microsoft.

This isn't likely. There would be no popular revolt, but the DoJ already has Microsoft blacklisted, and they'd greatly suffer for such a move.

The real possibility of danger is the swing Microsoft would now hold over Mono developers, able to push them one way when it's better for Open Source to go another. Heavy Mono implementation would offer Microsoft the chance to make the only easy option their way. Open Source continues but more and moreso with a fee to Microsoft.

For example, Microsoft could let Mono continue to work just fine, but tweak things in a way that makes StarOffice a terribly difficult option while MS Office an extremely easy one.

That is the infection they're set to unleash.

Forbes has some nasty things to say about Linux by FirmWarez · 2003-10-14 03:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Look at the articles: "why you won't be getting a linux pc" "mad Matt", the Linux "bandwagon" and "cult".

The cult reality is that Forbes is in the American cult of capitalism. Here's a clue for you clueless suits: capitalism is a multi-faceted tool, not a religioin. The "comrade" comment in the mentioned article merely shows that Forbes believes in the cult position that whatever shovels money towards the rich must be right, because gee, that's capitalism.

What's even more interesting is from uptime.netcraft:

(begine block quote)
OS, Web Server and Hosting History for www.forbes.com

OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner

FreeBSD Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) 19-Jun-2003 63.240.4.179 CERFnet
unknown Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) 22-Jun-2002 63.240.4.179 CERFnet
unknown Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) 23-Feb-2002 63.240.4.179 CERFnet
unknown Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) 14-Feb-2002 63.240.4.200 CERFnet
FreeBSD Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) 13-Feb-2002 63.240.4.200 CERFnet
unknown Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) 8-Feb-2002 63.240.4.200 CERFnet
FreeBSD Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) 7-Feb-2002 63.240.4.200 CERFnet
unknown Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) 16-Dec-2001 63.240.4.200 CERFnet
FreeBSD Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) 15-Dec-2001 63.240.4.200 CERFnet
unknown Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) 24-Oct-2001 63.240.4.200 CERFnet

(end block quote)

Good for the Compliance Lab!! by Peterius · 2003-10-14 03:17 · Score: 1

Sounds like the Free Software Foundation is kicking ass and taking names. The GPL is a legally binding document and they have every right to defend it.

BSA: read the Forbes article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:17 · Score: 0

I suspect they use only pirated software since they push people to not respect software licenses.

Here's what I sent: by cryptochrome · 2003-10-14 03:17 · Score: 1

Subj: Who's afraid of the GPL?

Oh boo hoo. Nobody's forcing anyone to use Linux. The GPL is very specific about its conditions - you can use its extensive codebase for free, but any extensions you make you also have to provide for free. In other words, you still pay for Linux. Not with money, but with code - and if you write bad code, your reputation. If somebody doesn't like that they should use something else. Write their own code, pay for a proprietary codebase, or use an open-source codebase without such restrictions like BSD. Cisco and Broadcom are breaking a contract, simple as that, which is how a 12-person legal team can successfully litigate against a multi-billion dollar company.

Not as diplomatic as your letter, I admit. I don't really care for the GPL, but that just means I don't try to build on it or use it for profit.

--

---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

Quite. by BadDoggie · 2003-10-14 03:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hence my letter to the editor at Forbes, with the headline "One-sided outrage?":

Where's Mr Lyons' outrage at the Gestapo-like tactics of Micrsoft's and the BSA's software license enforcement? The city of Virginia Beach had to waste the time of 50 employees and ended up paying $129,000 for software they'd already paid for but couldn't match up the paperwork. Microsoft tries for force its resellers to act as their licensing police and turn in their customers who may or may not be fully compliant.
Closed-source software licenses boil down to "You have no rights to source code, no rights to fix or modify the software in any way, no rights to use the software in any way the licensor doesn't approve of and no rights to incorporate it in any other works. You have no recourse if the software doesn't work and you have no right of first sale."
In contrast, the GPL boils down to: "Here's the source code. You can use it if you want but then you must make it and your derivatives based on it available to the public. If you don't agree to these terms, you can write the entire code yourself."
Another firm has been caught stealing software and violating licensing terms but in this case, enforcing the software license is somehow bad. Comrade, indeed. I should just ignore some company stealing and using my code as their own.
IBM and Oracle, among others, understand how to work on and with Linux. They sell proprietary software which runs on Linux and many other platforms. In order to keep their source code closed, they write much of their own interface code rather than incorporating the work of others which would then force them to open their own under the licensing agreements. At the same time, IBM has more than 100 programmers actively writing open source code for Linux. One division of IBM can't use the work of another division because of the licensing concerns, and IBM has no problem with this. Lyons does, somehow.
Cisco paid $500 million for Linksys. Which part of the sale gives them the right to ignore all previous contractual obligations? The phrase is "due diligence", and Forbes has had quite a bit to say about this in the past (e.g., http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/1030/6612184s1.h tml).
That Forbes sees fit to publish this sort of irresponsible, Microsoft party-line FUD is the reason I let my subscription lapse a few years ago.

Re:Quite. by Erioll · 2003-10-14 04:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

You're right, but you missed one of the most disturbing parts IMO.

From the article:
In some ways, these Free Software Foundation "enforcement actions" can be more dangerous than a typical copyright spat, because usually copyright holders seek money--say, royalties on the product that infringing companies are selling. But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.

This basically means that "It's alright to do whatever you want, and infringe on anybody's stuff, as long as you pay them off at the end. Asking them to stop, or comply with the way the code was released is bad, because nothing should be free." This is disturbing in and of itself.

Erioll
Re:Quite. by void* · 2003-10-14 05:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

They're also entiely ignoring that it's not their house in the first place. "Burn down your house, or share it with cloners" indeed. 'Yeah, I know you let me crash at your house, but I built this deck, so it's my house now - get out'.

--

Code or be coded.
Re:Quite. by pivo · 2003-10-14 06:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

I actually know Dan Lyons personally, I can't believe he wrote this column. I'm going to have to have a talk with him.

His story should really have been, "Company develops hardware product driven by code they didn't write, and dosen't read the source code licence."
Re:Quite. by yourruinreverse · 2003-10-14 06:25 · Score: 1

In contrast, the GPL boils down to: "Here's the source code. You can use it if you want but then you must make it and your derivatives based on it available to the public."

It's a shame that one little mistake slipped in here. As far as I know, it should have read:

You can use it if you want, but if you want to redistribute it, then you must make the source code and your derivatives based on it available to the public.

--
JeR
Re:Quite. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:50 · Score: 0

Gates/McBride for president '04!!
Re:Quite. by titzandkunt · 2003-10-14 10:18 · Score: 1

Well, "knowing someone personally" isn't the same thing as counting them as a personal friend, at least...

About Dan, though. Would you say he's:

Glib with superficial charm?
Constantly and recklessly seeking excitement and stimulus?
Lacking in long term goals?
Irresponsible?
Posessed of a grandiose sense of self worth?
A pathological liar?
Callous and lacking in empathy?
Impulsive
Unwilling to accept responsibility for his actions? ...and...
Does he have a history of bedwetting in early adulthood, fire starting and cruelty to animals?
- I'd really be interested to know...

Best, T&K.

--
Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable...
Re:Quite. by HumanTorch · 2003-10-14 11:47 · Score: 1

IBM and Oracle, among others, understand how to work on and with Linux. They sell proprietary software which runs on Linux
They understand it completely from an OS licensing point of view as well.

Try and purchase an enterprise class server w/RAID controller from Dell or IBM. They will not offer any support unless you purchase 'enterprise' Linux from Redhat (Dell,IBM) or Suse(IBM). Their RAID drivers are not officially supported on anything else, either.

The way I see it, free software is essentially rendered meaningless in this context. Redhat ships expensive modified distribution (with some proprietary code), vendors will only support expensive modified version, you are forced to pay.
Re:Quite. by MuParadigm · 2003-10-14 14:09 · Score: 1

...the GPL boils down to: "Here's the source code. You can use it if you want but then you must make it and your derivatives based on it available to the public."

Sorry to get nitpicky about this, but that's a common misconception that feeds into the Anti-Open Source propaganda. They want people to believe the GPL compels publication and distribution of any code. This is NOT the case.

The GPL only compels you to distribute the source if you are distributing GPL'd software. A better way to sum it up would be:

Here's the program and the source code. You can do anything you want with it and modify it any way you want. But if you distribute the program, you've got to include the source code too. And if you distribute your modified version, you've got to include the source code for that also.
Re:Quite. by aoliva · 2003-10-14 15:00 · Score: 1

> In contrast, the GPL boils down to: "Here's the source code. You can use it if you want but then you must make it and your derivatives based on it available to the public.

Not true. This is the sort of claim that proprietary software compaines like to make to confuse people away from free software. You don't have to make the source code and its derivatives available to the public. You have to make it available to those who get the binaries. If you don't distribute it, you don't make anything public. If you distribute it to someone, you give them the sources and it's done, or a written offer valid for at least 3 years that grants them or anyone else the rights to demand the sources from you, granting them the same rights to see, modify and distribute the code, modified or not, that you had, along with the same requirements.

#include

Forbes by dentar · 2003-10-14 03:18 · Score: 1

... has ALWAYS been extremely biased towards the "capitalism at all cost" group.

This article was a waste of my bandwidth, EXCEPT for learning that the FSF is actually doing something about some things.

--
-- I am. Therefore, I think!

Copying music and fair use by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:19 · Score: 0

"But the one point they make that is correct is that copying music that you didn't pay for is a violation of copyright law."

No, copying music as such is quite legal, well established. Fair use.

What is questionable is mass distribution of free copied music. Selling the copies is actual piracy, and of course is illegal.

open source in bad light??? by Roadkills-R-Us · 2003-10-14 03:19 · Score: 1

I think it portrayed Forbes in a bad light, presenting op-ed pieces as reporting. Comrades? Internationale? Oh, I see. If you don't charge for it, you're a Stalinist. McCarthyism lives!

Forbes and BATF burn FSF compound to ground. Film at 11!

My response, for added flavor ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:20 · Score: 0

It sounds rather naive, but this is just how I felt I needed to explain the situation to these people :D

--

"Under the license, if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any "derivative works" you've created--even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product.", you write. I do not like this paragraph because of its failure to emphasize the fact that if you choose to build your work on GPL source code, this source code has been contributed by others that chose to contribute to the code precisely because their work can then not be used by anyone to selfishly profit from it.

If you are using GPL code in a product without releasing your modifications and derivatives thereof back to the world, you are ripping off other people's work that would not have been made available to you except for this guarantee of fairness and sharing.

Many coders refuse to contribute to open-source projects unless they are GPL-ed because their gift to the cause they wish to further is not something they wish for others to make a living distributing in closed, binary form. Often times, contributions to GPL projects are intended as an improvement to something that the contributing coder will use himself or has an interest in making better. The fact that various companies are using the GPL for releasing their products does not change this.

Do you understand this?

Strange fears by demigod · 2003-10-14 03:20 · Score: 1

OK, I read the article and it sucked. I sent Forbes a nice comment as well, but I just couldn't shake this feeling, fears probably a better word.

We (the FSF donors/supporters) must be careful to insure that the FSF does not evolve into an organization the make a living by harassing, threatening and suing people. We don't need another MPAA or RIAA.

My solution would be for there to be 3 possible outcomes for anyone accused by the FSF of violating the GPL by not releasing the source.

Prove in court your not violating the GPL (they win).
Admit wrong doing and release the source and pay the FSF court cost if any (we win).
Admit wrong doing and and recall all infringing products and pay the FSF court cost if any (we win again).

This keeps FSF from profiting from it's actions.

We must not have settlements that allow the FSF to profit and the violaters to be allowed to continue to so do.

--
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major

Here's mine by ccarr.com · 2003-10-14 03:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

My letter to the editor:

In his article "Linux's Hit Men", author Daniel Lyons suggests that the Free Software Foundation is somehow wrong to insist that Cisco abide by the license that accompanied the software that they are distributing in some of their routers. He even implies a sinister motive to the FSF's "quiet" handling of the case, as though he would prefer to see them loudly castigating Cisco. In his haste to defend the prerogatives of big business, he neglects to take cognizance of the social contract which makes business transactions possible: in our society, we expect contracts, licenses, and the law to be obeyed.

Under copyright law, you are not permitted to make copies of another person's work. Period. The General Public License grants others the right to make copies of work distributed under the GPL with the proviso that any derivatives works must also be released under the GPL, with the source code made available to all comers. If you don't accept the GPL, then copyright law controls, and you may not make a copy.

Such a provision may well be unpalatable to Cisco, but if that's the case, they should not have used GPL'ed code. Cisco is reaping large profits from the volunteer work of thousands of coders, and all they ask is that Cisco share the their improvements.

Mr. Lyons either misconstrues the GPL, or else he believes that the copyrighted code of small-time volunteer programmers is somehow unworthy of enforcement.

--
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. BB

Re:Here's mine by cpeterso · 2003-10-14 08:20 · Score: 1

Under copyright law, you are not permitted to make copies of another person's work. Period.

Actually, copyright law DOES allow for people to copy others' work... IF they obtain permission. The GPL does not grant any new or controversial freedoms. The GPL just makes obtaining permission much easier (and implicit, actually).

--
cpeterso
Re:Here's mine by ccarr.com · 2003-10-14 09:33 · Score: 1

You're right. I could have been clearer about that.

--
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. BB

GPL by BigBir3d · 2003-10-14 03:21 · Score: 1

Nobody in the traditional business world considers the GPL to be a real license, nor do they consider it to be watertight. It's easy to misinterpret the GPL as socialist in nature. Big whig business types are in their 40's/50's/60's and they grew up believing communism was the biggest evil there is.... any wonder why they might resist the ideals of the GPL?

License? Spell it before you agree to it. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:21 · Score: 0

"Let's make them click through a licence they don't actually have to agree to"

Where did you find a professional work actually mispelling license as "licence"? What is Microcoft, by any chance?

Re:License? Spell it before you agree to it. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:41 · Score: 0

The spelling is valid.
Re:License? Spell it before you agree to it. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:39 · Score: 0

What is Microcoft, by any chance?

Is that supposed to be a sentence?

ok, so who owns forbes? by 10am-bedtime · 2003-10-14 03:21 · Score: 1

i suppose it's time for someone to write the next great app: WOOT. here are some specifications for all you hackers out there:

WOOT takes as its input a keyword or two, e.g. "forbes".
WOOT does a web crawl for all relevant[1] ownership/trust[2] relationships pertaining to the keyword. it compiles a graph comprising entity nodes (company, person, nation-state) and ownership/trust edges. the graph can be sent to stdout in graphviz-, vcg- or sexp-compatible format.
(optional) WOOT lays out the graph and displays it.
(optional) WOOT-based wiki and other web interfaces.

notes:

[1] relevancy should be user-configurable in some way; obviously this is a difficult problem to solve generally, but the problem domain suggests these common attributes to use for correlation: board-of-directors, political-parties,
[2] ownership/trust is mentioned like this because these are two separate but related ideas. also, it completes the acronym, which is Very Important.

anyway, i look forward to any activity in this area. here's to a more transparent society. post code, not lies!

My response by kmhebert · 2003-10-14 03:21 · Score: 1

Daniel Lyons "Linux's Hit Men" is a skewed view of open source software. I am a software developer who uses GPL-based products in every aspect of development. This allows rapid, large-scale development of sophisticated software without expensive licensing fees or unnecessary overhead. However, if I were to distribute this software, I would be required to give the source code to whoever I distribute it to. This is clearly explained in the GNU Public License (GPL). Lyons disparages the GPL as placing an unreasonable burden on corporations. However, anyone who uses GPL licensed software to develop a commercial product is implicitly agreeing to distribute source code for that product in exchange for the right to use the GPL protected software. Microsoft uses similar implicit agreements in its End User License Agreements (EULA) found on every piece of their software.
Open source software allows companies to develop advanced applications with low cost. As software needs become more precise, this quality of open source software will become more valuable. For internal software that is never distributed, the GPL restrictions have almost no effect. It is only when an application is distributed that the GPL restriction kicks in. If a company is using GPL open source to create a distributed product, they should have no qualms about distributing the source along with it. If a company decides that distributing the source is an unreasonable burden, then they should not use GPL protected software as part of their development, thus avoiding any conflict. The Free Software Foundation has as much right to use legal means to protect GPL-protected software as any other organization seeking to protect its intellectual property.

Sincerely,
Kevin Hebert

--
Regular Meta Moderators are not more likely to get mod points.

Feedback by soloport · 2003-10-14 03:22 · Score: 1

FWIW, here's the feedback I sent:

[Subject:] Such a pity, comrade.

In your article, "Linux's Hit Men", the last statement reads, "Such a pity, comrade.", which I assume is a reference to several of Microsoft's nervous apologists describing the GPL as "Communist" -- quite indicative of Daniel Lyons' singular source of information.

However, I would simply like to retort, thus: The GPL is as much about Communism as is the phrase "of the people, by the people and for the people" (to quote Abraham Lincoln).

The United States, by the way, was not founded on the principles of Capitalism, any more than it was founded on Communism. It was founded on the simple principles of freedom. These freedoms do allow Capitalism to flourish, but let's not confuse cause with effect.

Why do I defend the GPL? For the same reason I defend the nation "of the people, by the people and for the people". It affords me the liberty to pursue success! With the GPL, I am guaranteed the right to make enormous amounts of money, if I so choose. With the GPL I can build whole businesses around a software base that can not be usurped by a monopolist.

And I do. I make a six-figure income because of the GPL. Many other businesses are thriving in the GPL environment. Before the GPL we were easily crushed by giants the size of IBM and Microsoft. Now we have the freedom to pursue success, on our own terms.

I find it strange that your organization would buy (or sell?) the notion that the GPL as something tantamount to Communism. In reality, it's the best thing that's happened to Capitalism since the US Constitution!

Yeah, I know. I'm kind of too fond of my own sig. Whatever...

Flamesuit on. by moonboy · 2003-10-14 03:22 · Score: 1

Okay, I'm going to preface my question/comment bytelling you up front a little about myself. I've been using Linux and OpenBSD for quite sometime now. (Red Hat since 1998.) I've also been a Slashdot reader for quite awhile (not to brag, but my user number is 2512.) I've stated the above so you cna hopefuly understand that I'm not a MS plant and truly do believe in Free Software/Open Source Software.

That being said, how is it that Linux can truly be considered FREE software when the GPL places restrictions on its use? Do these restrictions make it "less" free? I've been thinking about this for sometime in the back of my mind. It seems to me that the BSD license is "more" free. It places very few restrictions on the end user. Taking OpenBSD for instance. I could use OpenBSD in a product of mine and keep anything I add to the source code absolutely and completely hidden from that point on and I don't have to share it with anyone or any community. To me, that's really FREE. Free of any entanglements. No strings attached.

Granted, it does not benefit the OpenBSD community, or anyone for that matter, except me. It helps to line my pockets (that is if my product sells.)

So, what my question boils down to is this:

Is Linux _REALLY_ FREE??

Be gentle now. Educate me (and maybe others), don't throw stones.

--

Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com

Re:Flamesuit on. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:08 · Score: 0

It's the copyleft, stupid!
Re:Flamesuit on. by Tony-A · 2003-10-14 06:59 · Score: 1

Is Linux _REALLY_ FREE??

Yep.

I didn't say the developers or maintainers are FREE. The GPL is viral in that it enlivens the software. As long as the software can find a succession of developers and maintainers, the software stays alive.
This is in direct contrast to most Closed Source Proprietary Software, who will have the plug pulled whenever it happens to fit some management's fancy.

You sweat blood and tears to bring some software into being. The GPL gives it a fighting chance of staying alive.

Not pure FUD by WindBourne · 2003-10-14 03:22 · Score: 1

Yes, it basically says that you may have to honour the license. But there is more. It also says that it it not business as usual. Yeah, the last sentence was a slam, but all in all, the article was a good warning to other. That is you have choice, but if you go down this path, we expect that you will obey the rules.
This article will be more useful in the future. More equipment is coming on-line from start-ups that will be running linux and pushing OSS. Major companies will have to adjust or keep fighting. Think IBM vs. Sun.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

60 Billion dollars by gr8_phk · 2003-10-14 03:22 · Score: 1

They will settle because they would owe $60 Billion dollars for a single quarter of copyright infringement. That's 400,000 infringing products sold at $150,000 per copyright violation, and that's in addition to having to stop shipping the product. They can't fight in court because they don't have a leg to stand on. They used someone else's work without their permission, and this is completely lost on the author.

Summary for those who don't want to RTFA by jejones · 2003-10-14 03:23 · Score: 0, Troll

The FSF is evil for enforcing the GPL, as opposed to proprietary software companies, who are doing the right thing when they enforce their licenses.

Socialist? No, no gulags by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:23 · Score: 0

"It's easy to misinterpret the GPL as socialist in nature."

Not really: it involves no government enslaving small farmers, putting people into gulags, or other such abuses that are typical of socialism. The closest you get to the gulag situation is the RIAA with its threats of mass imprisonment.

What a sensationalist whiner by j-turkey · 2003-10-14 03:24 · Score: 1

The way I see it -- this is sensationlistic journalism. I wrote a letter to the Forbes editor/writer critiquing the article. I didn't really have time to edit it and make it more readable, but I think I got my point across. The letter is something like this:

I'm not sure what the point of the Forbes article is. Is Daniel Lyons just trying to steer folks away from the GPL? Is he trying to capitalize on ignorance of the "rules"?
Copyrights are important for protecting IP, and it's a copyright holder's right to set the terms that that want (regardless if it's a "classic" license, BSD, or GPL). If someone doesn't play by a copyright holder's rules -- the IP owner must go after that person. Failure to do this will result in IP owners' loss of any right to future IP claims. If one spends alot of time/money on a derivative work -- they'd better make "extra" sure that they understand the licensing behind the original work. It's just that simple. It sounds to me like Cisco and Broadcom's legal department didn't do their due diligence here. If a group abused Microsoft's licensing without understanding the model, someone would be held responsible. My question is, how is this situation any different from the one in your article? Is it just beacuse the GPL is different form the classic IP licensing model(s)? Your article seems to me like the classic spread of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). Companies need to to their due diligence before making the leap into any new technology -- period.

Forbes is ususally pretty good about responding to stuff like this. Hopefully, I'll see something soon.

--Turkey

--

-Turkey

Irreconcilable differences by decaf_dude · 2003-10-14 03:25 · Score: 1

THis, IMHO, is an issue of common currency that differs in the two worlds we see clashing right before our eyes: the intelligentsia and the corporate world.

Former's currency is Knowledge, latter's Cold Hard Cash. Principles are really same: you wanna use ${my_stuff}, you pay me X in ${my_currency}.

What confuses Forbes types is that FSF folks can't be bought for money, their price is listed in Knowledge.

Due Dilligence by hughk · 2003-10-14 03:25 · Score: 1

This is something that the CISCO lawyers should have done before completing the take over. If they didn't, and that is what it appears, then they are open to be sued by shareholders.

--
See my journal, I write things there

Oops- The real danger is influence by SoopahMan · 2003-10-14 03:27 · Score: 1

Sorry meant this for the Mono thread obviously.

Forbes sucks anyways... by SerpentMage · 2003-10-14 03:28 · Score: 1

Seriously, I have heard Steve Forbs himself talk on CNBC Sqawk Box. What an idiot. All he sees is "American Capitalism" and how much better it is than everything else.

He is one of the most ignorant and narrow minded person's that I have ever heard. I remember Steve Forbs talking about Genetic Manipulated Foods and how it was no problem and that people were being silly and dumb.

The worst part about Steve Forbs is that he pretends to represent "American Capitalism" when in fact he is nothing more than a fringe lunatic... So reading this article does not surprise me as he is not interested in real business journalism...

--

"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"

Re:Forbes sucks anyways... by JThundley · 2003-10-14 05:03 · Score: 1

Just look at their Linux news lineup:

IBM Refuses To Indemnify Linux Users

Red Hat's Mad Matt Vs. Humongous SCO Lawsuit

IBM Takes Linux To A New Level

Why You Won't Be Getting A Linux PC

The Limitations Of Linux

Boies' Take On Linux

PeopleSoft Jumps On The Linux Train

Oracle's Linux Lineup

The Cult Of Linux

What goes around comes around by Dalroth · 2003-10-14 03:28 · Score: 1

If you use the software in bad faith, you're going to get what's coming to you. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. If you're so paranoid, use the BSDs instead.

Response by jefu · 2003-10-14 03:30 · Score: 1

Here's my response to orbes, submitted (simultaneously or nearly so) to their comments and to /. - I doubt it will see the light of day there :

The author of this story is showing not only a misunderstanding of the GPL, where it comes from and what it means, but also what looks like a wilful disregard of the facts.

Some people write programs and parts of programs because they enjoy the process (and for other reasons). They may then release their code under the GPL or other licenses. This by no means removes their rights as copyright holders, instead, it is a way to enforce such rights - the authors are not asking for money in return for their work, but instead they are requiring that that work and its derivatives be kept free.

This is far from unreasonable. Too often in the software industry people have written essential parts of programs and then discovered that people are using them for their own profit, often enough where the original author is then denied any recompense for the work. Indeed, in some cases, authors have not only been denied reasonable returns, but have also been prohibited from even using their own work in other ways.

When people "steal music" its called "piracy" - however in the case where people or companies are "stealing" other kinds of intellectual property from the creators the "pirates" are somehow viewed as being woefully aggrieved when they are caught and required to pay up.

As a software author and holder of copyright on that software, surely I am allowed to sell it. Equally surely I should be allowed to give it away, and to give it away protected in a way that prevents someone else from profiting on my work without appropriately recompensing me - an action that I would (I think rightfully) regard as theft.

Tunnel vision by AriesGeek · 2003-10-14 03:31 · Score: 1

licensing GPL software requires you to contribute back to the pool of open source software from which you benefited.

So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?

The problem with that conclusion is that Cisco didn't build the house.

I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.

Their $129 device, of which they have sold 400,000 units of, would have cost much more, and taken much longer to develop and get to market if they hadn't leveraged the free software provided by thousands of volunteers over the past ten years.

Where's your proof?

Is it too much to ask that they make a small contribution of software back to the community, which provided them with software that allowed them to make millions of dollars?

You call disclosing your product secrets a small contribution? I call it freely distributing the technology behind your product's distinct characteristics directly to your competition

Finally, I question the author's motives and biases.

I'll concede on that point, though. :)

--
Insert offensive troll-style sig here. Please mod or respond appropriately.

Re:Tunnel vision by Archie+Steel · 2003-10-14 03:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?

If you want to base your competitive edge on trade secrets, don't use GPLed software. It's as simple as that.

I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.

What a useless comment. RMS & crew are protecting the copyrights of the original programmers of the code used by Linksys for their router. Are you against the protection of copyright?

"Their $129 device, of which they have sold 400,000 units of, would have cost much more, and taken much longer to develop and get to market if they hadn't leveraged the free software provided by thousands of volunteers over the past ten years."

Where's your proof?

Are you saying that it would have been cheaper to develop the software in-house? If that was the case, when then didn't Linksys do that?

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Linksys used other people's work to develop their product because it was cheaper than re-doing the work themselves, but failed to live up to the agreement these people made that work available under in the first place.

You call disclosing your product secrets a small contribution? I call it freely distributing the technology behind your product's distinct characteristics directly to your competition

Again, if they didn't want to redistribute their changes, they shouldn't have used GPLed software. And, to be honest, I don't think they made that many changes to the software in the first place - so in fact there are little, if any, trade secrets in the Linksys routers. There's not anything they can do that I can't do with a Linux box with firewall/NAT/IP Masquerading. The only thing they added is a Web-based GUI for administration, and that can hardly be considered a trade secret...

This is an open-and-shut case of copyright infringement on Linksys' part. I find it odd that some, such as Forbes, are trying to portray Linksys and Cisco as victims here, when they really are the ones who have infringed on others' rights.

--

Reminder: find a new sig
Re:Tunnel vision by AriesGeek · 2003-10-14 03:52 · Score: 1

This is an open-and-shut case of copyright infringement on Linksys' part.
I agree. However, the guy who I responded to was not arguing legality, he was arguing the philosophy behind the GPL. I was arguing back. Legally, though, you're correct.
It's a classic case of a zealot overlooking the real concerns. His letter to the editor won't be read past the first paragraph, and I was trying to make that point to anyone paying close enough attention.

--
Insert offensive troll-style sig here. Please mod or respond appropriately.
Re:Tunnel vision by Lew+Pitcher · 2003-10-14 03:52 · Score: 1

licensing GPL software requires you to contribute back to the pool of open source software from which you benefited.
So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?
What secrets? In using GPL'ed software as a basis of your product, you agree to publish your changes to that code under the same licence. There's no secret; you agreed to divulge your code, as it was a condition of your use of someone else's code (the GPL'ed code you based your product on).
The problem with that conclusion is that Cisco didn't build the house.
I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.
Wrong answer. You rented your home, and neglected to pay the landlord his rent. Now the landlord's legal agents are suing you and you have to either vacate the property or pay the back rent. It's your choice; you chose to rent the house knowing that that you would have to pay rent. Since you're refusing to pay the rent, the owner of the house is coming after you. Too bad that you painted the kitchen and sublet the basement; those were things that you didn't have any right to do unless you paid your rent, which you didn't do.

--
"values of beta will give rise to dom!"
Re:Tunnel vision by Jim+Norton · 2003-10-14 03:52 · Score: 1

licensing GPL software requires you to contribute back to the pool of open source software from which you benefited.
So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?
If that was a concern, they should have evaluated the license before using the code released under the GPL.
The problem with that conclusion is that Cisco didn't build the house.
I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.
Tough shit. They knew what they were getting into when they used GPL code. If they didn't, then that's Cisco/Linksys/Broadcom's problem not the community or the FSF's.
Their $129 device, of which they have sold 400,000 units of, would have cost much more, and taken much longer to develop and get to market if they hadn't leveraged the free software provided by thousands of volunteers over the past ten years.
Where's your proof?
No proof. Common sense. The cost and time involved is a point of debate, but it can't be trivial. If it were, why didn't they develop their own software or license it from someone else?
Is it too much to ask that they make a small contribution of software back to the community, which provided them with software that allowed them to make millions of dollars?
You call disclosing your product secrets a small contribution? I call it freely distributing the technology behind your product's distinct characteristics directly to your competition
They have an interesting method of protection trade secrets (ie. placing them in publicly viewable code under a free license which requires contributions and modifications to the code be distributed with the binaries)
Also, keep in mind that code released under the GPL *remains* GPL code. This means anytime the competition makes use of this code and further modifies it to their own ends they must ALSO distribute the modifications.

--
-- Jim
Re:Tunnel vision by Saige · 2003-10-14 03:53 · Score: 1

If they're forced to give out "the secrets behind their product", it's their own fault. They knew ahead of time what the GPL requires, and they went ahead and used code covered under the GPL. Sure, it was Linksys that did this before Cisco bought them - but that doesn't release them from obligations, and if Cisco is unhappy with that, they should have put more diligence into understanding what they were buying.

If you put code licensed from a company into a router, and then find out afterwards that you are required in the license to pay them royalties from your use of it, you can't complain your way out of it. You're still required under the license to do so, and if you weren't aware of that, it was your fault for not looking hard enough.

It makes sense to assume that using GPLed software was cheaper than writing their own/using commercially licensed software. Why? Because if it wasn't, would they have used it? Besides, it doesn't matter if it's cheaper or not, they've already used it.

The fact is, if they made changes to code covered under the GPL, and they're distributing a product using that code, they are required by the license to give back the code changes. It doesn't matter how key it is to their product - until the courts say otherwise, the GPL is as legally binding as any purchased license. If that will ruin their product, that's THEIR fault for not considering that beforehand.

If you don't want to give out your code changes, don't use GPLed software. It is that simple.

--
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Re:Tunnel vision by Archie+Steel · 2003-10-14 03:55 · Score: 1

True, the original poster did make appeals to common decency instead of legal issues, which I guess will be lost on the Forbes editor's ears. :-)

--

Reminder: find a new sig
Re:Tunnel vision by another_mr_lizard · 2003-10-14 03:55 · Score: 1

"So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?" Eh...... if you don't want to give them out then don't base your product on GPL'ed software - spend the time, money and effort to create your own proprietary code. It's as simple as that.

--
"My parents were strict, but they never pitted me against livestock" - Doug Stanhope
Re:Tunnel vision by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:55 · Score: 0

So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?

Then the solution to the problem is simple. DONT USE GPL CODE IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR DIRIVATIVES A SECRET!

Easy. FSF isn't demanding to burn down your house. You accepted and built onto the free house. Now you are having to share your entertainment center with the masses as you agreed when you used the free house. Don't like that? Don't live in the free house. Build your own or buy somebody elses.
Re:Tunnel vision by drakaan · 2003-10-14 03:58 · Score: 1

So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?
You lose market-share to competitors. Something Linksys should have known before they developed a GPL-based OS for that router. This is a null argument because they had other options and didn't use them.
I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.
If you built your own house using plans that were freely available on the condition that you made any changes to the plan freely available too, would you be upset when somebody came asking for them? This isn't somebody asking you to burn down your house. It was a contrived argument from the outset, and has no teeth.
Where's your proof?
It's circumstantial, but if there was no compelling reason for them to use GPL'ed software, they would have done it another way. Logic dictates that proprietary software is more likely to have a licensing fee, and in-house development requires more time (otherwise, why not do it?). Where's your argument against the possibility? "Where's your proof?" doesn't cut it.
You call disclosing your product secrets a small contribution? I call it freely distributing the technology behind your product's distinct characteristics directly to your competition
I call it abiding by the rules that you agreed to. Stupidity on Linksys' part is not the fault of the GPL.

--
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Re:Tunnel vision by mangu · 2003-10-14 03:58 · Score: 1

You call disclosing your product secrets a small contribution? I call it freely distributing the technology behind your product's distinct characteristics directly to your competition

Yet, if you think about it, patent law imposes similar restrictions: in order to gain a temporary monopoly in your invention, you must fully disclose technical details. Patent law and the GPL have this in common, they allow no secrets. So, yes, if you want to profit from software which was distributed under the GPL, then you MUST disclose your secrets. However, this will not put you in a disadvantage against your competition, since they, too, will be required to disclose their own secrets.
Re:Tunnel vision by meta-monkey · 2003-10-14 04:03 · Score: 1

So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?

and

You call disclosing your product secrets a small contribution? I call it freely distributing the technology behind your product's distinct characteristics directly to your competition

I'm only asking for the software, not the circuit layouts or anything like that. The firmware on their network adapters and what not can stay proprietary. As for disclosing product secrets, they knew what they would have to disclose before they started using the software. The tradeoff for getting all the source code to solid software so they can get their product to market fast and cheap is that you have to disclose the software, which may or may not disclose "all their product secrets." Is it advantageous to their competition? Maybe, but that's the breaks of using the software.

