Slashdot Mirror


RMS Blasts Sun's Open Source Patent Licensing

cdlu writes "RMS takes Sun to task on its recent announcement that it is releasing 1,600 patents to the open source community. Among the major points, the license the patents are released under doesn't apply to patents, and Sun has not promised to not sue anyone using the technology within free software projects."

591 comments

  1. hmm by KaSkA101 · · Score: 1, Funny

    release item, then create license that doesn't cover item in question, sounds right.

  2. In other news... by mooniejohnson · · Score: 5, Funny
    In other news, touchdowns scored during SuperBowl, Microsoft releases FUD against Linux, Anonymous Cowards seek First Post, and people complain about poll options.

    Just very RMS. ;-)

    --

    Elmo knows where you live!

    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Just very RMS. ;-)

      Good one. Don't let the fact that he happens to be right in this instance affect your little jab.

    2. Re:In other news... by sirReal.83. · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry I read your comment, but I want my 6 seconds back, you thieving bastard.

      That the CDDL is inapplicable to patents is a very valid point and, if true, nullifies the entire benefit of this "release." I may be flamebait, but you're just offtopic.

    3. Re:In other news... by Rooktoven · · Score: 1

      Actually he's almost always right.

      --

      Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    4. Re:In other news... by Megaweapon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually he's almost always right.

      Better said, some people frequently agree with RMS's opinions.

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    5. Re:In other news... by mooniejohnson · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, I can't give them back. I'm saving up all the seconds I steal to buy you a sense of humor.

      --

      Elmo knows where you live!

    6. Re:In other news... by iktorn · · Score: 1

      and this Anonymous Cowards is.... you?

      --
      Me here...
    7. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed!

      Anyone here visited http://stallman.org/ ?

      "almost always right." is hardly an appropriate assesment.

    8. Re:In other news... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I felt more stupid after reading your comment.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    9. Re:In other news... by mooniejohnson · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I thought I forgot to post anonmously.

      --

      Elmo knows where you live!

    10. Re:In other news... by sirReal.83. · · Score: 1

      Sweet, I can have two then ;)

  3. Oh... by GillBates0 · · Score: 1, Funny

    for a moment I thought he was mad because they said Linux instead of GNU/Linux.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:Oh... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually All I can think of is Stallman walking up to your machine, seeing some piece of software that's not freeware and pouring holy water in every vent home he can find, thus exercizing the demons...

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    2. Re:Oh... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I would have thought it would have gotten a funny modifier, but Troll is a bit harsh.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    3. Re:Oh... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I would have thought it would have gotten a funny modifier, but Troll is a bit harsh.

      Flamebait would have been about right.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:Oh... by eno2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I used to dislike RMS when I first started moving over to Linux. (I used to be a Windows dork and a Mac user before that) I read some of the things he said and they didn't make sense to me. I thought he sounded kind of extreme in some of his views and very annoying in others. Since I especialy hate politics, I really didn't like the idea of his bringing politics into computing. But, after I started getting a real understanding that companies want to control what I do with my machine and the software and data on it, I began to see his point. So my anti-RMS stance started to change. As did my jokes and jabs at him. Sure, it's fun to make a joke every so often and I'm sure RMS would agree. Chances are that the mod who modded you down didn't agree. For what it's worth, if I had mod points I'd mod you up with +1 Funny. Either way, I think Stallman is to computing kind of like Giovanni Pierluigi De Palestrina is to music. Not likely to be a houseold name at any point in time, but probably one of the more important people in computing of all time. And just like the musically inclined people who know who De Palestrina was, the people who understand and are aware of RMS and his position are less likely to want to joke about it.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  4. Nice job, Sun. by sparkster812 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it's a great thing Sun has done for the community, regardless of the feelings some people have for them. It's definitely got a positive spin on it, and hopefully will result in more open source software.

    1. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Please tell me how it will result in more open-source software? Did anyone gave a fuck of these patents BEFORE Sun's licence existed? NO!

    2. Re:Nice job, Sun. by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Of course this has a positive spin. This is coming out of their marketing / public relations.

      Has anyone seen the end of the tunnel? In the end, you will be able to run those free software from linux on an overpriced sun hardware. That's it!

    3. Re:Nice job, Sun. by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having been following this controversy for a while, I am not so sure. The following concerns have been raised:

      1) Patents may have been donated only to CDDL projects, which would still preclude them from being used in GPL'd projects.

      2) It is not clear what the actual scope of the licensing is and whether it will be GPL-compliant.

      I am hopeful that these issues can be worked out, but it is too soon to tell whether this will actually be helpful or just a publicity stunt devoid of any real meaning.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    4. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Though I would readily agree that Sun has done a lot of good things for the community, releasing, or rather not releasing this patents certainly isn't one of them.

      So what did Sun do? They basicly opensource Solaris under a license that makes sure that the Solaris code can not be used in any opensource projects not under the especially created license (which is every other open source project out there) and then with a lot of noise declared that people developing for Solaris will not be sued for patent infringment by Sun.

      It's really hard to see what exactly you call a nice job about that.

    5. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearly everything that makes up a usable "linux" system (you know, all the pesky GNU apps) already runs on Solaris/SPARC.

    6. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent is NOT redundant, the question is real and no one answered it until now... Good job moderators!

    7. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      1) It's pretty clear that patents have only been donated to CDDL projects (that is in fact people working on Solaris) and that GPL'd projects, or any other open source project not under the CDDL are excluded. And I don't think one can really speak of the patents being donated, it's simply a necessity for Sun to make sure that people are actually able to work on OpenSolaris and they wouldn't be if they were not allowed to use the patents.

      2) I may be wrong, but from my understanding it's clear right now that the licens is not GPL-compliant.

    8. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Rooktoven · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's a big IF, as in IF you download them. GNU tools aren't part of the default Solaris Distro-- at least they weren't with 7 and 8. Maybe that's changed.

      Before we went to all Macs with a Linux backbone, we always had to download stuff off of Sun Freeware to get a get reasonable commmand line tools.

      --

      Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    9. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Vile+Slime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To,

      All those who modded down the parent take note of the following:

      It's Sun's property, they can do whatever they want with their property.

      Anybody/everyone who thinks that if source code is opened for viewing that it must also be opened for use with the GPL or Tom-Dick-and-Harry's License is full of it.

      I'm sure that the powers that be at Sun would be more than happy to tell RMS to stick it you know where. Just as RMS seems to think it is his God given right to do all so often.

      --
      ---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points.
    10. Re:Nice job, Sun. by tonyr60 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "2) It is not clear what the actual scope of the licensing is and whether it will be GPL-compliant"

      Depends what GPL-Compliant means. CDDL is very similar to GPL and appears to have much the same end game - if you develop with CDDL/GPL then all derivative works must use the same license.

      However that also means that they are mutually un-compliant. Something developed under the GPL cannot be licensed under CDDL and vice-versa.

    11. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux:
      # ls -a --color

      OpenBSD:
      # ls -a --color
      WTF, where is the color.

      Linux:
      # ifconfig
      Awh, there are those MACs

      OpenBSD:
      # ifconfig
      Help? Uh...

      I know, dumb examples...

    12. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice job to whichever idiot marked this as troll.

      You with the mod points - stop acting like a fucking child just because you don't like somebody else's opinion.

    13. Re:Nice job, Sun. by tu_holmes · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I believe Solaris 8 included the "Solaris Software Companion".

      It was lots of open source stuff... including Gnome and KDE, long before the Java Desktop System.

      Sun Freeware was just the latest and greatest... plus a few other things that may not have been included on the Solaris CD.

    14. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and good luck finding anyone who installed it. Not all of us have the good fortune to be system administrators of the systems we use.

