Slashdot Mirror
Businessweek Recommends License Switch for Linux
MadFarmAnimalz writes "BusinessWeek has an article about the perceived threat of patents to linux, citing the SCO case, the opening of OSRM, and the Munich situation as evidence for the veracity of their conclusion that Linux isn't safe. Their solution? Relicense to the BSD license or the Mozilla license. On a positive note, the article's author does link to RMS' article Why Software Should Not Have Owners; good to see Stallman being quoted and linked to in a publication Like BusinessWeek."
I can't see how switching licenses will help.
The licenses mentioned (patent clauses in GPL acknoweldged) deal with copyright and not patents which although people easily confuse are completely different legal areas.
Women should give up their personal rights to make it easier on people who want to rape them.
if this were to happen, which I find highly unlikely, for one thing there would be a fork straight away. It would be just like the Xorg and Xfree split. Also, under the bsd license commercial proprietary software can integrate the open-source work, so why would anyone slave away at developing linux, only to have their work immediately integrated into commercial applications, the original developers not to see a dime. There is all kinds of bsd code in windows, for example.
That's an article? People who want money for nothing demand a gift with no string attached? Their message to the authors of Linux: "All your software are belong to us!"
The issue with patents is that certain basic ways of accomplishing tasks can be restricted.
Changing licenses won't prevent the use of litigation to suppress open source tools which do the same things as commercial products.
Stop the world; I need to get off.
It's a commentary, AKA an opinion piece. Look, I can write an opinion piece, too.
Microsoft should switch to the GPL.
Hey, someone submit this to Slashdot. Here's an idea for the text. "Slashdot has an article suggesting Microsoft should switch to the GPL."
Are there any practical reasons they can't use FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD instead of Linux in situations where a BSD-style license is preferred over GPL?
Or is it simply because they've never heard of it due to lack of marketing?
Of course, then the BSD licensed stuff would be copied back into the GPL'd fork, as is allowed.
Result - A full-featured GPL'd version, and a non-GPL'd version without all the features that it can't include as it would be a violation of the GPL.
In other words, why bother? It ain't broke - don't try to "fix" it.
The logistics of a license switch are staggering, especially when you consider a project the size of the Linux kernel. IANAL, but wouldn't every contributor to a given project, no matter how far back as long as their code's still there, have to sign off and approve of the license change?
Sounds like a headache and a half to me.
This guy knows nothing of what he speaks. The open group owns the Unix trademark. SCO claims to own the source and rights, but thats disputed by Novell the previous owner.
But this is what people just don't get. Linux like all other GPL source is copyrighted, If the GPL licence agreement is proved to be invalid that does not mean suddenly linux and all other GPL code is now public domain. Linux would still be copyright and everyone who was not the copyright owner would not have a valid license to use it. Until issued with a new agreement from the copyright owner. This is one of the strenghs of the GPL, if your defeat it you can no longer play with the toys rather than being able to steal them.
James
in light of IBM's use of the GPL to shutdown a major copyright infringer, SCO...
and in light that this author decided to publish an outdated article - he continues to talk about how IBM is being sued for copyright infringement, while the hunter is now the hunted in the SCO vs IBM case with IBM arguing (very well) for partial summary judgement that IBM is 100% in the clear on Linux while its SCO who is now clearly in violation of copyright law...
but mostly because his very first premise is utterly false - "How does software owned by everyone and by no one survive in a world where copyrights and patents shape the legal landscape?"..
this article is lame...
Dear Mr. Wildstrom.
The GPL has NOTHING to do with your precious IP or ownership of software. The GPL is ONLY about two simple things - distribution and use. Just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER software license.
It is obvious you do not understand this. I suggest you read the two latest court documents from IBM, who are doing two things you claim the GPL does not allow...
1. claiming ownership of their GPL licensed software and
2. are asking the courts to prevent a copyright infringer from reditributing their software without their permission.
The easiest way to understand how the GPL works and why it works is to read those court documents - because its heart is exactly what the GPL is about - controlled distribution of owned software by the copyright holder.
As my history teacher was fond of saying to the kids that wrote their papers the night before as they watched The A-Team - "please grasp the concept, then rewrite your paper".
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Relicensing to the BSD license would pretty much defeat the point of GNU/Linux. I definitely think Linus needs to do more to make sure the code he commits isn't proprietary, but switching licenses?
The logical complications of changing the license to BSD would be a nightmare. Individual committers could file suit against FSF, or whoever might "own" the newly licensed code, to get a court order for their code to be removed if it's not licensed under the GPL.
Of course, somebody else could just fork Linux under the GPL again.
The BSD license allows you to use the code without ever having to give back. Exactly the way business uses it.
The only thing you need to know about BSD is that Microsoft favours it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Exactly, i think most serious open source coders are well aware of what the license they choose means. I specifically choose GPL instead of LGPL for a library i'm writting because that's what i wanted.
I'm sorry if our licenses arn't corporate friendly.
- These characters were randomly selected.
Sorry, but this is not the case. In the U.S., patents even effect use. Use is clearly given by the law as one of the acts for which the patent holder can bring suit. You are liable for patent infringement by software that you write and use privately in your own home.
Yes, it's a broken system. We have to fix the law.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I don't think the reporter's poor investigation has much to do with this piece. I'm not saying the "research" was any good--Bruce is probably right about the ignorance of Businessweek. But the knowledge part is kinda irrelevant.
Instead, Businessweek, being what they are, is in the business of fantasizing about free giveaways to large companies. Sort of the Enron model of capitalism. What could Businessweek readers like more than a massive donation of free programming efforts into the private coffers of big business? Well, I suppose they like massive corporate welfare even more (the Haliburton model); but they'd certainly be happy to accept the free money of "privatized" Free Software.