The problem with that conclusion is that Cisco didn't build the house.

I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.

So, I can do whatever I want with a software product, regardless of the license, and then after I've started making money, I don't have to abide by a license if it may hurt my business? In that case, I'll buy one copy of Windows XP for $199, and then burn 10,000 copies and sell them for $100 each. What? You're going to stop me because I'm breaking Microsoft's license on that software?! But that would hurt my business!

Their $129 device, of which they have sold 400,000 units of, would have cost much more, and taken much longer to develop and get to market if they hadn't leveraged the free software provided by thousands of volunteers over the past ten years.

Where's your proof?

Proof of what? The article states the figures about cost and sales, and the free software was in fact provided by thousands of volunteers over the past ten years. I think it's fairly obvious that it would cost a lot more to either a) license closed software from somebody else like MS, or b) pay engineers to write all the software from scratch. What part of that statement do you dispute, and why?

Finally, I question the author's motives and biases.

I'll concede on that point, though. :)

Thank you, sir :)

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Tunnel vision by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

They could have used BSD-licensed software,
including the BSD IP stack, if they planned to
use it commercially without disclosing their own
source code. By using GPL, they _agreed_ to
the conditions of the GPL. Their problem!
Forbes should stop whining, and attributing
the mistakes of an incompetent management
which can't read license terms to the FSF.
This is ridiculous.
Re:Tunnel vision by Daniel · 2003-10-14 04:27 · Score: 1

The only thing they added is a Web-based GUI for administration, and that can hardly be considered a trade secret...

...not to mention that this is probably not covered under the GPL, since it isn't a modification (I hope!) to kernel code. Some comments elsewhere on this page suggest that the dispute is over a hardware driver for the network card that the router uses.

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Re:Tunnel vision by irix · 2003-10-14 04:31 · Score: 1

I'll go out on a limb and pretend you aren't trolling and that you are just ignorant.

So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?

The FSF isn't asking Cisco to do anything that they didn't agree to up-front when they chose to base their product off of GPL software. They aren't being "forced" into anything - they are being asked to comply with the terms of the license they originally agreed to. If Cisco was shipping unlicensed copies of Windows CE in a router what do you think would happen?

Where's your proof?

Try some common sense. Do you think that if Linksys had to develop an operating system for their router from scratch that maybe it might have cost them more money and time to get it done? This is one of the tradeoffs that is looked at any time someone decides to base commercial software off of a GPLed codebase.

I call it freely distributing the technology behind your product's distinct characteristics directly to your competition.

Again, this a choice you make when you choose to extend GPLed software. It is a tradeoff, and it is worth it for some companies and not for others. Look at IBM - they consider the O/S a commodity and prefer to make money off other things like support, integration and hardware. For them "freely distributing the technology behind your product's distinct characteristics" was worth it. Someone at Linksys made that decision too. Cisco bought Linksys, so now it is their bed and they have to lie it it.

You don't like the GPL - that's fine. The author of the Forbes is free to dislike the GPL too. But don't go pretending that Linksys didn't make this decision with their eyes wide open; they made the decision to go with the GPL, they live with the consequences. If this was the case of a commercial license being violated I somehow doubt that the whole matter would be subjected to so much ignorant FUD.

--

Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Re:Tunnel vision by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:38 · Score: 0

Then Linksys should not have developed their product with Linux. It is not like the GPL is some brand-spanking new licence with enough legalese wrapped around it to confound the most expensive lawyer. They knew what they were doing when they did it - now they must live with their decision.
Re:Tunnel vision by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:49 · Score: 0

It's a classic case of a zealot overlooking the real concerns.

Are you talking about yourself here? SOunds to me like you are an anti-GPL zealot, just as much as anyone else on slashdot may be a pro-GPL zealot.
Re:Tunnel vision by arkanes · 2003-10-14 04:53 · Score: 1

It's drivers for the Broadband wireless chips. One reason such a stink is being raised is because drivers for these chips would be valuable to other Linux projects. Theres been a fair amount of work done looking into this and I, at least, am convinced that the work done includes modifications of kernel source (and not simply binary modules or the use of a special compiler).
Re:Tunnel vision by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:15 · Score: 0

Nice reply. You even covered the fact that the original poster is a dumbass.
Re:Tunnel vision by jorgen · 2003-10-14 05:32 · Score: 1

So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?
The terms in the GPL license is not a secret in any way. They actually had a choice to either use their competitive edge to write their software from scratch, or to derive it from other peoples work under GPL.
didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.
I'm quite sure you paid for your house though.
Re:Tunnel vision by maddogdelta · 2003-10-14 05:49 · Score: 1

Actually, GPL is based mainly on property rights as we understand them...
Consider, for a moment. Is it legal for me to take the cars from a local car dealership, and open up my own car dealership, and then claim that all the cars are not only mine, but I built them, and all of the design ideas are my property?
In most states, I think not.
Car dealerships sell cars. They do not claim they designed the cars. The cars must be purchased from the manufacturer that made them, and even if you modify the cars, you must still pay ford/gm/chrysler etc for the original vehicle.
I know that there are legal subtleties that I am glossing over, but in its essence, the GPL says that if someone else wrote the code, you can't hide it and claim that it is your code.
I understand that they extend it a little bit, but the basis is the intellectual property rights OF THE PERSON WHO DID THE WORK!
In our capatalist society we are supposed to acknowledge the creator of any work and pay them what is their due. Forbes is arguing that it communistic to pay for someone else's work. Unfortunately, quite the opposite is true.

--
-- There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Re:Tunnel vision by The+Vulture · 2003-10-14 07:12 · Score: 1

I don't disagree with you here, but one important point (which is mentioned in the article) is that Linksys might not have knowingly violated the GPL.

Broadcom is the company that designed the original board, CPU, and other necessary components (in other words, the "reference design"). Broadcom also put together the OS and the drivers.

It is quite possible (in fact, highly likely) that Linksys licensed the rights of the reference design from Broadcom (much like the company I work for, and other companies do for cable modems) and then put their own casing on it, maybe respun the board, and sold it as a product, without making any software changes.

I do put some fault on Linksys here, because they should have known what they were buying/licensing, and asked questions. However, I'm thinking here that Broadcom is the real culprit, and probably more pressure should be put on them than Cisco.

-- Joe
Re:Tunnel vision by Grab · 2003-10-14 07:13 · Score: 1

> > The problem with that conclusion is that Cisco didn't build the house.
> I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.

But for damn sure you own it. If someone came to your sports club, gave it a coat of paint, then sold it and kept the money himself, wouldn't you be a little annoyed?

OK, that's a physical property which doesn't translate well. Suppose I took the Harry Potter series, changed the names and sold it as my own work. How justified would I be in doing that?

> Where's your proof?

The simple fact that they didn't take one of the other options. They're not likely to choose the least cost-effective method, are they?

Grab.
Re:Tunnel vision by Russ+Nelson · 2003-10-14 09:11 · Score: 1

So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?

You have to establish a pecuniary pre- and post-sale relationship with your customer. Is that such an unusual idea? In any case, the issue here is not that Linksys made a product with some proprietary user-space bits. The problem is that they made a kernel with some proprietary GPL-space bits. Can't do that without releasing the source.
-russ

--
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Re:Tunnel vision by An+Onerous+Coward · 2003-10-14 10:54 · Score: 1

Actually, it would have been possible for Linksys to partition its own code off from the main kernel by using modules. Proprietary modules are perfectly all right under the GPL: all they would have had to release was the changes to the kernel itself.

Since Linksys had the option, why didn't they? Maybe it was for performance reasons? By migrating the drivers into the kernel itself, maybe they saved some performance, and were able to save money by using less beefy hardware.

But they made this design decision while the product was still being built, and if they were unaware of their obligations, that can only be attributed to gross negligence on their part. So I have no sympathy for them. Take 'em to court.

--
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Re:Tunnel vision by thisgooroo · 2003-10-14 13:14 · Score: 1

what seems to have happened was that some executive heard about "free software", didn't check what it meant, didn't read the license, looked foreward to the free ride, and then started whining about "having to give away his valuable IP". and you are trying to defend that? nobody forced them to use linux. there are other alternatives
Re:Tunnel vision by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 21:43 · Score: 0

No, non-GPL modules are not allright. It's just that
Linus states that it doesn't bother him (claming that it's not a derivative, which is not true). It may bother some other kernel developer. And he's on firm legal ground if he sues.
Re:Tunnel vision by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-15 06:15 · Score: 0

>> licensing GPL software requires you to contribute back to the pool of open source software from which you benefited.

>So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?

if it was done with open source software, most of the "secrets" are already out there for anyone to use just like Cisco did. and no one is asking them to tell us how they did it. just release the source code, period.

>> The problem with that conclusion is that Cisco didn't build the house.

>I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.

bad analogy to begin with. no one is asking them to give away their hardware patents or give others the rights to market Cisco hardware without paying them, or to set fire to anything. once again, just publish the source like you agreed to do.

>>Their $129 device, of which they have sold 400,000 units of, would have cost much more, and taken much longer to develop and get to market if they hadn't leveraged the free software provided by thousands of volunteers over the past ten years.

>Where's your proof?

umm, the code was written. they didn't have to write most of it, just edit it and write extensions to it. this apparently news to you, but that tends to save time.

>> Is it too much to ask that they make a small contribution of software back to the community, which provided them with software that allowed them to make millions of dollars?
>You call disclosing your product secrets a small contribution? I call it freely distributing the technology behind your product's distinct characteristics directly to your competition.

there is a way to keep the competition from seeing your code. i believe they call it proprietary software. you can either write it or buy it. when you use open source to save development time, don't whine later about the trade-off.

it's not as if what they were doing was a surprise to Cisco. they opted to save money and time using code that was already written and now they want the same advantages as they would have had from buying the code or writing it themselves. the two paths they chose NOT to take.

i fail to see how asking them to honor the agreement they made by using the code is in any way sneaky or underhanded.

was this originally signed Mr.Ballmer? someone mod this troll, please?

Nice to see... by cleetus · 2003-10-14 03:34 · Score: 1

Based on the well-modded sample letters to the editor, I'm glad to see that the community is being calm, polite, explanatory, and at most, only slightly angry. If we continue to deal with those journalists who either don't know about the GPL or who are obviously anti-GPL, I'm sure perceptions of the movement will slowly change for the better.

"Civility is not a sign of weakness" - JFK

This is mine... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:40 · Score: 0

"I believe that the article by Daniel Lyons, entitled "Linux's Hit Men" was very misleading. The article completely neglects and misrepresents the contributions that Open Source software have made to the bottom lines of the companies cited in the article.

The raw fact is simple; The majority of the software code that forms the basis for the product in question was written and distributed under copyright terms that require those who use this intellectual property for profit to share the changes that they have made. When Linksys chose to use Linux as a foundation for their product, they did it with the full understanding that they would be obligated to abide by the terms of the copyright (the GPL). There was never an opportunity for deception on the part of the Open Source community.

It is, in my opinion, irresponsible journalism to portray companies that are attempting to take the work of a vast community, profit from that work and ignore it's responsibilities to that community, as the victims. If Linksys were licensed this software under terms that required royalties to be paid and Cisco refused to honor those terms, I'm certain that it would be troublesome to Daniel Lyons. So why is it not troublesom when those terms are not monetary, but instead involve a moral (not to mention legal) responsibility?"

I thought it was mostly positive by Talla · 2003-10-14 03:42 · Score: 1

...even though it wasn't intended from the author. The FSF seems to do a very good job.

I am a bit worried that FSF could become another RIAA, though. Unless they have an agreement with all the author(s), which in the case of the Linux Kernel is not really possible, the money they win are not really theirs to take.

My response... by raw-sewage · 2003-10-14 03:42 · Score: 1

Defending its copyright and software license does not make the Free Software Foundation an ogre, as it is portrayed by the article "Linux's Hit Men" by Daniel Lyons.

The "Free" in Free Software Foundation refers to free speech and freedom of choice (as opposed to getting something without paying). GPL software has a specific license to which the user must abide if he is to use and modify it. If these terms are unacceptable to the user, he does not have to use the software. Everyone---individuals and companies---should understand the license of a software product before using it. GPL software is *not* public domain.

The association with Communism suggested by statements such as "Such a pity, comrade" are unfounded. GPL'ed software represents freedom; it is an alternative to closed-source, proprietary software that must be bought with cash. I see nothing un-American about the ability to choose among different options.

Those who disapprove of the GPL should simply ignore it; those people are no worse off than if it did not exist.

If I were to take a non-free program, such as Microsoft Word, modify it, then re-distribute it as my own, I can guarantee legal action by Microsoft! If the Free Software Foundation's copyright and license are not to be respected, then neither should any other company's. (Please note that, although difficult, it IS possible to modify a binary (i.e. compiled) program.)

Contact Forbes Editors by Yog+Soggoth · 2003-10-14 03:44 · Score: 1

It is absolutely vital that when companies engage in this sort of hatchet job on the Open Source software community that people contact the editors who ran the story and make our side of the story known. Kvetching about it in /. is not going to change these people's outlook, but a few hundred emails might. http://www.expressresponse.com/cgi-bin/forbes/disp layArticleWebForm.cgi

Don't just read the glowing reviews. by jbn-o · 2003-10-14 03:44 · Score: 1

Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.

There are differences between the Free Software and Open Source movements, one of them being that it was the FSF (not the OSI) that wrote the GNU General Public License years befpre the current version of the GPL (version 2) was written. The OSI merely placed the GPL on a list of approved licenses. Continually citing the GPL as an Open Source license hides this fact and gives the reader the idea that not only are there no differences between "free software" and "open source" but that the latter community (or an organization thereof) wrote the GPL. The OSI helps popularize the GPL, and that's great, but we shouldn't lose sight of what the two movements stand for and how they accomplish their goals.

Second, I would not skip reading it at all, certainly not because someone is "not portrayed in [a] positive light". Forbes is an internationally read magazine and website, and has the power to lead a great many people to misunderstand how the GPL works. This article is inconsistent with itself in a number of places (in addition to being just wrong with the facts). It deserves (and shall receive) a thorough debunking. I intend on doing so both on my radio show ("Digital Citizen" airs alternate Wednesdays, 8-10p WEFT 90.1 FM in Champaign, IL) and online (a letter to Forbes, posts here, and articles wherever people will read them).

--
Digital Citizen

How much would Linksys routers cost without Linux? by Daemongar · 2003-10-14 03:48 · Score: 0

Why the hell didn't the author mention that the Linksys devices were $129 because they didn't have to pay for the software they used? The Linksys devices were overwhelming popular because they are cheap and they (generally) work. They would have been the same price had they shared the code, or they could have gone out on a limb, wrote their own code, and they could have charged more for the devices to recoup their losses. They chose to take the code, sell routers for cheap, and ignore their obligations. Why is Forbes.com defending this or taking a hostile position toward the FSF?

I hope when my plan to sell a computer loaded with a modified version of Microsoft Windows XP Professional and sell it for the cost of the computer Forbes will look at me as kindly. I'd probably sell plenty, but uh-oh, Microsoft's "Hit-Men" may "in silence" start "making threats" at me.

Nothing wrong with GM foods by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:48 · Score: 0

"Steve Forbs talking about Genetic Manipulated Foods and how it was no problem and that people were being silly and dumb."

Forbes has the facts on this one. The anti-GM-foods cmapaign is nothing but luddite FUD, from the same sort of mindset that said at the dawn of the automobile age that human beings would turn inside out if they went more than 18 mph.

"He is one of the most ignorant and narrow minded person's that I have ever heard"

Maybe on other issues, but not when it comes to puncturing the superstition and the bad science arguments against GM foods.

Forbes is doing thier readers a service by KenSeymour · 2003-10-14 03:48 · Score: 1

A lot of their readership are in business. Business people may not have heard about GPL or understand what it implies.

This is just like an article that says "Make sure you read contracts before you sign them." and then talks about the kinds of clauses that can cause you trouble.

The intention of the FSF is to provide an advantage for folks that are willing to share their source code.
So I think the article sends the right message to business people:
If you seek to maintain competative advantage by keeping software source code secret, steer clear of the GPL.
The article even mentions that there is open source licensed so that you can use it and still keep your software source code secret.

FSF wants to deny developers of proprietary software the advantage of utilizing GPL software while keeping your code proprietary. That is their right since it is thier copyright.

Business people need to understand that they have two distinct choices in producing products containing software:

1) Build products where you maintain a competative advantage by developing something better and keeping the details secret. Only use existing software if the license is compatible with that approach (e.g. Berkeley license or proprietary code)
You can use Linux if you are careful about how you link your software to what modules.

2) Build products where you maintain a competative advantage by leveraging the freely donated (GPL licensed) work of others to improve time to market or a rich feature set, but let go of keeping your source code secret.

Using 1 shuts you off from using some high quality software in the GPL domain.
Using 2 shuts you off from paying someone to use their propietary software modules in your product.

I found this article to be accurate. Don't expect everyone to think that GPL software is the wonderful answer to everything.

Have you read every word of every copyright or EULA for every program you have ever used?
Do you read the comment banner for every .c file in the free software you just downloaded and ran?
You can probably get away with it if you are not selling products like routers.

It looks like CISCO and Broadcom are going to pay FSF to be educated on the difference between GPL and non-GPL software.

--
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein

Re:Forbes is doing thier readers a service by the_mad_poster · 2003-10-14 06:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

So I think the article sends the right message to business people:

Correction: It could have sent the right message to people. Unfortunately, Mr. Lyons sees no value in understanding what "free" in "free software" really means. His consistently uninformed, slanted, and frequently infammatory jabs indicate this to be true.

In addition, Forbes is intentionally spreading this misinformation because it jives with what a large number of techless managers (a large part of its following) already think and feel: I don't understand the proprietary stuff we're using now, but if I keep forking over wads of cash, we should be safe. I don't feel comfortable not forking over wads of cash to this OSS thing because I don't want to take the time to understand this new business model to reassure myself that it's okay.

If Mr. Lyons would simply present facts, then it would be ok. I certainly don't think that the GPL is good in every situation and, as a result, I don't GPL ALL of my code. However, Mr. Lyons has painted the FSF as some sinister, shadowy organization just waiting to jump out of an alley and club you on the head. This is certainly a better description of the BSA which the author mentions all of no times. In fact, while the FSF may go overboard in its zealous beliefs from time to time, they're a sedated lamb compared to the predatory BSA.

Have you read every word of every copyright or EULA for every program you have ever used?
Do you read the comment banner for every .c file in the free software you just downloaded and ran?
You can probably get away with it if you are not selling products like routers.

Absolutely not. But then... if companies like Linksys are going to base an entire product line on someone else's codebase, they need to do that. In today's addle-brained "market" where companies that produce no discernable service or good can sustain themselves entirely on filing lawsuits (PanIP, SCO), I would never be so stupid as to use an unknown code chunk I just found lying around without knowing exactly where it came from and how I was allowed to use it.

The GPL is certainly no magical silver bullet to solve every problem, but it isn't some dark, infectious disease waiting to hurt your bottom line. Just like any other tool at a company's disposal, it has to be carefully considered in context. If it doesn't fit your needs you don't use it - very simple. You (as in Forbes - not you) can't just toe the line that Mr Lyons does: The GPL is Evil because I don't care to understand it and companies like Linksys and Cisco bungle things up and get themselves in trouble.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:Forbes is doing thier readers a service by Minna+Kirai · 2003-10-14 06:02 · Score: 1

Have you read every word of every copyright or EULA for every program you have ever used?
Do you read the comment banner for every .c file in the free software you just downloaded and ran?

No, I haven't done those things.

You can probably get away with it if you are not selling products like routers.

I can get away with it because I'm not republishing copyrighted materials. I'm not doing anything that I wasn't already given permission to do when I recieved the software.

An EULA is not a contract and is not binding. The comment banners? I read them sometimes, but they're still not contracts. (Or, if you consider those things to be contracts, there not ones an end-user has any reason to join. The performance of an action can only be interpreted as acsenting to a contract if the individual would not have been allowed to perform said action without permission from the other party)
Re:Forbes is doing thier readers a service by Tony-A · 2003-10-14 06:46 · Score: 1

Business people need to understand that they have two distinct choices in producing products containing software:

For the most part, business is a consumer of software rather than a producer. Most of the readers of Forbes are consumers of sofware rather than producers.

Lyons is setting the stage for the fight of the century. You have sweet innocent IBM being defended by FSF thugs. (You can't make up that scene;)

Information Technology will continue to grow, at least in terms of what we should be able to get out of it. We've probably passed the point where the expenditures for IT outpace GNP. What will matter more and more into the future is the ability of software to interoperate, across brands, across versions, and to be able to trust it and be sure that there is no funny business going on with it. You get the trust, not from your own competence in detecting stuff, nor from the trustworthiness of the authors. You get the trust when the NSA is using CHICOM code on their internal stuff. And the Chinese are returning the honor.
Re:Forbes is doing thier readers a service by jcast · 2003-10-14 07:09 · Score: 1

Well, no, it's more like saying ``be sure not to use anything with a contract involved, or those evil lawyer bastards will hang you by the balls''. Pure, unbiased reporting from a bastion of capitalism...

Btw., since where does a good pro-Capitalism magazine like Forbes get off opposing good Anarcho-Capitalist techniques like private enforcement?

--
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman

My reply by Experiment+626 · 2003-10-14 03:49 · Score: 1

I doubt anyone actually reads anything submitted from the "respond to this article" link, but I was annoyed enough by this article to write anyway. I'll post my comments here too so they can be seen by something other than Forbes's /dev/null:

Your article "Linux's Hit Men" was a very slanted and generally unprofessional piece of journalism.

Linksys has built their product directly on a piece of software for which they have willfully failed to abide by the licensing terms. In other words, they have made millions through software piracy.

Whether those licensing terms call for monetary payment, public acknowledgement, distribution of source code, or any other stipulation is irrelevant. If Linksys did not intend to abide by them, they should not have used the software in question, doing so is obviously a copyright violation, an offense that has often been likened to outright theft.

Of course the FSF is aggressive when intellectual property they are protecting is being flagrantly and illegally taken to build someone else's business. The premise of your article that this is somehow nefarious, that threatening legal action against those who pirate software makes one a villain. Does your magazine take the same tone when the party protecting their software is the Microsoft Corp., Software Publishers Association, or Business Software Alliance?

Re:My reply by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:24 · Score: 0

Your article "Linux's Hit Men" was a very slanted and generally unprofessional piece of journalism.

And you know about professional journalism what exactly? And who appointed you to judge journalistic quality in the first place?

doing so is obviously a copyright violation

How obvious is it? Care to quote a court case where a judge maintained so?

being flagrantly and illegally

Only the court maintains what's legal and what's not in this country. Care to quote a court case?
Re:My reply by Experiment+626 · 2003-10-14 08:14 · Score: 1

And you know about professional journalism what exactly? And who appointed you to judge journalistic quality in the first place?

What specifically is so contentious about my standards for journalistic quality? Objectivity and fair treatment of the subject matter being reported on are good, unfounded premises and using phrases like "dark side" and "comrade" to shift the tone of the article from fact to rhetoric are not. True, I'm no journalistic professional myself, but these qualities seem to be among those that distinguish respected reporting from your average Slashdot troll.

How obvious is it? Care to quote a court case where a judge maintained so? Only the court maintains what's legal and what's not in this country. Care to quote a court case?

Please explain your counter-rationale, this is interesting. Linksys distributed a piece of copyrighted software without permission from the copyright holders. The GPL would grant them permission to do this, had they released the source for their derivative work, but they didn't, so that point is moot. Your position is what exactly, that there is no legal precedent for copyright infringement being illegal? Or because "only the court maintains what's legal and what's not" you can do whatever you want until you get convicted of a crime and/or are found liable for a civil tort?

A lawyer asking a question nicely is _what_? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:51 · Score: 0

Just so I understand this masterpiece of solid reasoning and unbiased reporting correctly:

I take it this Mr. Lyons of theirs is telling me that asking a nice question in private discussion, as opposed to, say, suing the perpetrator over 500 million dollars of missed revenue and extra penalties right away, and announcing the lawsuit to the national press on the same day, is now considered the tactics of "hit-men"?

Holy moly! Somebody build me a wormhole to may home universe, quick --- I must have fallen through one sometime yesterday without noticing until now. The meaning of terms 'hit-man' or 'threat' sure is a completely different one around here than where I came from.

On top of that, Mr. Lyons also seems to have a rather "interesting" mental model of software licences and how they work. Maybe we have to translate it for him, into terms he can hopefully understand.

1) So Cisco bought LinkSys, and that means they bought all their legal responsibilities to, period. They may have been defrauded int he process. If they think so, they should sue. That's no concern of yours.

2) What we're dealing with here is a case of someone making profit by selling "stolen" goods, and that all the FSF is demanding here is that those goods be given back to their rightful owner --- in this case, the general public. What exactly about this is so hard to understand?

MOD PARENT UP HILARIOUS, INSIGHTFUL by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:52 · Score: 0

thanks for that!

A much better Forewarning by stewby18 · 2003-10-14 03:52 · Score: 1

[Forewarning: This is blatant, uninformed, and content-free propaganda against the FSF and GPL, so be sure to avail yourself of the article comment feature to point out how very very wrong the author is after reading it]

Ignoring idiots won't help, as the parent notes. What we need to do instead is speak out loudly (but eloquently; "Ly0nz suXX0rz!!!" isn't going to help the case any) against FUD like this whenever we see it.

My comment to Forbes by AlexCompy · 2003-10-14 03:53 · Score: 1

I submitted the following to Forbes. I am not entirely convinced that it will be published in full:

Sir,

I found the tone of your article most interesting. I am not a regular reader of your magazine so I am not familiar with your attitude to the law.

As you are no doubt aware, the GPL is a perfectly standard copyright license, protecting copyrighted software. By way of analogy, the contents of Forbes magazine is protected by copyright. One might expect that if another business entity copied the contents of the magazine, changed the name and sold it on, Forbes might consider taking legal action. I am not sure why the author of this article believes the owners of the copyrights over software released under the GPL should be deprived their legal right to sue for breach of copyright.

As for Cisco, I am unsure as to why we should be feeling sympathy for them. Cisco acquired Linksys for some half a billion dollars. One might reasonably expect Cisco to perform some due diligence work in an acquisition of that scale. Moreover, the fact that Linksys acted illegally prior to the acquisition surely does not absolve Cisco (who now own Linksys) of liability for the illegal acts.

In respect of your author's point regarding the FSF's 'secret meetings', it is my understanding that the early stages of litigation are generally conducted in private between the interested parties. I am not sure why your author feels that it should be different in this case.

I should be grateful if you would explain why the enforcement of the law, within the proper framework of the law, is somehow morally reprehensible when the plaintiff is not for profit organisation.

You might want to skip reading by peterpi · 2003-10-14 03:55 · Score: 1

"The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this."

That comment just sums up such a huge percentage of the slashdot readership.

Re:You might want to skip reading by PrimeNumber · 2003-10-14 04:10 · Score: 1

No what I was saying was (which I probably should have made clearer, hindsight is 20/20...) this:

I didnt want this to be "lets submit this to Slashdot and get everyone riled up", so read it knowing what type of article this will be.
Intended to mean "you will most likely either get pissed off or disgusted by this type of thinking". I know I did.

Case in point: The comrades comment by the author was a real winner, real non-biased journalistic integrity there dont you think?
Re:You might want to skip reading by peterpi · 2003-10-14 05:19 · Score: 1

Just a cheap crack, sorry :)
Actually, I found the article informative and balanced. I don't think it was biased at all.
Isn't another option for Cisco/Broadcom to remove all the GPL'd code from their product? They could switch to a BSD kernel and everybody would be happy!

No women, no children... by csoto · 2003-10-14 03:55 · Score: 0

And don't forget to water my plant...

--
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom

Well, at least he knows about that. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:56 · Score: 0

"All he sees is "American Capitalism" and how much better it is than everything else."

Well, at least this shows that Forbes is well-versed in comparative economics and politics.

No, no, no. by AriesGeek · 2003-10-14 03:56 · Score: 1

I'm not paying rent. I bought the house. In fact, I paid cash for it. (Well, I wish. But for the sake of anology, that's how it is.) However, if what you're saying is correct, then the seller didn't originally have the right to sell me the house, since he was renting it, and even then not paying his rent. Therefore, both the landlord and I could both recover damages from the seller. Your analogy is flawed.

--
Insert offensive troll-style sig here. Please mod or respond appropriately.

Re:No, no, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:29 · Score: 0

I'm not paying rent. I bought the house. In fact, I paid cash for it. (Well, I wish. But for the sake of anology, that's how it is.)

How is this an apropriate analogy for Linksys's use of GPL code? What "cash" did they use to pay for Linux and where's my part of the proceeds?

Linksys bought Linux with a Morgage (the GPL, underwritten by the FSF) The mortgage requires them to pay (by disclosing any changes that they made) or lose the house. Pretty much like the rest of the universe. Now Forbes is putting up a sob story because a mortgage lender is trying to forclose on a defaulting borrower.

Linksys has another option. They can figure out who owns the copyright to all the code that they are using and can work out private licensing with all of them. Then they can do what they want. Diffucult? Expensive? Cry me a river. This is business.
Re:No, no, no. by Ohreally_factor · 2003-10-14 04:36 · Score: 1

Incorrect. You bought stolen property. That property is now forfeit to the rightful owner, who is NOT you. Analogy holds up.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:No, no, no. by op00to · 2003-10-14 04:56 · Score: 1

I'd like you to know that just by saying the magic words, "Your analogy is flawed", doesn't mean that his analogy is flawed. Funny how that works, eh? But, going over your previous posts, I see you like to do stuff like that. Anyhow, let's see if I can scale this down to something that you can digest.

You do not "own" GPL code when you integrate it into your own product. You are effectively leasing it from its "owner", whether that be FSF or someone else. The "owner" is kind enough to lease to you the right to utilize that code for the payment of publicly disclosing the changes you make to the code.

That is your rent. Everyone who uses GPL'ed code must pay the rent.

You did not pay cash for the GPL'ed code. There is no way to pay cash for the GPL'ed code. The only payment that is acceptable and requested is if you make publicly available the changes you make to the GPL'ed code.

Let's go back to the rent analogy. You seem very interested in somehow making real property rights the same as intellectual property rights. For the record, these are very different things. There are very different ways of dealing with real and intellectual property rights. But just for now, since you can't grasp that, let's try to make this easier for you to understand.

Say you'd really like to use a new delivery van for your e-commerce business. You can either buy a delivery van named "IIS" for a sum of money. That is not appealing to you. You notice in the newspaper an ad for another van. Let's name the model of the van APACHE. You go to check it out, and the owner says that you can use the van as much as you'd like for free. The only request is that if you make any modifications to the van, that you share those modifications with the public. Now, if you change the van from 2-wheel drive to 4-wheel drive, you will have to show how you did that to the owner of the van, and probably anyone else who wants to see. That is the term of the agreement. No one twisted your arm to take the Apache van, because there's a perfectly good IIS van around the corner. If you don't let the owner know about those changes, he has the right to take the van away from you, and charge you for violating the license. That is part of the contract. Since you agreed to the contract, you have no right to utilize the software in a way that goes against the contract.

Here's a common example of how this works: If you rent a car, and the rental agreement says that the car must stay in the US, you can not bring the car out of the US. If you bring the car out of the US, you have breeched the agreeement you entered with the rental company, and they can request monetary damages from you.

Is this any different than taking Wordperfect or whatever and installing it on more computers than you have licenses for? No. You've violated the license agreement, and the company has every right to go after you. It's the same thing here.
Re:No, no, no. by arkanes · 2003-10-14 04:57 · Score: 1

OP is correct - Cisco doesn't own the house. The people who built the house own it. They're allowed to use the house subject to terms of the agreement (ie, paying rent). Read Cisco as Linksys if you want of course - but Cisco owns them now so they've got the responsibility.
Re:No, no, no. by pyros · 2003-10-14 06:24 · Score: 1

let's see if I can scale this down to something that you can digest.
You forgot to call him a warthog-faced buffoon.
Re:No, no, no. by rainer_d · 2003-10-14 06:31 · Score: 1

Say you'd really like to use a new delivery van for your e-commerce business. You can either buy a delivery van named "IIS" for a sum of money. That is not appealing to you. You notice in the newspaper an ad for another van. Let's name the model of the van APACHE. You go to check it out, and the owner says that you can use the van as much as you'd like for free. The only request is that if you make any modifications to the van, that you share those modifications with the public.
Nice analogy, but Apache comes under a BSD-style license...do you know the difference ;-) ?
Better use a webserver with GPL licence.

--
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Re:No, no, no. by op00to · 2003-10-14 07:11 · Score: 1

The van was named APACHE. I wasn't talking about a web server. :)
Re:No, no, no. by FreakinHippie · 2003-10-14 08:15 · Score: 1

He was talking about at vehicle, not a webserver. It was under whatever license he described. :)

My Comments by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:56 · Score: 0

"Linux's Hit Men" Misleading

Daniel Lyons' October 14 article, "Linux's Hit Men," is extremely misleading and demonstrates both bias and ignorance on the part of the author. He seems to take issue with Free Software authors' attempts to enforce the license under which they have released their software. What, exactly, is the problem? The GPL is a legally binding contract designed to ensure that software intended by the author to be publicly available will remain publicly available. If a company like Cisco chooses to use GPL software in its products, then like it or not, it is bound by that contract. If a company feels that releasing its code under the GPL would expose trade secrets, then it should not use GPL code in its own products at all. Sorry, Mr. Lyons, but everyone has to play by the rules, not just Microsoft customers. Furthermore, the characterization of Free Software authors as "hit men" is pure libel. Considering this and past articles by Mr. Lyons, he appears to be on a personal mission to discredit Free and Open Source Software and those who write it. I am disappointed that a fine publication like Forbes would publish nonsense like this.

PHB-to-geek translation by Wylfing · 2003-10-14 03:58 · Score: 1

Everyone has already pointed out the shocking illogic of this article. However, you do not seem to understand the PHB perspective. In business, disrespecting "rights" or "licenses" is Standard Operating Procedure. You simply take into account the risk of getting sued, the probable dollar amount of a settlement, and then proceed as if you didn't owe anyone anything. If and when you get sued, you deal with it then, typically by cutting a deal with the "wronged" corporation via royalties, cross-licensing, or a one-time payment.