    15. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Handpaper · · Score: 1
      In the end, you will be able to run those free software from linux on an overpriced sun hardware.

      root@beast proc # more cpuinfo
      cpu : TI UltraSparc II (BlackBird)
      fpu : UltraSparc II integrated FPU
      promlib : Version 3 Revision 2
      prom : 3.2.30
      type : sun4u
      ncpus probed : 14
      ncpus active : 14
      Cpu0Bogo : 671.74

      -snip-

      root@beast proc # more version
      Linux version 2.4.27-sparc (gcc version 3.3.4 20040623 (Gentoo Linux 3.3.4)) #1 SMP Thu Dec 23 03:11:37 GMT 2004

      You were saying?
      Though I do wish FC-AL and Gigabit Ethernet were supported :)

    16. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Rooktoven · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected -- I forgot about that CD, but it still wasn't default. I so loved that default sh prompt instead of bash before the Software Companion got installed (sic).

      Plus the GNOME and KDE on those disks were always 3 revs behind.

      --

      Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    17. Re:Nice job, Sun. by I_am_the_man · · Score: 1

      AMEN Brother.

    18. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "GPL-Compliant" means compliance with the GPL, not compliance with something like the GPL. It is too late for another GPL now.

    19. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it is true that in some countries, companies can be granted artificial state-sanctioned monopolies on abstract ideas. Sun have made use of that fact. Regrettable as that may be, that isn't the reason why people are complaining. The problem, is that Sun came out with a big announcement about how they were going to make their patents available to open source developers, thus imiitating IBM. But their announcement was a charade. They are not protecting the free software community from their patents. Sun have done many good things for F/OSS, but this isn't one of them.

    20. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      Its not the code that anyone gives a flip about. Its the "intellectual property", or more generally the threat that intellectual property poses to open source projects.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    21. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm.

      Solaris 7: 1998.
      Solaris 8: 2000.
      Today: 2005.

      Next up, bitching about disco.

    22. Re:Nice job, Sun. by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      except that patents aren't licensed under the CDDL anymore than they are the GPL.

      It is possible that Sun is merely saying that people have the right to use OpenSolaris regardless of Sun;s patents. Duh.... I would think there was some level of implicit permission in its release.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    23. Re:Nice job, Sun. by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      GPL-Compliant is a very well defined term. CDDL isn't GPL-Complant. CDDL will only be useful with CDDL. It is a mono-license. Oh well...

    24. Re:Nice job, Sun. by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      No one is suggesting Sun can't do what they want with what they own. It is just that Sun had made noise as though they were joining the community, when in fact Sun wants to culture a copy of the community in their little petri dish. It is the disappoint of realizing they mean for developers to live in said little petri dish that has disappointed me. Sure Sun can do what they want. But Sun ain't no IBM for damn sure.

    25. Re:Nice job, Sun. by AaronGTurner · · Score: 1

      " GNU tools aren't part of the default Solaris Distro" It installs gzip by default, so there is at least one GNU tool on there by default without the supplemental CD. I am not aware of any other GNU tools installed by default, though.

    26. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They basicly opensource Solaris under a license that makes sure that the Solaris code can not be used in any opensource projects not under the especially created license

      And just how is that any different from how the GPL works?

    27. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not about their source code, which are copyrighted and they can release under any license they want, but their patents, which cover independent implementations.

    28. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the article?

      You aren't doing anything to address the legitimate concerns presented. Make no mistake, RMS is particularly consistent in his criticism, it is not based on feelings about the particular party being criticised. Whether you agree with him or not, I've never seen an instance where he wouldn't be rigorously objective and consistent.

      Your comment would be reasonable if made as a response to Sun's original announcement.

    29. Re:Nice job, Sun. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      How is the GPL *not* a "mono-license?"

      Everyone is so worried about "GPL Compatibility" for some reason, when pretty much all it means is that GPLed projects can take code with a "compatible" license, slap the GPL on it, and then the original coder can't even make use of the changes without having to change his own project's license!

      So much for the moral high horse of "giving something back." The GPL is a one-way street.

    30. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like that amazing BSD compiler and linker.

    31. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Louis+Guerin · · Score: 1

      The gpl might be a monolicense, but there is a shitload of a code out there which uses it. This at least makes it a USEFUL monolicense; notwithstanding my next point... .... regarding people adopting non-gpl code and releasing it under the gpl. My only advice to the original author is: license your code under a copyleft license, preferably the gpl. It's the only way to guarantee you get to use other peoples' modifications. That's the point, duh.

      Or you could use a proprietary license, and then people never end up making modifications to your code. Or you could release it under CDDL or some other ghetto-license, in which case your code gets stuck in the Sun ghetto. Same problem.

      L

    32. Re:Nice job, Sun. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I hope the original author knows better than to take your advice, which is to effectively strongarm him/her into using the GPL regardless of what he/she wants.

      I'm pretty sure that I'm going to adopt the OSSAL for my own code, specifically to PROTECT it from being GPLed.

    33. Re:Nice job, Sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And just how is that any different from how the GPL works?

      Well, Sun's a hypocrite, but the GPL is not (just because it was created first.)

    34. Re:Nice job, Sun. by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      I count 29 compatible licenses: GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses

    35. Re:Nice job, Sun. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      By "compatible", it seems to mean "GPLed software can rip code from under these licenses"

      It seems a good number of those are compatible with Sun's too, in the same one-way, "fuck you, original non-GNU-worshipping author" that the GPL is.

    36. Re:Nice job, Sun. by True+Grit · · Score: 1
      which is to effectively strongarm him/her into using the GPL regardless of what he/she wants.

      "Strongarm"? Please. If you don't like the GPL, don't use it. I still shake my head in disbelief about all the endless arguments here on /. about FOSS being "communistic", despite one massive difference: FOSS is an opt-in system, you don't like it, you can do things another way. Communism on the other hand, at least in all the ways it was actually implemented, was neither opt-in or opt-out, you simply have no option at all, i.e., !opt.

      Frankly, I suspect the situation is actually the complete reverse. The only people here demanding "freebies" are the ones attacking the GPL, because they can't use GPL code without having to follow the GPL's rules, and they don't want to have to follow those rules.

      For all you capitalists out there, just think of GPL code as being more "expensive". If you want the GPL code, you simply have to pay a higher price for it, but it is all completely voluntary, no strong-arming involved. If you can find some "cheaper" non-GPL code to do the same thing, great, problem solved. But just like choosing between a Ford Escort and a Mercedes Benz, if you simply have to have the Mercedes, you're going to have to meet the Mercedes dealer's price. And if you can't afford the price, don't bother bitching at the dealer how expensive his car is, its his product, AND HE CAN SET WHATEVER PRICE HE CHOOSES.

    37. Re:Nice job, Sun. by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      With the important difference that nobody has ever concieved a mechanism whereby a GPLed contribution could be ripped off from you. Whereas a mechanism *has* been postulated whereby Sun would end up with the right to use code that you wrote, while you youself couldn't use it, let alone distribute it. You couldn't even legally use it on the very machine you wrote the code without violating patent law. That is the *significant* difference in the two situations. Differences between OPEN vs FREE also exsist, but they are dwarfed by the patent problem.

    38. Re:Nice job, Sun. by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      "OSSAL also discourages the use of GPL or viral licenses as they indirectly promote lower quality software that is widely disseminated, but not reviewed by the more highly skilled software engineers."

      hehehe...LOL...*snort*

    39. Re:Nice job, Sun. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      With the important difference that nobody has ever concieved a mechanism whereby a GPLed contribution could be ripped off from you

      What are you talking about? Is it your definition of "ripped off" or of "nobody" that doesn't mesh with mine? I concieved of a mechanism to do just that earlier in this thread.

    40. Re:Nice job, Sun. by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Not the same. You're suggested scenerio implied a loss of the improvements others made. That is unfortunate, but not "ripped off". I talking about potentially losing a codebase you, in good faith, helped to create. So yeah, our definitions don't mesh.

    41. Re:Nice job, Sun. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Screw the philosophy, I like the license. It keeps my code free and out of the hands of the GPL.