The patent issue is OF COURSE completely irrelevant here. Or maybe BSD-licensed software would be slightly more vulnerable to patent suits. But the difference is small, in any case. The main patent danger is big companies spending a lot more on lawyers than Free Software developers possibly can--and quite independent of the "merits" of patent claims, getting injunctions against Free Software.
Buy Text Processing in Python
Sorry about the yelling in the title, but anyone who suggests relicensing the Linux kernel is forgetting that the kernel is not written by one person. It's written by thousands of people, each of whom would have to relicense their code under BSD. Some of those people are dead. Some of them are unknown. Some of them would refuse to relicense. Some of them release under licenses which are not GPL but which state that they can be relicensed under GPL. The Linux kernel code may be technically a unified whole (to some extent or other), but LEGALLY, it is a collection of numerous pieces which all must be considered separately.
I think the BSD license if just fine. That isn't the issue. The issue is that in order to relicense the kernel under BSD, so much code which could not be relicensed would have to be ripped out that you would not have a kernel left.
So, while I can't say whether or not, generally speaking, the suggestion to switch licenses is an unwise one, I can definately say that it's a totally ignorant suggestion. Saying "relicense linux" is like saying "delete linux".
Hardly a model of clarity? It's one of the few license agreements that IANAL can understand without legal help!
Here's another precious quote:
Where "some people" == "Darl McBride", apparently.
Sean
Comments and clarifications welcome:
Linux is burdened with too much intellectual-property uncertainty for
many companies to embrace and develop it further
This entire column is complete bollocks as I will now explain. (FLOSS = Free Libre and Open Source Software - remember folks, brush and FLOSS
daily!)
The open-source movement has had a remarkable run of success that has seen software such as the Linux operating system and the Apache Web server emerge as major challenges to Microsoft (MSFT ). However, the movement is now facing a crisis. At its heart is a question that has been around from the very beginning: How does software owned by
everyone and by no one survive in a world where copyrights and patents shape the legal landscape?
The same way it's always done - by being more reliable, more agile, better maintained and better supported. I'm also not sure how the author thinks that open source is not copyrighted - all of it is by definition.
then owned by AT&T. Intellectual-property questions about Linux came to the forefront after the SCO Group (SCOX ), which acquired the Unix
trademarks, launched a series of lawsuits against alleged infringers of its rights.
Incorrect - SCO does NOT own the trademarks to Unix.
POTENTIAL INFRINGEMENTS. The central case, a 2003 suit against IBM (IBM ), an important corporate promoter of Linux, has degenerated into
a messy contract dispute with no intellectual-property issues left on the table. SCO's threats to sue companies that use Linux have almost entirely evaporated.
Because they were and are lies. But the author is mistaken. There are "intellectual property" issues aplenty left on the table. IP - which is a lazy and meaningless term that conglomerates at least three kinds of entirely different sets of laws on intangible rights - is going to bite SCO severely because IBM is now suing it for distributing Linux without a license.
But now another problem has surfaced. Open Source Risk Management, a new outfit that indemnifies its customers against infringement claims, found in a review of Linux code that the operating system potentially infringes on 283 patents. Although IBM declared it would make no
effort to enforce its 60 patents involved, some are held by Linux foes, including 27 by Microsoft.
Patents granted in its infinite stupidity by the US patent office. Maths should not be patented.
The potential patent infringements pose no immediate threat to Linux. Such disputes typically take years to resolve, and courts rarely issue
injunctions against alleged infringers. But the uncertainty is taking a toll. In the most significant response to date, the city government
in Munich, Germany, has suspended a massive transition of desktop computers from Microsoft Windows to Linux, pending clarification of
the patent situation (see BW Online, 8/9/04, "Will Legal Fears Freeze the Penguin?").
Munich is going ahead.
But open-source proponents also have to get their own intellectual-property house in order.
Again - what is meant by intellectual property here? Does he mean copyrights? All FLOSS is copyrighted. Does he mean trademarked? The
brands that matter are trademarked. Does he mean patented? Sorry but the vast majority of FLOSS developers don't really care whether the US
allows the patenting of maths or not. If he's talking about "ownership" then he's wrong. As the SCO episode demonstrated, every single line of Linux can be accounted for - unlike many closed-source vendors.
The development of open-source software is increasingly dominated by corporate interests that, one way or another, want to use Linux,
Apache, and other open-source products to make money.
No - it's the other way around. Businesses have to decide why and how they are going to use open source software to survive. Plenty already have decided to use it to make money and give b
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
I was just saying the GPL rather a good method for attracting contributions, not that it was the only way. Companies (who are the copyright owner) can even use it to showcase the code and allow commerical licencing to companies if required (trolltech for example). If trolltech offered a BSD version they would have never sold anything. XFree86 which was BSD had alot of problems attracting manufactures to contribute driver code, evenually having to go down the binary route as a result. GPL seems a better half way house to me... but thats me I like GPL alot more than BSD licence.
James
Businesses who want to use the code and not give anything back is the only ones who are having problems with the GPL. I for one cant imagine a better way to ensure that no company or person can pillage and burn the remains and walk away with the tresure. Invalidating the GPL would only put the rights back to their respective owners so that wouldnt help one bit. For a company like Microsoft or any other predatory its hard to nail a couple of million coders working for free. The GPL is what holds them together.
Many would surely like the GPL to be lifted so they could steal all the code and then make the authors pay for their own (then incompatible) code!
The reason i dont like the BSD license is that i would have a hard time coughing up dough to buy a product i had a part in and that the one who took the code made incompatible with my original code, deliberatly! I dont like its "please rimjob me twice" kind of message.
HTTP/1.1 400