This what pisses PHBs off about Linux and the GPL:

It's hard to estimate the risk of getting sued, and by whom.
The "damages" sought by these suits are the disclosure of the source code, which in PHB-world is a capital loss -- FAR worse than fines or royalties. It's equivalent to your warehouse burning down and not having any insurance.

They never, never think that they should abide by the software license. That just isn't part of the process. So when they blatantly steal GPL code and get caught, all the PHBs are steaming mad that the FSF (or whoever) isn't playing by "the rules of business." The PHBs see this as an attack coming out of nowhere and asking for insanely high, non-negotiable levels of damages.

Hence, we get the vitriol of Mr. Daniel Lyons.

--
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.

Re:PHB-to-geek translation by paj1234 · 2003-10-14 08:41 · Score: 1

In that case, it's like:

Stallman: How are you gentlemen?
PHB: Somebody set up us the bomb!
Stallman: All your source are belong to us.

It's the software that's free, not you by Clith · 2003-10-14 03:58 · Score: 1

It is the *software* that is free. The GPL ensures the software remains free. Other licenses (e.g. BSD) allow software to be branched and updated without ever being available again.

You can think of the GPL as a way of promising the future that as long as this code survives and is used, you will be able to get a current, up-to-date copy of it. The same cannot be said of less free licenses.

When I realized that the term "free" really applied to the code and not to people's use of the code, it seemed to make everything clear. If I am mistaken in my understanding, please let me know. This was a pretty recent realization.

.. I gave up moderating this thread in order to post this. Hope it was worth it!

--
[ReidNews]

Re:It's the software that's free, not you by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:59 · Score: 0

Exactly. The software remains free (as in available to everyone, not hidden away). It doesn't mean that everyone is free to exploit it in any way they like, but it remains available to anyone who wishes to play by the rules.

No theft involved by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 03:59 · Score: 0

"The problem is that these guys are under the impression that stealing from someone trying to make money=bad, while stealing from someone not trying to make money=ok."

That would be fine, except that theft is not involved with any of this. Copyright and licence violations are different sorts of infractions than theft.

Can't resist by jobsagoodun · 2003-10-14 03:59 · Score: 1

1. Get on high horse about nasty FSF bullieses 2. Get Slashdotted! 3. Clock the page impressions! 4. Profit!!!

But the copy wasn't as good that way by stewby18 · 2003-10-14 04:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

I mean, it's hard to get an anti-GPL spin if you make the fundamental correction to the story:

Aimed at home users, the $129 device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units in the first quarter of this year alone.

But now there's a problem. The Linux software in the router is distributed under the GNU General Public License (GPL), which the Free Software Foundation created in 1991. That means that the major reason this device was such a hot seller is that it used code stolen from thousands of volunteers.

Somehow, I doubt that would have fit into Lyons' vision of the story

Its my choice. by tiger_omega · 2003-10-14 04:03 · Score: 1

The GPL like any other license agreement sets out the terms and conditions under which the program and its source code can be used. So if a company creates a product derived from GPL'd source code then it follows that the source code for that product will fall under the GPL.

If the company does not like these terms then they can find or create alternative solutions to build their product from. Its entirely their choice and if a company choices to use GPL source code then they should be fully aware of the consequences of using it.

To me the author of the article is trying to cast the GPL in a bad light because companies that have violated the license terms of the GPL have lost money over it. I on the other hand think that the companies that have lost revenue are at fault because they should have been aware of the conditions of using such source code and that they can be brought to book on it.

Moderators on crack? by nniillss · 2003-10-14 04:03 · Score: 1

Linux is a silly idea for commercial products

In what way is this 100% insightful?

Too funny for words by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:03 · Score: 0

First SCO now this, can it get any better? It all goes back to the kindergarden really. There was always that kid, every other word was 'mine'. If you had anything at all, they always wanted it, maybe there is an aquisitive gene? The idea that you can never aquire that enough to satisfy that deep lust to own everything.

This deep lust used to be expressed in the supposed ownership of people. After a degree of enlightenment, the consensus became it was morally wrong, evidence from Darwin showed just how wrong the idea of owning people became. So the slave owners were left with no people to own. Shame Shame, began the cry, we like owning people, it makes us feel superiour owning other people, they said over and over again, what shall we do? Then somebody had the idea let us former slave owners become 'idea' owners, what a wonderful idea somebody said.

As long as we keep it secret that it was only an idea in the first place we should be OK. There came about a problem tho' some of of the former slaves and semi-slaves managed to get their hands on some of the utilities with which ideas can be expressed such as computers and guitars all was well for a while. The slave owners continued around with their noses in the air, they were kings again instead of owning people they owned what was between peoples ears instead. What a life, no real work, loadsa money, look at Ballmer, bet he hasn't written a line of code in his life, fat bastard. Yeah, does Gates write code ? Well he did not write DOS, it used to be CPM. M$ bought DOS for fifty grand, yes people, he bought an idea, like people used to buy people and what a pile of shit that OS turned out to be, 20 bit operating system in a 32 bit environment, don't make me laugh.

Well 'cos of the 'net it is slowly but surely being discovered that the emporer is truely in the nude. The true creators of the ideas of humanity can exist in a state of creative communion at last, and I do not mean that in a religious or a political sense, I mean that in a mental sense. The idea of sharing ideas, so the whole world can benefit.

Before we had chemistry we had alchemy, problem with alchemy was it advanced to slowly because researchers kept their discoveries a secret. Then the age of enlightenment happened and the revolution of scientific peer review came about and alchemy turned into chemistry. The same process happened with mathematics, physics etc etc. It is now happening with software and music and films and whatever hoorah I say and cheers.

...you are correct by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:03 · Score: 0

see this post regarding my intentions.

Linux IS a silly idea for commercial products by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:04 · Score: 0

That is the way it has worked out so far: Linux apps flourish at Sourceforge, but not at Babbage's.

My Comment to Forbes by geomon · 2003-10-14 04:05 · Score: 1

Two comments just underscore how clueless Forbes is on the technology front.

"For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation,"

So secret, in fact, that they have a webpage (www.gnu.org), and have regular speaking engagements. What sneaky people these FSF folks are.

"But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners."

Sure. You come to my property, steal my lumber, build a house out of it, and now you complain when I ask you to return the lumber?

You are too funny. You seem to think that someone can violate a copyright and refuse to acknowledge the owner's call for settlement.

Your equally clueless attempt to make an 'apples to apples' comparison of your thesis to the current litigation between SCO and IBM fell short as well. You discussed the case in your intro as if it had *anything* to do with the current dispute between Cisco and the FSF. Here's some free (as in software) clues:

1) SCO has yet to make any attempt to ask the Linux community to comply with their *alleged* copyright infringement. Note the difference between this case and the Cisco v. FSF issue. You wrote the article; can't you see the difference? If SCO provides the information to the Linux developers, the infringing code would be removed. This is what FSF is asking Cisco to do.

2) Linux is the kernel developed by Linus Torvalds. The FSF was created nearly seven years *before* Linus started the development of his kernel. Linux and GNU (the FSF software suite) are symbiotic, but not specifically related. You might try your homework before attempting to cast such a wide conspiracy net. The FSF software can be found in *BSD as well. It is probably integrated in Microsoft's operating system, but we may never know because it is proprietary and any copyright infringement will stay buried until the code is released from copyright. In short, Linux is certainly dependant on GNU and the FSF, but that is an artifact of where the available software was at the time of Linux's development. It is not the conspiracy you imply.

3) Free software doesn't mean public domain. The people who contribute to open source and free software organizations do so because they get more from it than by attempting to reinvent the wheel alone. They expect that other people will respect that tradition and give back from where they take. I know you see Marxist philosophy all over this effort, but you could also paint the settlers of the American West with the same brush. Free software and open source software continue the tradition of community development in the same spirit as a barn raising. Every able-bodied man would congregate on one farmers property to help that family assemble their barn knowing that they could, in turn, count on their neighbors for help when their turn came. Hardly the Marxist comparison you hoped for, eh?

3) Since free software and open source developers contribute to the community effort, they retain their copyright (you know, copyright law). They do not give poachers the right to take software written for a code-sharing organization to be their own exclusive property. The creative commons approach requires that everyone who takes must give back *their* contribution. Either that or they can GO MAKE THEIR OWN CODE. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I'm glad my subscription to Forbes is lapsing this month. I can't see your rag providing me, or anyone, with any useful technology investment information.

Because it is clear that you don't understand technology.

--
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"

My reply to Forbes.com by arikb · 2003-10-14 04:08 · Score: 1

Free

The word Free has two meanings. "Free as in free beer" (which means you get something without paying for it) and "Free as in free speach" (which means that you enjoy some kind of freedom).

GPL

The GNU Public License is a software license. Like other licenses, the copyright holder can decide that the conditions to distribute the copyrighted material (source code) will be compliance with the license.

Unlike a commercial license, the conditions in the GPL are meant to preserve the freedom (Free in the latter form) of the source code.

One of the conditions set in the GPL is that if you create derivative work of the source code, you have to release your derivative work under the same license.

Another clause determines that the code protected under the GPL must be available in source code format, for free (not for money free), if it is available in binary form (such as inside a Cisco router).

These conditions were put there in order to preserve the freedom of the source code.

What right?

It is the right of the copyright owner to set conditions for use of their copyrighted material, and failure to comply with those conditions is a license violation. In this case, the various authors of the Linux OS have chosen the GPL as the set of rules, and as a licensee, Cisco has to abide by the license. Not abiding by the license is a violation of the said license.

The FSF then, as the copyright holder, has a right to use whatever means the law provides in order to make the said violator to comply with the license.

Linksys (before it was Cisco)

When the Linksys engineers have opted to use Linux as their operationg system, they did not do it because Linux had a monopoly in the embedded OS market, nor was their hand twisted in any way.

They chose Linux because it is available, and it is free. They got an OS, which was developed by a collective effort equal to thousands of man-hours, and they got it for free. Yay. More power to them.

And now those Linksys engineers built a device which includes this OS, and they had to change parts of the OS to make it work for them. Not a problem - that's the intention of the copyright holders. Take it and change it to your heart's content.

And so they did, and they took that (modified) source and compiled it into binaries and put the binaries in their router and released (sold) it. Again, no problem here. They sold the hardware, for-pay, with GPL-ed software in it.

What they failed to do was to comply with the GPL and re-release the modified source code - the derivative work. Like it or not, that's one of the conditions set by the GPL, and the GPL is the license under which the copyright holder released the code, and in order to comply with the GPL, that's what they have to do. They heve not.

The article

It is unfair to say that the FSF is now forcing these guys to burn down their house. These guys knew full well what they are getting into. They want to have an OS for free. Well, guess what - it comes with strings attached. No, not monetary strings - but you have to comply with the license.

If Linksys were violating some other company's license, a commercial license, they would go to court and either settle or get a ruling. If indeed they were in violation, they'd lose. They will be ending complying to the license.

The FSF

But the FSF, a voluntary organization, does not seek settlements. They seek compliance. They are a bunch of idealists, endowed with the ideals of the well known free software advocate Richard M. Stallman, and what they want is more free software. It hurts their feelings that companies take free (as in speech) software and make it un-free.

And you know what? They're within their rights.

"We'd like people to stop selling proprietary software. It's bad for the world," Kuhn says. And he's not saying that because he has some secret agenda. He truely believs that. I have

Re:My Feedback is wrong and flawed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:11 · Score: 0

Furthermore, the article goes on to lambast the Free Software Foundation, a non-profit watchdog group, for attempting to enforce its own copyrights.

The FSF does not own the copyrights to Linux! Linus and others do. So why is the FSF going around "secretly" enforcing other peoples copyrights? Being the authors of the GPL doesn't give them this right. Strange.

skip reading? by h4x0r-3l337 · 2003-10-14 04:11 · Score: 1

The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this

Why? Can't the open source community take criticism? The article makes some very good points, such as that companies might turn away from using open source for the reasons given in the article. If you ignore these facts, you're dooming open source software to a fringe existence.

Job offer by sad_ · 2003-10-14 04:12 · Score: 1

SCO should make this guy a job offer, they could use him as another GPL specialist, as he clearly demonstrates he understands the GPL to the fullest.

--
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

Re:Is George Bush really president? by Alien+Conspiracy · 2003-10-14 04:13 · Score: 1

No, that would be Al Gore :)

My letter to Forbes by jvkjvk · 2003-10-14 04:14 · Score: 1

I'm sorry to say that I must disagree with most of the points Daniel Lyons raised in your article about Linux and the GPL, and I am disappointed that the article was so extremely biased.

The GPL is a license, based solidly on the copyright of the intellectual property it protects.

Just as Microsoft, SCO, Cisco, et al, use licenses and lawyers to control their intellectual property, the FSF (Free Software Foundation) uses a license and a lawyer to control the intellectual property rights assigned to them.

The terms of the licenses may be different, but that is hardly the point. If you use a product that is licensed under the GPL, you are obliged to abide by its license agreement.

The reason Linksys was able to ship a solid product - a "smash hit" as Daniel called it - garnering over $5M in sales, was due to the foundation Linksys built on.

In this case, that foundation was Linux.

Linksys could have developed their own code base for the router, but made a business decision to use the intellectual property of others, to offset the millions that would have been spent in R&D, testing, etc., to develop their own code.

Yes, businesses have to weigh whether using a GPL'd product as the base of their own product is worthwhile. If you don't think that it would work for you, don't use the product. It's really that simple.

Linksys obviously thought it was worth it.

To pretend horror over an entity (albeit not a Fortune 500 company) actually defending their intellectual property rights is disingenuous if copyright is to mean anything.

Calling the FSF "hit men", saying they "acted in secret" (even though it has been widely discussed in the technical and legal forums where it is of interest), calling this the "dark side of the free software movement" is more than preposterous - it is propaganda. Saying that the FSF "snoop out violators and bust them" is nothing more than saying they defend their intellectual property, although in much more derogatory language.

Pretending there is some kind of conspiracy, insinuating the FSF receives kickbacks, suggesting subtly that the FSF and GPL are out to take over the world, communist style, hearkens back to the McCarthy era, and I think should be left there.

I an forced to wonder at the dichotomy of Daniel's positions.

Are intellectual property rights only valid if held by large corporations, or do individuals, and groups of individuals also have the right to their own intellectual property?

He seems to thing it is proper for SCO to sue IBM over UNIX code in Linux, but not for the FSF to sue anyone over GPL'd code in their products.

Are individuals or smaller entities to be constrained from defending their intellectual property rights?

I can't imagine Daniel so shrilly protesting if Forbes (for example) talked with some company that was using their copyrighted articles, maybe even threatened to take them to court over it.

I do agree with one point in Daniel's article. I, for one, would welcome a full blown challenge of the GPL in court.

It is a pity that no one has yet challenged this in court, but perhaps that is because the GPL is solidly based on copyright, and the challenger would likely loose.

Re:My letter to Forbes by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:20 · Score: 0

Your letter is too long and boring. It will go straight to the editor's bin. Save 37c postage.

Article Accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:15 · Score: 0

I don't really see a problem with this article. It's not as rabid as most Anti M$ articles we read on a daily basis and it pretty much puts the facts out there even if the conclusions drawn are self serving of big software companies. We shouldn't be mad at the depiction, we should embrace it...we have the right to defend our licenses and we're doing it. They have the right to depict us as hitmen. Same as we depict them as evil empires. Every issue has two sides and this one is not as clear cut as we like to think.

No mailto link, no balls, no concern.... by otis+wildflower · 2003-10-14 04:15 · Score: 1

... anyone writing this kind of junk that hides behind a feedback form is IMHO safely ignored.

Even M$ flunky Charles Cooper from CNET has a mailto link for 'corrections'..

Re:No mailto link, no balls, no concern.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:06 · Score: 0

If you read the bottom of the feedback form, it states that Forbes.com employee e-mail addresses are formatted: first initial last name@forbes.net (jdoe@forbes.net).
So try dlyons@forbes.net

No, Gore lost the election by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:16 · Score: 0

No, Gore lost the election, was not chosen by the electoral college, and was not inaugurated. 3 strikes and you are out, or at least you are a sore loser.

Re:No, Gore lost the election by Alien+Conspiracy · 2003-10-23 22:30 · Score: 1

yeah, right

Oh Bullcrap by bogie · 2003-10-14 04:17 · Score: 1

Gimmie a fucking break. If I read an article that said Microsoft was killing babies I'd be first to say what a load of crap.

"I only read what I want to hear and ignore others perspectives, right or wrong.

No see there is where you wide brush fails you. This isn't about "perspectives" this is about outright lies. And No we don't want to listen to them and nor should we have to. If this were about benchmarks or the debate on whether closed or opensource is more secure you would have a point. But its not. This is just pure slander with zero technical merit or basis in reality.

It's clear this writer has a true hate for linux and the GPL and isn't going to let a little thing like the truth get into the way.

The things the FSF is asking for here is just what is right legally and morally and for that they get slandered.

"Will Cisco and Broadcom be the first? Probably they'll decide, like everyone else, that it's cheaper to settle than to fight.

Such a pity, comrade."

My response: I dunno, should they actually respect a product's licensing or should they continue to illegally distribute software they don't own?

Such a pity, you don't realize this is about billion dollar companies trying to steal and coopt the work of volunteers.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch

I Love the USA! by Ridgelift · 2003-10-14 04:18 · Score: 1

Will Cisco and Broadcom be the first? Probably they'll decide, like everyone else, that it's cheaper to settle than to fight.

Such a pity, comrade.

I love the 'ol American trump card. If someone threatens to stop your abuse of their right to do something gratis, call them a COMMUNIST!!!

--
Ruby on Rails Screencast

A friend of mine works at Forbes. by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2003-10-14 04:18 · Score: 1

About a year ago, the writers were told that if they can make a story mention "Linux" in any way, they should.

They just want your clicks. Your clicks and your attention. Maybe you'll even tell a coworker about how angry the story made you.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.

Re:A friend of mine works at Forbes. by otis+wildflower · 2003-10-14 04:50 · Score: 1

The irony of course is that OSS fans are probably far more likely than the average browser to run adblocker proxies..
Re:A friend of mine works at Forbes. by ErikTheRed · 2003-10-14 05:39 · Score: 1

The only real way to get the attention of such a magazine is to get angry and cancel your subscription, and mention the idea to your friends and coworkers as well...

--

Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Re:A friend of mine works at Forbes. by CrackHappy · 2003-10-14 06:50 · Score: 1

Anyone else read the second line as "They just want your CHICKS"?

I just had an amusing picture in my head of Forbes's geeky writers chasing my wife down the hallway going "Here Chicky Chicky Chicky" and flapping their arms like a chicken.

Oh god, I shouldn't drink so much coffee.

--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d Capitalization really works: i helped my uncle jack off a horse
Re:A friend of mine works at Forbes. by Tony-A · 2003-10-14 07:16 · Score: 1

About a year ago, the writers were told that if they can make a story mention "Linux" in any way, they should.

You can't buy that kind of advertising.

Pure straight up troll by Ironpoint · 2003-10-14 04:18 · Score: 1

"Such a pity, comrade"

haha, straight up trolling in FORBES magazine. I could write a nice troll for forbes if they need writers.

Seriously, I don't care if companies dump open source altogether. Their loss.

Wow... by Sj0 · 2003-10-14 04:20 · Score: 1

Interesting how when it's the RIAA or Microsoft defending their copyright, it's a company "defending itself from the evil pirates", but when it's the FSF defending the GPL, it's "poor, hapless companies, whose works are being stolen by the horrible GPL using communists"...

How about this? If you aren't prepared to follow the terms of distribution for a piece of software, regardless of whether it's GPL'd or EULA'd, don't use it. It may be a difficult thing for end-users who feel forced into Microsoft, but when you're the largest maker of routers in the world, I think you can spend the resources to find software with a compatible license before you start breaking license agreements and crying to forbes about it.

--
It's been a long time.

Inappropriate comparison with SCO by bfields · 2003-10-14 04:21 · Score: 1

The parallel that the author wants to draw between SCO's case and this one is far-fetched: SCO has been making public allegations and demands for months now without producing a shred of evidence, whereas the FSF has been quietly negotiating a solution to a well-documented violation. (We know their evidence is good because other individuals (not the FSF) have published detailed documentation, including, for example, step-by-step instructions on how to extract code from the Linksys devices and compare it to the kernel tree.)

Also, I see no evidence whatsoever for the allegation that the FSF is secretly hoping to trap companies into accidentally include GPL'd code in their products so that the FSF can force them to open source their software. As far as I can tell the FSF makes a great effort to explain the GPL and what it requires of licensees.

--Bruce Fields

They COULD just pay for it... by aphor · 2003-10-14 04:23 · Score: 1

Forbes doesn't have much of a news desk given the lack of fact-checking going on. If you use GPL'ed software and you don't want to release source for your binary distributions, you can just find all the copyright holders for all the code you're using and pay them whatever they want for a non-GPL license. The thing that really grinds Forbes' readers' teeth is that the programmers still own the copyrights and not the (hand waving) mystery men behind the corporate veil.

Why is this so bad for Cisco (Linksys) and Broadcom? When you outsource development you have to pay more to own the IP produced by the contractors. The only difference here is that Cisco and Broadcom didn't pay for the development, and the copyright holders now have claims against the license violations. It wasn't in the budget...

--
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...

sure.. by gimpboy · 2003-10-14 04:26 · Score: 1

and when you sit back at night watching television shows your tivo has recorded checking your email on your zaurus, just know that linux has no place in commercial products.

someone mod this troll down.

--
-- john

forbes is a ho. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:27 · Score: 0

"the foundation is demanding that Cisco and Broadcom either a) rip out all the Linux code in the router and use some other operating system, or b) make their code available to the entire world."

More likely they just want them to abide by the terms of the GPL, which means give back the changes you made to GPL'd code. Dozens of other large corporations have done so, and done so rather happily.

Fuck Forbes.

I love it by EmagGeek · 2003-10-14 04:28 · Score: 1

How people piss and whine when they can't break the rules all they want to.

The GPL is very clear and very specific. If you do not agree to the GPL, DO NOT USE GPLed code. It's that simple.

Authors of software have the right to give their code away for free, or with a license, or however they want to. Users of that code must respect the license under which it is distributed.

Linksys thought they'd save some development costs by using GPLed code - and they thought nobody would catch them... They've never heard of encrypting their FLASH, apparently..

Why are open source licenses any different? by SuperChuck69 · 2003-10-14 04:28 · Score: 1

It seems the open source licenses (namely the GPL, as it's the most restrictive to for-profit development) have been coming under a lot of fire recently. But why are these licenses considered any different than a license for any other piece of software? If I, as a programmer, choose to use XYZ software in my own work, I need to abide by the software's license. In the case of for-profit libraries and operating systems, that usually includes paying cash money. If I decide to use a library which wants $15 per unit, I have to pay $15 per unit or go about finding a suitable replacement. I can't just say, "I really don't want to pay that much" and use the library without paying. If I do, said company comes at me with a horde of lawyers demanding I live up to the license agreement. Open source software is slightly different. Instead of demanding cash money, the terms of its license agreement demand the release of certain source code, etc. Again, I have 2 choices. I can comply with the software license or I can find another product. If I use the software without complying with the license, someone should come after me and demand I comply. In the case of open source software, the Free Software Foundation fills that role. In the specific case of Linksys, if Linksys had used a for-profit embedded OS without meeting its licensing requirements, there would be an uproar. Should linux be any different? If you don't agree to abide by the license, use something else. Or, at the very least, find out what you need to do in order to accomplish your goals (getting the bling-bling) without violating the GPL.

--
:wq

My attempt - others seem better :) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:28 · Score: 0

Dear Mr Lyons,

Your recent story concerning the use and modification of GPL'ed software by various companies seemed to have missed the essential point;
The GPL is a license like any other - it has different principles to more traditional licenses but nonetheless it still operates on the same basis; "Abide by the following conditions or don't use the software". Companies using GPL software have, as you put it, already made a knockoff of the original software (rather than the reverse as you suggest), which has no doubt allowed them to reduce research & development costs, time to market and overall risk. In return for this advantage they have to make available to others the improvements and changes they have made to the original software.

Unfortunaterly various companies either do not understand this or are deliberatly breaking the terms of the license and the authors and communites who build open source software often request the FSFs assistence in remedying the situation.

My main compaint about your story is the suggestion that in some way free software authors are setting traps or behaving unreasonably when dealing with companies . Why would anyone, having released their work for all to make use of want to waste their time and energy arguing with a company about licensing issues - open source software is not a conventional product - it does not have to achieve sales figures or profit margins - it does not matter if company X doesn't adopt it. The GPL is a straightforward license - the only real condition is that you contribute back to the community - this is much less onerous than some other licenses

Comments like - "But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners." - are most unfair

1. Authors of GPL'ed software don't want royalties - they want people to respect their hard work and abide by the license. If they wanted royalties they would have tried to sell their work.

2. "Burn down your house" - A very emotive term by which I assume you mean destroy a business. I don't believe that working with the GPL places a business in any more danger than agreeing to, for example, the Microsoft Windows EULA. I think what you are trying to say is that the FSF et al. cannot be bought off with a case full of cash. More tradional companies exist to make money, they are happy to accept royalties. Open software authors are not primarily interested in money, they are interested in the code.

3. "Share it with cloners" !? - please remember who originally wrote the software; it doesn't matter if another company can make use of the changes - they are not a party involved in the agreement.

I apologise if any of my comments have been patronising but I feel strongly that you have conveyed the FSF and open source authors in a particularly negative way and would urge you to consider ammending your current article or perhaps writing another examing the subject of the FSF, the GPL, Linux and open source (all of which are different terms/ideas/organisations) to provide a balanced view of the situation. Perhaps you could try to convey, as I have attempted in this email, to explain the many ways in which the GPL is identical to any other license, the ways in which it is better and the unusual obligation it places upon you.

Yours sincerely

$150,000 per copyright violation? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:29 · Score: 0

Hm, isn't that a little bit cheap for the Linux kernel? (1M+ lines of code...)

But it's not truly a fair assessment by isn't+my+name · 2003-10-14 04:30 · Score: 1

"The following paragraph in the Forbes article is clearly an attempt at a summary of the GPL:

Under the license, if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any "derivative works" you've created--even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product.

The first part of that looks fair enough. The second is a combination of oversimplification and hyperbole, but it is no worse than most /. comments."

The first part looks fair enough to you and to most /. readers. However, you have to admire the mastery with which the author uses the 'derivative works' phrase. It's the exact opposite of racial code phrases used by good ole boy politicians--where the unwashed masses hear one thing and the select few hear the opposite. Generally, this is done to appeal to the racist few without tipping off the masses.

Here it is done to opposite effect. Anyone in the Free/Open software movement reading 'derivative works' in relation to the GPL is going to understand one thing. But the PHB's reading 'derivative works' the way it is used in the Forbes FUD are going to understand it to mean that any code you write, which runs on top of Linux, can be forced open by those commie, crunchies.

The author doesn't say that. His sentence doesn't really mean that, but it is phrased to clearly imply that to the unititiated. However, it is also phrased in such a way that it is not going to even register to most Linux defenders as FUD that needs to be fought. Brilliant.

It would have been nice if they had mentioned... by Eric+Smith · 2003-10-14 04:32 · Score: 1

No one is forced to use GPL'd software. Broadcom and Linksys chose to use GPL'd software, with full knowledge that it was GPL'd, and what their responsibilities would be. The fact that Linux was GPL'd was not a secret, but was in fact widely publicized.

Forbes apparently would like us to have sympathy for companies that have somehow been tricked into using GPL'd software without knowing that they'd have to publish their source code, which is not, as Forbes claims, equivalent to burning down your own house. But that's not how things work. Any time a company takes someone else's copyrighted material and makes a derived work, they have to deal with licensing issues, and GPL'd software (including Linux) is no different in this regard.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Broadcom and Linksys had decided to use proprietary software, perhaps belonging to Microsoft, in their router without a proper license? Instead of someone asking them to publish their sources, which would only be a minor inconvenience, they would already be in court being sued for tens of millions of dollars. With the resources Microsoft could bring to bear, Broadcom and Linksys headquarters would soon be reduced to patches of scorched earth.

Yet Forbes somehow manages to portray the free software community as bad guy. Amazing.

Contemptible by Hiawatha · 2003-10-14 04:34 · Score: 1

Thanks for posting this deeply stupid article from the usually reliable Forbes. I'm linking to it on my blog, with brief but reasonably dismissive comments of my own.

--

Hiawatha Bray

Tech Reporter

Boston Globe

Re:Contemptible by Hiawatha · 2003-10-14 04:37 · Score: 1

Oops...the blog is at www.monitortan.com.

--
Hiawatha Bray
Tech Reporter
Boston Globe

My Response to the Editor/Author @ Forbes by CoreDump · 2003-10-14 04:37 · Score: 1

This article misses the point, and attempts to cast the FSF as villans bent on forcing all code to be "open source". That is not the case, and the author is disingenious on several points.

The Linksys/Broadcom/Cisco code in question is software that was written not by Cisco or Linksys or Broadcom, but by the multitude of contributors to the GNU/Linux software projects, which are released to the world under the provisions of the GPL. It does not belong to anyone but those who created it, and those owners get to decide how it can be used. This is the same way that Microsoft controls how you can use/re-use/modify the software that it develops via their License.

Had Cisco/Linksys/Broadcom used Microsoft's code in violation of Microsoft's license, this article would not have been written to cast Microsoft as a villan trying to piggy-back on the success of Cisco et al.

That Cisco et al are using the GNU/Linux code speaks volumes for the robustness of the code that has been developed and released under the GPL. I would posit that by using this existing code, they gained a significant developmental savings, in not having to create it from scratch. The GPL certainly allows and encourages this ( unlike the very restrictive "commercial" software licenses of say Microsoft ). The price it asks in return is that any improvements/modifications/additions made to GPL code be given back to the community that developed the code in the first place.

Is this a communist ideal as insinuated by the closing "comrade" remark? I think not. It is a capitalistic request to receive an equitable return on the use of the developer's software. You can "pay" the cost to use it in terms of money ( by using a closed, proprietary software system ), or you can "pay" the cost in terms of the societal benefits of continuous software improvement by using GPL software and respecting the provisions of the GPL.

If the software is made available, will it give competitors an inside track to compete? I would argue not, as the Linksys products are a combination of hardware and software. Does the fact that GNU/Linux runs on Intel hardware and the GNU/Linux source code is available give AMD an advantage? I do not think so.

The fact is that this code is being used in violation of the License it was published under. The fact that the author of this article does not understand that the software developers feel that the social benefits of making their code available outweigh the potential financial gain by keeping it restricted, does not excuse this attack on the FSF and all of the contributors to the GNU/Linux software projects. The project is obviously
a resounding success if companies such as these are turning to GPL code as a superior alternative to their own internally developed software. Rather than being put down as rampant communists, the FSF and the GNU/Linux developers should be encouraged to continue their work, and to stand up for thier rights as copyright holders, just as we would expect the Microsofts of the world.

--

---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )

A court decision by Adam+J.+Richter · 2003-10-14 04:38 · Score: 1

If there is ever a court case where this becomes an important point, I would expect that such 'copying' that is required for normal usage of the material falls squarely under fair use.

"The law also supports the conclusion that Peak's loading of copyrighted software into RAM creates a "copy" of that software in violation of the Copyright Act." MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, US 9th Circuit federal appeals court.

By the way, I believe that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act slightly narrowed this ruling by putting a special case provision into title 17 United State Code section 117 that only applied to software that was necessary for booting when hardware maintenance was being done by a third party provider.

I am not a lawyer. Please do not use this as legal advice.

THANK YOU by pjack76 · 2003-10-14 04:38 · Score: 1

...for spelling "ridiculous" correctly.

--

Wow, a lucrative publishing contract! I don't have to be evil anymore. --Meteor

Re:THANK YOU by aborchers · 2003-10-14 04:43 · Score: 1

Er... You're welcome?

I do get the joke. :-)

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.

Damages by pwileyii · 2003-10-14 04:39 · Score: 1

The reason that Cisco is going to settle is that they know that if they didn't settle they would lose,be forced to cough up the source code, and pay damages to boot. They are fortunate that they stole from the FSF and not someone else.

And who would they be paying damages to? The software is free, so if they hadn't infridged on something, no money would have been gained. The only consequence is that they would have to cough up the source code and possibly pay the lawyers fees of the FSF.

Re:Damages by Jason+Earl · 2003-10-14 05:10 · Score: 1

That's not how copyright works at all. If you take the text from my copyrighted book, for example, and sell it. I am not only entitled to the profits that you made from the sale of my copyrighted material, but you owe me punitive damages as well. In egregious cases this can be several times the profit that you made.
In other words, it doesn't matter how much I charge for the software (note the FSF charges $5000 for their deluxe Free Software bundle), it only matters how much you made with my software.
Cisco is lucky that the FSF is as nice as they are.
Re:Damages by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 23:27 · Score: 0

copyright violations in the US are punishable by 100,000-$150,000 per infringment - per copyright violated, regardless of any profit made or if the copyright was registered (punitive damages aren't applied unless the copyright eas registered).

That's 400 (linux developers) * 400,000 (accounts of infringment) * $100,000(per infringment). That's 16 trillion dollars. Hardley somethinf to smicker at....

Re:Nothing wrong with GM foods by fenix+down · 2003-10-14 04:40 · Score: 1

Have you ever seen Forbes' argument, or are you just a Junk Science fan? I don't know what it was the parent saw, but I know the Forbes company over all is a little obsessive about GM food. They're usually not arguing over how many people are allergic to the spliced-in material, they're arguing that "Roundup Ready" benefits consumers... somehow. In computer terms, they'd be supportive of a patent ruling prohibiting Open Office from being able to open Word files, since it would let MS cut costs... somehow. And, apparently, that's not just an idle analogy.

The author is both clueless & cowardly by Performer+Guy · 2003-10-14 04:41 · Score: 1

For Daniel Lyons to imply with his closing 'comrade' remark that Free Software supporters are communists is not only absurd, it is also utterly cowardly. This 'journalist' idealog makes no case for this, and doesn't even have the guts to use the 'C' word, instead he attempts a cowardly indirect attack.

Let's deal with the accusation head on, Free Software has NOTHING to do with communism, if I write software and license it for no cash, I still own it. It is mine, nobody is forcing you to use my software, and there are plenty of commercial alternatives if you want to use them. What you cannot do is take the fruits of my labor, reap the benefits and look for a free ride by not meeting the terms of the license.