  5. Copy Right Infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last year IBM took a significant step forward in cooperation with the free software community, by offering blanket licenses for 500 of its patents to all free software developers. This does not cover all of IBM's software patents, which must number in the thousands. And there are other areas where IBM does not yet cooperate with the free software community--they have not provided the necessary information to port a free BIOS to ThinkPads, for instance, and they are still pursuing Treacherous Computing. Nonetheless, this is a real step. Recently Sun made an announcement that superficially seems similar. It said that Sun had given us "free access to Sun OpenSolaris related patents under the Common Development and Distribution License." But those words do not really make sense. The CDDL is a license for the copyright on software, not a policy for licensing patents. It applies to specific code and nothing else. (Copyright and patents have essentially nothing in common in the requirements they impose on the public.)

    So what has really happened here? Reading the announcement clearly, I think that it doesn't announce anything at all. It simply describes, in a different and grandiose way, the previously announced release of the Solaris source code as free software under Sun's idiosyncratic license, the CDDL. Outside Solaris, few or no free software packages use that license--and Sun has not said it won't sue us for implementing the same techniques in our own free software.

    Perhaps Sun will eventually give substance to its words, and make this step a real one like IBM's. Perhaps some other large companies will take similar steps. Would this make free software safe from the danger of software patents? Would the problem of software patents be solved? Not on your life. Neither one.

    We can be quite sure that not all large patent holders will do this. In fact, there is one company with lots of patents that surely won't take such a step. That is Microsoft, which says it is our enemy. Microsoft would love to make useful free software effectively illegal, and has plenty of money to pay lawyers to use whatever avenues governments provide them.

    But the danger is not only from those that specifically consider us their enemies. It also comes from patent holders that are the enemy of everyone. These are the patent parasites--companies whose sole assets are patents, and whose only business is threats. Patent parasites don't really produce anything, they only suck the blood of those who do. As regards their choice of victims, they have the scruples of a mosquito, so you're only safe if they don't think you're worth biting.

    Consider, for instance, the company founded by ex-Microsoft executive Myhrvold, which cheerfully says it is spending $350M to buy up patents (not specifically in software) so it can go around threatening and bullying everyone else. Of course, these parasites don't like to describe their activities in such terms. Much as the mafia, when it threatens to attack local businesses unless they pay, says it is charging for "protection", Myhrvold's company prefers to say it is "renting out" the patents. It expects this investment in what we could call the "patent protection racket" to pay off handsomely. For that to occur, lots of people have to get bitten.

    The danger of software patents is not limited to free software, which is why the opposition to software patents is not limited to free software developers. Everyone involved with computers, aside from the megacorporations, must expect to lose. For instance, proprietary software developers are much more likely to be the victims of patents than to have a chance to use patents for aggression. Although I don't think proprietary software is ethically legitimate, it is a fact that developers of proprietary software are in the same danger from patents, and many of them know it.

    Then think of all the software that is neither free nor proprietary: private-use software, software developed for and used by one client. Most software is pri

    1. Re:Copy Right Infringement by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Informative

      This does not cover all of IBM's software patents, which must number in the thousands.

      Missing a zero somewhere?

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:Copy Right Infringement by byolinux · · Score: 2, Funny

      Copyright 2005 Richard Stallman
      Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved. ;)

    3. Re:Copy Right Infringement by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      FUD is a bad for both sides. Microsoft don't have any kind of history of using patents badly.

    4. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think the difference between IBM and Sun in this case is that IBM did not give us everything, but did not attempt to tell us that they were. Sun attempted to promote that they were giving more than they actually did.

      Thanks

      Bruce

    5. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Verbatim* copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted

      Parend did not infringe my article, you did.
      See you in GNU/Court.

      Anonymous RMS

    6. Re:Copy Right Infringement by freemacmini · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has sued lindows, Mike Rowe, spammers, cybersquatters, and many other people for other forms of intellectual property.

      Both Bill gates and Steve Ballmer have said they intend to sue people who violate their patents.

      If Gates and Ballmer have said they intend to sue then I think it's a safe bet they will.

    7. Re:Copy Right Infringement by vdthemyk · · Score: 1

      Agreed...IBM has attained over 3,000 patents annually for the last 12 years...They remain the only company with more than 2,000 patents in a single year, and they keep on doing it.

      --
      VD
    8. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Microsoft don't have any kind of history of using patents badly.

      Two counterexamples that spring to mind: Microsoft blocked alternative, compatible implementations of it's extended-FAT filesystem by patenting their long-filename technique. And also they attempted to block other people implementing decent LCD fonts by patenting a subpixel rendering technique that had been invented before Billy Gates even dropped out of college.

    9. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1, Troll

      Sigh.

      Show of hands: Who here is sick and tired of this "You gave us your property for free, but rather than being grateful we're going to be pissed off that you held something back for yourself" attitude?

      Is it just me?

    10. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Yes, but oddly enough many of those patents are *not* software related.

      Does IBM have *lots* of valid patents? Yes. On the order of 50,000, most likely (17 years*~3000 per year).

      However:

      Not all are software related - many are related to things like chip manufacture, device physics, etc., areas IBM still does tons of research in.

      Thousands is a good unit to measure in; they might have 10,000 software patents active, but they certainly don't have 100,000.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    11. Re:Copy Right Infringement by IronyChef · · Score: 1
      IBM has about 25,000 active patents in the U.S.

      For each of the past 12 years (1993-2004), IBM has been granted more U.S. patents than any other company. During that period IBM has received 29,021 US patents. In 2004, IBM received 3,248 U.S. patents.
      ...IBM's current active portfolio of about 25,000 patents in the United States and over 40,000 patents worldwide for inventions in areas of primary technology focus for all IBM customers...
    12. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      Leo,

      We're not bothered that they held something back. We're bothered that they lied about it. They said they were giving all of the Open Source developers access to their patent, and that wasn't the case, the Linux developers were cut out.

      Bruce

    13. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 0, Troll

      In your opinion they "lied" about it. Howzabout, in the name of intellectual honesty, you take a step back off that bold and, in my personal opinion, overly enthusiastic assertion? It would help defuse the "Gimme, gimme, gimme" public image that you people have cultivated ever so diligently over the past few years.

      Although, frankly, it won't help much. As long as your A-number-one spokesman is out there spewing crap like "Patent parasites don't really produce anything, they only suck the blood of those who do," you're going to have a massive PR problem.

      Apple is the world's most influential brand. Know why "Linux" isn't on that list? I mean, apart from the fact that "Linux" is so splintered that it doesn't really mean anything to most people? The problem lies entirely in public relations. You people need to send the message that you're about cooperation, about helping people, about excellence. You don't. You send the message that you're about the destruction of property rights that we've held as axiomatic for centuries.

      Personally, I think Linux is a pretty bad product that lacks any particular potential to become a good product. But that doesn't need to stand in the way of commercial success. There's a huge market niche that's just waiting to be filled by a mediocre, cheap product. The thing stopping Linux from being a huge, mediocre, cheap success isn't the product itself -- though that will have to be fixed. It's the branding.

      Right now, "Linux" is "Gimme gimme." That's gonna have to change. And you can start the process of changing it.

    14. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It would help defuse the "Gimme, gimme, gimme" public image that you people have cultivated ever so diligently over the past few years.

      You sound as if you are deliberately trying to be offensive. If you haven't noticed, we are the folks who have been creating software and giving it away with licenses designed to keep the software free for everyone and without the patent strings that Sun is imposing on the process. We just want the right to continue to give away our own work and have everyone use it as they please. The gimmie-gimmie-gimmie is coming from folks who think they have the right to own ideas and keep others from using those ideas.

      You send the message that you're about the destruction of property rights that we've held as axiomatic for centuries.

      You mean since approximately 1984. There was no software patenting before the court case that made it legal in the U.S.. Even the U.S. patent office thought it was a bad idea. You can't possibly be that ignorant of history. You must just be trolling.

      Bruce

    15. Re:Copy Right Infringement by njcoder · · Score: 1
      "We're bothered that they lied about it."

      I was reading the news today and saw a headline that read some guy cut out his mother's pacemaker. It got my attention and I read the story. Turns out the guy didn't actually kill his mom by cutting out her pacemaker as the headline led me to believe. He just cut it out after she died because he had problems with the manufacturer of it. I wouldn't say that the reporter/editor lied.

