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.
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.
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.
Such a pity, comrade.
(-1, Troll)
[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.
Remember "What SCO wants, SCO gets"? Same author. Don't expect any love from him.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
It isn't the first time he's cheered on SCO. Here he goes again.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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-
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?
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.
>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.
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.
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
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
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)
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
So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?
If you want to base your competitive edge on trade secrets, don't use GPLed software. It's as simple as that.
I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.
What a useless comment. RMS & crew are protecting the copyrights of the original programmers of the code used by Linksys for their router. Are you against the protection of copyright?
"Their $129 device, of which they have sold 400,000 units of, would have cost much more, and taken much longer to develop and get to market if they hadn't leveraged the free software provided by thousands of volunteers over the past ten years."
Where's your proof?
Are you saying that it would have been cheaper to develop the software in-house? If that was the case, when then didn't Linksys do that?
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Linksys used other people's work to develop their product because it was cheaper than re-doing the work themselves, but failed to live up to the agreement these people made that work available under in the first place.
You call disclosing your product secrets a small contribution? I call it freely distributing the technology behind your product's distinct characteristics directly to your competition
Again, if they didn't want to redistribute their changes, they shouldn't have used GPLed software. And, to be honest, I don't think they made that many changes to the software in the first place - so in fact there are little, if any, trade secrets in the Linksys routers. There's not anything they can do that I can't do with a Linux box with firewall/NAT/IP Masquerading. The only thing they added is a Web-based GUI for administration, and that can hardly be considered a trade secret...
This is an open-and-shut case of copyright infringement on Linksys' part. I find it odd that some, such as Forbes, are trying to portray Linksys and Cisco as victims here, when they really are the ones who have infringed on others' rights.
Reminder: find a new sig
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
In many ways Cisco *is* a victim here.
Hardly. Before you drop $500 million on a company, you're going to perform due diligence. Which means one or more of the following happened:
* Cisco did a poor job of due diligence
* Cisco knew of the brewing problem, but considered the potential liability to be worth the risk
* Linksys intentionally misled Cisco when it came to their software. This is the only scenario in which Cisco might be considered a victim, but also goes back to Cisco doing a poor job.
So I think the article sends the right message to business people:
Correction: It could have sent the right message to people. Unfortunately, Mr. Lyons sees no value in understanding what "free" in "free software" really means. His consistently uninformed, slanted, and frequently infammatory jabs indicate this to be true.
In addition, Forbes is intentionally spreading this misinformation because it jives with what a large number of techless managers (a large part of its following) already think and feel: I don't understand the proprietary stuff we're using now, but if I keep forking over wads of cash, we should be safe. I don't feel comfortable not forking over wads of cash to this OSS thing because I don't want to take the time to understand this new business model to reassure myself that it's okay.
If Mr. Lyons would simply present facts, then it would be ok. I certainly don't think that the GPL is good in every situation and, as a result, I don't GPL ALL of my code. However, Mr. Lyons has painted the FSF as some sinister, shadowy organization just waiting to jump out of an alley and club you on the head. This is certainly a better description of the BSA which the author mentions all of no times. In fact, while the FSF may go overboard in its zealous beliefs from time to time, they're a sedated lamb compared to the predatory BSA.
Have you read every word of every copyright or EULA for every program you have ever used? .c file in the free software you just downloaded and ran?
Do you read the comment banner for every
You can probably get away with it if you are not selling products like routers.
Absolutely not. But then... if companies like Linksys are going to base an entire product line on someone else's codebase, they need to do that. In today's addle-brained "market" where companies that produce no discernable service or good can sustain themselves entirely on filing lawsuits (PanIP, SCO), I would never be so stupid as to use an unknown code chunk I just found lying around without knowing exactly where it came from and how I was allowed to use it.
The GPL is certainly no magical silver bullet to solve every problem, but it isn't some dark, infectious disease waiting to hurt your bottom line. Just like any other tool at a company's disposal, it has to be carefully considered in context. If it doesn't fit your needs you don't use it - very simple. You (as in Forbes - not you) can't just toe the line that Mr Lyons does: The GPL is Evil because I don't care to understand it and companies like Linksys and Cisco bungle things up and get themselves in trouble.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
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.
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!!!
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!
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
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..."
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?
Free Software isn't about revenge, or cheap stuff. It's about freedom. If every MS product were free tomorrow, there would still be a free software movement, as long as one person wants to be able to see and modify the source.
You can add the word "just" after the "isn't" in the first sentence, if you wish.
-aiabx
Just this guy, you know?
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