You then have two choices, STOP using my software or meet the terms of my license. Anything else is blatant theft. IMHO you shouldn't even have the former option having reaped the benefits already. Moreover the Linksys example he is talking about is some minor driver work, this has nothing to do with 3rd parties ripping off anyone's product this is about modifying software *we wrote* that's running on that hardware *we own*, THEY'RE ripping off Linux by not meeting the terms & conditions of it's use. We're talking about some simple driver work here, Linux comes with most of the real business end of their product already.

What warped ideology could lead to the conclusion that this was communism? Where would defeating this supposed 'evil' lead? It would lead to a world where the software Linksys stole would be available to NOBODY, or would be available for free without terms and conditions with the authors (the REAL producers of value) having their rights and property stripped away, and that has more in common with communism that the current situation.

Finally, software offers traditional business economists a puzzle that some don't quite grok, in that it has almost zero manufacturing costs once written. The costs are in continuing R&D, product support & sales & marketing, so this is where value is added. This is at the root of why Free Software makes sense, and at the root of why some misguided fool can conclude that people sharing their data while demanding that you cannot steal it is equivalent to communism.

Write or buy your own software if you don't like it, don't steal mine.

Just switch to OpenBSD by TerryAtWork · 2003-10-14 04:44 · Score: 1

And tell the GPL people to jump in the lake.

--
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.

My letter to Forbes by Rocketboy · 2003-10-14 04:44 · Score: 1

The writer and Forbes had the opportunity to provide a potentially interesting story on enforcement of rather unusual contract terms; they chose instead to provide useless fluff, opinon masquarading as news reporting. Thanks for wasting my time and money.

The conflict the reporter pretended to report on has real repercussions in the real world: he chose instead to make fun of open source advocates. Instead of the real business matter, how an unusual software license is enforced by an industry body rather than by an individual corporate entity, he chose to depict it as some spurious conflict between capitalists and communists.

Frankly, if I were a principle of Microsoft or some other owner of significant body of intellectual property enforced by licenses, I'd consider litigation. Your writer chose to make light of a subject in a way which appears to encourage the casual violation of software license terms. The GPL is no different from a legal point of view than the shrinkwrap licenses common to every day business software: by making fun of efforts to enforce its terms, Forbes has placed itself curiously on the side of software pirates and warez crackers. What are you guys, communists of something? :)

So, who gets the settlement money? by Houn · 2003-10-14 04:47 · Score: 1

So? Is it the Free Software Foundation, or the thousands of hackers who have touched the code? Surely, if the FSF is willing to take a cash settlement on their behalf, they'll be cutting checks for the programmers who's work they've effectively "re-licensed" for them, right?

If the FSF is going to uphold the GPL on behalf of the people who release software under it, they should enforce it all the way, and get that source released. Unless they want to get written permission from everyone who's touched the code in question to settle out of court and keep the cash for someone else's work.

Is the Forbes article FUD? No doubt. But it still raises the interesting question of why the FSF would settle in the first place - hardly seems like the "right thing to do".

--
The longer I'm a member of the Human Race, the more I believe Apocalypse is a valid solution.

Re:So, who gets the settlement money? by Jason+Earl · 2003-10-14 05:17 · Score: 1

First of all, the FSF doesn't "settle," they get the offender to release the code in question, and then they forgive them. The FSF hasn't had to settle, because only a fool would stare them down in court. The FSF has a pretty good case with the GPL, and their lawyers are top drawer. Not to mention the fact that if you go to court against the FSF and lose that they get your source, your profits, and punitive damages.
In short, the FSF has the biggest stick imaginable, and there hasn't been a company yet that has wanted to risk taking a drubbing over simply giving in to the FSF's moderate demands. The FSF folks are nice guys, they just want their due.
The reason that the FSF always is front and center in these sorts of arguments is that they have a big pile of code that they own the copyrights too. Part of becoming official GNU software is signing over the copyrights to the work so that the FSF can defend these copyrights in court. Linux is much trickier to defend because each individual retains their own copyrights. Frankly, that is one of the drawbacks of the way that licensing for the Linux kernel has been handled. It makes it much more difficult to enforce copyright infringement.
Re:So, who gets the settlement money? by jjo · 2003-10-14 06:07 · Score: 1

The counterexample to this point is SCO. SCO is blatantly (one might say impudently) violating the GPL, and continuing to infringe FSF copyrights, yet the FSF is keeping its 'big stick' idle.

This is one weakness of the GPL: it is only effective when the copyright holders can and will defend their rights under it. The small-time software writer has no hope against a big corporate violator, and even the FSF has to balance expenditure of money on lawsuits vs. money for developers.
Re:So, who gets the settlement money? by Jason+Earl · 2003-10-14 10:08 · Score: 1

SCO is a special case. They don't care about the long term survival of their company.
Everyone else, however, from Apple to Microsoft, when faced with a lawsuit over the GPL has folded. Like the article says their have been hundreds of cases where there have been "issues" over the years, and yet the FSF has yet to try the GPL in court.
That's a pretty big stick.

article is factually accurate by dh003i · 2003-10-14 04:47 · Score: 1

it may characterize the actions in a negative manner, but it is accurate. That the author seems to think this -- the FSF doing it's job and protecting GPL'ed code from being appropriated -- is wrong shows how off-beat the author is. There is nothing wrong with the FSF contacting companies and working with them to bring them into compliance with the GPL. If they don't do that, there's nothing wrong with the FSF taking legal action if necessary. The reason none of these companies have gone to court is that they would be insane to try to challenge the validity of the GPL -- it's air-tight. Somehow, these guys who give away code that allows these companies to make these products are evil when they want the companies to obey the license.

It's really very simple. Every company can choose to use or not to use GPL'ed code in their products. If they use GPL'ed code and modify it, they're obliged to release the modified software under the GPL; they're also obliged to release any program that the GPL'ed code in under the GPL. Either that or they have to remove the GPL'ed code from their product.

You'll also note that unlike proprietary companies, the GPL is working with these companies privately. This is not because they're sneaking around behind closed doors, like an assassin, as the author of this article suggests. It is because they want to resolve these matters privately and quickly, without getting a bunch of press involved. Companies lose a lot of flexability to deal with these situations, and get a lot of extra pressure, once they're well-publicized.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen

Re:Nothing wrong with GM foods by kiatoa · 2003-10-14 04:48 · Score: 1

I find your blind faith in the Corporations disturbing. My observation has been that the Corps are only too happy to roll out stuff long before all the unintended consequences have been identified. GM foods may or may not have problems. Still, why not let the free market decide? The free market requires information flow to operate (one of the fundamental tenents IIRC) so merely label foods apropriately and the market will let you know how much trust the general public has in Corporate decision making.

--
90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.

MOD PARENT UP by Performer+Guy · 2003-10-14 04:48 · Score: 1

This is absolutely correct. You are free to sell the software, jou just cannot enhance it without returning the enhancements to the same public domain you obtained the original version from.

anti-GM = junk science by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:49 · Score: 0

" Have you ever seen Forbes' argument, or are you just a Junk Science fan? "

The two contradict each other. The anti-GM arguements are all junk science.

Re:anti-GM = junk science by chriso11 · 2003-10-14 05:06 · Score: 1

Actually, I am impressed by GM foods. The amount that we will learn about them is fantastic! Check this

I just can't wait for all the breakthroughs to help humanity!

--
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Re:anti-GM = junk science by robslimo · 2003-10-14 05:20 · Score: 1

I think I should point out the other readers that the article linked to in the parent post is a farce in the style of The Onion.
Re:anti-GM = junk science by chriso11 · 2003-10-14 06:17 · Score: 1

Incorrect. It is a farce by The Onion.

--
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Re:anti-GM = junk science by spagnitz · 2003-10-14 06:25 · Score: 1

that much was obvious upon reading
Re:anti-GM = junk science by tuba_dude · 2003-10-14 07:02 · Score: 1

Sorry buddy, junk science can be employed by both sides. The only difference is that the pro-GM side has real science to go along with the junk science.

--
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Re:anti-GM = junk science by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 08:28 · Score: 0

Studying those people who are allergic to new proteins introduced by sudden(as opposed to controlled breeding), artificial genetic modification of animals/plants, and then being opposed to GM-foods is junk science? I wouldn't think so.
Re:anti-GM = junk science by flossie · 2003-10-14 09:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sorry buddy, junk science can be employed by both sides. The only difference is that the pro-GM side has real science to go along with the junk science.
There is plenty of real science employed by both sides in the GM debate. The problem is that *none* of it is conclusive. Depending on your point of view, this is "evidence of absence of harm" of "absence of evidence of safety".
Neither side can legitimately claim that current scientific knowledge provides solid support for their position. I, personally, take the precautionary principle to heart here; accepting that there is probably a low risk of danger, there is no real problem if we wait a few years (or decades even) until we are sure the technology is safe before using it (a few years will make minimal difference), however the potential dangers of deploying it too early could be catastrophic for the environment and our future food security.
There is no need to rush!

--
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Re:anti-GM = junk science by tuba_dude · 2003-10-14 11:14 · Score: 1

Excellent point. However, I was referring to the anti-GM people as those that want it kept locked away, never to be touched again. Moderates such as yourself are usually more accurate anyway. Taking a full-scale deployment cautiously is a good idea. And if evidence proves it nessecary, restricting it to only fringe uses could be beneficial as well.
I'm just a bit wary of those that would try to hide or FUD certain research out of existance.

--
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Re:anti-GM = junk science by flossie · 2003-10-14 12:05 · Score: 1

I was referring to the anti-GM people as those that want it kept locked away
Unfortunately, with the World Trade Organisation, the US government and the British Prime Minister all pushing the UK towards the imminent mass introduction of unregulated, unlabelled GM products, the only way to slow down the introduction of the technology is to scream very loudly and frighten all those who haven't given it much thought yet.
The basic problem is that there is a considerable number of people who have genuine concerns regarding GM technology but feel almost powerless to do anything about it. The less people believe their views are being taken into account, the more polarized their views become.
Lack of genuine democracy is the real problem in the GM debate.

--
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty

Mod this UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:50 · Score: 0

dang. a funny pun.

I don't get it. by roertel · 2003-10-14 04:54 · Score: 1

Maybe I don't quite get it, but if they are simply using Linux in their routers, there is no problem, right? Even if I'm using Apache, I don't have to release my pages under the GPL, do I? So, unless they're making some modifications to the kernel or other GPL software, and just running their own on top of it, there should be no problem. How does that work if I make a kernel module? Is that required to be made available?

Re:I don't get it. by AlXtreme · 2003-10-14 05:59 · Score: 1

FYI, Apache isn't licensed under the GPL. But you're right, if you use something under the GPL but don't change it's code the code doesn't have to be distributed afaik (as it hasn't been modified). The difference is between using and modifying the software.
With kernel modules this is different again, as you can link non-GPL'ed with the kernel (like nvidia's prop driver does), and even then you don't have to distribute the module's code. You only have to distribute the code of the kernel if you've changed it, or one of the already existing GPL-licensed modules, directly.
IANAL, of course. But if Linksys had modified and distributed Linux directly, they should just release the code and be done with it. Forbes does have a point (FSF suing Cisco, while SCO is suing IBM, as we do balk at the latter but not at the first), but the GPL needs to be enforced by someone if it wants to maintain it's credibility and keep us holding hands and singing our marxist songs while coding away. IMHO, the FSF shouldn't settle, or have settled, it should sue to get the code opened. That should be it's goal, nothing less...
For all I care, SCO can rot, but if the article is anywhere near true it does indicate that we should be watchful, even regarding the FSF. There's nothing wrong with a good dose of self-criticism.

--
This sig is intentionally left blank

My post to Forbes Magazine in response to this.... by ReallyTweakin · 2003-10-14 04:54 · Score: 1

I have never seen such a pile of yellow journalism in my life. Why don't we portray Steve Forbes as a miserly penny-pinching thief in the next article? Wouldn't read quite so well as this would it.

Steve is not a miser, nor a thief; he is someone who has made a fortune off of a fortune he has inherited.

In much the same fashion the Open Source movement has built a powerful operating system from the legacy code they inherited in the public domain and in the classroom, SCO notwithstanding.

To belittle the efforts of a more-or-less anonymous group like this is pretty easy for a writer with the backing of a huge publishing clearinghouse like that which publishes Forbes Magazine. Why not pick on someone your own size instead, like Microsoft for instance? There are plenty of good reasons; marketplace bullying, pisspoor security, buggy products; but that might incur a serious legal problem, from a full legal staff with a multibillion dollar bankroll!

Your pettiness is pathetic; so is your knee-jerk reaction in characterising the Open Source movement as a bunch of communists.

Patents and copyrights in the US were concieved as methods of increasing innovation and promoting advances in technology. No doubt many of the forebears of your readership were instrumental in the lobbying efforts that turned them into draconian mechanisms that lock up innovation and prevent all but the wealthiest from challenging the status quo (and why would the wealthy ever challenge the status quo?)

The Free Software Foundation and the GPL do what has never been done before: turn the copyright back into something that insures innovation. This is why in the short space of ten or so years linux has gone from a hacker's toy to the most comprehensive, most secure, and most powerfull operating system available on any platform, bar none.

Additionally the GPL provides a means for software to effectively be copyrighted in the name of the public, essentially employing the overly strong copyright laws in the public interest.

You should actually READ the FSF charter and GPL before you attempt to write articles about them. Your lack of understanding makes you look like something of an idiot to the more well-informed.

Sincerely,
James G. Stallings II
Linux user since kernel version 1.0.2
(no I am NOT the Jim Stallings of the IBM Linux Group)

--
Death Dances Only With The Living

I just wish... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 04:55 · Score: 0

I just wish that the Forbes reporter realized that we live in a "free" America with "free" speech and "free" association rights, a "free" press in a "free" market and deleted some of his sarcasm.

Catch my drift?

It's the "communism" argument again. by aussersterne · 2003-10-14 04:58 · Score: 1

Note the last line in the article.

And realize that Forbes and all of these other interests (SCO, LinkSys, RIAA, MPAA) are NOT pro-IP. They are pro-profit.

Inasmuch as IP helps them to profit, they will gladly sue their own grandmother into the grave for infringement to help them line their pockets. Inasmuch as IP prevents their profiting, they will pretend it doesn't apply and seek to connive and quietly steal code into their products without being noticed, hoping to get away with it.

Business interests are not interested in legal issues in terms of right versus wrong, comply vs. not comply, break-the-law vs. follow it. They are interested in legal issues only in terms of cost-benefit to the bottom line.

The Free Software Foundation actually gives a damn about the principles upon which it is founded and about the labor of its contributors, and doesn't give a damn about profits per se. This is terrifying to most people in business, hence the (oft-repeated) "Linux is COMMUNISM" argument.

They're scared becase we in the free software community care more about labor than about money, "comrade."

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW

Too bad... by chriso11 · 2003-10-14 05:00 · Score: 1

You definitely have a great post here. Very eloquent indeed!

If I could edit your post, I would simply expand on the fact that there was no pressure for the companies to use the GPL'ed software - they chose to use it on their own.

--
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.

Nice going.... by MKalus · 2003-10-14 05:05 · Score: 1

Tried to look at your link and it doesn't like Mozilla:

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

Error: Unsupported Browser

Access to this article may be purchased using current versions of Netscape or Internet Explorer.

Your browser does not support the featues of our purchase process. Please use another browser or upgrade to the current version of Netscape or Internet Explorer.

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

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.

Jealous? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:06 · Score: 0

" I find your blind faith in the Corporations disturbing."

It has nothing to do with blind faith, or corporations. It has everything to do with being scientifically informed and viewing the spew of bad science and illigical arguments about GM foods, most of which come from those who do not care about facts and have a political axe to grind.

"In the US more than 95% of the privately held land is owned by only 3% of the population."

This might look horrific, until you realize this this is land that these people bought and paid for. In other words, they own their own land. Don't like it? Mind your own business.

Re:Jealous? by rifter · 2003-10-14 05:13 · Score: 1

This might look horrific, until you realize this this is land that these people bought and paid for. In other words, they own their own land. Don't like it? Mind your own business.

Not always. A lot of land traded hands during the 19th century and it was not necessarily paid for. Then again, not all the land acquired in the 20th century was received honestly either.
Re:Jealous? by Linux_Bastard · 2003-10-14 05:48 · Score: 1

Let's just look at this "scientifically".

With a "big picture" view:

The plants and animals of this planet have evolved together for millions
of years. (aka food and consumer). Evidently, they are not a bad match,
as both are still present and seem viable. It has been a long time since
the last mass extinction.

Genetic manipulation is still in it's infancy (yes, even going back to
Mendel), and we are already having some problems. Mass conversion from
gathering food to growing food has led to the extinction of many viable
varieties of food plants and animals, and the development of artificially
sustained varieties (American corn).

There are some obvious problems already, even
considering the slow development of hybrid varieties.

The rise in cancer in humans in the last 300 years is astonishing, from
being a rarity that a doctor might see only once or twice in a lifetime of
practice, to 1 in 3 chance for everyone to have now.
Granted, lack of good observation and record keeping does not allow us to
firmly relate cancer and diet over the last 300 years, but this is just
one example.

I have no problem at all with GM foodstuffs, just so long as they have a
sufficient QA process. I would consider 6-8 generations of humans a
minimum for the first alpha tests.

There is no other way to insure that there is no non-obvious error.

I have the good fortune to work with some very good microbiologist,
geneticist, and they are the first to admit that they don't understand
everything in this very complex closed system.

It would really suck to find out that that bug proof wheat eventually
modifies the human immune system 4 or 5 generations out, and all the
bread eating industrial nations die of the common cold.

Remember, when you play with the food chain, you play for keeps.

--
F X=0:1:9999 F D=2:1 Q:((X>2)&(X#D=0)!((D>X/2)&(X'=1))) I D>(X/2) W:$X>75 ! W X,?$X+5-$l(X) Q
Re:Jealous? by jedidiah · 2003-10-14 06:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

You have a fundemental misunderstading of what science is. Science is an APPROXIMATION based on the currently available evidence and our understanding of it. That "guess" can change as our knowledgebase grows as our understanding changes.

You are exhibiting what is commonly refered to by fundies as a "faith in science". You blindly accept the conclusions of the day as if they are not subject to change.

Substances like asbestos and ddt are a clear demonstration of the folly in this sort of thinking.

Earth is a production system and we don't have a backup.

Some paranoia regarding the planetary food supply is more than warranted based on the potential unforseen consequences.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Jealous? by EvilAlien · 2003-10-14 07:52 · Score: 1

Hardly any land that has changed "hands" has been payed for... land acquisition among all species happens predominantly by application of force, humans are no exception. It is only recently that the concept of legal title to land has replaced conquest as the foremost means of acquiring land. Americans have a day to celebrate the old way, its called Columbus Day. Good ol' conquest.

--
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Re:Jealous? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 08:16 · Score: 0

The rise in cancer in humans in the last 300 years is astonishing, from
being a rarity that a doctor might see only once or twice in a lifetime of
practice, to 1 in 3 chance for everyone to have now.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The reason why fewer people got cancer 300 years ago than they do today is that THEY DIED OF SOMETHING ELSE FIRST.
Re:Jealous? by B'Trey · 2003-10-14 11:29 · Score: 1

You begin "Let's look at this scientifically" and immediately proceed to abandon all pretense of scientific objectivity and show no understanding of the scientific method.

For example, in the last three hundred years the average world life expectancy has risen from approximately 27 to more than 65. US life expectancy is currently around 78. Do you suppose that it might be possible that the fact that people now live long enough to get cancer might have something to do with the fact that doctors see more cases than they used to?

Do you support running 6-8 generation QA processes on all technologies? What effect do electric fields have on the human body? Obviously, the prudent thing to do is ban electricity until we can be sure it's safe.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:Jealous? by Linux_Bastard · 2003-10-14 21:38 · Score: 1

>You begin "Let's look at this scientifically" and immediately proceed to
>abandon all pretense of scientific objectivity and show no understanding
>of the scientific method.

How very odd. When I ran this by our chief research scientist in the genetic clinical trials lab, She thought the pretext was sound and that it
actually was a common opinion. I will have to try to improve.

It is true, I do have trouble with objectivity, I rarely post, and then only on things that particularly excite or offend me.

But back to your post.

>For example, in the last three hundred years the
>average world life expectancy has risen from
>approximately 27 to more than 65. US life
>expectancy is currently around 78.

Specious reasoning.

>Do you suppose that it might be possible that the
>fact that people now live long enough to get
>cancer might have something to do with the fact
>that doctors see more cases than they used to?

Did you actually mean this to be two questions? One about living long enough to get cancer, and one about doctors seeing more cases?

Both arguments have some small merit, but as stated, it is virtually meaningless.

No, the vast majority of cancer is detected before age 47, with cancer common among people below 30. This takes us well into the average lifespan of 200 years ago, (even by your own reasoning)

The key here is average. That the average is late 70's does not in any way support your argument. By far the most significant factors in determining the average life expectancy is infant death. There has been no significant increase in maximum age within recorded history. If you look at life expectancy's from age 15 and up, you will see that there is not the huge increase that is often claimed. So no, It is not that people are living long enough to get cancer (in general). There are many time related types of cancer that do increase linearly with age/exposure, but that does in and of itself support your argument.

>something to do with the fact that doctors see
>more cases than they used to?

Yes doctors today see more patients than 300 years ago, but not 2000 times more, which is about what your chance of getting skin cancer is, compared to 300 years ago

>Do you support running 6-8 generation QA
>processes on all technologies?

Yes, on "mission critical" technologies. Would you live next to the 8'th designed nuclear plant?

Venice has been working on that salt march for 1000 human generations, and they still don't have it right yet.

As part of my job I determine maturity levels for software/systems. It is a very rare complex system that does not have 50 or more "generations" (significant configurations) before is is considered stable enough for production. Just take a look at the Linux kernel.

As for electricity, last time I checked, it predated all human generations.

I personally know of 3 people with metastasized melanoma, 2 dead, one dying. All of them under 30.

200 years ago, this just did not happen. In all 3
cases, there was no definitive cause for the cancer.

I know of a particular case where a farmer purchased 50 gallon drums from an aircraft defence contractor. The drums were not marked, but were filled with what apeared to be alcohol. The farmer dumped the contents and used the drums to ferry whater to livestock. What he did not know was that the alcohol was used as a cleaner in plastics production, and was contaminated with carcinogens. It was 12 years before he contracted stomach cancer. In the meantime, the livestock were sold as meat in the stockyards. Te third generation showed significant birth defects, and were either steril, or mechanically unable to breed, even though the previous 2 generations showed no known ill effects. It was not known if the meat was contaminated, although the farmer developed stomach cancer, melanoma, and carcinoma, he was also directly exposed.

The earth is a very complex "production" system, and we are working with no backup.

--
F X=0:1:9999 F D=2:1 Q:((X>2)&(X#D=0)!((D>X/2)&(X'=1))) I D>(X/2) W:$X>75 ! W X,?$X+5-$l(X) Q

Sign me up! by starX · 2003-10-14 05:07 · Score: 1

Where do I become a linux hit man? Actually, I think it would be much cooler if they called it "Elite Linux Covert Operations and Special Services Isn't ELBOSSSIE" or ELBOSSSIE for short.. We could hunt down those dirty non-compliers.... they'd never know what hit 'em.

So I know that this is the choir and all, but as a thought, there are companies out there that make insane amounts of money thanks to Linux products. They all know the rules going into the game, and if they decide they don't want to play them after they've made a killing in stock options, then TFB. This is a special sore spot for me, as one of the companies that I used to support did exactly this, developed a few improvements, scored a few patents, and as far as I know never released one line of code.

Then again, in my more perverse moments, I would kind of like to see the GPL sdtruck down in court, because that would create the legal precedent necessary to put a stop to shrink wrap liscences forever.... unless the courts were controlled by corporate fanboys like the ones at Forbes.

the source was up by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:08 · Score: 0

A while back, just after the news of Linksys using GPL code without distributing the source, I checked their web-site (again as I had done several times since I found out that they were using the code -- about 2 months before it was very-public) and found that they had put the source up, and I was happy. I hadn't realized that they had taken it back down, though the current firmware still has the GPLed code in it.
WHY did they take it back down? Did any one else see it while it was up? They had a special page that sounded like they were happy to use GPLed code and to let you download the source, and it had a big picture of Tux.

letter submitted to Forbes by dpletche · 2003-10-14 05:08 · Score: 1

Mr. Lyons' portrayal of Linux and the open source community as unrepentant Marxist movements is absurd. Cooperation and openness do not equate to communism. Nobody accuses the scientific community and the peer review process of being proletariat uprisings, but Mr. Lyons seems to believe that a desire to subject software development to the same scientific rigor and transparency is akin to renouncing the concept of private property. The GPL is absolutely dependent on the legal concepts of private property, copyright, and contracts. Nobody is compelled to use GPL-licensed software. If the terms of the GPL license do not suit a developer's needs, he should buy from another vendor with more satisfactory licensing terms, use BSD-licensed software, or write his own code in-house. But he should not expect that he can steal intellectual property, violate the clear and simple licensing terms, and profit from his lawlessness with impunity. It is ironic that Mr. Lyons condemns the FSF for compelling intellectual property thieves to meet their licensing obligations (which is much less intrusive than taking away their profits or preventing the sale of their products), while he tacitly condones the lawless usurpation of intellectual property by corporate heavyweights. He accuses the open-source community of being Marxists, and yet he comes across as the real opponent of private property rights (unless that property is owned by a large and secretive corporation.) I can't decide whether Mr. Lyons is a Plutocrat or a Marxist, but he certainly doesn't come across as a capitalist.

I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:09 · Score: 0

...why anyone would write software under BSD license, it's like working for free while the company gets all the money - you are quaranteed to get screwed.

Not neccessarily... by qtp · 2003-10-14 05:11 · Score: 1

the viral nature of the GPL is going to screw their company.

There is no reason that using the GPL is going to "screw the company" as long as the company is careful how they implement thier code and they share any changes they happen to make to GPL code. If they use the standard interfaces to LGPL libraries (sorry, get your own "readline") as thier method of comunication between thier propietary programs, or create libraries (released under GPL compatible licenses) to intermediate between the GPL code and thier own prpoietary code, there would be no problem.

These issues arise not because the companies find the GPL difficult to understand, but because they think that they'll get away with it.

They have lawyers that can write and interpet licensing agreements and contracts consisting of dozens (if not hundreds) of pages of confusing legalese, but they can't understand a single page document that consists of perhaps 20 paragraphs and twelve itemized conditions written in what is close to plain english.

Really.

Perhaps if it were translated into legal-speak they might take it a bit more seriously. At least they'd find it a bit more threatening, and perhaps we wouldn't be reading so many stories asking the Free Software world to take pity on multi-billion dollar corporations.

--
Read, L

Re:Not neccessarily... by NightSpots · 2003-10-14 05:26 · Score: 1

The issue is that they've got custom kernel drivers for the broadcom chips.

Since broadcom hasn't released the documentation yet (which is why most of the FSF community WANTS to see the source), if Cisco releases the drivers, they're likely violating NDAs they hold with Broadcom.

On one hand, they violate the GPL by not releasing.

On the other hand, they violate their NDA by releasing proprietary information.

Say it with me: screwed.

Now that we agree that they're screwed either way they turn, which group would you like to piss off? The FSF, with their one lawyer and very little financial backing, or Broadcom?

--

--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
Re:Not neccessarily... by listen · 2003-10-14 05:52 · Score: 1

Or maybe you could ask them why the fuck they can't write a permissable binary kernel module like every body else, but actually patch the kernel instead?

3% control 95% of the land by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:12 · Score: 0

3% control 95% of the land? Outrageous! We need to switch to soclalism, a system where 0.0001% of the population owns 100% of the land.

What is the solution? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:16 · Score: 0

What is the solution then? Do we take these lands and turn them over to the control of elites (the socialist solution), or bust them up and turn them over to the landless and small landowners? (something no-one ever proposes)

Re:What is the solution? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 08:41 · Score: 0

What is the solution then? Do we take these lands and turn them over to the control of elites (the socialist solution), or bust them up and turn them over to the landless and small landowners? (something no-one ever proposes)

Wow. Your ignorance is astounding. Many governments have attempted land reform programs which disenfranchised post-colonial oligarchs in favor of landless peasants. Nicaragua is a classic example. Before the revolution, Dictator Anastacio Somoza alone owned 20-25% of all arable land in the country. Trust me, he didn't buy it. The FSLN government initiated a comprehensive land reform, confiscating Somoza and Somozista land and awarding plots to campecinos. Since the CIA organized Contra terrorists (mostly former Somoza National Guardsment) disrupted the process by attacking the newly enfranchised peasants, the government gave each new farmer a Kalashnikov along with his deed.

Now that the Somocistas are back in power, the government is confiscating the land from the peasants and returning it to the oligarchs.

Another telling case would be the program instituted by Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz in 1952. At the time, 88% of farmers held only 14% of the land and the large owners who owned the other 86% only cultivated 19% of their holdings on average. The Arbenz initiative redistributed only uncultivated land on properties larger than 270 hectares. Cash crop farms were exempt. Beneficiaries were required to compensate the former owners 5% of the cash value of their harvests. The reform, limited though it was, showed signs of success. However it drew the ire of the CIA, who helped overthrow the legally elected Arbenz administration and install the military dictator Armas in 1954.

It IS FUD. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:17 · Score: 0

It is easy to use Linux and keep your code "secret", without running afoul of the license. Like, user mode code and modules.

Forbes is nashing their teeth over a specific case. Their argument, and conclusions based on it, are pure FUD. Further, they omit key information, such as if you aren't profiting from the code by explict distribution the "GPL police" will never come a calling.

They carefully selected their facts to paint a disengenuous conclusion. A world where the slightest contact with GPL code is "evil". This story proves the authors, editors, and Forbes itself is both biased and partial. Clearly holding themselves to a personal agenda. FUD.

Unfair competition? by semenes · 2003-10-14 05:21 · Score: 1

In short, Cisco / Linksys got an unfair edge in competition on a free market by stealing code. Now that is a fact that Forbes somehow forgot to think about and should be ashamed of defending.

A friend of mine works at Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:25 · Score: 0

About a year ago, the writers were told that if they can make a story mention "Linux" in any way, they should.

They just want your clicks. Your clicks and your attention. Maybe you'll even tell a coworker about how angry the story made you.

What the holy fuck?!?!?!? by inteller · 2003-10-14 05:26 · Score: 1

The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.

what the hell, is this some sort of directive from the zealots to their minions? Why even fucking post it if you don't want another side to the argument to be read? Man when you post an article leave your objectiveness at the fucking door.

Re:What the holy fuck?!?!?!? by CrackHappy · 2003-10-14 06:45 · Score: 1

Seems like flame/troll bait, but in this case I completely agree. This article seems like a concession to all the Linux/FSF/OSS zealots who cannot open their minds to other possibilities.

I may disagree with the article itself (the Forbes one), but I DO want to see it on Slashdot, and saying "You may not want to read this" is absolutely disgusting to me.

I come to Slashdot for all sides of the story, not a zealot centric point of view. This is one of the major issues I have with the way Slashdot is run, and the editors it chooses to employ in the disssemination of information to the masses.

--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d Capitalization really works: i helped my uncle jack off a horse

Forbes sponsored.. by SlashDread · 2003-10-14 05:28 · Score: 1

ad's on the "Hitman" article are:
- Stock Market Software
- Stock Picks, 80% success (so why sell the recipe?, but I digress)
- Stock Chart and Quote's for free (that one must be a Commie link, so dont go there)

The ad's on another Linux article "IBM takes Linux to a new level" (Where they tell the Billions HP and IBM mde with Linux, as well as some technical terms like 2,636-processor computer cluster running Linux) are suprise, suprise;
- Clustering Linux Servers
- ClusterVision Nederland (Hey Localized!)
- Linux Cluster on demand (I guess thats better then when you dont demand one)

I get it! Buy some ads, get an article for free!

"/Dread"

Re:Forbes sponsored.. by mar1boro · 2003-10-14 07:10 · Score: 1

Please, mod parent as insightful.

--
-- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next

But GPL *is* communist by Bitmanhome · 2003-10-14 05:34 · Score: 1

I'm not a commie myself, but the GPL really is communist. Marxist, I think: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Fortunately it's not forced communism; you're free to choose whether to participate.

But so many people have chosen the first part, that the second part has become possible.

-B

--
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.

Re:But GPL *is* communist by meta-monkey · 2003-10-14 05:48 · Score: 1

No, troll, it really *isn't* communist, since you're not forced too. Nobody's going to come take the software you write by force and give it to somebody else. The GPL is *cooperative*.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:But GPL *is* communist by foobius · 2003-10-14 06:58 · Score: 1

The assumption in Marxism is that everyone willingly contributes to the good of all, because it is the only logical way. Soviet communism was forced on everyone by an over class whcich wasn't supposed to exist.

GPL is marxist

Once Cisco starts giving away routers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:37 · Score: 0

Then they'll seem less hypocritical for complaining that someone actually wants something back for their hard work.

Re:My Feedback is wrong and flawed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:37 · Score: 0

The BSA does not own the copyrights to Windows! Microsoft and others do. So why is the BSA going around "aggressively" enforcing other peoples copyrights? Being the authors of the BSA website doesn't give them this right. Strange.

Dykes in spikes by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:38 · Score: 0

But to clarify further, libraries are usually LGPLed and not GPLed (The L is for "Lesser").

But what of LPGA'ed code?

Forbes' reputation by McSpew · 2003-10-14 05:39 · Score: 1

I don't think Forbes has a reputation for particularly honest or fair reporting.

If that's true, then the feedback I just sent them will be water off a duck's back. Heavy sigh.

Lyons disguises commentary as reporting

After reading Daniel Lyons' "Linux's Hit Men," my first reaction was to disbelieve that he could be so wrong about so many things. The more I thought about the article and the more I re-read it, the more I realized the article is a thinly-veiled commentary disguised as a news article. Lyons used inflammatory language to taint the story and make it clear how the reader should feel about the subject. I thought journalists were supposed to find and explain the truth, and in so doing, not color the reader's understanding with unnecessarily emotional language.

Nowhere is Mr. Lyons' bias against Linux and the GPL more obvious than his "burn down your house" metaphor. This is clearly a ridiculous assertion. Mr. Lyons completely ignores the benefits gained by Cisco and Broadcom in using GPL'd source code in their products: Those companies were able to develop products more quickly and at lower cost than they could have done otherwise. In so doing, they gained a crucial edge in time-to-market and a crucial per-unit cost advantage. If Cisco's Linksys division has sold 400,000 broadband routers at a retail price of $129, then it stands to reason that Cisco is selling those devices to retailers for between $65 and $100 apiece, which even Mr. Lyons has to admit means between $26 and $40 million in sales. Imagine if Cisco and Broadcom had infringed Microsoft's or SCO's copyrights to bring their products to market. Instead of negotiating quietly with Eben Moglen to either release the disputed code to the public or remove modified GPL code from their products, they'd be negotiating just how much of their profits would be due to Microsoft or SCO--and rightly so.