      In the first paragraph of their press release, they clearly define the relationship between the patents and the CDDL.

      The headline "Sun Grants Global Open Source Community Access to More than 1,600 Patents" is a bit misleading A) but technically not false and B) it's just a headline. According to Sun, they've had a pilot group of OpenSolaris developers working on the process (I think it was over 100), in addition to the 900 or so Sun engineers working on it. If those people are scattered throghout the world, saying "Global Open Source Community" is technically accurate though not what one might expect.

      Now, you're a smart enough guy to understand what a headline is, but from your posts on the past few articles relating to OpenSolaris, I'd say you're just here bashing Sun. You might have a couple of personal interests in doing so.

      In the previous article, you kept making reference to Sun suing linux as if it was something they were just waiting to do. Nothing they've done so far indicates they would do that. Just because they said they won't use their patents against CDDL'd OpenSolaris doesn't imply they WILL use their patents against other operating systems as you were implying. I call FUD.

      Just look here. Sun: Patent use OK beyond Solaris project

      The server and software company clarified its position somewhat on Monday. "Clearly we have no intention of suing open-source developers," said Tom Goguen, head of Solaris marketing. However, he added, "We haven't put together a fancy pledge on our Web site" to that effect.
      Sun also indemnifies JDS users from the copyright and patent claims of others. It does this for Solaris as well.

      Maybe your posts on this topic have to do with scaring people enough to call OSRM or maybe it's the threat to linux that an open source solaris might have.

      Solaris is probably has the most market share out of all the commercial unixes. Having it become open source as well as in free to aquire might seem like a threat to linux. Personally, I believe that each has a different development model that's diverse enough that they make sense in different areas even though there is quite a bit of overlap.

    16. Re:Copy Right Infringement by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Yes, but oddly enough many of those patents are *not* software related.

      Neither are Microsoft's

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    17. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You sound as if you are deliberately trying to be offensive.

      That's okay. You sound, as usual, as if you're deliberately trying to be condescending. You don't hold mine against me and I won't hold yours against you.

      The gimmie-gimmie-gimmie is coming from folks who think they have the right to own ideas and keep others from using those ideas.

      Well, that's kind of implicit in any culture that accepts the right to own property, isn't it? I understand where you are and where you want to go, but this isn't the right way to get there. (Nor, in my opinion, is the destination someplace you really want to go ...which kind of raises the question of why I'm offering my input. Oh, well. I've never pretended to make a whole lot of sense, even to myself.)

      Here's the world you live in: People own things. Ownership is both accepted and considered virtuous. To come out against ownership is, in a nutshell, to come out against mom and apple pie. It's a complete non-starter from a PR point of view. It's not going to make you any friends.

      If you want to win people over, play to your strengths. Talk about the virtue of collaboration. When people question you about why you oppose property rights, don't tell them! Nobody is interested in hearing about why you oppose property rights. "Why do you oppose property rights?" is code for "Please tell me that you don't oppose property rights."

      Here's the right answer in this situation: "We strongly support the right to own property and to do whatever one wants with one's property. Sun has been a great innovator, generating thousands of new and unique ideas. We congratulate Sun for their achievement, and we thank them for offering the use of their property to others free of charge. We are a little bit concerned about the fact that" ... blah blah blah.

      See? See the difference between that approach and "anybody who holds a patent is a blood-sucker who should be burned at the stake?"

      There was no software patenting before the court case that made it legal in the U.S.

      I guess you're talking about Diamond v. Diehr, 1981. In that case, the Supreme Court ordered the PTO to grant a patent for an invention that included a computer program. Before that case, the PTO had held that computer programs were more like mathematical algorithms than machines, so they could not be patented. In Diamond, the high court recognized the absurdity of that position and ordered the PTO to change the rules.

      More important, though, I think you're either unclear on or deliberately choosing to misrepresent the role of the courts. A court cannot "make anything legal." That's strictly the job of the legislature ...and technically, not even they can do that. The legislature is empowered only to prohibit, not to allow. All the courts can do is interpret the laws. In Diamond, the high court told the PTO that their rules were not in accordance with their charter under the law as passed by Congress.

      You see, patents on computer programs were always legal. The PTO was misinterpreting complex computer programs, and illegally choosing to deny patents on them.

      You make it sound like there was a law prohibiting the patenting of a computer program, and that the Supreme Court struck it down. This is not correct, and it seriously misinterprets the truth of the situation. That's also a disaster from a PR point of view. The buying public doesn't take kindly to folks who bend the truth in order to persuade the people to buy what they're selling.

    18. Re:Copy Right Infringement by benrockwood · · Score: 1

      Why make this more than it is? Its all a matter of which direction you look at this from. As a pilot member I can assure you that there has been no talk of the 1600 patents previous to the announcement. The CDDL was carefully crafted to provide for the needs of everyone. The patent issue is really just a secondary point that has become a marketing talking for the Sun PR core.

      Notice, in the CDDL, section 2.1b releaves the contributor of "Patent Claims infringed by the making, using or selling of Original Software, to make, have made, use, practice, sell, and offer for sale, and/or otherwise dispose of the Original Software (or portions thereof)."

      As so many folks have pointed out, you can't open the source to Solaris with so many patents in it and then restrict the ability for a contributor to utilize those patents, so they delt with this issue directly in the CDDL. This was widely discussed both inside and outside of Sun, and something everyone was careful about. When the PR core started tossing around this 1,600 number last week it took a lot of people by surprise and discarded many of us who don't care if it's 5 patents or 50,000 patents, it's all the same to us.

      This is a case of Sun trying to please both the community ("OpenSolaris licensed by the CDDL, an OSI approved license based on MPL!") and wall street ("1600 Patents for use!").

      Sun has no interest in pulling a MS/SCO move and just start suing people. Sun is thankfully the kind of company that would contact you and discuss a problem if there was one before just mailing out a court order.

      Is Sun making too much hooplah about the patents? I think so, but thats what PR depts do, for better or worse. Sun isn't saying that their giving away ALL the patents, just the ones related to the code in OpenSolaris, which is just what we need.

      benr. [OpenSolaris community member, NOT a Sun employee]

    19. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      Well, that's kind of implicit in any culture that accepts the right to own property, isn't it?

      No. Our society has decided to throw off certain forms of property ownership. For example, we had a legal institution of slave ownership, and a civil war when Southern states felt that the Northern-dominated government acted illegally to restrict their property ownership. [Civil war buffs, I know there were other reasons too.]

      It's moot that the legislature is only allowed to prohibit, not to allow. Indeed so moot I don't understand why you would bring it up except to obfuscate. In the absence of prohibition, all is legal. In the presence of prohibition, the legislature or courts act to make something legal by removing a prohibition. They do not in general go back and reverse all prior verdicts and administrative actions when they do so, and so we have the situation that an action generally held to be illegal becomes legal as a result of a court finding.

      There was a combination of law and policy of the institution that grants the legal monopoly of the patent that made software patenting illegal until some 20 years ago. This is not an ancient property law embedded in tradition.

      Bruce

    20. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Yes, and if you read that, you'd realize it wasn't their patent, and was only assigned to them by mistake, and that they relinquished the patent to the proper owner almost immediately.

      Also, it has nothing to do with my point - IBM's patent portfolio is not anywhere near as huge as people seem to think. Big? Yes. But not hundreds of thousands big, not active.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    21. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      I am positively stunned. I know I shouldn't be. I know I should be more cynical than this. But I'm absolutely shocked that you would have the audacity to compare patents to slavery.

      It seems like every time I turn around, there's another blinding example of why Linux is in the middle of a PR crisis. Making such utterly absurd comparisons in public isn't helping, okay? You really, really have to cut that out unless you want to be just another piece of historical trivia, yet another failed venture, yet another "where are they now?"

    22. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Bruce, you obviously have an agenda against Sun. The CDDL and the whole 1600 patents deal isn't even a month old, yet you are out shouting from the mountain how evil Sun is. Your immediate reaction to start bad-mouthing Sun shows just how important it is to you to get the FUD out early and in volume. You know how many people at Slashdot take logical falicies, like appeals to authority, seriously, and you are taking full advantage of this. Please stop it before this whole issue backfires on you.

