Slashdot Mirror
The FSF, Linux's Hit Men
PrimeNumber writes "Forbes has this story about the Free Software Foundation and its quest for Cisco and Broadcom to release the source of GPL'ed linux source used in routers. Forewarning: 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."
Don't they expect us to defend our own IP?
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
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.
If you have proprietary secrets to protect, do not develop that code under GPL. Use some other closed source option.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1) Hah! Let's try:
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!
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.
What's 'PersonId'? They're keeping track of you
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
Such a pity, comrade.
(-1, Troll)
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
[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.
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
...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)
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.
Somewhere right now Stallman is reading this and smacking his head saying "I knew I never should've hired programmers named 'Icepick' and 'Knuckles'!"
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.
Remember "What SCO wants, SCO gets"? Same author. Don't expect any love from him.
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
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.
the tone of this article is ridiculous. Open source doesn't mean Public Domain!
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.
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..
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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.
"Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this."
/ought/ to read it just to see the community's reputation from another point of view.
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
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. ========
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)
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...
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.
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?
10.000.000$ vs 25.000$
Beautiful.
Sig? Katma??
What's in a sig?
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.
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.
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.
--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
...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
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?
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.
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?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
" 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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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?
I sent email this morning to the editor on his bias..lets flood the email box..shall we?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
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)
Look, if you don't want to comply with the GPL, don't use GPL'd code. It's that simple.
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?
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
(+1 insightful)
Tsuyoikoto ha taisetsu da ne, dakedo namida mo hitsuyousa (Strength is an important thing, but tears too are necessary)
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.
Are you worried about Big Brother? Worry about Forbes:
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!
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?
Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this.
/. now.
Yeah, because I only want to read sycophantic fauning positive press. Jesus if you cant take a little criticism you should stop readind
<fnord>OBEY</fnord>
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!
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.
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"
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.
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/
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.
"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.
>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.
Am I misunderstanding the purpose the the GPL or did it change somewhere along the lines?
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
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.
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
Forbes.com employee e-mail addresses are formatted: first initial last name@forbes.net (jdoe@forbes.net).
So that would be DLyons@forbes.net.
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...".
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.
===
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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."
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...
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Isn't the code already released under GPL Or maybe it is another one....
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
It isn't the first time he's cheered on SCO. Here he goes again.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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!
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?
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?
Sounds like a Microsoft ... organized FUD campaign
:-) They're large enough that they'd drive the product out of the market.
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?
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
It's funny. Laugh.
"Forewarning: The open source community is not portrayed in positive light so you might want to skip reading this"
/.ers actually read the articles anyway?
No need to state the obvious. Since when do
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
His other articles include this, this, and this
It's all Politics
Mine was: -- MarkusQ
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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:
-jdm
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
0 26 NWBZLL
:)
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003080602
still not sure what's going on there- the peeing in the wheaties is a good guess
fred
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...
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!
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."
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.
"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!
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.
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?
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?
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)
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-
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
In response an unprecedented gathering of the free software/open source development leaders actually agreed on a single statement in reply
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.
[NEW YORK - ... operating system. ]
... the adoption of Linux.]
... proponents themselves. ]
... year alone. ]
... knockoff of your product. ]
... its big suppliers. ]
... obey the rules." ] ... wouldn't comment. ]
... code-writing labor. ]
... bust them. ]
... Moglen says. ]
... sign of gratitude?" ]
... with cloners. ]
... Kuhn says. ]
... Columbia University. ]
... to fight. ]
Hi GPL lovers! Read this article, it will interest you!
[The Lindon,
This is a very interesting article that covers current topics!
[But the
Be scared GPL lovers, very scared... of yourselves!
[For months,
Those evil GPL lovers are doing very nasty things to one of our fellow rich company !
[But now there's
They are actually implementing a license issue, isn't that what we (rich companies) oppose so much !?
[Not great
Poor cisco.
[For several months,
[ The legal teeth
Ofcourse those GPL lovers insist they are not, blah blah blah.. we don't believe them !
[The dispute,
This was so secret and hidden, until one of their commie-bastard-comrades played traitor on those GPL lovers!
[In fact
Those commie bastards do even more filthy things!
[Who pays
They sue to make money ! Isn't that hypocrite!?
[Sometimes it's
And they even get money from people who like what they are doing, bastards !
[The mySQL
But they want more than money, they want the heart of our filthy rich companies !
[Or maybe,
Or they want us all to be commies too, yea behold !!
[So far
And all our fellow companies have gone scared uptil now!
[Will Cisco
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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!
>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.
Well, why remain ignorant? Read it, dammit.
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.)
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.))
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
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.
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!
"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 we're going to sue you.
Frickin' stupid GPL.
Says the article:
Sigh... Read the whole article for additional PHB enlightenment.
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)
> 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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.'"