I have used Linux, but am hardly a Linux zealot or proponent. Where I work I am responsible for all servers and communications infrastructure, and I have no Linux servers installed throughout the organization, nor have I lobbied for my company to introduce Linux. Yet even so, I understand the tenets of the GPL and respect them, and I can foresee business cases where the benefits of using GPL'd source code would outweigh the costs of releasing derivative code back to the GPL community.

Perhaps Mr. Lyons' preconceptions limit his ability to fairly evaluate any disputes involving the GPL, but passing his biases off as journalism reflects poorly on Mr. Lyons and his editors.

My reply to the Forbes editors by insuljin · 2003-10-14 05:39 · Score: 1

Dear Editors, This is in response to Daniel Lyons' article "Linux's Hit Men" of 10.14.03. It seems that Mr. Lyons is insinuating the the people who wrote the original code don't deserve to set the terms that the fruit of their labour will be used under. He seems to think that it is alright for a commercial company to use code that they did not originate without respecting the license that it was offered under, just because the "$129 device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units in the first quarter of this year alone." If someone had misappropriated code from Cisco and used it against the terms that Cisco had granted, I am certain there would be much furor among the business community (as there should be). I do not understand why the rules are different for the "happy software proles" (as Mr. Lyons refers to them), that choose to release their software under a different license. Granted, Linksys probably did signifigant work, and I hope that the free markets reward them, but it is not as if they started from scratch. Unfortunately, Cisco is caught between the Free Software Foundation and one of its big suppliers. Who put Cisco into that situation? The sad fact is that in this country, the most expedient way to settle anything is often to threaten legal action. The BSA routinely gets many people's attention by threatening to sue. I would also like to point out that it is perfectly acceptable under the GPL to modify code and use it internally, as long as the device or program is not distributed (Thus not giving away one's "proprietary" advantage). As soon as a work that uses the GPL'ed code is distributed, users want to use that product to the fullest - to fit their needs, and the best way to do that is to have the source available, so that improvements may be made. Even if one is a great proponent of proprietary software, surely it is not right to use other people's work without their permission. That would indeed be a pity, comrades.

My letter to Forbes by matt-fu · 2003-10-14 05:40 · Score: 1

omfg asshat yuo r so lame!!!11

Double standard, hurrah! by Valar · 2003-10-14 05:40 · Score: 1

I like how if someone violates Microsoft or SCO's license, they are dastardly software pirates, that obviously need to be put to death. If someone violates the liscense of a GPL program, continuously, with no intent of stopping, all of the sudden, the liscense holder is portrayed as suit happy. Let's face it. Big business wants something for free (that's what they do, after all-- their nature is spend less and make more), and they aren't happy when they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

--

====
Crudely Drawn Games

nice hit piece - i wonder if mr. lyons is retarded by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:40 · Score: 0

or maybe he just wants a job with microsoft? i've seen better journalism in a 3rd grade weekly reader article.

i had no idea by Ellen+Ripley · 2003-10-14 05:43 · Score: 1

For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free" programs...

Ummm... we're organized?

--
mods metamodded as "Unfair"

My reply to the Forbes editors (Sorry, formatting) by insuljin · 2003-10-14 05:43 · Score: 1

Dear Editors,

This is in response to Daniel Lyons' article "Linux's Hit Men" of 10.14.03.

It seems that Mr. Lyons is insinuating the the people who wrote the original code don't deserve to set the terms that the fruit of their labour will be used under.

He seems to think that it is alright for a commercial company to use code that they did not originate without respecting the license that it was offered under, just because the "$129 device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units in the first quarter of this year alone."

If someone had misappropriated code from Cisco and used it against the terms that Cisco had granted, I am certain there would be much furor among the business community (as there should be). I do not understand why the rules are different for the "happy software proles" (as Mr. Lyons refers to them), that choose to release their software under a different license.

Granted, Linksys probably did signifigant work, and I hope that the free markets reward them, but it is not as if they started from scratch. Unfortunately, Cisco is caught between the Free Software Foundation and one of its big suppliers. Who put Cisco into that situation?

The sad fact is that in this country, the most expedient way to settle anything is often to threaten legal action. The BSA routinely gets many people's attention by threatening to sue.

I would also like to point out that it is perfectly acceptable under the GPL to modify code and use it internally, as long as the device or program is not distributed (Thus not giving away one's "proprietary" advantage). As soon as a work that uses the GPL'ed code is distributed, users want to use that product to the fullest - to fit their needs, and the best way to do that is to have the source available, so that improvements may be made.

Even if one is a great proponent of proprietary software, surely it is not right to use other people's work without their permission. That would indeed be a pity, comrades.

What's the problem here? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 05:48 · Score: 0

Articles are submitted by editors with opinions (that's the way it's supposed to be, right?), and the article is ignorant SCO-rambling quality FUD.

I read it, I was glad for the heads up (ignorant BS shields were up) and it was ignorant BS.

Geez man, do you think the guy that *posted* the article to /. was really hoping that most of us would not read it?

Fundamental concept by rpillala · 2003-10-14 05:49 · Score: 1

Under the license, if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any "derivative works" you've created--even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product.

Not great news if you're Cisco, which paid $500 million for Linksys.

Lyons blames the GPL for this? It seems like Cisco is more to blame if they didn't realize that there was GPL code in some of the product lines they were acquiring. The author must be thinking "$500 million? They can't be at fault if they paid that much money."

???

Ravi

--
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."

OpenTV...wait a damn minute by deanj · 2003-10-14 05:51 · Score: 1

OK, so this article says that the FSF got paid $65,000 after going after OpenTV.

Was that all that happened? Was code ever released?
I sure hope so, or this one of those "pay us off, and we'll get off your back" shakedowns.

This is why BSD "is dying" by duck_prime · 2003-10-14 05:52 · Score: 1

... and not dead.

So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?

You lose market-share to competitors. Something Linksys should have known before they developed a GPL-based OS for that router.

Y'see, there is a need for BSD-type licenses, for people who don't want to redistribute their source. GPL software is fine, but not for the purposes that Linksys et al seem to be using it. BSD is essentially public domain, in the truest sense of the word.

This does bring up one concern I have with the GPL. Not the GPL per se, but that the GPL creates a second, separate "public domain" distinct from the BSD/default public domain.

Re:This is why BSD "is dying" by MrResistor · 2003-10-14 06:55 · Score: 1

Y'see, there is a need for BSD-type licenses, for people who don't want to redistribute their source.

Yeah, great, but BSD was available and Linksys chose to use the GPLed Linux code instead. Again, nobody was forcing Linksys to use GPL code. They knew what they were getting into and they made a choice. Now they are breaking the law. Period.

Not the GPL per se, but that the GPL creates a second, separate "public domain" distinct from the BSD/default public domain.

BSD != Public Domain!!!
GPL != Public Domain!!!

This is a meme that needs to die. With the GPL it should be obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of copyright that it is not the same as public domain, and more importantly it doesn't even try to be. With BSD the difference is a little more tricky, but any code licensed under the BSD license is copyrighted. If it was public domain it wouldn't need a license!

Yes, in most cases you can treat BSD code the same as if it were public domain, but that does not change the fact that it is copyrighted for the author's life plus 75 years, or 95 years if it was work-for-hire.

Public domain means no copyright, and no copyright means no license.

--
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.

Cisco's defense by rpmichel · 2003-10-14 05:54 · Score: 1

Lyons suggests Cisco should fight rather than settle.

What would Cisco's argument be? We used your software, but we didn't like your license, so we're not going to abide by it?

Cisco should thank their lucky stars that Linksys was only stealing from the open source community and not from another company like Microsoft, where "hit men" are something worth worrying about.

Paper flamebait -1 ! by redelm · 2003-10-14 05:56 · Score: 1

Is Forbes just baiting us? [Having us on in UK English]?

Surely this articles is not so poorly researched that the writer didn't know that RMS started the GPL after frustrations with a Xerox printer. Of course the FSF went after Linksys, and Cisco must have known about this from due diligence.

comment by PenguinX · 2003-10-14 06:01 · Score: 1

I sent the following e-mail as a comment, if anyone here can help me out I'd love to understand.

--

Hello,

My name is Brian Landsberger, and while I am sure that you have received a number of ridiculous and scathing e-mails concerning this article I would like to start off by saying this is not one of them. I fully respect your opinion and that is what I am curious about. I would like to understand what logic, beliefs, school of thought, etc. you used in order to come to this conclusion.

I obviously take a different stance entirely, but from my understanding society tends to congregate and make rules of engagement for that group. The world has been moving to the concept of a "free world", where people are able to congregate freely and make whatever rules (within the confines of law) that they desire. If
Group A (the Open Source / FSF camp) decides to create tools based on open knowledge Group B (product based capitalism) should fully respect that decision, especially if they elect to use some of the fruits in their own pursuits.

It can be said that Linksys / Cisco could have continued to developed their own IP and 802.11 stacks. However they elected to use what has been conditionally made available to the public. In mind your response seems unreasonable, if you could help shed some light here I would appreciate it.

Thank you!
Brian Landsberger

FSF should sue for $80,000,000,000 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:03 · Score: 0

This is the maximum amount permitted by copyright law for the illegal distribution of 400,000 copies of a protected work.

Then CISCO can decide whether releasing the source code is worse than paying $80B. Which remedy is really burning the house down?

That is not science, it is superstition by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:06 · Score: 0

These arguments are not science, they are superstition fueled by luddism.

Most notable is the easily-recognized fallacy you described in your "300 years" example: the idea that if A and B happen, this means A causes B. Not to mention the variety of watermelon that makes you sprout wings at puberty.

"It would really suck to find out that that bug proof wheat eventually
modifies the human immune system 4 or 5 generations out, and all the
bread eating industrial nations die of the common cold."

Wild Chicken Little fantasizing may be fun, but all it is is fantasizing. It would also suck if GM-strawberries cause everyone in Alabama to spontaneously incinerate themselves in 2087, right?

"With a "big picture" view:"

It is more like a "motion picture" view, and what we are watching is a double feature of "Night of the Lepus" and "Day of the Triffids". It sure is not reality.

Re:That is not science, it is superstition by Linux_Bastard · 2003-10-14 06:46 · Score: 1

I understand that you are still all broken up about Rush, but does this prevent you from reading, or just understanding?

What it boils down to is we don't know.
And we can't know anytime soon.

So perhaps we should look before we leap, even if that means waiting for sunrise to be able to see.

Because for now "Anonymous Coward" we are in the dark.

--
F X=0:1:9999 F D=2:1 Q:((X>2)&(X#D=0)!((D>X/2)&(X'=1))) I D>(X/2) W:$X>75 ! W X,?$X+5-$l(X) Q

What does the article say? by Futurepower(R) · 2003-10-14 06:07 · Score: 1

I tried to go to the URL you referenced: Gotcha: Pushing The Limits of Due Diligence with Firebird. I got the message at the bottom. This is Forbes' way of saying, "Our Corporation is as out of touch as the writer of the story referenced in the Slashdot article, Daniel Lyons."

What is the cost to Forbes of being known as a dinosaur on Slashdot? Will Forbes lose the opportunity to hire knowledgeable people, who might rather work elsewhere?

Anyhow, the article you referenced is prescription only, and I don't even have a doctor. What does the article say, in general?

_______________________________

Home > Premium Archive Error: Unsupported Browser

Access to this article may be purchased using current versions of Netscape or Internet Explorer.

Your browser does not support the featues of our purchase process. Please use another browser or upgrade to the current version of Netscape or Internet Explorer.

Download Netscape

Cisco is acting like a very bad company. by twitter · 2003-10-14 06:08 · Score: 1

In many ways Cisco *is* a victim here. They didn't design the router, and I'm reasonably sure that Cisco's development proceedures would have prevented such a gaffe from happening. Someone at Linksys and/or Broadcom made some very bad decisions, and Cisco inherited the resulting problem along with the merger.

That's warped, Cisco purchased a healthy competitor. Using free software for routers was a great idea and it's why we have $100 wireless gateways in a box. Cisco knew about this like everyone else. If anything Cisco's a predator.

it is critical to carefully review the development materials for possible license violations, of both proprietary and Free licenses. Otherwise you can end up in all sorts of legal hot water. I just wish they told that story better.

Once again, you put the blame on the GPL. Hogwash. Cisco should have no trouble releasing the code they borrowed and improved or paying reasonable terms to the software's authors. Most software companies would make much less reasonable demands. This business about "it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners," is greed based bullshit.

Only people who don't have the nuts to share their code can think this way, that would be companies like Cisco, Microsoft and other "Information Economy" losers. They think they can steal everyone else's work and keep everyone else from doing anything.

Cicso's recent advert showing "hackers" being beaten and abused in filthy Russian looking jails, puts Cisco firmly on my list of "Bad Company". Despite their prowess, size and publications, I no longer want anything to do with them.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Re:Cisco is acting like a very bad company. by Gleef · 2003-10-14 08:17 · Score: 1

twitter wrote:

Once again, you put the blame on the GPL.

No, I place the blame on Linksys/Broadcom, and the responsibility on Cisco. Cisco was financially and legally responsible to find out what was in the systems it was buying from Linksys.

I fail to see how saying that a company purchasing copyrights had better review the status of those copyrights is "blaming the GPL" for anything.

Cisco should have no trouble releasing the code they borrowed and improved

They should have no trouble; however, they claim to be having trouble getting the code that precisely matches the released version due to the chaos surrounding the merger. Whether this is true or not, I can't say, but it sounds plausible. If this is the case, they should take the code they *do* have, produce a flash upgrade for the router to this known version, and be done with it.

or paying reasonable terms to the software's authors.

We're talking about the Linux kernel here. Even if someone could successfully contact all copyright holders, the only terms some of them consider reasonable are the terms of the GPL.

This business about "it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners," is greed based bullshit.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. However, that is Daniel Lyons of Forbes talking, not Cisco. From what I understand, Cisco is dealing with the FSF amicably and in good faith in trying to resolve this issue.

Only people who don't have the nuts to share their code can think this way, that would be companies like Cisco, Microsoft and other "Information Economy" losers. They think they can steal everyone else's work and keep everyone else from doing anything.

Aside from this fiasco, what work has Cisco "stolen"? I'm curious.

Cicso's recent advert showing "hackers" being beaten and abused in filthy Russian looking jails, puts Cisco firmly on my list of "Bad Company". Despite their prowess, size and publications, I no longer want anything to do with them.

That's fine, but hate Cisco for what they're actually doing wrong, producing overpriced routers based on proprietary software, and trying to raise general security fears for their own benefit. Not for things they are actually working on fixing, and not for business rags trying to stir the pot for their own purposes.

--

----
Open mind, insert foot.

Linux isn't a threat to the IP paradigm at all! by Rimbo · 2003-10-14 06:11 · Score: 2, Informative

Businesses which wish to develop proprietary technologies with closed source software should not use GPL code.

Actually, business that wish to develop proprietary technologies without releasing the source can still use GPL code. Take my company, Kiyon, for example. We're making a kernel module that, once installed into Linux, turns an embedded Linux device into an autonomic router that can do some really nifty things.

Now the only actual GPL-derived code we have is a modification to a driver to add functionality that hadn't been implemented yet. And of course, we'd have to surrender that code once our product is released. But nothing in there is proprietary -- that's just filling out the feature set of existing drivers to get our code to work.

Our actual code is derived from a BSD-style license. Since it's an LKM, we can comply fully with the GPL without having to release any of our proprietary source or trade secrets or IP or whatever you want to call it. You can build a system using all of our GPL-derived code, and it will compile and run -- but it just won't have the routing capabilities. The "secret" is safe.

In fact, this is one of the great benefits of Linux -- the LKM structure allows you to do this. You can build something that integrates into the kernel without needing to release the source for it -- e.g., Nvidia's graphics drivers. This makes Linux particularly business-friendly -- in fact, more business-friendly than WinCE!!!

Ask Dan Lyons to post his answer. by Futurepower(R) · 2003-10-14 06:12 · Score: 1

Please post his answer, or ask him to post it.

Re:Ask Dan Lyons to post his answer. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:41 · Score: 0

Or maybe you can ask to se wherefrom his last paycheck came :)

At least ask him if it is okay if you post his answer on the frontpage, none will remember / find it here anyway and it is really interesting.

Anti-GM = bad science, no logic. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:13 · Score: 0

You have a fundemental misunderstading of what science is. Science requires evidence and logic. It is not based on illogical superstitious fears of results that no-one has any reason or evidence to believe will happen. It is based on currently available evidence and our understanding of it. The anti-GM arguments contain neither.

You are exhibiting what is known as bad science and superstition. You don't have to have a blind faith in science to see this. All you need is a good dose of common selse to see the problem with all the bogus Chicken Little arguments.

"Some paranoia regarding the planetary food supply is more than warranted based on the potential unforseen consequences."

If paranoia is justified to prevent us from doing things where there is no evidence of any harm, I suggest you hide in your Montana shack and eat nothing but 100% petroleum-based Twinkies. You can't be too safe, can you?

Very Beautiful by HoldmyCauls · 2003-10-14 06:13 · Score: 1

It's rare to find someone who is accomplished as a developer, a businessperson, and a wordsmith.

One nitpick, in case you haven't sent it out. You spelled 'through' without an 'r' in the third paragraph from the last.

The world needs more levelheaded people who can organize their thoughts the way you just did here. For the sake of all of us, please keep it up.

--
Emacs: for people who just never know when to :q!

One man invented the Internet by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:15 · Score: 0

As a minor example I venture to guess that the internet as we know it would largely not exist.

According to his interview, Al Gore invented the Internet once he was elected to Congress. It had nothing to do with GPL.

Re:One man invented the Internet by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 07:07 · Score: 0

I am so sick of hearing this lie.

What I sent by ThenAgain · 2003-10-14 06:22 · Score: 1

Well, that'll teach me to post before reading the Slashdot comments. Several other users have produced much better letters than my own. Here it is anyway. Hope I got it right.

This story indicates a fundamental lack of understanding on the part
of it's author. The FSF is there to guarantee the integrity of the
community. We're not talking about a few college students cobbling
together an experimental operating system. We're talking about a vast
network of companies and independent developers who've worked hard to
make Linux into an enterprise grade product. This effort is made
possible only through the openness of the process. Anyone may benefit
from it. Large companies, small governments, private citizens, all
are free to use Linux and other open source software. The GPL also
guarantees that they may customize it to better suit their needs,
provided that if they redistribute a derivative work they distribute
the code as well. Mr Lyons suggests that companies be allowed to
treat GPL'd software like money found in the street. "They're giving
it away! Let's slap our logo on it and sell it as our own!" is the
attitude that the GPL and the FSF seek to prevent. The programmers
who worked hard to produce Linux and other GPL'd software ask only
that they be allowed to benefit from you as you benefit from them.

It is also important to note that producing software which interacts
with GPL'd software does not require that the GPL be extended to your
work. You are free to develop proprietary software which runs on
Linux. You are also free to change GPL'd software for your own
in-house use without publishing your code. Linksys, however, is
selling products based on a modified Linux kernel. The GPL, to which
they agreed, requires they they publish the source of their modified
kernel.

Mr Lyons also has the audacity to imply that the free software
movement is communist in nature which couldn't be further from the
truth. Socialism doesn't have exclusive rights to the concept of
community. Communism deprives people of choice where open source
software ensures it. Companies may chose to join the community,
benefit from it's work, and share their contributions. Companies may
also chose to use free software covered by a BSD-style license that
doesn't require contribution of changes. Finally they may chose to
employ commercial software which they may not customize, they may not
share, and that require per-use fees. Linksys chose Linux and agreed
to the license under which Linux is distributed which requires that if
they sell derivative works they must participate in the community that
created it.

Choice tidbits by TheTick · 2003-10-14 06:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

From the article...

But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.

What a horrible analogy, but it does point out the flaw at the root of the article. The article presumes a double-standard: An entity that develops a product using GPL software has a right to reap the benefits of the foregoing development of that software, but has no responsibilities to the users of that software. Clearly this is contrary to the very core of the GPL.

To try and hammer this idea into the (inflammatory, incorrect, inaccurate) language of the excerpt, someone else laid the foundation, built the walls, and put the roof on. The "house" was never "yours" in the first place.

The author of the article, Daniel Lyons, concludes:

So far, none of the Free Software Foundation's targets have decided it is bad for the world and gone to court. This despite the fact that the foundation has $750,000 in the bank and one lawyer who works for free, part time, when he's not teaching classes at Columbia University.

Will Cisco and Broadcom be the first? Probably they'll decide, like everyone else, that it's cheaper to settle than to fight.

Such a pity, comrade.

Whoa! Ad hominem and straw man all in one passage. Way to go, Dan!

The expense of the legal action is irrelevant if the GPL-abusing entity intends to win, so this is an admission that the GPL is legally sound and has teeth. Win the lawsuit and take the FSF's $750k in damages and legal expenses. I suspect the targets of the FSF settle because they don't have a leg to stand on.

Here's a message for Forbes: If you think the GPL is bad, tell us why you think it's bad. I'm sure there are plenty of people here prepared to debate you. Don't report that it's bad because companies violate it and get caught. The Chewbacca defense will not save you. (I hope.)

I've no sympathy at all for the companies mentioned in the article. FSF enforcement of the GPL should not come as a surprise to anyone. If you're basing a company on a project using third-party code, due diligence requires you to understand the terms of the license under which you are using the code. Maybe instead of moaning and groaning (via Forbes) when they get caught with their corporate mitts in the cookie jar, they should either abide by the GPL, find a package with a license the imposes fewer responsibilities, or *gasp* do their own development work and pay for it.

--

--
bachiatari na torisetsu o yome!

OF course! by toganet · 2003-10-14 06:23 · Score: 1

"The FSF is not portrayed in a positive light, so you may want to skip reading this"

That's right -- only read stories you agree with! You'll feel right all the time, and you'll never have to think twice about anything!

In answer to your questions: by Dogun · 2003-10-14 06:24 · Score: 1

first question:
If they were simply using stock GPL products in their routers, they would be required to distribute the source for the stock GPL products along with their product, or make it available (online/mail-order/whatever) at cost, make mention of it in the manual. Tivo is an example of this. I think that's pretty close to full compliance.

If you use Apache in your product, I'm not sure what the license provisions are. I imagine it's something similar. Someone else said Apache isn't GPL.

The unfortunate fact is that they did make modifications to packages. Busybox and probably some others, but most notably, the Linux kernel was modified. I think the Busybox maintainer eventually convinced them to release the modifications on Busybox, which they didn't initially do.

As for the linux kernel:
When you write a linux kernel module, it's a sticky issue as to whether a module can be closed source. Linus's stance on this is that the module interface is sort of like an API, which means that close-source drivers make use of the kernel like a library. Closed drivers don't get access to a lot of kernel symbols and stuff like that, in order to make this analogy sound. I'm sure somebody has bones to pick with this statement, please do.

Included on the device were some modules that allowed loading of various Broadcom wireless cards. If things were all nice and happy, then Linksys would need to release the source for stock Linux on their GPL page or something, state "The drivers developped by Broadcom contained on the router are not licensed under the GPL and are not released here on this website."

Unfortunately, things are not nice and happy. In order for these drivers to function, you need some extra symbols inside of the kernel proper - not modules. Thus, Broadcom, Linksys, or whoever made the modifications, didn't just write a couple of modules. They made a derivative work, and that's why this is a mess; their modules are making use of a derivative of linux, and maybe that API analogy isn't sound any longer.

That's poorly worded and confusing. Someone flame me and correct my mistakes so roertel can make sense of this. But that's the general idea, I think?

language that Forbes understands by 1gor · 2003-10-14 06:26 · Score: 1

I've mentioned this on Forbes forum (arguments that business people should understand):

These jokes about Open Source "comrades" show that the author has missed the point about open source software.

There is better word for "free" or "open source" software.
The accurate word is "commodity software". Most functionality that Linux has (low level networking) has been around since the 70s. There is hardly anything left to "invent" there. People just want stable and secure servers and networks. So developer community has came up with this "open source" model when nobody "owns" the code but many people want to contribute just to make it better for their own use. It's not because programmers are so idealistic, really.

As for GPL, well, it works in maintaining the commodity status. It's possible to build proprietary solutions *on top* of GPL software (Oracle also runs on Linux, as you know). It's impossible tomake GPL software proprietary again. But hey, who forced Linksys to take free OS for their routers in the first place? They could pay some commercial vendor and be happy. There is no such thing as free lunch, as Forbes should know!

--
--

Dear Forbes by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:27 · Score: 0

Subject: Shame on Forbes for defending copyright violators

Dear Forbes,

As the owner of a small company which writes and releases software
under the GPL license I am surprised that Forbes is critical of the
FSF in it's efforts to enforce my copyrights. We write our software,
we hold the copyright, and we have the right to determine the
conditions under which others may use our programs. The GPL does not
prevent others from profiting by selling our software, however it does
require that those who choose to do so grant us the right to do the
same on a fair and equal basis. Those who fear competition had best
stay away from the GPL.

The FSF supports us and our copyrights, along with those of many
thousands of other independent businesses and individuals, when it
undertakes the "enforcement actions" you deride. Those who do not
wish to abide by the licensing terms of our software should not use
our software. To suggest otherwise is to condone copyright violation.
It is particularly offensive that you paint large corporations like
Cisco and Broadcomm as the victims when the terms of the GPL are very
clear and these institutions are well aware of their obligation to
abide by the license of the software they choose to use.

It is often written that the GPL makes software free as in speech, not
as in beer, referring to the license's liberal terms which allow
anyone to rewrite and re-work GPLed software. Many independents,
ourselves included, choose the GPL because it is also free as in
enterprise. The large community of GPL developers, and the support of
the FSF, give independent software developers the ability to enforce
their copyright against large companies in a way never before seen.
Further, the liberal licensing terms of the GPL give independent
developers a library of over 30 million lines of code, representing
over 8,000 person/years of development time and $1 billion dollars, to
re-use in the development our products and services. The GPL gives
small companies and independent developers resources the largest
corporations wish they had. I would expect Forbes to laud the GPL and
the FSF efforts which support it as, with the GPL, the software
industry has finally found a way to level the playing field between
large and small organizations and truly bring free enterprise to the
marketplace.

Respectfully yours,

Karl O. Pinc
President
The Meme Factory, Inc.
http://www.meme.com

Reading Source Files by KenSeymour · 2003-10-14 06:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Agreed. Source files do not contain contracts. But they can contain copyright information.

I guess I mentioned reading EULAs to illustrate that it is hard to be careful about every piece of software you use.
It hadn't occured to me that they might not be binding.
For most EULAs, it is clear that the copyright owner does not want you to make copies of their binary software available for others to use.
My personal choice is to not read them looking for a loophole around their intentions.
Others may make different choices.

Many times in my career, I have looked at source code that came with a technical book.
Often there is no mention about the source code or whether or not I can use it in programs (derived works) I write at work.
I bought the book to learn how to use some API, but I am left wondering if there is any legal problem if I use the source.

If I get some source from the internet, I check the copyright notices and look out for phrases like "free for non-commercial use".

The nice thing about GPL or LGPL code is it is very clear what you can and can't do with it.
If my employer does not agree to release the source to "my" whole program, I can't use GPL code.
I have used LGPL source at work and was careful
to use dynamic linking.

When I go home, I can run Linux, program for fun, and use all the GPL code I want.
Some of that stuff I have done is re-redistributed LGPL, but the rest has not been re-distributed.

It sounds like some employee at CISCO/Broadcom made a mistake. The companies are paying for the mistake and perhaps the persons involved are as well.

--
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein

Re:Reading Source Files by Alsee · 2003-10-14 10:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oops, I guess the following post is a rant :D

For most EULAs, it is clear that the copyright owner does not want you to make copies of their binary software available for others to use.

Heh. If that is what EULA's were actualy about then they wouldn't exists at all. Ordinary copyright law already prohibits that. EULA's try to add on additional restrictions not granted by copyright law. They almost always try to revoke rights specificly granted by copyright law.

Books, magazines, and newspapers don't come with EULA's. Records, tapes, and CD's don't come with EULA's. Paintings, sculptures, and photographs don't come with EULA's. Radio broadcasts, television broadcasts, and videocassettes don't come with EULA's.

Do software copyright holders get some magical power that no other copyright holder gets? There only rights a copyright holder has available to licence are the rights of reproduction, distribution, and performance. See for your self: US Copyright law Section 106 Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. There is no such thing as a "licence to use". Doesn't exist.

EULA's are in legal limbo, rarely tested. Judges have gone to great lengths to decide individual cases on any other grounds possible, to void facing the thorny issue. When they have dealt with it the results have been mixed. The cases that HAVE upheld EULA's have done so not on copyright law, but by a severe stretch of contract law. If such an interpretation of copyright law is valid then there is absolutely no reason a supermarket couldn't slap an EULA on a tomato and sue you for violating it.

My personal choice is to not read them looking for a loophole around their intentions.

That's a rather insidious comment. You imply the reason for challenging an EULA, or even for bothering to read EULA, is to do something improper. EULA's try to prohibit all sorts of perfectly legal and legitimate activity. You certainly don't need an EULA to prohibit something that is already illegal.

P.S.
Before somebody posts about my EULA comments and the GPL, the GPL isn't an EULA. It is a plain old licence. It grants ordinary copyright licence to reproduce and distribute. It doesn't rely on some legal fiction of a "licence to use".

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

What is Clippy saying by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:34 · Score: 0

...fear...illogic...luddism....fallacious reasoning....bad conclusions

Tell me, when you are typing all this paranoia into Word 97, do you ever get tired of Clippy popping up and saying "You must be the Umabomer" ?

Re:What is Clippy saying by Ingolfke · 2003-10-14 09:16 · Score: 1

Umabomer? Is that one of the villians in Kill Bill Vol. 2?

My comment to the article on Forbes' discussion gr by rlillard · 2003-10-14 06:34 · Score: 1

This is very simple. These "targeted" (by FSF) companies wanted to get a product to market as quickly as possible. They chose to use GLP'd software to shorten the development time and reduce engineering costs. This is no different than had they gone to a commercial software company for a quick start and entered into a royalty based licence agreement on shipments. Such jump-starts on development are often sound business decisions.

The only difference here is, the coin of the GPL realm is source code and any who skip out on royalties are guilty of fraud or theft, usually both.

Either use GPL'd software or don't. What you don't get to do is steal it.

My letter to the editors by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:36 · Score: 0

Mr. Lyons uses extremely polarized language in his article "Linux's Hit Men" which I believe cloud the business issues at stake. Both SCO's complaints and the Cisco/Broadcom case revolve around violation of the terms of license under which the rights to make use of some piece of intellectual property was granted. Just as businesses who deploy unlicensed commercial software on their corporate desktops are liable for violating the license agreement under which they obtained that software, Cisco/Broadcom is subject to the licensing terms under which they obtained the Linux source code. Any "derivative works" (which are ominously alluded to, but never fully explained in Mr. Lyons article) do not belong wholly to Cisco/Broadcom. Instead they are jointly created works which are being distributed in clear violation of the terms under which the collaboration was initiated. To say that IBM "stole" property belonging to SCO, whereas Broadcom "created" derivative works draws a distinction which is simply not warranted by the facts.

Finally, that the FSF is able to resolve so many of these disputes each year without going to court is a testament to the good faith efforts they make to work with licensees of the GPL to achieve compliance without court intervention.

In the future please attempt to ensure that the language used to report a story is chosen to convey the facts and issues relevant to the story, and not to inflame ignorance and misrepresentations surrounding it.

Mike Lococo

Cisco vs. Huawei Technologies by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:43 · Score: 0

I happened to come across an article in BusinessWeek today talking about a lawsuit between Cisco and Huawei Technologies.

Here is a link to a news article on the subject: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=31 253

I've quoted the first two paragraphs below:

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., the Chinese networking manufacturer involved in a bitter patent and copyright lawsuit with Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO - message board), is fighting back against Cisco's legal attack and has outlined its defense in recent court papers.

The gist of Huawei's defense: While the company admits some of its routing products once held a small amount of Cisco IOS code, it says it no longer sells those routing products. It also denies there was any conspiracy to copy Cisco products.

This puts a whole new twist on the situation.

Why is it going to screw their company? by Glamdrlng · 2003-10-14 06:47 · Score: 1

...without realizing that the viral nature of the GPL is going to screw their company.

I don't see how anyone's company is going to get screwed by them publishing the source code. Yes, linksys aka cisco may lose some customers in the form of those hobbyists and tech heads who choose to roll their own router+AP. It's not like it couldn't be done before, plus I think I'd shoot myself before running the linksys code on a machine I built from scratch. In either case, it's a non-issue... we're not talking about losing a lot of sales.

Sure, there's the possibility of someone else using the code to put out a similar product... as if the home networking market isn't already saturated as it is. An aspiring competitor would have to compete with the branding that linksys already has, not to mention the reputation and legal muscle of its sugar daddy in San Jose, just to be one more box on the shelf. Not to mention that such a startup would have to compete against the two biggest marketing juggernauts in IT, ie cisco and microsoft. I'm all for cation bordering on paranoia, but that's getting out of control. If linksys/cisco don't want the FSF hounding them, then they should show some appreciation for the people whose work they illegally profited from and adhereto the license to which they've already agreed.

--

Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.

Re:Why is it going to screw their company? by NightSpots · 2003-10-14 06:58 · Score: 1

The issue isn't the linksys hardware, it's the drivers for the broadcom chips that aren't public, but are embedded in the Linksys router. Releasing the source likely violates whatever NDA they had to sign with Broadcom to get the specs for those chips.

Like I said above, there's two issues here. One, they release the source, and violate an NDA with broadcom. Two, they keep their NDA valid, and violate the GPL. Either way, someone is going to complain. It just so happens that the threat of legal action means more coming from broadcom than from the FSF.

--

--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs

Forbes is the Bane of Technical writing by nightsweat · 2003-10-14 06:49 · Score: 1

Forbes is to technology as Twinkies are to nutrition. Popular, and tasty, but ultimately devoid of value.

I cringe every year when the higher-ups get the technology issue at Christmas.

--

the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White

Rush? what pills are you popping. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:49 · Score: 0

Funny to have you mention Rush, as you are being reactionary and overly conservative.