    23. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      You're arguing with a guy who thinks he's the Chief of Staff off of West Wing ;)

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    24. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Leo,

      Saying you are stunned is a rhetorical device. And you're doing it wrong, anyway. Try this way:

      I am stunned, stunned that you...

      It's important to italicize the second one. It gives it that breathless sort of flavor.

      Slavery was the first one I thought of, and certainly it's the most obvious sort of property ownership that is held to be offensive these days but in an earlier day was legal, and socially acceptable - indeed the ownership of many slaves was held to be a sign of high social status at one time. As a society, we've grown up since then. But we still have much growing to do.

      No doubt there are hundreds of forms of property ownership that our society has chosen to prohibit, limit, or tax.

      So, your claim that software patents can wear some sort of mantle of virtue that is accorded to property ownership is bogus.

      In fact, I am stunned, stunned, that you even hold such an opinion. :-)

      Bruce

    25. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Saying you are stunned is a rhetorical device.

      It's also a really excellent way to communicate that I'm, you know, stunned.

      (Remember that "you're deliberately being condescending" thing? I promised not to hold it against you. It's only fair to let you know that I'm no longer sure I can keep that promise.)

      No doubt there are hundreds of forms of property ownership that our society has chosen to prohibit, limit, or tax.

      Not a good way to be persuasive. It's about image, remember? First you got everybody all concerned by saying that you weren't down with property. Then you royally pissed everybody off by invoking slavery. (Why is it always the rich white guys who invoke slavery?) And now you're trying to hand-wave it away by trivializing slavery, by saying that it's just one example among many equivalent examples.

      Seriously, I'm offering you advice here: This is a public-affairs disaster. It's a world-ender. Cut it out right now.

      You're trying to sell something here. You're trying to persuade people to swallow your idea. You're not going about it in a very persuasive way.

      Bottom line: Property is a good thing. People have good feelings about property. When you say "property," people think about buying their first house, or when they paid off their first car loan. Owning things gives people a sense of satisfaction, and being an owner of something is a position that commands the respect of one's peers. This is how things work.

      Now, you could get uppity and try to argue that this isn't civilized or something. And I don't mean "could" in the hypothetical sense. I mean you, personally, enjoy that capacity. But it's not a good way to make friends. Telling people that their opinions are primitive or unenlightened is a good way to alienate one's audience.

      People want to own ideas because creating ideas is hard work for most people. The only people who think ideas shouldn't be owned are either individuals who have never had a good idea themselves or people who are so blessed with an excess of creativity that they aren't aware that most people don't find it so easy. The first group of people are moochers and slackers, and the second group are just insufferable. So don't associate yourself in public with either.

      You might try to appeal to people's sense of community, but that word has kind of been poisoned by your peers over the past few years. People have started to refer to this community and that community, when what they're really talking about is groups of people joined together for a common purpose. We already have a word for that -- company --but some have rejected this word because it's hard to advance an anti-capitalist agenda while calling yourself a word that is a loose synonym for a business concern. These people have adopted the word "community" instead, but they don't really mean a community. They mean a company. So the whole word has kind of been spoiled in this context.

      Don't say "collective," either, because that's even worse than "community."

      Instead, try using the word collaboration. Instead of talking about the evils of property, talk about the virtue of collaboration. Another good, positive word is transparency. You can use these words together, by saying that transparency helps collaboration.

      So when you want to say "Sun is evil because they're greedy and they should just give all their property to us for free," try saying this instead: "We admire Sun's ingenuity, but we're a little concerned about their lack of transparency. If they were to make their business a little more transparent, everybody would benefit from the collaboration that would result. By choosing not to adopt a philosophy of transparency, Sun is passing up an opportunity to create new, valuable partnerships."

      See? You can be positive, pro-innovation and pro-business while getting your message out at the same time. It's really not that hard. You just have to (1) stop being so strident and (2) get that Stallman guy to shut the hell up, like, forever and ever. 'Cause seriously, every time he publishes and article, you guys really take a beating in the court of public opinion.

    26. Re:Copy Right Infringement by argoff · · Score: 1
      I am positively stunned. I know I shouldn't be. I know I should be more cynical than this. But I'm absolutely shocked that you would have the audacity to compare patents to slavery.

      I'm stunned. Ne never said patents were slavery, he said it was a bullshit property like slavery - you shouldn't fall for the bullshit logic, just because an institution calls something a property right, doesn't mean that it is does it?

    27. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      Oh, so you think I'm an anti-capitalist. When I was too young to take care of my own money. Actually, I used to be an ante-capitalist. Then I was a venture capitalist. See my resume. Now I'm not a venture capitaist any longer, so perhaps I'm an ad-venture-capitalist. I also own pieces of software companies here and there. Hm, that's property, isn't it? I must be a very virtuous person. I publish books for money, in fact I publish books with Open Source texts, and still make money on them. I must be some sort of gimme-gimme-gimme, cause there's certainly no other way to do that. And I am on the board of an insurance company. Definitely a pinko commie fag, nobody else would sit on the board of directors of an insurance company!

      Bruce

    28. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      We're not arguing. It's just contradiction :-)

    29. Re:Copy Right Infringement by argoff · · Score: 1

      Bottom line: Property is a good thing. People have good feelings about property. When you say "property," people think about buying their first house, or when they paid off their first car loan. Owning things gives people a sense of satisfaction, and being an owner of something is a position that commands the respect of one's peers. This is how things work.

      Bottom line. It is not property. People do have good and just feelings about property, and that's why they use dishonest terms like "intellectual property" instead of more accurate terms like "private coerced monopoly". Yes buying my property was very fufilling, but please feel free to COPY my landscape onto your property any time. Somehow, I think my plants will still be there in the morning!

      People want to own ideas because creating ideas is hard work for most people. The only people who think ideas shouldn't be owned are either individuals who have never had a good idea themselves or people who are so blessed with an excess of creativity that they aren't aware that most people don't find it so easy. The first group of people are moochers and slackers, and the second group are just insufferable. So don't associate yourself in public with either

      Well, lets hear the great ideas that you've worked your ass off for. The only people who want patents are the ones who want to sit on their ass for ideas were happening anyhow and collect royalities for it. Somehow I doubt you made the next E=mc^2, or invented something as valuable as say calculus. I hope your inventions don't use math (unless you paid the royalities), smoocher!

    30. Re:Copy Right Infringement by HanB · · Score: 1

      I also think that Sun never would have done anything of sort if IBM didn't give them a bright example.

    31. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you are not "the folks" because GPL software which has patents cannot be distributed in any other licence than GPL. No matter even if I re-write it 100% - the patents still apply to my code. Just exactly like CDDL.

      Except that at least in my opinion CDDL is "better" than GPL.

    32. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Oh, so you think I'm an anti-capitalist.

      It doesn't really matter what I think. It's about public opinion. And yeah, the association of you people with the anti-capitalist faction is pretty strong in the public eye. It's understandable, considering your most vocal advocate says things in print like "patent holders that the enemy of everyone," don't you think? Seriously, if I were your publicist, I'd have that guy duct-taped to a chair whenever there's a reporter anywhere within five miles.

      The rest of your comment seemed to just be defensive blather. Also not good for the biz, you know? Besides, it's a shame. It seemed for a second there that we had an actual dialogue going --you know, beyond your really distasteful arrogance. But I guess it was just a passing thing.

      If, in ten years, somebody posts an "anybody remember Linux?" article on the Internet, will you be surprised?

    33. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Bottom line. It is not property.

      I don't really think that "la la la la I can't hear you" is a good way to persuade people to adopt your point of view. If you want to convince people to stop thinking of the product of their own labor as their property, you're gonna have to be a little more persuasive than this. Because, see, ideas are property. They are because people agree that they are. If you want to change that status quo, you're gonna have to change it. Just sitting there with your fingers in your ears isn't gonna do anything.

      Well, lets hear the great ideas that you've worked your ass off for.