Don't be afraid to talk-back. I did.
i sp layArticleWebForm.cgi
http://www.expressresponse.com/cgi-bin/forbes/d
----
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
It seems funny to me that makers of proprietary software claim to not understand this concept.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
"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?
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
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.
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...
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
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.
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
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."
So I guess open source zealots don't like hear viewpoints that disagree with theirs? "Open" my ass! :)
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
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.
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.
(feel free to use this as a template for your own complaints!)
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....
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Ivan - I like your impassioned response. Many other posts in this thread are hitting the nail on the head as well.
...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.
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:
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
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
--- What
From www.webcraft.com:
The site www.forbes.com is running Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) on FreeBSD.
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.
"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
For those wondering what a PHB is (e.g. me)S tring=exact&Acronym=PHB, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=phb
http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?p=dict&
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 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.
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)
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.
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?
... 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!
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!
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
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
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?
i suppose it's time for someone to write the next great app: WOOT. here are some specifications for all you hackers out there:
notes:
anyway, i look forward to any activity in this area. here's to a more transparent society. post code, not lies!
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.
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
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.
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.
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:
Forbes is ususally pretty good about responding to stuff like this. Hopefully, I'll see something soon.
-Turkey
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.
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
Sorry meant this for the Mono thread obviously.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Very well put! :)
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
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
...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.
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.)
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
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
A lot of their readership are in business. Business people may not have heard about GPL or understand what it implies.
.c file in the free software you just downloaded and ran?
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
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
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?
[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.
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.
That comment just sums up such a huge percentage of the slashdot readership.
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.
This what pisses PHBs off about Linux and the GPL:
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.
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.
[ReidNews]
1. Get on high horse about nasty FSF bullieses 2. Get Slashdotted! 3. Clock the page impressions! 4. Profit!!!
I mean, it's hard to get an anti-GPL spin if you make the fundamental correction to the story:
Somehow, I doubt that would have fit into Lyons' vision of the story
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.
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!"
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
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.
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.
No, that would be Al Gore :)
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.
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.
... 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'..
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
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
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.
"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.
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.
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
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...
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
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..
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
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.
"The following paragraph in the Forbes article is clearly an attempt at a summary of the GPL:
/. comments."
/. 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.
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
The first part looks fair enough to you and to most
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.
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.
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
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 )
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 :)
"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.
...for spelling "ridiculous" correctly.
Wow, a lucrative publishing contract! I don't have to be evil anymore. --Meteor
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.
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.
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.
And tell the GPL people to jump in the lake.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
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?
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
omfg asshat yuo r so lame!!!11
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
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"
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Thanks for the correction, I knew this but I wasn't specific enough.
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!!!
Please post his answer, or ask him to post it.
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.)
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
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.
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.
From the article...
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:
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!
"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!
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?
that much was obvious upon reading
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!
--
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
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.
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 $299.
I understand that you are still all broken up about Rush, but does this prevent you from reading, or just understanding?
What it boils down to is we don't know.
And we can't know anytime soon.
So perhaps we should look before we leap, even if that means waiting for sunrise to be able to see.
Because for now "Anonymous Coward" we are in the dark.
F X=0:1:9999 F D=2:1 Q:((X>2)&(X#D=0)!((D>X/2)&(X'=1))) I D>(X/2) W:$X>75 ! W X,?$X+5-$l(X) Q
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.
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
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
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
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..."
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")
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?
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."
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.
It may just roll off their backs, but it's a good note, and I, for one, am glad you sent it.
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
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
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--
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.
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...
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?
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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
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)'
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.
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!
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
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
I love it
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.
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.
Umabomer? Is that one of the villians in Kill Bill Vol. 2?
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
The Forbes philosophy is that anyone with a nice Armani suit should have the right to steal whatever they like, just because.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
www.netcraft.com
isnt this ironic?
cheers!
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."
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,
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
.... 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.
... the terms that other people have used to express their opinion.
/. or the FLOSS movement.
And you do not represent
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.
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??
Don't know if this was posted yet:
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/wlg/3880
-Dan
"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
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.
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?
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys .html
... a contract.
'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
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
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..."
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.
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
>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
Pro-linux people click here:T I-LINUX-ATTITUDE
http://www.forbes.com/FUCK-YOU-AND-YOUR-SHITTY-AN
Anti-Linux folk click here:- GATE'S-DICK
http://www.forbes.com/I'M-GLAD-DANIEL-LYONS-SUCKS
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
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????????
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.
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?
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.
http://www.ieeeusa.org/releases/199
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."
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!
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!
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.
I sent a letter to Forbes; this morning I received the following reply.
k sys .html , it has become7 .1
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_1014lin
impossible to respond individually. Instead we have opened a special
discussion board http://forums.prospero.com/fdctech/messages?msg=4
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
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.
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.
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.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/la_causa_or_la_raza.ht m
4 9
Only a third of Hispanics want increased immigration:
http://www.numbersusa.com/text?ID=6
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).
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.
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?
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
yeah, right