"What it boils down to is we don't know.
And we can't know anytime soon."

So you have no evidence and no reason to change your actions. Yet you choose to. Is it religion? A hunch? something in a fortune cookie?

Re:Rush? what pills are you popping. by Linux_Bastard · 2003-10-14 07:15 · Score: 1

Sorry, It took me awhile to realize a troll.

For those that care, there is plenty of contraidigatory evidence for GM plants, not just for human consumption, but for environmental interactions.

My mother told me not to talk to strangers.

--
F X=0:1:9999 F D=2:1 Q:((X>2)&(X#D=0)!((D>X/2)&(X'=1))) I D>(X/2) W:$X>75 ! W X,?$X+5-$l(X) Q
Re:Rush? what pills are you popping. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 07:21 · Score: 0

"For those that care, there is plenty of contraidigatory evidence for GM plants, not just for human consumption, but for environmental interactions."

Are you referring to the incident in Iowa where a field of mirror-faced sunflowers acted in concert and burned down a farmhouse on a sunny day and killed a family?

Or are you referring to the hushed-up reports on the ADM incident in which toxins in GM-modified kumquats ended up causing the extinction of the passenger pigeon?

Memo to FS Comrades by wytcld · 2003-10-14 06:50 · Score: 1

TO: Free Software Communistic-unity

FROM: Fearless Leader Penguini, Central Committee, USSR Government in Exile

SUBJECT: "the movement's usual public image of happy software proles linking arms and singing the "Internationale" while freely sharing the fruits of their code-writing labor"

It has come to our attention that most of you have not learned our theme song. Please go immediately here and memorize it in your native language. Regard this as a top priority directive. Also memorize it in the secondary language of your choice and be ready for foreign travel.

The source is with us!

--
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton

The Forbes family-corrupt for decades by randall_burns · 2003-10-14 06:51 · Score: 1

Anyhow, this article is just another example of the plutocracy with which the Forbes family has been associated with for decades. Basically, the corporate interests Forbes serves are all for enforcement of contracts/licenses which benefit corporate elites-but want to change the rules when it suits them.

My great-grandfather James O. Stark was a political activist that opposed creation of the Federal Reserve(he was a friend/supporter of Champ Clark the man that almost beat Woodrow Wilson for the Democratic nomination in the strangest convention ever)-which centralized a lot financial power in the United States. It turns out, the great-grandfather of Steven Forbes was the secretary of the Jekyll Island meeting where the Federal Reserve plan was hatched.

Support Kucinich in 2004 - www.kucinich.us

Revolting 'Article'! by Chordonblue · 2003-10-14 06:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nowhere in this article is it mentioned that the people who choose to use GPL code are obligated by the rules of the license - it's not as if this is somehow hidden from public view. The author of the article treats the FSF and the GPL as if they play some sort of 'gotcha!' game. Nothing could be further from the truth. The GPL was designed by people who hated the thought of being ensnared by proprietary software - a real 'gotcha' if there ever was one. The way GPL code got to so usable and stable was because it was shared by design!

Why not focus on the fact that these criminal corporations are STEALING from thousands of individual contributors of GPL code worldwide? Linksys didn't code what they're using and they're not even being asked to PAY for it! The bargain is - they need to share what they've modified - end of story. The FSF has an obligation to stand up for the 'little guy' because... Well... Who else would? You can bet that if I took a piece of Cisco router code and put it in a "Chordsoft Router" they'd sue me for everything I had - and rightly so. I deserve to be sued for using proprietary software under their license agreement. Can't hack the terms of the agreement? Simple. DON'T USE IT!

The FSF was doing things 'in secret' - not for some dark motive, but because they didn't want to make a specticle out of corporations they are in negotiations with. Contrast this behavior with the BSA who routinely lines up companies and individuals for public inspection. Ask Ernie Ball (music manufacturer) about it sometime.

But everyone in the industry knows that GPL'd code - particularly network kernel stuff is the best there is. With so many eyes viewing, fixing, modifying, and tweaking it, it's as perfect as perfect gets. It's also very tempting for companies like Lineo and Linksys to appropriate it because it's so easy to do. But when you do the crime, shouldn't you do the time?

And pardon me, but I don't see $65,000 as a big settlement - these are reasonable costs associated with having to do this research in the first place. It's certainly not like when you have organizations like the BSA demanding MILLIONS for violations of their copyright holders.

How about a little more balance Forbes? Truly horrible 'reporting'.

--
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."

Kucinich the Fascist by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 06:58 · Score: 0

"....which centralized a lot financial power in the United States....Support Kucinich in 2004 - www.kucinich.us

How can you complain about centralization of power when you support Kucinich, who wants ruling elites to take over much more of the economy. He is a soft-voiced Stalinist who has won the support of antisemitic totalitarians like Noam Chomsky.

Thankfully, Kucinazi's views appeal to just about no-one. We do not wish to goose-step before the Hero of the Peoples at this point, not yet.

My letter, FWIW by Erandir · 2003-10-14 06:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Dear Sir/Madam

I found the sentiments expressed in your recent article, "Linux's Hit Men", somewhat disquieting. Mr. Lyons seems to advocate the idea that the violation of license agreement constitutes fair use of intellectual property. In the light of the past few years' renewed concern over business ethics, I cannot see how Forbes can identify itself with such a questionable viewpoint.

It is unclear whether mr. Lyons's argument is deliberately propogandistic, or whether it just stems from a misunderstanding of the principles of the GPL and the FSF. Although GPL-based software is labeled "free", it is certainly not within the public domain. Rather, it depends on the principle that software is a tool (whether employed for profit or not), and that all parties using such a tool can benifit from large-scale collaborative development by volunteers. To protect such an initiative against exploitation by those who would unscrupulously exploit the efforts of others for profit, terms of use are needed to maintain the open-source nature of the code, and all improvements made to it.

The license is certainly not a "hidden" threat in such code -- it is always available with distributed source, and asserted in the source files themselves. Users of such code must either abide with the licensing agreements, or use different source code.

Lastly, I must comment on the almost slanderous tone of the article with its strange McCarthyist overtones. Is this truly representative of neutral, unbiased reporting? Furthermore, I am disturbed by the suggestion that a party with little financial or legal resources somehow have a weaker legal position than a large corporation. Surely copyright protection is there to protect the small player too?

GM food is evil by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 07:03 · Score: 0

Ever since I had that nightmare about tentacled rutabagas the size of Buicks eating Cincinnati, the whole GM foods idea gives me the willies. Count me out.

Just sell the a normal licence by pfafrich · 2003-10-14 07:06 · Score: 1

Why not go down the mySQL dual licence route? Cisco quite rightly want to keep there own stuff closed, thats their free right to do so. But of course they should not get if off the back of others. So whats wrong with just giving them the freedom to use stuff how they want as long as theres appropriate payback to the developers. An appropriate licence fee paid to some nuteral body could be any easy resolution to these problems.

For myself as a developer of small standalone libraries, I'd like to make my software free so others can build on it but I also want to let comercial orginizations use the software as well. Without a dual licence no closed buisness will be able to use it. Leaving them without a product and me broke.

I'd like to draw a line at the API for the library, if the modification is on the library side of the API then thats LGPL if its on the other side thats your buisness it is not my right to dictate how they should run their buisness (at a rpice of course).

If something is going to be free to use then it has to be free of imposing an idiology.

--
There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.

You May Be Right by Lagged2Death · 2003-10-14 07:09 · Score: 1

It may just roll off their backs, but it's a good note, and I, for one, am glad you sent it.

My comments as submitted to Forbes by Xenophon+Fenderson, · 2003-10-14 07:11 · Score: 1

Mr. Lyons attempts to comment on a simple dispute over intellectual property licensing. While I agree the current legal formulations of copyrights, trade secret protections, patents, etc. leave much to be desired, I would prefer erudite discussions of the intellectual property law to poorly-constructed logical fallacies posing as insightful commentary. Prejudicial language (the phrases "happy software proles" and "burn down your house", use of the word "comrade"), appeals to popularity (the aforementioned language implying that agreeing to the FSF's philosophy turns one into a morally-bankrupt communist), personal attacks (implying corruption on the part of FSF officials in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, and 21 and collusion in paragraph 18), and appeals to authority (such as the phrase "as some suggest") abound within an article whose theme is, simply, "be careful when you include free software in your product, as there may be undesirable restrictions in its licensing that may make its use inappropriate, given your business model". There is nothing wrong with this theme---"caveat emptor" should be on every entrepreneur's lips---but the way in which this message was delivered leaves much to be desired. Such weak writing has no place in a magazine like Forbes and is a poor advertisement to potential subscribers as myself. I would be much more interested in reading an article that interviews businesses that have successfully (or unsuccessfully) used free software and recounts the lessons they learned from it.

--
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage

Gore lied in claiming that he invented internet by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 07:15 · Score: 0

Gore, on CNN, claimed to have taken the initiative in inventing the Internet when he was in Congress.

Since it did not happen that way (the internet was invented long before he ever got to Congress), Gore either goofed, or intended to lie.

Re:Gore lied in claiming that he invented internet by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 07:31 · Score: 0

Cite the transcript, liar.

Lets see the exact words he used.

Amazing by merky1 · 2003-10-14 07:23 · Score: 1

It is simply amazing that non-technical people think that GPL/OSS/whatever is "evil." It is like some one else here mentioned, if you decide to use the code, you need to abide by the rules it was given to you. It is frightening that PHB's think that stealing code is ok. No one bound linksisco to use linux code. It just seems that these people don't get it.

I wonder if MSFT would be so forgiving if the OS in use was a windows derivitive.

--
--WooooHoooo--

Article Neglects important facts by Steffan · 2003-10-14 07:28 · Score: 1

This article neglects to mention that Cisco and Linksys have had available a very well tested and engineered product, i.e., the Linux Kernel, which they have modified to use in their product. The development costs alone for them to duplicate something like that would be astronomical. They're benefitting from free work that was shared under a specific license. That they now refuse to share the source to their modified kernels is a very clear violation of the licensing of said kernel.

Claiming ignorance of the terms of the GPL (not that they're doing this) is not an excuse. Try using that one on the BSA when they ask why you're running Windows on 30 workstations while having licenses for five. You can say you "didn't know" you couldn't reuse your licenses, but that's not likely to keep you from a hefty fine.

If they had bothered to consider the ramifications of their actions, I'm sure they could have properly segregated any proprietary code from the kernel modifications and thus made it possible to comply with the word and spirit of the GPL while still maintaining their competitiveness and any trade secrets.

The GPL isn't all or nothing. I think there are plenty of opportunities to make use of GPL'd code and not compromise your own works. You just have to maintain separation between GPL'd and your derived works and any ancillary software you need for your product.

Article like this serve only to further the FUD that GPL will ruin your product, bankrupt your company and who knows what else.

Just RTFL before using any code that isn't yours.

Pls Mod Parent Up by CERonin · 2003-10-14 07:29 · Score: 1

All the Kapitalists forget that if the software industry was really healthy (i.e. not a monopoly) then the open source movement would not exist (i.e. software would be priced more reasonably, more software types would be employed, and fewer people thinking about how to get even...).

What really scares 'em is working for a living (somethng you have to do every day), instead of living from a portfolio (something you just have), which can be created as easily from skull sweat as skullduggery.

Your Management Team has decided to make a Very Few Economic Adjustments. Thank you for your years of service. Please follow the officers quietly out the door to your left...

--
stirring the pot since nineteen mumblty mumble...

Re:Pls Mod Parent Up by aiabx · 2003-10-14 08:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Free Software isn't about revenge, or cheap stuff. It's about freedom. If every MS product were free tomorrow, there would still be a free software movement, as long as one person wants to be able to see and modify the source.

You can add the word "just" after the "isn't" in the first sentence, if you wish.
-aiabx

--
Just this guy, you know?
Re:Pls Mod Parent Up by CERonin · 2003-10-15 07:39 · Score: 1

Dear aiabx
You were quite right in pointing out my mistake in my first paragraph. Sometimes my anger just grabs control (*sigh*).
I await any comments you might have on my second paragraph. Third paragraph was, unfortunately, just "out there". I've been "rightsized" too many times...
CERonin
Execute Elder Perl Script:

--
stirring the pot since nineteen mumblty mumble...

I hope cisco Wins! by QuantumRiff · 2003-10-14 07:32 · Score: 1

I don't like following all those licenses and EULA's anyways.. If cisco wins, wouldn't it make it impossible to enforce licenses?

--

What are we going to do tonight Brain?

Software industry is not a monopoly. Get real. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 07:33 · Score: 0

"All the Kapitalists forget that if the software industry was really healthy (i.e. not a monopoly) "

But it is not a monopoly: your basis for the argument is flawed. There are literally thousands of different companies and software writers and producers. Just because Microsoft has a legally-defined monopoly on the desktop OS does not mean that this condition applies to the entire industry (I think your mistake was in assuming that).

But why is the Economist more with it? by steve_l · 2003-10-14 07:35 · Score: 1

I dont read forbes much, I read the Economist. By UK standards it is still fairly right wing, thinks power grid deregulation is a good idea, etc etc.

But they actually seem to have grasped that Linux and Open Source is a good thing. By saving companies money, they free up cash for more interesting stuff. The Economist had a good article on the SCO business recently, and generally tend not to view the GPL/OSS movement as a bunch of subversives. Radicals, maybe, but subversives no.

Maybe Forbes is being briefed by different companies -not just MS, but perhaps, for this article, those poor people at Cisco.

Re:But why is the Economist more with it? by nanojath · 2003-10-14 09:20 · Score: 1

Interesting comparison. There is a considerable difference for being for wealth for wealth's sake (I'd accuse Forbes of leaning this direction) and being conservative and very pro-free market capitalism (how I'd characterize the Economist).

Many assume commie sympathies on my part that do not exist. I don't think open source is about communism or capitalism. I think it's a new way of getting certain things done - that could be used just as easily in a variety of contexts, both economic and political. But I think I'm right in my basic premise that what threatens Forbes about open source is that it rattles the status quo, which is why they smear it with these commie digs - because communism is a superficially similar paradigm that is thoroughly debunked in the real world (the odd throwback revolutionary notwithstanding). The trick of open source as opposed, say, to communism is that it takes the basic idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - and makes it compeltely voluntary and self-service. That's pretty crazy stuff, actually.

--
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Re:But why is the Economist more with it? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 11:01 · Score: 0

Anarchism FAQ
Re:But why is the Economist more with it? by Wah · 2003-10-14 11:50 · Score: 1

>The trick of open source as opposed, say, to communism is that it takes the basic idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - and makes it compeltely voluntary and self-service. That's pretty crazy stuff, actually.

It is my understanding that the original idea was the it would all be 'completely voluntary and self-service', but that's not how things turned out.

However, if you take scarcity out of the equation, a similar model could work rather well.

--
+&x

You read it.. Gore lied. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 07:35 · Score: 0

You read it yourself. I have already. He said he invented the Internet.

The exact word he used is "create". This is irrelevant because

1) he did not create the internet

2) Create = Invent in this context. Check the dictionary and thesaurus.

Gore lied. The internet was created/invented years before he ever got to Congress.

Re:You read it.. Gore lied. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 08:28 · Score: 0

You did not cite it. Because you've never read the transcript, and you don't even know where to find it.

You might even know that's a misquote. You big liar.

Are you sure its the same Dan Lyons? by BadDoggie · 2003-10-14 07:41 · Score: 1

What SCO Wants, SCO Gets:

In other words, like many religious folk, the Linux-loving crunchies in the open-source movement are a) convinced of their own righteousness, and b) sure the whole world, including judges, will agree.
They should wake up...

Forbes Technology: Dan Lyons:

Linux will turn out not to be the savior everyone thinks. Customers will begin to realize that IBM...doesn't "give" you "free" Linux--unless you pay through the nose for hardware and services. Someone might notice that it's been 10 years since Linus Torvalds created Linux and there's still not a decent desktop version that an ordinary person can use. Someone also might notice that Red Hat's...sales aren't growing very much, and that the company only shows a profit when it fiddles the numbers around into an "adjusted" basis, not when it follows GAAP rules.

This is the same Dan Lyons who attacked Michael Moore's film on the basis that the bank doesn't provide the gun on the spot, something which Moore himself has been able to back up.

If you really know him, tell him to give me a holler. I'm available through the E-Mail listed here as well as the address I gave Forbes (along with my real name). He can do an easy search on the text since what I posted here is my Letter to the Editor verbatim.

woof.

Re:Are you sure its the same Dan Lyons? by pivo · 2003-10-14 09:22 · Score: 1

It is the same guy, and he's being innundated with mail right now. I doubt he's going to be in the mood to respond to even reasoned criticism, since he would be doing that for free, and, according to him, that's communisim.

I talked to another, mutial friend about his article and she said that "he loves to stir up the shit." But I have to wonder, what's the point? Or at least, why is Forbes paying him to do it?
Re:Are you sure its the same Dan Lyons? by 00420 · 2003-10-14 11:48 · Score: 1

I doubt he's going to be in the mood to respond to even reasoned criticism, since he would be doing that for free, and, according to him, that's communisim

This guy sounds like a real ass. I can't believe you can maintain a friendship with him without wanting to punch him in the face.

--
Have you tried Linux yet?
Re:Are you sure its the same Dan Lyons? by jackb_guppy · 2003-10-14 12:30 · Score: 1

Ask him it ok to steal his story and hand it out like my own, AND GET PAID FOR IT.

It must be, since his belief that Cisco has that right... again.

Mostly on target, but we're not commies :) by Frodo420024 · 2003-10-14 07:42 · Score: 1

I sortof like the hitman depiction in the article. MeThinks the Open Source community needs to be thougher, not meeker, and the competent FSF people are doing a great, essential job here. That some companies try to join the game believing they can skip paragrahps in the GPL - their mistake. GPL is made to promote sharing - if you don't like it, use something else.

Being a die-hard libertarian, it does hurt me to see us depicted as commies singing 'Internationale'... :)

--
I'm in a Unix state of mind.

Here's mine by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 07:44 · Score: 0

Here's my letter to the editor:

OMGWTF???!!!11 Ur arteckle iz st00pid & F0rb3z iz teh sux0rz!!!1 Yuo = ghey GPL is teh 0wnz!!!

I hope they print it.

My letter to Daniel Lyons by paj1234 · 2003-10-14 07:45 · Score: 1

Sent by paper-post:

Daniel Lyons
Forbes.com
28 W. 23rd Street
NY, NY 10010

Dear Daniel,

Re: Linux's Hit Men

I was very encouraged to read your article which I heard about on Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/).
My conclusions are:

- Free Software is world class technically.
- Free Software is strong enough to protect itself legally.

I believe this means Free Software has a wonderful and secure future. I am looking forward to it!

In your next article, please mention that the GPL requires release of source code only on redistribution. A company can do anything they like with Free Software internally. There is no need to release source code in that case.

Also, you forgot to mention that Linksys/Cisco made a mistake, they should have used the loadable kernel module mechanism if they wanted to run proprietary code within the Linux kernel. For example, Intel have done that with their 536EP line of internal modems. Intel have done it correctly and there is no problem. I have bought a lot of their pretty good, if semi-proprietary, modems as a result.

Yours sincerely,

Phil Jones
Director
Phil Jones Computers

Re:My Letter to Daniel Lyons by thepler · 2003-10-14 10:07 · Score: 1

Dear Daniel Lyons,

"Such a pity, comrade."

This sentence shows that you either
don't understand software, particularly
open source software, or that your
intention with this article was
sensationalism and divisiveness.

Certainly the philosophy behind the
GPL has similarities to communism, but
nobody has to use GPL'd software. The
troubles that Progressive Software
faced were due to their own mistakes.
They either didn't read the licenses,
didn't understand them, or just didn't
care. It's their own fault.

I see the GPL as a license for a
developer to consider if one believes
that the business, political, and
financial branches of our society are
not living up to their end of the
division of labor bargain. It ensures
that creators cannot have their
creations taken away by non-creators
while continuing to share and improve
said creation. The GPL views
non-creators as middle-men that can be
cut out of the supply chain. Businesses,
politicians and those in finance would
understandably rather not be cut out of
the loop. The medium of trade moves
away from money and toward contribution.

The GPL is not the antithesis of
intellectual property. It is one
option among many for those that
understand intellectual property and
it's implications.

If you don't like the GPL, don't use
it, and don't build products on top of
GPL'd software. And as far as business
models surrounding GPL'd software
go, they're just gravy. The true
goal of the GPL is to allow creators to
keep their creations.

Definition of "Knee-Jerk" by Red+Rocket · 2003-10-14 07:57 · Score: 1

Your post is the very definition of "knee-jerk."

You offer no counter-arguments but simply claim that the parent post is wrong because it doesn't sound right to you. By using baited words like "communist", "far left", and "Che Guevara", you make it obvious that you disagree on ideological grounds. If your ideology offers you no effective counter-argument, then perhaps it is your ideology that is wrong.

You also make it clear that even brilliantly composed arguments such as the one you replied to have no effect on the "True Believers" of the world. You are guided by faith rather than reason. You have faith that the "free market" will solve all of society's ills. You pray to the invisible hand to make the world a better place while ignoring the glaring inequities of the inevitable monopolization and exploitation that such a system generates.

Pure capitalism is no better than pure socialism or any other pure "ism." Pure capitalism crashed in a heap in 1929. Do you really want to repeat that experiment? FDR balanced the social equation by injecting some socialism into the US system -- just enough to maintain prosperity without falling toward stagnation. Balancing the ideologies and applying the best of each to counter their worst yields the sustainable, stable society that business needs in order to prosper over the long term.

People often confuse the social contract with an economic one. They'll make statements like, "Why should I pay tax dollars so that someone who doesn't work can have welfare? What do I owe them?"
What do you owe them? -- Nothing.
What do you owe society? -- Everything.
It is a stable society that allows you to prosper. If large numbers of people are left out of the system they will be inclined to revolt. Revolutions cause big swings of the social pendulum that take generations to dampen. Let's not start it swinging again.

--
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!

My letter to the editor. It's long. by bob301 · 2003-10-14 07:58 · Score: 1

I recently read the article "Linux's Hit Men" by Daniel Lyons. I can only assume this article was meant to be labeled as an editorial because of the dominance of opinion over fact that this article presented. Further, I was appalled at the brazen links the writer drew between communism and the Open Source Movement, not to mention the assumption that communism is somehow "bad" or "wrong". The Chinese have a communist government, and yet they represent nearly a quarter of the world's population, are preparing a mission into space, and have vast manufacturing resources. These accomplishments are not trivial, nor should they be considered as exceptions to the rule of "Capitalism and democracy are the only viable social systems". Communism is just as valid a form of government as democracy, and should not be villainized because it is different. This is not the 1960's, there is no Cold War raging, and McCarthy has, thankfully, passed form the public eye. Join the rest of the world in the third millennium.
The Free Software Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the freedom of the individual. The GNU General Public License (GPL) is a way of working within existing US Copyright law to help achieve those aims. The GPL is different from most other click-thru licenses in that it is very readable, and explains not only the restrictions placed on the user, but also the reasons for those restrictions. The user need not even read the entire license to understand the gist of it- that is all laid out in the preamble. The rest of the GPL only confirms what is written in this section: software covered under the GPL can be distributed for a fee, the source code to any GPL software must be made available to those who request it (at the least), modifications of the code are both acceptable and encouraged, and works that are directly derived from free software must also be made free. These are the most important issues the GPL deals with, and they all support the aim of the Free Software Foundation: the power over software is given to the users of that software, as long as the creators publish under the GPL. This model is more appropriately compared to sharing a workload rather than communism. The creators of the software still own it; it is not public domain merely because its source is available for all to see. In fact, one of the aims of the GPL is to give users many of the benefits of public domain software without robbing the creators of credit or control.
The GPL makes as few restrictions as possible to preserve freedom. They limit the rights of the user from copying, in whole or in part, the GPL works into proprietary works- that is, works that are not GPL. This does not mean that distribution of GPL software implies that any other software distributed with it must be free, only that software based on/derived from GPL software must also be GPL. This prevents companies and individuals alike from benefiting wholesale from the works of others against their express wishes. Further, the GPL license must be distributed along with any GPL software/derivatives in order that those new users are aware of their rights.
The GPL also limits its own use. I quote directly from the GPL, section 2 paragraph 2:

"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. 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."

This paragraph states expressly that software that is not derivative of or modifications of GPL software can be distributed alongside GPL software under a different license. The only thing this restricts is the ability of a person or company from stealing the works of others and perpetrating those works as the company's (or person's) own. The software written by the company can be protected under its own license, and even closed

Does Cisco use ReiserFS on its router by hansreiser · 2003-10-14 08:05 · Score: 1

Because my lawyer is not nearly so nice as Eben Moglen, and we'll go for the full monetary damages (what is it, $25,000 a copy?) I have no problem whatsoever with bankrupting any company I catch violating my copyright.

Hans Reiser
Architect of ReiserFS
Namesys.com

The free market does work by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 08:11 · Score: 0

"You have faith that the "free market" will solve all of society's ills. You pray to the invisible hand to make the world a better place while ignoring the glaring inequities of the inevitable monopolization and exploitation that such a system generates."

Under the free market, there is no exploitation (as everyone is free to make their own decisions, and there is no force which is a problem under socialism).

Monopolization only gets worse if you get government involved, as regulations end up making it harder for other businesses to get in and compete: monopolization is less of a problem the more free the market is.

"Why should I pay tax dollars so that someone who doesn't work can have welfare? What do I owe them?"
What do you owe them? -- Nothing.
What do you owe society? -- Everything.

The mistake you are making is equating paying taxes with paying a "Debt to society". In reality, tax payments go to enrich already rich and powerful elites that exist only to serve themselves: often at the expense of society or any social good.

Re:The free market does work by spun · 2003-10-14 09:17 · Score: 1

Many people make the argument that exploitation and monopolies would disappear under a true free market. I'm not disagreeing with you, as I simply don't understand the reasoning. Maybe I'm missing something.

Suppose a big player has a way to make money, say by processing oil to make gasoline. They could choose to control pollution and make less money, or not control it and make more. They don't have to pay the full costs of their pollution, society does. They don't even have to tell the truth about their pollution. What incentive would any potential polluter have not to pollute?

Instead of public bads, let's look at public goods, such as parks, roads, fire departments, police and such. In a pure free market without government interference, wouldn't all of these need to be run by private companies? Yet only one company can own a particular road, sewer system, or electrical system. This is what's known as a natural monopoly. What would keep these people from charging exorbitant prices?

In a free market, what is to stop the richest from getting together to lock out the less fortunate? In our system, everyone is interdependant. You buy from others and sell to others. What if the biggest players got together and decided against doing business with you? Surely this would hurt you. If they did that to enough small players, others would have no choice but to do business on the big players' terms. Newcomers to the market would be squeezed out. You may start with a free market, but explain to me how it wouldn't end up an oligopoly. I'm asking you, please, to really think about it, not just parrot back the explanations you have heard, but to explain it so it makes sense.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

open source by gsparrow · 2003-10-14 08:11 · Score: 1

I love it

...linking arms and singing the "Internationale"?! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 08:14 · Score: 0

Maybe that might happen in a perfect, harmonious, anarchist world, but this is still a world of suits and lawyers and money last time I checked.

The FSF are using their lawyers and money and the legal system to defend their own legal rights and claim compensation from would be law-breakers. And somehow this is portrayed in a negative light? In Forbes magazine?

Communism: it's wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 08:17 · Score: 0

" Communism is just as valid a form of government as democracy, and should not be villainized because it is different."

No, it is not valid, and it should be villainized because it is villainous. It is at least as bad as Nazism when it comes to factors such as corruption, human misery, slavery, and large-scale executions of people for "race" or other perceived differences.

If communism is "valid", hey, why not Nazism too?

"not to mention the assumption that communism is somehow "bad" or "wrong""

30,000,000 executed by Mao as part of communist economic "improvement" might have something to say about it. Actually, they won't: under communism, such discussions are banned.

It is always quite funny to see someone use a free and open forum to argue the superiority of a system in which such dissent and discussion is typically punished with execution and torture.

Intellectual property theft never happens. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 08:20 · Score: 0

Intellectual property theft happens all the time, almost always inadvertently.

How much more wrong could you be? It happens....never. The term "theft" does not apply to copyrighted material. Calling copyright infringement "theft" makes as much sense as saying that Kobe Bryant murdered his rape victim.

Don't Kill the Golden Goose by The+Excluded+Middle · 2003-10-14 08:44 · Score: 1

This is an open letter to Forbes regarding this article. I feel that the open source community does itself a disservice by making Ad Hominem attacks against the writers, rather than engaging them in logical arguments. I feel that Forbes in this case is just uncertain about what this is all about. From their point of view, it not the traditional business model. They're not sure how to handle it. What they don't understand is that this is an exciting new opportunity instead. It's got different rules than what they've run across before, but it also has tremendous opportunity. Just think: ANY business has the same powerful Linux code that Cisco used to make their mega-hit product. This is what I sent them: Open source software is a new business model. While that is a change from what companies are used to in the past, it has nothing to do with communism. In fact, open source is rooted in the strongest ideals of capitalism. That is, it takes ideas that others have had, and builds upon it, so that entrepreneurial individuals can profit from it. Some of the largest companies in today's economy are based on those ideals. McDonalds didn't invent the hamburger, it built upon it, and improved on the process. Disney didn't invent Sleeping Beauty, it reinterpreted it. The differences that this article seems to misunderstand is the intent of the legitimate copyright holders of this code. There are millions of man hours of work from some of the finest programmers built into the Linux system. Without this excellent work, the Linksys router, a smash business hit, would not be possible. The programmers that put in this difficult work decided to release this code according to the GPL rather than keeping it secret. Don't confuse open sourced material with the public domain, it's still owned by the copyright owners. And their wish is to let others improve it still farther. Open source software got to the point it is today by solving real business problems, running enterprise-critical systems, and allowing others making a profit from it by opening, not closing their work. In millions of instances, people tweaked the system because of issues that it had running in particular environments, or they may have optimized it for a certain process. This gets passed back into the original code, and everyone benefits. Linux would not have been viable to make a top-selling product if the GPL didn't exist. But what this commentary seems to be suggesting is that Cisco be allowed to steal the code, and go against the copyright holder's wishes illegally. If the FSF or others who are attempting to protect the copyright holder's rights were to roll over and give up the fight, the first business use of GPL code would have ended this very valuable, revenue-generating resource a long time ago. In the past, the only way to make a business out of software was to keep it secret. This is not the case anymore, they can also make money from software being open. Instead of fearing this new business model, and giving it an inappropriate label, it would be far more interesting to see articles about how to take advantage of this very exciting, very powerful resource that's open to all businesses, within the rules of this new business model. Why make the suggestion to kill the golden goose now that its gotten nice and fat? Don't miss out on the true value of the goose: the golden eggs.

Godwin's law is in the house by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 08:56 · Score: 0

It's time to invoke Godwin's law: the probability that the Nazis are mentioned in this discussion is now officially 1.

Lyons' snide use of language (for example, "in secret", "comrade", "burn down your house", "cloners") reminds me of...

Lord Haw-Haw, nazi radio propagandist.

The Forbes piece is pure proprietary software propaganda. Its snide, sneering tone is actually quite funny.

What about kernel modules? by dickrichardv8 · 2003-10-14 08:58 · Score: 1

Nividia and TVivo got it right. write the kernel to link to a binary only supplied module. Put the dirty little secrets in the module and release the source for just the kernel modifications. The binary only kernel modules is of actual value only wth the Cisco hardware which is only made by Cisco (unless someone wants to infringe on Cisco's hardware). The next developer can then use the kernel enhancements and not be able to steal from Cisco. Cisco can eat their cake after all.

Re:What about kernel modules? by solattam · 2003-10-14 10:22 · Score: 1
Warning: I know little or nothing about system programing, but the sounds like a resonable idea. It was touched on i earlier posts about IBM employing 100 GPL programmers working on Linux, and at the same time churn out proprietary binary applications. So my questions are:
1. What are the technical reasons why it wouldn't be practical to put kernel enhancements into a module.
2. Is this not a "derivative work"? Does the GPL actually allow this?
Thx in advance for your response.
Re:What about kernel modules? by solattam · 2003-10-14 12:10 · Score: 1

Well ok the third entry of this thread pretty much answers my questions.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=82213&threshol d=0&commentsort=0&tid=117&mode=thread&cid=7210 403
And why don't the page links on slashdot act reasonably?
Re:What about kernel modules? by solattam · 2003-10-14 12:15 · Score: 1

Oops. This one's clickable
href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=82213&th reshold=0&commentsort=0&tid=117&mode=thread&cid=72 10403

Nicaragua is a very bad example by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 09:40 · Score: 0

Your ignorance is astounding:

"Many governments have attempted land reform programs which disenfranchised post-colonial oligarchs in favor of landless peasants. Nicaragua is a classic example"

Nicaragua is a classic example of what I described: when the Soviets took over, their appointed Sandinista governors proceeded to swipe land from rich and poor alike (kicking peasants off their land, and forcing others onto slave plantations). One of the last acts the Sandinistas made in government before losing power was to pass into law a provision protecting the vast personal estates of the Sandinista leaders.

Particularly well documented is the Sandinista war against the indiginous Miskito. Away on the edge of Nicaragua, they still lived their traditional lives, not even bothered much by Somoza. The Sandinistas did like this, and sent bully-boys and rape gangs to force these Indians into concentration camps.

"The FSLN government initiated a comprehensive land reform, confiscating Somoza and Somozista land and awarding plots to campecinos."

Of course they never awarded the land except to themselves. This was a Stalinist regime, remember. The Sandinista implementation of Stalin-style farm policies was especially hard on rural peasants, which was why they were always mostly in favor of the Contras.

"Since the CIA organized Contra [nationalist armies] (mostly former Somoza National Guardsment)"

No, the CIA helped, but did not organize the whole movement, which consisted mostly of peasants who were forced off their lands by Sandinista terrorists.

"Now that the Somocistas are back in power,"

The Somicistas are history: they've not been back.

"Another telling case would be the program instituted by Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz in 1952"

Yes, that one is also very telling. He took land from United Fruit and kept it for himself. Some reform that turned out to be.

"However it drew the ire of the CIA, who helped overthrow the legally elected Arbenz administration."

Yes, it drew the ire of the CIA, since Arbenz sold his country to the USSR. Legally elected? That does not change the fact that Arbenz by the time he was overthrown was running a single-party dictatorship: he had outlawed democracy.

The challenge remains: Show me a land reform effort that involves distributing lands to individual peasants, and not some window dressing by genocidal Stalinist monsters who say "we gave the peasants land" while they are forcing them into state-controlled "cooperatives".