      I don't think I've ever had a great idea. I had one idea that I thought was great, about five years ago. It turned out I was mistaken. I had an idea in late 2003 that I thought was pretty good, and it's allowed me to make a living for a bit more than a year now, so it must be at least okay, but I wouldn't go so far as to say great.

      But see, you kinda missed my point. My point -- which, silly me, I thought was crystal-clear--was that only people who don't recognize the value of ideas are opposed to patents. You don't recognize the value of ideas, obviously, because you say that "ideas were happening anyhow." After I poured over this for many hours trying to translate it into English, I gathered that you believe that ideas just happen. Not that people spend their whole lives trying to create them, not that they're the product of years of intense labor, but rather that they just happen.Therefore they have no value to you. Which, you know ... kinda illustrates my point.

      I hope your inventions don't use math (unless you paid the royalities), smoocher!

      You mean "moocher." To "smooch" means to kiss. And while I do think you're a very attractive guy who'll make somebody a wonderful husband someday, I'm just not that into you.

    34. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      The blather was meant to convey that I was not taking you seriously. To understand why, let's revisit what you suggested I say in a PR statement

      We admire Sun's ingenuity, but we're a little concerned about their lack of transparency. If they were to make their business a little more transparent, everybody would benefit from the collaboration that would result. By choosing not to adopt a philosophy of transparency, Sun is passing up an opportunity to create new, valuable partnerships.

      Having read that, I have two choices. One is to believe that you are being sarcastic and you really do know better. But you write things like that consistently enough that I don't believe that's the case. What I am left with is the belief that you know nothing of my own success in doing PR for this movement over some years, and the fact that my success is due to the fact that I don't communicate in the manner you espouse.

      Bruce

    35. Re:Copy Right Infringement by argoff · · Score: 1

      I don't really want to persuade you. But you are basically trying to say that you have a right to "pounce" me if I use ideas you think are "yours". Excuse me if I tell you go to hell. Ideas are not property. And property's are not created by "people agreeing", physical property has natural limits on supply and demand wether people agree on it or not. Non tangable things don't wether people agree on it or not. Having physical property deprives another person use of that same property wether they agree to it or not, non tangable things do not - agreement or not.

      You can talk about property all you want, I don't need to convince you. I can leverage these facts to my advantage, like it or not, "agreement" (if you want to call it that) or not.

      No I got your point christal clear. You didn't get mine - you get allot more works, ideas, and information freely given to you then you put out no matter who you are. It's disengenuious to sujest that the only people who don't care about owning ideas are the cone who aren't "blessed with creativity". Turnarround was fair play.

    36. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      The blather was meant to convey that I was not taking you seriously.

      No, really? I thought it was just you being your usual self. Oh, wait. It seems we were both right.

      you know nothing of my own success in doing PR for this movement over some years

      Well, if the shoe fits, Bruce. The "movement" (ugh, a term even worse than "community" in connotation) is wildly unpopular among computer buyers, the product is failing to gain mindshare, the brand has lost all its luster among the partisan in-fighting between the Gnu people and the Red Hat people and the Fedora people and these people and those people, and now you've managed to remind Sun --and, by extension, every other company that had ideas about doing business with you -- that the only safe course of action is to stay far, far away. The momentum is gone, man. Poof. Casper.

      If this is your idea of a PR success, I'd really hate to see what you consider PR failure.

      But tell you what. You go back to believing that you know best and that everybody else is an idiot. If that makes you happy, who am I to stand in the way?

    37. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm the it guy for a small law practice. we've got three win servers and i was thinking about trying to use linux instead.

      but you convinced me not to. iv'e never seen such a smug son of a bitch before in m ylife. i don't want to have anything to do with anything you have anything to do with.

      god, just reading what you write makes me feel like i need a shower. you're a dick.

    38. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      But you are basically trying to say that you have a right to "pounce" me if I use ideas you think are "yours".

      I think you meant "sue," and the answer is "yes."

      Excuse me if I tell you go to hell.

      It doesn't really matter what you tell me. It matters what you tell a judge when you get sued for copyright, trademark or patent infringement. I think he's going to find "go to hell" to be a singularly unacceptable defense.

      Ideas are not property.

      Some are. Inventions are property. Writings are property. Music is property. Et cetera.

      physical property has natural limits on supply and demand

      So do some kinds of ideas. If I have an invention and you want to use it, there's a supply-and-demand situation right there. If I have a written work and you want to read it, that's supply-and-demand. I think the word you're grasping for here is "scarcity," which is just fancy economist talk for "some folks have it and some folks don't." It applies to ideas just like it applies to anything else.

      Having physical property deprives another person use

      Not always. I can own land, but my ownership of that land doesn't deprive anybody of its use. It's not like I can roll the land up and carry it away with me. You can walk right across it if you want to. You can even climb over the fence if you're so motivated. I can't stop you.

      But we still consider land to be property.

      I can leverage these facts to my advantage

      How's that?

      No I got your point christal clear.

      Your grammar and spelling are getting worse and worse. Are you getting slowly drunk over there? Or are you just getting irritable?

      It's disengenuious to sujest that the only people who don't care about owning ideas are the cone who aren't "blessed with creativity". Turnarround was fair play.

      Hm. I'm gonna guess "drunk" here.

    39. Re:Copy Right Infringement by 808140 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Judging by the eloquence with which you both write, it seems unfortunate that your conversation should regress into this sort of competition-to-see-who-can-be-the-most-condescendi ng thing.

      Of course I'm just a nameless number on a message board so I won't deceive myself about the import of my opinion in all this. But as reasonably impartial third party, it seems to me, Leo, that for all your talk about Bruce being condescending, you're the one that is maligning your own position with your heavy hand.

      Now, I won't deny that some of what you've said has been insightful, but consider: you've phrased virtually every response to Bruce in this thread as if you were a professor in public relations. Some of the points you've made -- regarding phrasing things in a way that makes them appealing to someone who would otherwise be hostile to your platform -- are true, from a PR perspective, and I believe I should know, as PR is my profession (though in semiconductor manufacturing, not software). But the way in which you attempt to lecture Bruce makes you seem like the intellectual blowhard, when it seems that you desperately want to make him seem that way.

      Furthermore, while some of your comments on, for example, business hostility to RMS's platform are unarguably true, your attempt to marginalize Linux, of all things, is just laughable! I'm going to talk from a completely business-oriented perspective here, and say with absolute confidence: Linux is, in the minds of today's IT-savvy businesspeople, the next big thing. That's why adverts for Linux-based solutions are popping up everywhere; that's why companies like IBM and Novell are pumping more money than you or I will make in a lifetime into it. It is seen by many, many knowledgeable people as the future, and by many companies as a serious threat.

      Its future is not certain -- Bruce, ironically, has been making posts exactly to that effect throughout this story -- but to think that you could seriously imply that in 10 years Linux will be relegated to anything as trivial as an "Anyone remember Linux?" one-liner on a future message board is just silly.

      I'm not sure that GNU has been a PR success, and it's quite likely that this is exactly for the reasons you enumerated. But Linux? Come on, be serious. It's a tremendous success. Everyone is talking about it. It's gaining mindshare at a tremendous rate. Non-technical people know the word, even if they don't know what it means. It runs much of the internet we use everyday. It's a tremendous, phenomenal success, whether you agree with its idealogy or not.

      Further, there's much more to a "company" than a group of people united with a common goal -- someone with as sophisticated a vocabulary as yourself must be aware of this. A company has the distinctive implication of a group of people united with a common goal, certainly -- a goal that involves making money. Otherwise, Médecins Sans Frontières, Greenpeace, the Libertarian party -- all would be companies! Your definition is so wide as to be useless.

      Community, movement, collective -- they have their good points and their bad points, all of them, because of the feelings they give the people that hear them. Company is like this as well -- ultra-capitalists especially are wary of companies, knowing full well that they (rightly) owe nothing to anyone but themselves.

      Public relations is all about giving the public the impression you want them to have. In this game, audience is everything. Bruce is not talking to a bunch of suits looking to buy his product -- he's preaching to the choir. Most everyone here agrees with him (exceptions noted). Therefore, there is no reason for him to go around sounding like a PR flak.