Why won't you lay down and die already? by spun · 2003-10-14 09:42 · Score: 1

I am affronted by the fact that you won't just lay down and die. The fact that you haven't the intelligence to recognize my superiority is proof of your inferiority. My success is proof that God favors me. God Himself wants you to lay down and die. Why won't you lay down and die already?

This continued fighting is getting us nowhere. If you were to just lay down and die, life would be easier for me, and you simply wouldn't have to worry about it. Everyone I choose to know tells me that we deserve to have everything and you deserve to have nothing. Your very existence is wasting precious resources that we could put to better use than you could. I simply don't understand why won't you lay down and die already.

Your continued resitance surprises me. God favors me. My rich and powerful friends all proclaim our superiority over you, and we are rich and powerful, so we should know. Perhaps the situation has not been clearly explained: we are powerful, you are not, lay down and die already!

Why won't you recognize my God given superiority? In the end it makes no difference, I will win and you will not. I hate having to waste effort pursuing a foregone conclusion. Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of logic would see the futility in your position. Make things easy on us all and just lay down and die.

Thanks, The Management.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

It is not a misquote by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 09:44 · Score: 0

Exact quote: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." This is from the transcript.

Since we know that create = invent, "Gore said he invented the Internet" is a dead-on summary.
Gore is a liar here, since the Internet had been created years before he "Served" in the United States Congress.

Re:It is not a misquote by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 13:18 · Score: 0

Hah! Do you know what a citation is?

That's when you cite a source, other than yourself.

Go ahead. The citation. For the transcript. Please.

Tell me, did he invent it? Or did he create it? Or did he take the initiative in creating it?

It's obvious when you read the transcript (that you won't cite) that he is taking credit for helping get its developers funding (which he did, while your Sovietesque demagouges were busy figuring out new ways to get the news to pick up misquotes).

Wait, I sense the future. "No, you are dead-on wrong, and I am right, and you should believe me, even though I just had to correct myself twice in a row, and I am still refusing to cite my source, which is probably an Ann Coulter book."

What will be our next revelation? Friendly and intimate are synonyms. Are you friendly with your children? Or are you intimate with them?

Do you tell your loved ones big cuddly lies to keep them warm at night?

Michael Moore by crucini · 2003-10-14 09:44 · Score: 1

Not that I care, but Moore has not backed up his claim that the bank customarily hands out guns on the spot. He has vented a lot of outrage, that's all. The page you linked to was a news story about the bank offering guns to depositors. It doesn't address the specific (and I agree, pointless) issue of whether the bank physically stores and hands over the guns.

Re:Michael Moore by CurlyG · 2003-10-14 11:36 · Score: 1

Not that it's really relevant to the discussion in any way, but yes he most certainly has backed up his claim very firmly.

If you have any evidence to the contrary I'd be facinated to hear it.

--
You know they call 'em fingers but I've never seen 'em fing. Oh, there they go.
Re:Michael Moore by crucini · 2003-10-20 09:27 · Score: 1

You are simply linking to the same page I already responded to. That page actually doesn't back up his claim. Rather than responding to the criticism, it evades it. This Wall Street Journal piece says:
But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."

Moore, in the page you cited, does not deny this. Rather, he evades it. First he sarcastically pretends to misunderstand the allegation. Then he loudly reiterates the reality of items which are not in dispute: an advertisement, the gun, etc. He also tells us that he didn't personally enter the bank before the day of shooting.

Nothing that Moore says contradicts anything that Jacobson says.

Re:My Feedback is wrong and flawed by DoctorFrog · 2003-10-14 09:45 · Score: 1

Bzzt.

Many (probably most, but I can't be bothered checking the exact proportions) of the copyrights pertaining to the Linux kernel have been given over to the Free Software Foundation.

The FSF therefore does indeed have standing to enforce the license.

I live there by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 09:57 · Score: 0

I live in this town with this bank. The Moore story seems odd: it has never been discussed here. It might have only happened for a brief time.

Aside from that, so what? If you don't like it, don't take the gun they offer. Or don't go to that bank. However, butt out of those who choose to excercise their Second Amendment rights. It is none of your business.

Profit motive = work by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 10:00 · Score: 0

"Greed is what these people understand. Anything not involving the profit motive"

The profit motive is based on working hard to get ahead. It is not based on greed. If you want to see greed, look no farther than the Democratic candidates who propose tax hikes to get themselves even more wealth and power than they otherwise would have.

Don't be fooled by pyrrho · 2003-10-14 10:06 · Score: 1

The businessmen whine when you do it, but they only respect you if you kick them in the balls.

They don't really expect you to let them use your GPLed code for free, but don't be suprised when they try. It's just a sign they don't see a way to win, it's right before they compromise. Ordinary people don't build up a lot of bad will before compromising, knowing they've ruined the potential relationship. But american businessmen are stupid that way. It's like a hazing or a bar room brawl. Kill Cisco's ass and next year Forbes will talk about how great you are and the limlitless benevolence of your power.

I am not kidding.

--

-pyrrho

It's simpler than that by epepke · 2003-10-14 10:29 · Score: 1

The Forbes philosophy is that anyone with a nice Armani suit should have the right to steal whatever they like, just because.

Correction by Alsee · 2003-10-14 10:36 · Score: 1

Cotrrection. I said:

If such an interpretation of copyright law is valid then there is absolutely no reason a supermarket couldn't slap an EULA on a tomato and sue you for violating it.

I meant to say:

If such an interpretation of CONTRACT law is valid then there is absolutely no reason a supermarket couldn't slap an EULA on a tomato and sue you for violating it.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Re:WTF? (GPL Proponents take note) by Lazaru5 · 2003-10-14 10:43 · Score: 1

Overall a good letter and I'm glad you sent it. However, part of your letter includes a flawed argument commonly expressed by GPL proponents:

However, if you do decide to release that software to the public, or a subset thereof, you'd like to have a guarantee that nobody can then take this software, make some small modifications to it, and start offering it under restricted terms, in effect preventing the public from benefiting from your software the way you intended.

The public still has access to YOUR software the EXACT same way that you intended. Your copy is unaffected. Your CVS repository is intact. Your website still has the same links to your tarballs. Your project is unaffected. The only effect that someone taking your software and offering it under restricted terms has is hurting your feelings ("Gee, not even a thankyou?"), your ego ("Hey, *I* wrote that!") and your sense of decency ("You could at least share your changes."). Your _freedom_ (That's what's important right?) is unaffected.

In fact, using this case as an example, the "public" can be taken to mean the set of Linux users with an interest in your software. This set of users will continue to benefit from using your software as you intended and have no interest in purchasing it in modified form from someone else. The set of YOUR users have nothing in common with the set of THEIR users.

You would only be able to make this argument if you had hopes of their set of users (the typical consumer) using your software. If this were the case you would either sell it to them yourself or license it under a BSD-style license where it can be modified (or not) for proprietary use without further source release.

Personally, I think the biggest reason GPL software authors complain in situations like this is because money is involved. How dare they profit from your work? And while I agree -- how dare they indeed -- if it was about profit and money then why did you make it available for free (beer) in the first place?

Unless you're self-employed (or unemployed) someone else is already profiting from work you perform. You don't complain so much about that because you at least get paid. So are you saying you want to get paid for your software if someone else profits from it? If that's the case, don't release it as OSS.

Lastly, you really should have used "Open Source software" in place of "Free Software" in paragraph 3.

--

--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.

mod up parent Forbes knows their target audience. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 10:44 · Score: 0

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Forbes is trying to appeal to their readers. Just like a fashion mag follows fads, he typical Forbes reader is interested in a number of fads right now:

How to outsource jobs in cheap countries to take advantage of poor people there.
How to build a patent portfolio like Rambus or Tessera or SCO so you can take advantage of other people's work.

How to share is not high on their priority list.

How f---ing stupid do you think engineers are? by Kludge · 2003-10-14 11:06 · Score: 1

the engineers are deciding that Linux is a great way to save time and money in embedded environments without realizing that the viral nature of the GPL

How did this get modded up?
I have never met a software engineer who does not know what the GPL is, or who does not know to check the license on any piece of software that they use.

This Linksys BS is a case of greed, pure and simple.

How far we've come by jeffguy · 2003-10-14 11:15 · Score: 1

In some ways, these Free Software Foundation "enforcement actions" can be more dangerous than a typical copyright spat, because usually copyright holders seek money--say, royalties on the product that infringing companies are selling. But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.

If you are corrupt and want to be bought off with money great, but standing up for principles you believe in is offensive to us in principle.

oh my, look at what www.forbes.com is running on.. by Mark19960 · 2003-10-14 11:29 · Score: 1

www.netcraft.com
isnt this ironic?
cheers!

Trolls Don't Merely Live on /. by 4of12 · 2003-10-14 11:36 · Score: 1

The distortions, name-calling and casting of aspersions on the FSF by this particular writer for Forbes has garnered ATTENTION, mostly by virtue of its contrary point of view and inflammatory words.

For a magazine that wants to keep readers looking at glossy advertising, this represents SUCCESS.

I think it's a testament to the increasing presence and success of GNU/Linux and the FSF that their opponents are no longer commentators from CNet, ZD, or the tech-oriented publishers, but from mainstream publications.

[Long ago, far away, I recall hearing some quote, perhaps someone knows it, about how the importance of a person or an idea can be judged by the size of their enemies.]

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."

My Letter to Forbes by seeks2know · 2003-10-14 11:59 · Score: 1

Dear Editor,

I am responding to the article "Linux's Hit Men" by Daniel Lyons.

I am shocked that a publication as prestigious as Forbes would release an article that is filled with misinformation, written in such an inflammatory tone and blatantly biased.

Where are the problems? Let's start with this statement.

"The dispute, which was leaked to an Internet message board, offers a rare peek into the dark side of the free software movement--a view that contrasts with the movement's usual public image of happy software proles linking arms and singing the 'Internationale' while freely sharing the fruits of their code-writing labor."

"...leaked to an Internet message board"?

Let's search Google (+linksys +gpl +violations). I get 903 results. One of the links near the top of the list will display a nice article (not a message board) on The O'Reilly Network titled "Is Linksys shirking the GPL? (Maybe not.)". There are many older links.

The reality is that the violation of the GPL by Linksys has been a very public issue within the software development community for quite a while. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has been under significant pressure from the copyright holders who published their work under the GPL to protect their interests.

"...dark side of the free software movement"?

What is dark about about holding an organization accountable to the terms of the license under which you published your software?

"...the movement's usual public image of happy software proles linking arms and singing the "Internationale" while freely sharing the fruits of their code-writing labor."

Is this really Forbes' impression of the highly professional developers who contribute code under the GPL, many of whom work independently and many more who work for highly respected organizations like IBM, HP, SGI and many others.

"For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free" programs, has been making threats to Cisco Systems and Broadcom over a networking router that runs the Linux operating system."

"...in secret...threats"?

This statement creates the image of the FSF addressing the issue with a Mafioso approach.

Don't professional organizations who have disputes normally try to work out their differences in private first?

"But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house..."

Isn't this a little out of character for Forbes? Any respectable publication would have stripped these words long before the article hit press.

This is not the first article in Forbes that casts Linux and the open software development community in a poor light. There seems to be a consistent bias against the community.

However, I am disappointed with the lack of editor oversight on this article in particular.

Sincerely,

In a few words... by jotaeleemeese · 2003-10-14 12:08 · Score: 1

.... it is free because nobody can aprehend it.

BSD can be caged, raped, and violated. If I was a BSD program my freedom would be completely lost.

You think I may be joking. I am deadly serious, ideas flowing freely is what makes progress.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

You don't know... by jotaeleemeese · 2003-10-14 12:19 · Score: 1

... the terms that other people have used to express their opinion.

And you do not represent /. or the FLOSS movement.

Thus your profilactic apology is facile and only helps to reinforce mostly false stereotypes.

As reflected by many others in this thread, responses have been polite but to the point.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Re:You don't know... by PenguinX · 2003-10-16 05:57 · Score: 1

I'm not trying to apologize in a prophylactic matter, nor am I trying to enforce stereotypes. I'm simply trying to gain understanding, as I'm a free thinker. I didn't even know anything about the FLOSS movement prior to your mentioning it. As it seems I was confusing I'll try to do better in future phraseology.

Thanks!
Brian

Two Things: by rpdillon · 2003-10-14 12:31 · Score: 1

1) Forbes fails to mention that LinkSys got the code that is "theirs" *free of charge*. Yeah, they're really the victim... 2) Forbes fails to mention that the conditions of distribution of that software included the free release of the source code to derivative works. This isn't rocket surgery - no new rules apply:if you want to use the code, you have to do so in comliance with the license. Why is that so controversial??

Response from Onlamp by adiposity · 2003-10-14 12:42 · Score: 1

Don't know if this was posted yet:

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/wlg/3880

-Dan

Remember Lyons vs Michael Moore? by merriam · 2003-10-14 12:44 · Score: 1

"Lockheed Martin's plant in Littleton doesn't make weapons. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites."

"Moore didn't just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras."

-- Daniel Lyons,"Bowl-o-Drama", Forbes

Michael Moore responds to the wacko attackos

hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 12:46 · Score: 0

Why not focus on the fact that these criminal corporations are STEALING from thousands of individual contributors of GPL code worldwide?

If this were an article about piracy on P2P networks, you'd have had 10 slashbots screaming "it's not stealing, its copyright infringement!"

Re:hypocrisy by Chordonblue · 2003-10-14 17:36 · Score: 1

But it's not - and the point isn't about piracy at all. It's more about living up to the obligations YOU AGREED TO in the first place!

--
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."

to Forbes, a haibut by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 12:47 · Score: 0

to Forbes:

Your article on GPL (you conveniently omit LGPL)
software is a crude mistatement of the truth
laced with coy suggestions that Open Source
Software is somehow akin to a Soviet plot.
Sad to say, some of your readers will be taken
in by the disinformation. Those of whom you
write who have stolen the works of others
for their own use, know better. A copyright is a
copyright, whether its on a fishwrap like
Forbes or the effort of one of the "proles" of
whom you speak so contemptously.

AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 12:56 · Score: 0

LINUX IS DYING!!!!!

GPL'd software abuse by Minkey+Brines · 2003-10-14 13:07 · Score: 1

From the article: "The mySQL versus NuSphere squabble demonstrates another risk: These disputes might scare companies away from using open source software."

This should read as:

"The mySQL versus NuSphere squabble demonstrates another risk: These disputes might scare companies away from abusing open source software."

Which is what they all really want to do anyway.

You basically got it right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 14:24 · Score: 0

It's not just your ordinary engineers though. Those who dictate "we're building this on Linux" are really architects. And like any engineer, they're lazy.

Of the three I've known who considered the GPL: one cared up-front about the terms/conditions and how to work with/around them, one figured it was a legal snag that could be fixed later, and the third's position was "oh no, we're going to be sued by a bunch of hippies!" IMHO these are dangerous attitudes for higher-ups in a company to have. If the forbes article will convince otherwise intelligent people that the GPL is a Serious License, I'm all for it.

Forbes Magazine Doesn't Understand Capitalism by Camel+Pilot · 2003-10-14 15:21 · Score: 1

Nice response to the Forbes nonsense at Oreilly Weblogs

Forbes Magazine Doesn't Understand Capitalism by William Grosso

Nice summary...

Leaked? Dark side? Happy proles singing the "Internationale" ? Can you count the ways in which that paragraph is an offense to journalism?

*BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 15:31 · Score: 0

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

my letter to forbes by sbwoodside · 2003-10-14 16:07 · Score: 1

http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys .html

'The dispute, which was leaked to an Internet message board, offers a rare peek into the dark side of the free software movement--a view that contrasts with the movement's usual public image of happy software proles linking arms and singing the "Internationale" while freely sharing the fruits of their code-writing labor. '

Contract law is a basic part of capitalism. If a company does not read and understand a contract, they are still liable for breaking that contract. Enforcing contract right in a court of law, last time I checked, is an All-American activity.

And the GNU General Public License (GPL), is ... a contract.

Forbes magazine might want to re-consider their editorial standards. If it looks like a contract and quacks like a contract, then it's a contract, not communism.

simon

--
home page

GMO == junk economics and monopoly business model by konmaskisin · 2003-10-14 17:57 · Score: 1

It's not about "junk science" and never has been. "Junk science" is a red herring. "Good science" supports the safety of home nuclear power generation as well: whether the economics and risk factors justify adopting public policy to support home nulcear power plants is the question. After all, there are risks associated with widely available nuclear materials that go beyond "science".

Forbes and other pro-GMO groups are more guilty of employing junk economics and ignoring science when they want. In their promotion efforts they claim (by extension) that allowing the same kind of patent madness that afflicts the US software and technology sectors to rule food production and agriculture will be good for consumers, the world food supply, and innovation. People who object are irrational Luddites who fear science. But the calims of pro-GMO groups are a big lie: akin to claiming that replacing all books with access controlled Adobe Readers will help world literacy - the thing is we already have the books.

The problem being solved by Monsanto and other pro GMO policy makers is of the same order: we already have the food. What need is *more competition* and innovation in food storage and distribution and certainly more competition in supplier inputs into in food production: NOT less. This will not happen with GMO patents since GMO foods reduce competition and favour large corporate interests in the food supply and production system. Whether they are supported by good science or junk science is completely beside the point.

As part of the integrated capitalist media system Forbes' ideas are bought and paid for by Monsanto and other such entities, so their view of GMO food is predictable: it's their shameful manipulation of the issue (as one of "science vs. unreason") that is especially worrisome and anti-democratic.

Re:My Feedback is wrong and flawed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 18:17 · Score: 0

I don't know why I'm responding to this troll of an AC but I guess mimicry is the finest form of flattery.

So to answer your question. Microsoft is the paying the BSA you dolt. They get a cut of the take.

I run Linux. Do you?

My letter to the editor by CedgeS · 2003-10-14 20:36 · Score: 1

To the editors,

I would like to draw to your attention the hypocrisy and incompetence of your software columnist, Daniel Lyons.

He has recently written two articles on intelectual property in computing: "What SCO Wants, SCO Gets" (6/18/2003) and "Linux's Hit Men" (10/14/2003).

In the article "What SCO Wants, SCO Gets", Lyons discusses SCO's legal persuit of a source code licensing agreement with IBM. SCO aledges that it licensed the "UNIX" code to IBM for use in IBM's operating systems, and that under the terms of that agreement, SCO also owns any rights to modified versions of that code. Lyons applauds SCO for their legal pursuit of IBM.

In the article "Linux's Hit Men", Lyons discusses the Free Software Foundation (FSF)'s legal persuit of a source code licensing agreement with Cisco. The FSF aledges that it licensed source code to Cisco under the GNU Public License (GPL), and that under the terms of that agreement, the FSF also owns any rights to modified versions of that code. Lyons criticizes the FSF for their legal pursuit of Cisco.

The hypocrisy of these two articles is astounding. It is acceptable for SCO to attempt to enforce the terms of its consensual licencing agreement with IBM, but it is unacceptable for the FSF to attempt to enforce the terms of its consensual licencing agreement with Cisco.

I am greatly disapointed with the editorship of this magazine. The combination of these two articles indicates a lack of research, consideration and consistency typical of opinion and editorial pieces. Your publication is degraded in my eyes.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Cedric A. Shock

my bitter response to forbes by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-14 21:44 · Score: 0

I think Forbes did a great job pointing out how this handfull of lawsuits by a tiny organization may well undermine business as we know it. Boy, thanks for catching that. You know, I think a few small lawsuits are a pretty big deal and that this GPL thing that treats source code the way scientists treat scientific data is getting out of hand. Why would a reknowned Harvard Law professor have anything to do with a project like this? He's probably a hippie. I caught that "comrade" bit at the end - they really are communists all "share and share alike" - the death of Capitolism. Next - wouldn't you know it - you'll need to report that "hackers" sometimes work with the GPL and as we all know, hackers are bad. Good work Forbes - you're really in touch with the computer industry.

Let Forbes know how you feel by pherris · 2003-10-14 23:50 · Score: 1

Assuming they read their server logs.

Pro-linux people click here:
http://www.forbes.com/FUCK-YOU-AND-YOUR-SHITTY-ANT I-LINUX-ATTITUDE

Anti-Linux folk click here:
http://www.forbes.com/I'M-GLAD-DANIEL-LYONS-SUCKS- GATE'S-DICK

--
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST

Re:GMO == junk economics and monopoly business mod by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-15 00:01 · Score: 0

"As part of the integrated capitalist media system Forbes' ideas"

There is no integrated capitalist media system. What you are basically doing is throwing science out the window in the name of an extremist left-wing economic agenda.

"t's their shameful manipulation of the issue (as one of "science vs. unreason") that is especially worrisome and anti-democratic"

It is neither pro-democracy or anti-democracy. It has nothing to do with government.

Do the research, you lazy bum by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-15 00:06 · Score: 0

"Go ahead. The citation. For the transcript. Please"

Do the research, your lazy bum. I've researched this ever since Gore was caught making the statement. It is all over the net. Go do some searching. Of course, if you had ever done any research into this topic or knew a thing about it, you would know what the primary source is. Everyone who knows about this knows the primary source, but apparently you do not. (Hint: it is the place that did the interview of Gore).

"Tell me, did he invent it? Or did he create it? Or did he take the initiative in creating it?"

The first two are the same. The third is a narrowing of his claim. He did none of the above.

"Wait, I sense the future. "No, you are dead-on wrong, and I am right,"

Look up his statement before you go any further; you are digging a deeper hole.

" and I am still refusing to cite my source, which is probably an Ann Coulter book.""

Ann Coulter is not the primary source. One of the ones I referred to most recently was "Salon".

"Do you tell your loved ones big cuddly lies to keep them warm at night?"

No. Nothing but the truth: like that Gore lied when he took credit for the Internet.

Re:Do the research, you lazy bum by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-15 02:04 · Score: 0

"I know the source. I am a research expert! I am just not citing it."

Tell us another, lie-o-matic.

"Why should I cite my sources? You should site them for me!"

LOL!

"The first two are the same. The third is a narrowing of his claim. He did none of the above."

I think you're the expert on digging holes. Keep it coming, baby!

Do you know some synonyms for hole? Crack. Gap. Void. Abyss. Chasm. Gulf. Perforation.

I love it when you perforate yourself, my lying friend. It's so hot.

Gore lied when he took credit for the Internet.

No, you are a liar for claiming he did. He was telling the truth when he took credit for getting its developers funding. Which is more than you can say for any of your 10 favorite Party Leaders, comrade.

The fact that you still refuse to cough the information you claim to have about it is proof.

Please, I bet if you keep this up you can win some kind of party appartchik medal or keepsake.

By the way, are you as good at evading questions about DWI, cocaine use, and SEC filing irregularities? Maybe you can work with the Special Counsel!

Oops... that might have put some unwanted perpsective on your lie-fest. IGNORE! IGNORE!

Tit for Tat ???? by kamend · 2003-10-15 03:00 · Score: 1

The open source community is not portrayed in positive light???
NAAAAAAA, just a case of shoulda, coulda, woulda, uh, didnt. They (Cisco\Broadcom) just like the rest of us, should have checked the fine print of the GPL. Only difference here is that we little guys don't have the funds to litigate the fine print. Looks to me like Linksys is the happy one. I would guess though, Cicso probably has the funds for a $65-95k settlement. Then again, the router could easily go up to say $300.00 and burn the end user...Anyone seen the price of other Cisco products????????

You are getting flustered by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-15 03:17 · Score: 0

" "I know the source. I am a research expert! I am just not citing it."Tell us another, lie-o-matic.

You are getting flustered, as you apparently are not able to do a simple thing. It does not take an expert to find this phrase in Google. Apparently, though, it is beyond your capabilities.

Do you have any idea what he actually said?

"No, you are a liar for claiming he did. He was telling the truth when he took credit for getting its developers funding"

Read his claim. He claimed he took the initative in creating it. He did not claim what you are claiming he created: Lie score 1 for you. Take your point. (Besides, even the words you put into his mouth are not quite right: funding for the Internet had been going on for many years before Gore got near any purse strings).

From this, it is apparent that you have never seen Gore's actual quote.

"The fact that you still refuse to cough the information you claim to have about it is proof."

I'm just holding out on an entry-level challenge that you are unable to rise to. The information I have is the actual sentence he said. Apparently, you have not seen this sentence, and you think it is a big secret.

Re:You are getting flustered by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-15 08:11 · Score: 0

Do you have any idea what he actually said?

Maybe you should consider that, when lying on slashdot about what has just been written, that people must read through the truth to get to your lies.

funding for the Internet had been going on for many years before Gore got near any purse strings

LOL. Yeah. Duh. Your new lie is funnier than the last one. Are you saying Gore claimed to have invented funding for internet development now?

(For the non-party appartchiks interested in knowing how Gore took the initiative in creating the Internet (as we know it, as opposed to what existed in the 80's), google the "the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991" - otherwise known as the "Gore Act".)

Dont wory, liar. If you don't ready the scary truth, it can't hurt your loyalty to the party.

I'm just holding out on an entry-level challenge that you are unable to rise to.

Yes, making outrageous claims that are well known lies, and then refusing to cite any sources to back them up, and then challenging others to cite your sources for you. Neither a challenge nor entry-level.

Have your party leaders given you a medal for meritorious service yet? Don't let yourself get distracted into talking about CIA operatives working on WMD getting their cover blown under the watch of your familia by "unnamed white house sources" in retaliation for whistleblowing?

Compare and contrast: misquotes about helping fund internet development. LOL.

Maybe your free toaster for being a good servant to your party is in jeopardy, comrade.

You know, slave is a synonym for servant.
Re:You are getting flustered by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-15 14:00 · Score: 0

"Are you saying Gore claimed to have invented funding for internet development now?"

No, that was your claim.

"(For the non-party appartchiks interested in knowing how Gore took the initiative in creating the Internet"

That is weaseling. He said he created the internet. Period. He did not say he created it "as we know it". Yes, he was one of those who changed it, just as Gates and Spamford Wallace have. Or the guys who started Yahoo. He did not create it, however.

"Yes, making outrageous claims that are well known lies"

"[babble] party appartchiks [lie, whine, weasel]

I have not heard these terms since the Soviet Union fell. How are things, komrad?

I am referring only to what Gore actually said. Yes, what Gore said is a well-known lie. You think it outrageous to refer to Gore's actual words.

You blew off the challenge before. Here it is again. What is Gore's exact quote? I know it.

As for the "Gore Act", was there any controlling legal authority?
Re:You are getting flustered by Featureless · 2003-10-16 00:14 · Score: 1

No, that was your claim

As I tried to warn you, lying about immediately previous posts is a fool's game, my friend.

He said he created the internet. Period.

Look how you continue to lie ("weasel," if you will) about what he actually said, while complaining about weaseling (LOL) no less... and all I do talk about what actually happened.

And of course you still don't site your source. I wonder if we can go 20 posts with you still refusing to hand it over.

I have not heard these terms since the Soviet Union fell.

As long as you guys keep the party spirit alive, the terms will never go away.

I am referring only to what Gore actually said.

You mean you are lying about what gore actually said. In a "well-known" way.

You blew off the challenge before

To cite your source for you.

As for the "Gore Act", was there any controlling legal authority?

I know, reading about what actually happened is tough. Don't worry. Ask all you want. For everyone who is interested in things other than lies, you can look it up easily... As I suggested...

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Re:You are getting flustered by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 00:39 · Score: 0

"Look how you continue to lie ("weasel," if you will) about what he actually said, "

If you looked at the actual quote, you will see what Gore really said, and you would either change your tune or vanish.

"And of course you still don't site your source"

The source is one search engine and a few words and one click away. You can't meet the challenge of this, but everyone else can. You have no idea what he said, obviously, and you are unwilling to learn.

Since you are so lazy, without even basic skills, here you go:

March 9, 1999. CNN. Interview with Wolf Blitzer.

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

(The context of this is that before he mentioned this, he talked about travel, and afterwards he talked about non-Internet matters).

(in light of this, your claim that my statement "He said he created the internet" is a lie, proves to be, well you know...)

The date, the source, and the actual quote are all probably new to you. Hope you learned something today.
Re:You are getting flustered by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 02:21 · Score: 0

Finally, something of a citation. Note that he still provides no link. Is it that he doesn't know how? Or that he is afraid you will look.

All the while with this doublethink nonsense - what a way to respond about being caught out lying. Accuse the person who caught you of not knowing what they just caught you not knowing. Good show, comrade!

No one reading that transcript will believe he is claiming to have invented anything. Because he never claimed it. Unlike what you claimed. And then changed your story. Twice. All while complaining about weaseling. Doubleplusgood!

And then gave some 2nd grade drivel about all synonyms meaning the same thing. "Dead on."

You did a great job of demonstrating your ignorance of Gore's work, as well as completely ignoring the truth when it was presented to you - that Gore is well-entitled to claim he took the initiative in creating the internet. You have to deliberately confuse the subtext of "Legislatively" with "Technologically" ... all this so you can invisibly toady to the man who said, "Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning?"

That reminds me, you never answered: friendly, or intimate?
Re:You are getting flustered by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 03:17 · Score: 0

" Finally, something of a citation. Note that he still provides no link"

I'm sorry, I assumed some sort of basic browser understanding. I did not know you were incapable of finding "CNN" in a search engine.

"All the while with this doublethink nonsense - what a way to respond about being caught out lying"

Caught out lying? My claim was that Gore was incorrect when he said he created the Internet. I provided the pertinent years which proved my case.

"No one reading that transcript will believe he is claiming to have invented anything."

Yes they will, as create means invent in this context.

"Because he never claimed it."

Yes he did.

"Unlike what you claimed. And then changed your story"

I never changed it. No need to: unlike you, I took the effort to research Gore's exact statement before I started.

"And then gave some 2nd grade drivel about all synonyms meaning the same thing. "Dead on.""

Since when is vocabulary mastery a "2nd grade" matter? Here is what synonym actually means: "A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language."

All synonyms aside, he had nothing to do with its creation.

""that Gore is well-entitled to claim he took the initiative in creating the internet."

He's not. This is a false claim. I already presented the timeline, which shows that the Internet was invented before he came along. To repeat: Internet created and using the name Internet by 1985 (creation started earlier). Gore Act introduced in 1988 (implemented later). Those who "took the initiative" had to have been present on the project in the 1960s, when creation started.

"You have to deliberately confuse the subtext of "Legislatively" with "Technologically" .."

That is your concern, not mine. In either subtext, the statement is wrong: he got involved legislatively and technologically long after it was created.

"toady to the man who said, "Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning?""

It is a poor strategery to change the subject like this. It is not relevant to the proof of Gore's lie.
Re:You are getting flustered by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 09:55 · Score: 0

I'm sorry, I assumed some sort of basic browser understanding. I did not know you were incapable of finding "CNN" in a search engine.

I'm sorry, no amount of blustering ignorance removes the necessity to site your own sources.

Thanks for hammering out a bit more documentary evidence of your mendacity, though!

My claim was that Gore was incorrect when he said he created the Internet

No, you said he invented it. And then you dissembled with another variation, before naming the actual quote.

And then the synonym nonsense... I don't think you could get out of elementary school telling your teachers that sort of thing.

I provided the pertinent years which proved my case.

More lying about what is right in front of us. You provided nothing, until quite a long while later, when you gradually admitted where one could find a transcript, and then you still did not provide a link. It proves nothing, other than that you're afraid of people seeing it.

Yes they will, as create means invent in this context.

Nope. Not even slightly. Tellingly, you still didn't answer. Friendly or intimate? The world undoubtedly wants to know.

I never changed it.

I am always impressed at the party member's belief that simply lying about something repetitively makes him look like something other than a fool.

I am hoping I can get you to lie about this 1000 times. Then we can enter you in the running for liar hall of fame.

A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language

Ah. Oh dear. In the midst of playing another round of "I can 'paraphrase' anyones quotes with synonyms and it's the same thing," you've actually admitted (inadvertently, I'm sure) that you know you're wrong. You know what else "Nearly the same" means? A bit different.

All synonyms aside, he had nothing to do with its creation.

That's so funny. I just provided a link completely contradicting that. Where's your material to the contrary? I mean, I know people might be tempted to take the word of a self-proved compulsive party liar, but, honestly... back it up.

Oh wait. I suppose you'll be demanding I rise to the minor-league challenge of backing it up for you.

LOL!

I already presented the timeline, which shows that the Internet was invented before he came along.

True. Too bad it has nothing to do with either what Gore said or what he did.

using the name Internet by 1985

Which means at that point it was totally created, right? No more creation was involved, say, in the subsequent development of the backbone? The invention of the web? The commercialization of internet access?

Gore took some initiaives related to these things. A point I backed up with a reference, which, I notice you have not responded to in any way. LOL.

All hail the hero of the party! You have selflessly laid down your intellectual dignity for the Cause once again!

That is your concern, not mine.

The truth, you mean.

In either subtext, the statement is wrong:

Actually, no. But maybe if you pucker up hard enough your bullshit will turn into a diamond, and you can use it to buy some actual evidence.

It is a poor strategery to change the subject like this. It is not relevant to the proof of Gore's lie.

Notice that he likes to use the cheaper end of the lie repertoire against Gore at the slightest non-provocation during a discussion about "The FSF, Linux's Hit Men," but then whines about "changing the subject" as soon as one of his Party Leaders' many more outrageous foibles arises in comparison.

LMAO!!!

It is entirely on the subject. Why don't you want to discuss it? You're afraid of it. Afraid that compared to a misquote about Gore's excellent record on technology might provide yet another entirely unnecessary window into the hilarity that is your devotion to your great party leaders.

What about this... did Bush say this? "I think we agree, the past is over." Dallas Morning News, May 10, 2000. Did he say it?

Say yes, or give the world one more way to know you're a liar.

Changing subject, too. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-15 03:23 · Score: 0

Here's another challenge: Forget the primary source. Can you come up with Gore's exact quote? I know it, and I know where to find it, but apparently you do not know either. Maybe you should spend less time reading Ann Coulter.

I expect this simple request to be met with more irrelevant references to Ann Coulter and 10 Party Leaders (By the way, the cocaine use and SEC irregularities you mentioned applied to the Clintons, and not to Gore. You probably think they are the same man as well).