      Bruce, I've always been impressed with how tempered you manage to sound, but it seems to me that you let Leo push your buttons a little bit too much in this thread, and it did make you come off as

    40. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1


      "If you want to convince people to stop thinking of the product of their own labor as their property, you're gonna have to be a little more persuasive than this."

      Ah, but you see, it is exactly what the pro-patent people do, they say that the product of your own labour is not your property because they did the same (similar) labor themselves and got the same (similar) product.

      So the difference is between telling 99 people that the product of their labor is not theirs AT ALL (because the 1st of 100 patented it and they can't use it anymore) and telling 100 people that the product of their labors is not theirs EXCLUSIVELY (they can still use it but so can everyone else).

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    41. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1


      No problem. Either using Linux (or BSD...) gives you a competitive advantage to a company or it does not.

      If it does, the companies using it are more likely to survive than those not using it (given other variables are the same) and so in the long run your company is less likely to survive due to your refusal to use it and it not using it won't be a problem when it goes under.

      If it does not, then given that you don't seem to care about the Freedom coming with Linux then using Windows is just as good a choice for you.

      In other word, don't choose your platform because of your like or dislike of some of tis users, use it if it gives you something you need and/or want (better performance, scalability, more Freedom to switch provider,...).

      And if you don't want to have anything to do with Linux because of Bruce you might want to try FreeBSD or Darwin/MacOSX instead, so if your Windows system is down due to a virus/crash/... at a crucial point in a case you do have an alternative to fall back on.

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    42. Re:Copy Right Infringement by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      I thought the latter was apple?

    43. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree about the pinko commie fag part.

    44. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      As I understand the article, it is a case of
      "You gave us a license that makes for good marketing on your part, but does not really protect us from lawsuits if you change your mind tomorrow"
      So the beef is not with "not sharing" as such, but with making empty promises.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    45. Re:Copy Right Infringement by vdthemyk · · Score: 1

      I agree it's not as big as most would want to believe. However, IBM's main focus (from what I can see) has been and probably always will be in developing new hardware to run software. Most of their software pillars are developed, but were originally purchased from ISV's and are now rebranded with the IBM name. They do this on hardware as well, but usually with things like adapter cards and memory. They seem to have an endless supply of very talented engineers in their R&D dept. (too bad none of them can get to actually work in tech support!) and always come up with new and inovative ways of increasing hardware efficiency. Check out the Power5 processor when you get a chance. I still can't believe the jump that IBM has made in that market!

      --
      VD
    46. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Rion+Wulfe · · Score: 1

      This whole 'discussion' reminds me of the saying about people never being able to convince another of a viewpoint, unless they already have that viewpoint. Both of you are stating your own views... I'm not 100% sure either is trying to understand where the other is comming from... However, I do feel more sincerety from Bruce. Leo often uses the word 'condescending' and 'arrogant', when infact, he is the one displaying these features the most. Pot calling the kettle black, and all that. However, thank you both for an interesting read. There's a lot of food for thought in this thread, once you wade through all of the mudslinging.

      Also to note, Leo, when trying to convince others that your position is the correct one, you might not wish to insult them left and right. Your own PR skills seem to need some brushing up. However, we won't hold that against you.

      I give this movie only 1/2 a thumb up, because the plotline was obvious. ;)

      Rion Wulfe

    47. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Ah, but you see, it is exactly what the pro-patent people do, they say that the product of your own labour is not your property because they did the same (similar) labor themselves and got the same (similar) product.

      First of all, patents are by definition granted for inventions that aren't obvious. Your assertion that 100 people could all simultaneously invent the same thing that works in the same way is absurd.

      But aside from that, if it did happen that Person A were to create an invention and get a patent, then Person B were to invent the exact same thing independently, nobody would say that Person B didn't own his invention. It's just that he didn't get there first, which means he couldn't use his invention until Person A's patent expired.

      Now, here's why that never, ever happens: When you get a patent, you have to send in a detailed description of your invention. That description goes into a database. When Person B starts working on an invention, he goes forth and does a patent search to see if anybody has gotten there before him. When he finds Person A's patent and realizes that he's been beaten to it, he decides to invest his labor in inventing something else instead, maybe in materially improving Person A's invention.

      And thus is progress advanced.

      So two things: One, you don't understand how patents work, and two, you don't understand that patents are actually beneficial because they help people to avoid duplicating other people's effort.

    48. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      I'm not really interested in the "you aren't deferential enough to the big, important man" parts of your comment. Skipping them (and there were lots) to talk about the actual subject matter at hand.

      Linux is, in the minds of today's IT-savvy businesspeople, the next big thing.

      It was the "next big thing" five years ago, and it's the "next big thing" today, and it'll be the "next big thing" five years hence, and everybody is starting to realize it.

      Embedded systems companies already know that Linux is death. TiVo, a company that based its business around the use of Linux in their video recorders, has yet to turn a profit. Why? Because the first thing oh so many of their customers do is to hack their products to remove the necessity of subscribing to TiVo's service. The "give away the razors and sell the blades" business model has failed for TiVo because people have gone out and built their own blades. Plus ten points for ingenuity, minus several million for business sense.

      A product can only be "the next big thing" for so long before it's recognized as vaporware. While there are some environments where Linux is a good alternative today --SGI is putting Linux on supercomputers, ILM is using Linux for single-purpose compositing workstations that basically don't need an OS at all, Web hosting companies like it because it's cheap --it's just not useful for general-purpose computers or servers. It was supposed to be taking over the desktop by now; it's not. Products like Open Office, which were lauded with such enthusiasm just a couple of years ago, have turned out to be a flop, cheaper but less useful by far than Office.

      Meanwhile, the TCO of the Mac has just fallen and fallen. For a small-business or home computer user, Linux isn't even on the radar. The exuberant enthusiasm of the late 90s --Gnome and Eazel and all that -- has just evaporated in the harsh light of the free market.

      There comes a time when being the "next big thing" isn't enough. For Linux, that time was about a year ago.

      It's a tremendous success.

      Um, no. Apple is a tremendous success. Their profits for the quarter ending 12/25/04 were up 400 percent over the same quarter the previous year. That's what "tremendous success" means: actually moving units. No Linux venture has been a "tremendous success."

      Everyone is talking about it.

      Everyone used to be talking about it. Now everyone is talking about why Apple and even Microsoft -- albeit at a much slower pace -- have delivered on their promises, while Linux has never delivered on any of its promises. Linux today occupies basically the same niche it occupied three years ago: Web servers and single-purpose desktops, cash registers and embedded personal electronics, and it's vanishing from the single-purpose desktop as it falls behind on applications, and it's disappearing from embedded personal electronics as vendors learn "the TiVo lesson." It hasn't grown at all. It hasn't broken any new ground. Hell, it hasn't even broken any old ground. Basic ease-of-use features that have been around for years are still mysteries on Linux. Core applications are still lacking. All promise and no delivery, all sizzle and no steak.

      Non-technical people know the word, even if they don't know what it means.

      Yes, but not in a good way. To the non-IT mind, Linux means "that thing that sank TiVo," or "that thing that everybody is getting sued over." Linux is that thing that everybody was talking about but that now is really only useful for Web servers and cash registers. Linux is that thing that I was supposed to be using by now. Linux is made by that guy who said that anybody who owns a patent is a blood-sucker who's a parasite on society. These are not good brand associations.

      Otherwise, Médecins Sans Frontières, Greenpeace, the Libertarian party -- all would be companies!

      They are. Look the word up. You have to get all the way down to definitio

    49. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Either using Linux (or BSD...) gives you a competitive advantage to a company or it does not.


      no, its not that simple. my company spends more on golf-club-memberships than it spends on computers. it doesn't matter one way or another what kind of computer they buy. i wanted to try linux because i don't like m$, but after reading this thread, i don't like linux either. you people are just a bunch of gerks. especially the people like you who talk about FREEdom with a capital F. you are so full of yourselfs, its disgusting.

      as soon as i got into the office this morning, i called apple. the sales man was really nice. he didn't try to tell me how stupid i am or how i'm not politicaly correct or anything. he just offered to send me an xserver for free for as long as i wanted it so i can see if its going to work in my office. its going to be here on thursday.

      bye bye linux. i want to change to a platform that gives me less headaches, not more.
    50. Re:Copy Right Infringement by argoff · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really matter what you tell me. It matters what you tell a judge when you get sued for copyright, trademark or patent infringement. I think he's going to find "go to hell" to be a singularly unacceptable defense.