Re:Changing subject, too. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-15 08:21 · Score: 0
Then you will have no trouble stating affirmatively that President George H. W. Bush (Jr.) most certainly never:
- Was arrested for DWI (after wrecking his car)
- Used cocaine
- Broke SEC filing rules
Go ahead weasel. Squirm. Find some way to say anything but yes.
Re:Changing subject, too. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-15 13:55 · Score: 0

DWI? Yes. Cocaine? No. Broke SEC filing rules? Maybe. This is one I have not researched. I could take your word on it, but you have proven unreliable when it comes to fact in the past (the fact that you are correct on the DWI one is probably coincicidence, and not knowledge on your part)

At least I admit when I do not know about something. Not like you arguing to defend a Gore statement that you did not even know.

"President George H. W. Bush (Jr.) "

You can't get his name right. He's not a Jr. Check into it. Albert W. Gore is a Jr, however.
Re:Changing subject, too. by Featureless · 2003-10-16 00:20 · Score: 1

Heh. "No. Maybe."

Why is it that Bush won't deny he used cocaine before a certain date?

I think the crowd knows how to take your "Maybe."

Not like you arguing to defend a Gore statement that you did not even know.

Hah. You mean the one that you misquoted twice, and then immediately started to misquote again.

That you continue to lie about the meaning of.

Where you still refuse to cite your source, providing a link to the whole transcript.

Well, if it walks like a liar, and talks like a liar... huh.

You can't get his name right. He's not a Jr. Check into it. Albert W. Gore is a Jr, however.

LOL.

--

Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Re:Changing subject, too. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 00:31 · Score: 0

"Why is it that Bush won't deny he used cocaine before a certain date?"

So, did you stop beating your wife yet? Bush also has yet to deny that he killed 1.7 million Armenians in the 1910s. He still hasn't denied J.R. Ewing either.

"Hah. You mean the one that you misquoted twice, and then immediately started to misquote again."

No, I have quoted and paraphrased accurately. One of the "misquotes" you refer to is actually one of your own where you inserted a funding reference into Gore's quote. I think the problem here is that I know what Gore actually said.

Still waiting: what did Gore actually say? Any idea?
Re:Changing subject, too. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 02:28 · Score: 0

Still lying about what people can read on the way here? Don't you realize that when I gode you into this dishonesty, it is purely to deepen my illustration of what a reckless and blatant dissembler you are?

Unlike you, I never inserted anything or changed any words quoting the man. The truth, I'm afraid, is in black and white. Still weaseling around with your "paraphrasing" and "synonym" nonsense? But hey, the longer you keep it up, the better it gets. Why stop now?

Bush will deny that he used Cocaine in the last seven years. And then, later, he denied that he used it in the last fifteen. And after that, "when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible."

LMAO! Your response to this obvious dodge? "No, it was the Clintons!" Classic.

And this is your Big Brother, comrade - the drunk driver whose faults you lovingly gloss over with lies and "maybes", while you misquote Gore, whose efforts won the funding that helped create the vehicle (the web) that you are currently using to lie about him. Deep.
Re:Changing subject, too. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 02:57 · Score: 0

" Still lying about what people can read on the way here?"

Nope. As always, referring to what Gore actually said.

"Unlike you, I never inserted anything or changed any words quoting the man"

First, I only referred to what he said. Second, you said he mentioned funding in his statement.

"And this is your Big Brother, comrade - the drunk driver whose faults you lovingly gloss over with lies and "maybes""

One single lie? Can you name it? No, you cannot.
Re:Changing subject, too. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 10:03 · Score: 0

Continues here.

FSF vs. SCO by yakovlev · 2003-10-15 05:21 · Score: 1

Legally, if Linksys is violating the license (this is actually a little blurry since keeping the code inside a hardware product could be deemed "internal use" and not "distribution") then they they should still be required to give out the source code to the original firmware even if they provide patches. However, the FSF tends to be VERY forgiving in cases like this, and in the past has typically accepted removing the code in all future products as sufficient.

There are two big ways that this differs from the SCO situation.

First, SCO is threatening to sue Linux customers. The FSF isn't threatening Linksys' customers, just Linksys themselves, the ones who created the breach-of-contract.

Second (and more importantly,) SCO is refusing to release the source code that they claim is infringing, thus not making a good-faith effort to mitigate damages after they discovered the breach. The FSF is being very clear about what they think Linksys has done and how they want the problem rectified.

Re:Kucinich the Fascist-not quite by randall_burns · 2003-10-15 12:23 · Score: 1

I plan to caucus for Kucinich for one big reason: he's the only candidate that voted against H-1b expansion.

I also support Kucinich's views on decreasing corporate influence in government and improving democratic representation through Instant Runoff Voting, campaign finance reform and Proportional Representation. I also tend to favor withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO-given the enormous trade imbalance those policies have created in the US. However, I disagree with Kuninich on quite a few other issues. Still, politics usually involves making some hard choices. Given the sympathies above, who else would you suggest I support? I don't see much else to choose from.

In this case, the odds of Kucinich actually getting elected are quite small. Still, given even a few delegates, I think he'll give some pause to the current powers-that-be. If he actually did get elected and made good on his voting reform promises, I might actually get a chance to vote for a representative that doesn't digust me-which would be a novel experience.

As far as "anti-semetic overtones"-do you want to include Richard Stallman, Ed Asner,Ben&Jerry in your list of "anti-semites"? New York and LA are the main place where Kucinich is getting funds outside his home base of Ohio-is that because of the high rate of Anti-Semitism there?

Re:GMO == junk economics and monopoly business mod by konmaskisin · 2003-10-15 13:02 · Score: 1

You shuld read some of the classics of liberal democracy (don't disappoint me by attacking the workd "liberal" ... sigh). A free press and reliable information are crucial to democracy.

Policy makers who get their information from seriously biased media who claim the issue is one of science vs. radical left wing non-scientists. This is completely false (read what I wrote): GMO policc is NOT about "science" it is about economic interest: there is NO ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIABLE NEED for GMO food.

And, umm you don't have to be a partisan of an "extremist left-wing agenda" to recognize the existence of an integrated media industry: read the business journals and the interviews with CEO's of Disney, AOL/TimeWarner, etc. Read some *right wing* criticism of the media for a change.

This rigid integration and editorial control is the very reason why there is alternative media.

How totalitarian of you by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-15 13:41 · Score: 0

"GMO policc is NOT about "science" it is about economic interest: there is NO ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIABLE NEED for GMO food."

So, if there is no economic need for something, it must be banned? Let's start by banning slashdot. Then we can ban Sourceforge while we are at it. Ban everything that government elites determine is not "necessary"

"And, umm you don't have to be a partisan of an "extremist left-wing agenda" to recognize the existence of an integrated media industry: read the business journals and the interviews with CEO's of Disney, AOL/TimeWarner, etc. "

No, you just have to be a kook. There are thousands of publications owned by thousands of individuals and companies. Forbes is just one of them.

" Read some *right wing* criticism of the media for a change"

Yes, the kooks who claim that it is Jews who run all the media.

"This rigid integration and editorial control is the very reason why there is alternative media"

There is no rigid integration. This is because the media is not controlled. All media is alternative to other media.

Kucinich? No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-15 13:52 · Score: 0

"I plan to caucus for Kucinich for one big reason: he's the only candidate that voted against H-1b expansion"

That is sure to warm the cockles of the hearts of Pat Buchanan and others who like Kucinich want to those inferior brown workers from coming here. I guess it was OK for their ancestors: they were white.

The only reform we need with H-1b is to allow any worker to come to the United States. If they can work, they will help the economy.

"Given the sympathies above, who else would you suggest I support"

Support someone who supports free trade, because free trade is fair trade (each person trading decides what is fair for that person). Support someone who opposes "campaign finance reform" which is designed solely to censor political speech. Support someone who opposes Proportional Representation, which is a darling of racists who want to elect people based on skin color (Lani Guinier is a big advocate of it).

We don't need "PR": it is fine to weed out the fringe nuts at the ballot box instead of having them junk up the legislatures. Besides, it would require a Constitutional Convention.

"I also tend to favor withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO-given the enormous trade imbalance those policies have created in the US"

I don't. While they are flawed, the flaws are that they still regulate too much. If a Mexican can do a job better, let him work. Also, there is no trade imbalance. Everything traded is paid for: it is not given away across the borders.

"do you want to include Richard Stallman, Ed Asner,Ben&Jerry"

I do not know about Stallman and Ben and Jerry. Ed Asner? Recently he expressed great admiration for Josef Stalin, claiming he was "so badly misunderstood". He is as bad as those who deny that the holocaust occured. This was the rabidly anti-semitic Stalin who was about to start his planned holocaust when he up and died.

Really, however, you are wasting your time. Kucinich has so little support.

Re:Kucinich? No thanks. by randall_burns · 2003-10-15 15:48 · Score: 1

At the time that H-1b expansion took place, about 82% of the American public opposed that legislation:
http://www.ieeeusa.org/releases/1998 /pr091698.html

Now, just the premise that popular government is a good idea implies H-1b was a bad idea

That is sure to warm the cockles of the hearts of Pat Buchanan and others who like Kucinich want to those inferior brown workers from coming here. I guess it was OK for their ancestors: they were white.

Support someone who supports free trade, because free trade is fair trade (each person trading decides what is fair for that person). Support someone who opposes "campaign finance reform" which is designed solely to censor political speech. Support someone who opposes Proportional Representation, which is a darling of racists who want to elect people based on skin color (Lani Guinier is a big advocate of it).

You're now calling Lani Gunthier a racist? Next thing you know, you'll be claiming that Sharpton is a racist too.

We don't need "PR": it is fine to weed out the fringe nuts at the ballot box instead of having them junk up the legislatures. Besides, it would require a Constitutional Convention

Any state can theoretically start using PR-some cities like Cambridge Mass and NYC already have tried it. There was a judicial decision that said a state can't use PR to elect its congressional delegation-but that was a controversial ruling. My take is that PR is a better approximation of what the founding fathers had in mind for the House than what we have now-a PR based house and State based senate would create even greater checks and balances.

"I also tend to favor withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO-given the enormous trade imbalance those policies have created in the US"

I don't. While they are flawed, the flaws are that they still regulate too much. If a Mexican can do a job better, let him work. Also, there is no trade imbalance. Everything traded is paid for: it is not given away across the borders.

WTO more or less mandates stuff like the tax structure you probably think is a bad idea. You might want to check out Paul Craig Robert's stuff on this general topic.

Ed Asner? Recently he expressed great admiration for Josef Stalin, claiming he was "so badly misunderstood".

I'm not an Asner fan, but the guy is an actor-and he's basically saying the story of Stalin deserves to be told and he'd like to play that part--I tend to agree, the story of Stalin's Holocaust deserves more attention.

Asner: "Well, you know something, they've played Hitler, nobody has ever really touched Stalin, it just occurred to me. It's not because I am a liberal or anything like that. Stalin is one big damn mystery, I wonder why nobody has tried it? Many people, you know, speak of the fact that he killed more people than Hitler - why does nobody touch him? It's strange. So, and he was about my size, my height - with a wig I probably could do it."

Lani Guinier by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-15 23:20 · Score: 0

"You're now calling Lani Gunthier a racist? Next thing you know, you'll be claiming that Sharpton is a racist too"

Hehe. Is this meant to be funny? Both of them are very strongly of policies such as "affirmative action" and quotas which are designed to deny opportunities for individuals of one race while boosting opportunities for those of another.

Lani was nominated to a civil rights post, right? Great place for someone who opposes equal protection and supports punishing people for their skin color, you know?

They are racist surely as those who strongly favored "Jim Crow" are racist.

"I'm not an Asner fan, but the guy is an actor-and he's basically saying the story of Stalin deserve"

That's a nice way to "spin" it, but he was basically saying that Stalin was not at all as bad as everyone thinks. You have to remember that this is the same Ed Asner, who when the USSR existed, went out of his way to whitewash its human rights abuses and atrocities. He supported Stalinism, so why would he not support Stalin?

Re:Lani Guinier by randall_burns · 2003-10-16 05:04 · Score: 1

They are racist surely as those who strongly favored "Jim Crow" are racist.

Go right ahead. Fact is, Sharpton and Gunthier both have substantial followings-and they aren't going away-and they can make accusations that _you_ are a racist stick much more easily than you can the reverse.

Gunthier in particular gave America the chance to remove a lot of hypocrisy from politics-and for that I applaud her.

As far as Asner and Stalin:
When stalin died, Stalinism died with him-his successors were quick to distance themselves from Stalin. That said, I think Lenin and Trotsky deserve a lot of the blame for what happened under Stalin's rule. I tend to think that whole chapter of history deserves more attention-it shows how murderous PC types can be.
Re:Lani Guinier by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 05:21 · Score: 0

"and they can make accusations that _you_ are a racist stick much more easily than you can the reverse."

How so? Of course they can't, as I am not one, and oppose all policies which punish and reward anyone based on race. Equal protection for all. No, I can make the accusations stick, especially with Sharpton, of racism.

It is not the best to mention Guinier and Sharpton in the same breath. One is a serious intellectual, and the other is a buffoonish cartoon of a man.
(it is like lumping Thomas Sowell and Rush Limbaugh together).

Whatever Guinier's faults, she has not made herself rich through hiding behind fraudulent church-and-charity donations scams. Nor was she involved in anything as despicable as the Tawana Brawley case. Al Sharpton is better lumped in with Pat Robertson.

"When stalin died, Stalinism died with him-his successors were quick to distance themselves from Stalin"

I was referring to Leninism-Stalinism. Were these predecessors so quick to distance themselves from Lenin (whom you also blame for a lot of Stalin's rule?) No, they were not. The basics continued on in the USSR and its colonies until "Perestroika". Trotsky? You are one of the few who knows of him and does not lionize him. Few realize that he commanded the Soviet imperial armies which invaded several nations and annexed them to the USSR. He was more down to the front lines than Lenin was in participating in war crimes, massacres, and other atrocities.
Re:Lani Guinier by randall_burns · 2003-10-16 05:48 · Score: 1

How so? Of course they can't, as I am not one, and oppose all policies which punish and reward anyone based on race. Equal protection for all. No, I can make the accusations stick, especially with Sharpton, of racism.

Then why do you post anonymously? Fact is, you sound like a Libertarian(I'm not). You might want to read about what Ayn Rand had to say about "handing the greatest nation of the earth over" to "rabble"
(this isn't quiet an exact quote but close).

Other thing you need to come to grips with:
Libertarians haven't really made substantial inroads outside the white community-and are perceived by many people of color as opportunistic closet racists(i.e. Republicans that Smoke Dope-and maybe head down to TJ to visit a brothel).

Al Sharpton is better lumped in with Pat Robertson.

I would tend to agree-but I'm not one to bash either. Lots of people love both these men. I do tend to dislike the mediums that give rise to egotistical figures as "heros" but these guys didn't make the rules-they just played the game.

That said, Sharpton really is IMHO quite a fine public speaker-the other Dems can learn a few things from Al.

I was referring to Leninism-Stalinism. Were these predecessors so quick to distance themselves from Lenin (whom you also blame for a lot of Stalin's rule?) No, they were not.

Agreed. They made Stalin into a scapegoat. Asner was saying the truth is somewhere in between-and I honestly think that depicting Stalin theatrically is an interesting project-and a good role for Asner.
Re:Lani Guinier by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 06:38 · Score: 0

" Fact is, you sound like a Libertarian(I'm not). You might want to read about what Ayn Rand had to say about "handing the greatest nation of the earth over" to "rabble""

I'm no Randist. However, I wonder why you said "you sound like a Libertarian" in response to my opposition to racism of any kind. Ayn Rand herself was immigrant "rabble"; a refugee from the USSR.

"Libertarians haven't really made substantial inroads outside the white community-and are perceived by many people of color"

I thought you appeared to be anti-PC. "People of color"? All people have color.

"That said, Sharpton really is IMHO quite a fine public speaker-the other Dems can learn a few things from Al."

True. His "zingers" in the debates and elsewere are often humorous, or profound (at least in wording if not in thought) whether he is zinging his Democratic opponents or zinging the Republicans.

"Agreed. They made Stalin into a scapegoat."

I disagree on this. Far from being a scapegoat, Stalin was someone who extended and strengthened the brutality of programs (pogroms?) he inherited from Lenin.

"and I honestly think that depicting Stalin theatrically is an interesting project-and a good role for Asner."

Only as an abstraction, like Yahoo Serious playing Albert Einstein.
Re:Lani Guinier by randall_burns · 2003-10-16 07:35 · Score: 1

Fact is, you sound like a Libertarian(I'm not). You might want to read about what Ayn Rand had to say about "handing the greatest nation of the earth over" to "rabble""

I'm no Randist. However, I wonder why you said "you sound like a Libertarian" in response to my opposition to racism of any kind. Ayn Rand herself was immigrant "rabble"; a refugee from the USSR.

I'm quoting rand. I'd suspect she didn't think of herself as rabble-more like a necessary reaction to the "rabble"(Which included quite a few communists remember). Ayn, whatever her limitations, was trying to "fit in".

"Agreed. They made Stalin into a scapegoat."

I disagree on this. Far from being a scapegoat, Stalin was someone who extended and strengthened the brutality of programs (pogroms?) he inherited from Lenin.

As soon as Stalin's body was cold, the decontruction of Stalin's "machine" started--and folks in Russian politics started trying to appear the least associated with Stalin:

The real question here: was the system in Russia such that anyone other than a Stalin(or someone much like him) could have assume political authority? I personally think that is the case-if Trotsky had by some luck risen to the top, about as many folks would have died.

Mexican immigration by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-15 23:23 · Score: 0

"At the time that H-1b expansion took place, about 82% of the American public opposed that legislation:
http://www.ieeeusa.org/releases/1998 /pr091698.html Now, just the premise that popular government is a good idea implies H-1b was a bad idea

About the same % for the same reasons believe in being real harsh with Mexican immigrants and illegals. I am pretty sure that Mr Kucinich disagrees with that.

Why is it OK to bash Asians through immigration policy but not OK to bash Mexicans?

Gore = nothing to do with Internet creation: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 00:52 · Score: 0

Facts about Internet and Gore. Please take note of the years:

From "Embratel"

"Thus, ARPANET - ARPAnetwork - was created in 1969. October of the same year saw the first remote transmission of a message, in effect kicking off activities. Over the following years, ARPANET was expanded with new points across the USA, and began to include Universities as well. In 1971, the experimental model for e-mail surfaced (the first software for it came in 1972), making the Net ever more useful. And in 1973 the first international connections were established, interconnecting computers in England and Norway."

"In 1982, the Net's standard protocol, TCP/IP, was implemented. In the next year, the entire military part (named MILNET) was broken off from ARPANET. In 1985, the first domains were set up (.edu, .org and .gov), soon after the concept had been created. Also at the time, the name INTERNET began to be used in regard to the group of networks led by ARPANET."

Other facts:

The "Gore Act", passed in 1991, was introduced in 1988, 17 years after the creation of the Internet, and 3 years after its name was in common use.

Gore stated that he "took the initative in creating the Internet". It was clear that it was created well before he got involved (look at the years). Yes, he helped fund its expansion. If he had said he "took the iniative in expanding the Internet", he would have been correct. But he was not present at its creation, nor was he a leader who "took the iniative" in its creation.

Re:Gore = nothing to do with Internet creation: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 02:25 · Score: 0

Dig. Dig. Dig. Maybe you'll reach China. You'll fit right in, comrade.

"It [the Gore Act] authorized spending more than a billion dollars over five years for networking and computing projects, including a new high-speed "backbone" for the Internet. The Act also directed NSF to help universities, libraries and government agencies connect to the Internet, and it secured continuing funding for NSF's supercomputing centers. (NCSA Mosaic, the groundbreaking predecessor to the web browser Netscape, was written at one of these supercomputing centers in 1993.)"

Thanks for supporting my case. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 03:00 · Score: 0

Thanks for supporting my case that Gore's "Act" funded the expansion of the already-existing Internet, but that he also had nothing to do with its creation.

Re:Thanks for supporting my case. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 10:09 · Score: 0

Continues here.

Dates? Any perception of time at all? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 03:30 · Score: 0

"....predecessor to the web browser Netscape, was written at one of these supercomputing centers in 1993.)""

This is the only date you have been able to come up with to support your claim that Gore created the Internet.

This date is more than 20 years after the 'Net was already in place, and 8 years after the name "Internet" was used. (just like, as you forget, Gore's techological and legislative interest was also years after the Internet's creation.)

To use this to support your case is like using perfection of the assembly line as evidence that Henry Ford invented the automobile, or Pan-Am's pioneering use of stewardesses as proof that Pan-Am invented the airplane.

There is no way that Gore "took the initiative in creating the Internet" when he first got involved long after its creation.

Re:Dates? Any perception of time at all? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 09:57 · Score: 0

(Already answered in the other thread.)

(But I'm sure you will lie about that too.)
Re:Dates? Any perception of time at all? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 10:06 · Score: 0

Continues here.

Re:Mexican immigration-restriction!=bashing by randall_burns · 2003-10-16 04:57 · Score: 1

I don't believe that the problems H-1b has caused are the fault of Asians-but of the corporate elites that bought congress(donations from the electronics industry went up by a factor of 6 from 1990-2000 according to OpenSecrets.org).

I personally feel that folks dislocated through changes to US immigration policy deserve compensation paid for at the expense of their employers-and that H-1b workers and illegal immigrants both deserve increased rigtht to sue their employers if they choose to go home for any reason.

Now, Kucinich tends to bow to the Democratic party authorities on the topic of Mexican immigration-and I support him in spite of that not because of that.

Forbes' response by gvc · 2003-10-16 04:59 · Score: 1

I sent a letter to Forbes; this morning I received the following reply.

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:57:12 -0400
From: "Readers"
To: "Readers"

Due to the overwhelming amount of e-mail we have received regarding Dan
Lyons' Oct 14th story, " Linux's Hit Men "
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014link sys .html , it has become
impossible to respond individually. Instead we have opened a special
discussion board http://forums.prospero.com/fdctech/messages?msg=47 .1
devoted to this story. Please go there to post your opinion. Dan has
promised to weigh in on occasion. Below is his first posting. --Eds.

Of course the Free Software Foundation is entitled to enforce its GNU
General Public License (GPL), just as other organizations are entitled
to enforce their copyrights and licenses. My article simply points out
that the paradoxical effect of these "enforcement actions" (FSF's term)
may be to impede the adoption of Linux. By demanding that licensees
publish source code for their own "derivative work" code (in addition to
the Linux they're using) the FSF is, in effect, charging a royalty that
approaches 100% of the value of the licensee's product.

Yes, the FSF is entitled to do this. But some people question the wisdom
of this policy. They think it will scare off commercial software and
hardware developers who want to use open source software but don't want
to destroy the value of their product and don't want get into a hassle
like the one Cisco Systems (nasdaq: CSCO) and Broadcom (nasdaq: BRCM)
are having. Even within the open source world there is a difference of
opinion on this issue.
As many readers point out, if a company doesn't like the GPL, they
shouldn't use Linux. That's fair enough. No doubt many will stay away.
But is that good for Linux?

Finally, some readers point out that in claiming rights over derivative
works, and by pursuing enforcement actions and making legal threats, the
FSF is only behaving the way any corporate entity would. On this point I
agree completely.
Thank you,
Daniel Lyons

The real reason behind the article... by LinuxThis · 2003-10-16 05:24 · Score: 0

1) Write factually unsound article

2) Incur wrath of Linux community

3) ???

4) Profit!!

[couldnt resist]

Mexican immigration-restriction = bashing by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 05:28 · Score: 0

"Now, Kucinich tends to bow to the Democratic party authorities on the topic of Mexican immigration"

Then I tend to agree with him on this! Supporting freedom of immigration has nothing to do with "corporate elites": it has everything to do with the American dream which brought over the ancestors of Kucinich and Buchanan.

Back on those days, there were established whites who also feared that these Eastern European (?) and Irish immigrants could do some jobs better than they could. Yet, the country thrived and prospored because of the work they contributed to the economy.

Immigration policy should be changed to allow in any immigrant who will work (as long as security screening is there to keep the Atta's out). There should be no frivolous lawsuits or compensation demands of companies that choose to hire workers because they can do the job better.

Bring on the Indians, the Mexicans, the Somalis, the Haitians, etc etc. If they are coming here to work, they can do nothing but build the country.

As for mexican immigrant restriction = bashing or not, just check with the Latino/Hispanic/Chicaco communities about this. They know what it is.

Re:Mexican immigration-restriction = bashing by randall_burns · 2003-10-16 05:37 · Score: 1

IF you think immigration is an unmitigated boon:
why do states with high rates of immigration tend to have poor bond ratings?

www.outlander.com/policy/bonds.htm

You also might want to check out how Caeser Chavez felt about illegal immigration.

Sorry guy, you are on the loosing side on this issue-which is part of why you are posting anonymously.

Chavez on Re:Mexican immigration by randall_burns · 2003-10-16 06:12 · Score: 1

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/la_causa_or_la_raza.ht m

Only a third of Hispanics want increased immigration:
http://www.numbersusa.com/text?ID=64 9

Nader said it best:
Open borders will drive wages in the US down to the level of surrounding countries?

Who will benefit: those that can isolate themselves from market forces-and have the political abilities to avoid a backlash. Well, the backlash _is_ coming. Maybe Bush is right, the future of America is to be more like Mexico(low taxes there-only 18% of the GNP goes to taxes last I checked) or Brazil. I doubt very, very much though that the folks that lead the GOP today-let alone libertarian lackeys-will be among the ruling elites of that kind of country--if a transformed America of that type even stays united as one country.

I honestly think it would be interesting for the Libertarians to try their experiment someplace, but I see no evidence that they can combine Libertarianism with popular democracy nor do I see any autocratic monarchs, dictators or even corporate oligarchs sincerely inclined towards libertarianism(the latter just might take a stab towards it someday).

Nader's contempt for workers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 07:08 · Score: 0

"Open borders will drive wages in the US down to the level of surrounding countries?"

This only shows Nader's contempt for American workers (which is also shown by his approval of forcing workers to join unions and pay for union political activity even if it is against the interests of the worker).

For this to be true, every Mexican would have to be able to do every job better than every American. The truth is that there are training and experience differences between two groups generally, and there will always be jobs that the "natives" will do better than the Mexican immigrants. If this ever is not the case anymore, it is because Americans have gotten very lazy.

As for the bond report, it is hard to read since they left out a map and the diagram is damaged. Questions remain; perhaps the other conditions that cause the low bond rating also cause there to be high immigration. There's also a difference between allowing immigrants in to work, and allowing them in so they can laze on the welfare hammock.

California, for example, under Gray Davis, is rather "open border" but has also engaged in many other non-related policies which have helped bankrupt the state (like Davis paying state workers exhorbitant funds not to work).

Re:Nader's contempt for workers by randall_burns · 2003-10-16 07:45 · Score: 1

"Open borders will drive wages in the US down to the level of surrounding countries?"

This only shows Nader's contempt for American workers (which is also shown by his approval of forcing workers to join unions and pay for union political activity even if it is against the interests of the worker).

For this to be true, every Mexican would have to be able to do every job better than every American

No, this is just classical economics ala David Ricardo,JS Mill and Henry George.

"Wages" in any developed country have a substantial component of what classical economists would call monopoly rent(due to immigration laws)-and have little direct bearing on the marginal productivity of each worker added
to the system. Most Americans can't earn similar wages anyplace else in the world(the exception right now being probably engineers that compete against Indians and day laborers that complete against Mexicans).

Prices in India and the US are _way_ different.
That is why folks like Paul Craig Roberts, Reagans economic advisor, are backpeddling on free trade-that and that fact that international players _can_ sacrifice profits for reasons of national objectives.

I _would_ like to do a better study than we did with that bond piece-but that was done by myself and another amateur. We don't have the resources of a Cato-or their backers that bought congress to open US borders. Just check out opensecrets.org--the money trail is pretty dang obvious. The folk that got large industry donations voted 91-1 for H-1b even though 82% of the public opposed it. Is that the kind of government you want?

The simple fact is:
Your libertarian utopia isn't going to happen when accompanied with democratic government _except_ possibly in a frontier situation. Poor immigrants have enormous incentives to vote themselves socialism-and they do--so you have a choice her: abandon democracy, restrict immigration or abandon free market economics. I know, it is a hard choice isn't it?

Leaving poor ol Ralph alone this time by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 10:10 · Score: 0

"that international players _can_ sacrifice profits for reasons of national objectives."

Translation: governments _can_ stomp on people's rights to make economic decisions that go beyond national boundaries for government objectives. The real losers in free trade are governments. They lose power and control. They lose the ability to profit from individuals choosing to make decisions that cross international boundaries.

"Poor immigrants have enormous incentives to vote themselves socialism"

Education will cure that.

"so you have a choice her: abandon democracy, restrict immigration or abandon free market economics. I know, it is a hard choice isn't it?"

Democracy is not endangered.

"The folk that got large industry donations voted 91-1 for H-1b even though 82% of the public opposed it. Is that the kind of government you want?"

Absolutely! I want the government to get off people's backs even if the majority favor meddling in the people's economic affairs like this.

If 90% voted to make Christianity the official religion of the country, would that be OK? (I guess if Congress voted on principle against this, as they vote for H1B on principle, someone would be blaming it on rich Jewish groups that contributed to the fight).

Democracy is a way to choose government. It is not away to take away people's rights because a majority wish to do so.

"We don't have the resources of a Cato-or their backers that bought congress to open US borders. Just check out opensecrets.org--the money trail is pretty dang obvious"

Regardless of the money, Congress made the right decision. I heard a story on NPR today that implies that Congress won't change the policy. This is good: these workers from Asia and elsewhere do good productive work.

Also, opensecrets "follow the money" premise is misleading. The reason things are not so predictable is that there are other factors (morality, religion, ethnic allegiances, grudges, favors, etc etc) that influence decisions also.

No, I do not favor open immigration. I favor very tight border controls: seal the border, have a few crossing places, and screen every immigrant to keep out the Al Quada's, the Zapatistas, and other terrorists. If they are coming here to work, let them apply for citizenship. If they are coming here to laze on the welfare hammock, they can stay home and siesta all day in Mexico.

Although, I would replace H1B with a program of immigration of new citizens, not temporary residence.

""Wages" in any developed country have a substantial component of what classical economists would call monopoly rent(due to immigration laws)-"

Does this work out in the end? Have wages inb New York City always been depressed at times it was immigrant-flooded?

As for bonds, I know little about it. However, I do recall hearing about Orange County and its bond problems. Does this mean that The OC is/was awash in immigrants more than the other California counties that did not have the bond crisis?

As for a better study, are you willing to improve it? Download a nice USA gif map, and make a couple of versions with certain states colored according to the data in the study, and add these to the site.

Re:Leaving poor ol Ralph alone this time by randall_burns · 2003-10-16 12:14 · Score: 1

The real losers in free trade are governments.
So how do you see the Chinese opium trade in light of your belief in free markets? Are you aware right now, that elements of the chinese military has promoted the idea of ramping up the heroin trade to weaken the USA?
Poor immigrants have enormous incentives to vote themselves socialism
Education will cure that.
Well, given that education is usually controlled by governments, how do you expect to create a free-market utopia via education? Are you supposing that once vouchers are in place, folks will gradually choose free-market types of education? You seem to have a lot of faith here. Just FYI, I was educated at the U of Chicago-I guess it didn't work well in my case.

>so you have a choice her: abandon democracy, restrict immigration or abandon free market economics. I know, it is a hard choice isn't it?

Democracy is not endangered.

The folk that got large industry donations voted 91-1 for H-1b even though 82% of the public opposed it. Is that the kind of government you want?

Absolutely! I want the government to get off people's backs even if the majority favor meddling in the people's economic affairs like this.

I opposed NAFTA/WTO(voted for Perot both times). H-1b is the major factor in making me politically active. Before H-1b, my US citizenship was the most valuable piece of property I had. IMHO H-1b disenfranchised me as surely as if I had share ownership in a condominium and someone started running a rooming house there.
Even Milton Friedman, calls H-1b a "corporate subsidy"--basically because it turns a shot at a green card into a corporate perk.

If 90% voted to make Christianity the official religion of the country, would that be OK?
Strict interpretation of the constitution says "Congress shall make no law" around religion. I personally have no objection if the people of individual states want to do things that might seem theocratic(even Randian!)-I don't think the central government of a diverse population should be a theocracy.

Democracy is a way to choose government. It is not away to take away people's rights because a majority wish to do so.

sometimes the most folks can hope for is the right to vote with their feet. Folks with money do have that opportunity-and over 100 governments to choose from.

No, I do not favor open immigration. I favor very tight border controls: seal the border, have a few crossing places, and screen every immigrant to keep out the Al Quada's, the Zapatistas, and other terrorists. If they are coming here to work, let them apply for citizenship. If they are coming here to laze on the welfare hammock, they can stay home and siesta all day in Mexico.

how do you propose to weed out/identify the terrorists? BTW one of the better proposals I've seen is to require posting of bonds. Anyhow, Trotsky was admitted to NYC-which shows judgement in that era wasn't terribly good.
I see no inclination for corporations to want to take responsibility for such risks-or for that matter the risk of immigration introducing another epidemic(epidemics have been a major risk of mass migration historically-just ask the native americans).
www.outlander.com/policy/h1b.htm details some of the security concerns around H-1b.

Wages in any developed country have a substantial component of what classical economists would call monopoly rent(due to immigration laws)-

Does this work out in the end? Have wages inb New York City always been depressed at times it was immigrant-flooded?

New York City has long had one of the most rent-intensive economies in the US. This is largely due to the concentration of key infrastructure there that dates to the founding of the GOP and the aftermath of t

Nothing about quota queen in this one. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-16 10:17 · Score: 0

"As soon as Stalin's body was cold, the decontruction of Stalin's "machine" started--and folks in Russian politics started trying to appear the least associated with Stalin"

The differences were relatively minor. People who rejected communism were still sent to mental hospitals or worse, and the KGB reign of terror did not end. Stalin invaded and conquered independent countries or parts of independent countries during WW2, and these "Destalinists" were not about to undo this legacy of Stalin. The USSR remained a totalitarian and imperialist dictatorship, with Kruschev and Brezhnev each trying to conquer as many new countries to add to the Empire as Lenin and Stalin did. It remained a "riddle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in an enigma" until Gorby decided to loosen the outer layer with the unintended consqequence of the whole thing unravelling.

Stalin's role in WW2 was whitewashed as well: these so-called "destalinists" tried to cover up Stalin's alliance with Hitler, and bury his execution of millions of civilians around this time which made him almost as bad an enemy of the Russian people as Hitler was. He remained the Great Hero of the Peoples.

"I personally think that is the case-if Trotsky had by some luck risen to the top, about as many folks would have died."

At least as many. He was rather bloodthirty, and might well have invaded Western Europe during the Depression era.

1,230 comments