      And theres your problem, right there, your version of the real world is defined by what a judge or a legal system says instead of what is. Good thing it's not 1000 years back, or you might be wanting to burn me at the stake for saying the earth goes arround the Sun. Maybe someday you'll figure out that you're and "the judges" version of reality is gonna half to change allot longer before mine does.

      Reguarding physical property vs the non physical. You can play semantics games all you want, the reality is they are different by any measuremnet - and you are trying to treat them like they are the same. The emperor has no clothes!

      Hows that?

      You're a lwayer, aren't you? By rejecting bullshit licenses like the CDDL, and embracing ones like the GPL for starters.

      Hm. I'm gonna guess "drunk" here

      No, I'm actually one of those "creative" people you keep talking about. I create art, I create literature, and I create a lot of code. In fact, alot of it had been copyrighted, and even some of the physical side of that I interface with is patented. You're the one that's drunk and dissilusioned. Nobody in the industries that create get copyrights and patents for property sake, they get them to protect from frivolus lawsuits or to get agreements not to be sue'd from other companies by cross-licensing or to have leverage to counter-sue when attacked. You really don't get it, they have nothing to do with property - they have to do with keeping people from competing. Now Sun doesn't want to compete head on with the x86 hardware space where Linux is taking over, I don't blame them, but I would advise not to expect me or anyone else who is rational to go along with it.

    51. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      your version of the real world is defined by what a judge or a legal system says instead of what is

      We're talking about the law. The law is defined as --surprise! --what a judge or legal system says it is. I don't think "I'm smarter than all the lawyers and lawmakers and judges everywhere, nyaah" is going to win a lot of people over to your side.

      Good thing it's not 1000 years back, or you might be wanting to burn me at the stake for saying the earth goes arround the Sun.

      Yes, great idea. Compare yourself to Galileo. That's not a wild misrepresentation of the truth. "Eppur si muove" and all that. Bravo.

      You can play semantics games all you want, the reality is they are different by any measuremnet - and you are trying to treat them like they are the same.

      This coffee cup is as different from a plot of land as can be. The cup was made; the land just is. The cup can be taken from one place to another; the land doesn't move. The cup can be used to hold or carry things; the land just sits there. They are "different by any measuremnet" ...and yet they are both property.

      You're a lwayer, aren't you?

      No, I'm not a "lwayer." I'm not sure where you got that idea.

      By rejecting bullshit licenses like the CDDL, and embracing ones like the GPL for starters.

      I don't follow you. How does that translate into "leveraging these facts to your advantage?"

      create art, I create literature, and I create a lot of code. In fact, alot of it had been copyrighted

      All of it is copyrighted. Everything that's written or recorded is protected by copyright from the moment it's created to the time that the legal protection expires.

      Nobody in the industries that create get copyrights and patents for property sake, they get them to protect from frivolus lawsuits or to get agreements not to be sue'd from other companies by cross-licensing or to have leverage to counter-sue when attacked.

      Um. No. Companies get patents because they want to recover the investment that went into creating their invention. That's the motivation for a business to get a patent: It's to secure a temporary monopoly on the production of a certain thing. That's how we encourage people to go off and invest a ton of time creating new and wonderful inventions, you see: by promising to pay them back for their effort.

      You really don't get it, they have nothing to do with property - they have to do with keeping people from competing.

      I don't really see how "I'm gonna take somebody else's idea without paying him for it" could be described as "competing," but what the hell. You're the "creative" one. I'm just some guy. Obviously you know best.

      Hey, it looks like I might have been wrong about the "You're getting drunk" thing. It's entirely possible that you're just illiterate instead. You know, that kinda makes me suspect that you were lying about the whole "I create literature" thing. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that you're able to create a proper sentence, much less anything that could reasonably be called literature.

    52. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      I thought the latter was apple?

      Apple was the original owner of a patent which Microsoft attempted to abuse.

    53. Re:Copy Right Infringement by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      It was the "next big thing" five years ago, and it's the "next big thing" today, and it'll be the "next big thing" five years hence, and everybody is starting to realize it.

      You see the Linux world through the press releases of Linux-based companies. I suppose I should say "for-profit" companies. At any rate, I'm of the mind that Linux will succeed because of the process behind it. For the last five years, Linux has been progressing really quickly. Every year, more and more companies decide that Linux is now ready for a certain part of their IT infrastructure. It's getting put on desktops. It's been in the back office. Linux-related sales have gone from the couple millions to the couple billions. Companies that switch to Linux save lots of money. The real issues keeping most companies from switching to Linux on their desktops are that they have already invested a lot of capital in their existing Windows setup, and they can't read Office documents reliably without Microsoft Office.

      Everyone used to be talking about it. Now everyone is talking about why Apple and even Microsoft -- albeit at a much slower pace -- have delivered on their promises, while Linux has never delivered on any of its promises.

      Linux never made a promise. "For profit" companies might have, but they are not in charge of Linux. This comment reeks of trying to understand Linux from the perspective of Linux being "yet another software company," which it is not. Not even "failed promises" could keep Linux from progressing, because it doesn't require capital for growth, just interest and mindshare. Which it has.

      Linux cannot be defeated by any competing business model. If Linux never had corporate backing, it would still exist. Only litigation poses any kind of threat, and only because the cost to defend oneself against companies like SCO is too much for an independent developer to handle. You don't actually think SCO has a legitimate case, do you?

      Yes, but not in a good way. To the non-IT mind, Linux means "that thing that sank TiVo," or "that thing that everybody is getting sued over."

      This depends on who you talk to. The invalidity of your argument, however, does not.

      Linux is made by that guy who said that anybody who owns a patent is a blood-sucker who's a parasite on society. These are not good brand associations.

      RMS's analogy is restricted to software patents and companies like SCO who rely on litigation of such patents as a means of income. You are more than welcome to read why he said what he said and determine if you agree with him or not, and state why you feel that way. You have neglected to do so. Your entire argument seems to be that advocates of "Linux" (which Stallman is not, by the way) should do more to appeal to certain corporate "sentiments." Again, "Linux" doesn't have to. People that sell Linux to companies do, however, and I think you'll find they tow a completely different party line than RMS.

      I guess you don't understand how the Internet works.

      It is understood that someone's personal opinions shared with others in a casual conversation needn't use the same language as someone would use in a business setting. I guess you don't understand how the...actually, I don't want to stoop to that level.

      Besides, the far bigger problem is that Stallman guy, who actually had the blinding lack of good sense to write a published op-ed in which he accused people who own patents of being parasites. Guess what, ya dumbass: People who own patents are your customers. You just went out there and called a million of your own customers blood-sucking parasites. On what planet is this considered anything other than commercial suicide?

      Again, Stallman doesn't need to curry favor with other companies and businessmen because he isn't in the business of selling Linux. Not even in the "broad" term of trying to get more people to use it. His primary goal

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    54. Re:Copy Right Infringement by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      Because, see, ideas are property. They are because people agree that they are.

      Not once they are let loose in the wild. Ideas are not property. Property can be traded, bought, sold. If you play a song, record it, sell it on a cd, what is actually being sold? What is the property? If the song is the property, then once you sell it to me, it becomes MY PROPERTY, for which you have received money, that is now your property. That's the way it works. However, I find that I cannot make legal copies to sell to other people. Therefore, the property is the disc with the pits on it --- in other words, a copy. You own the right to make copies, I do not. That exclusive right to copy is YOUR PROPERTY. Those rights may be sold to a corporation, say --- for a lot more money than a copy of the disc. Once you sell the rights, not even you can make copies anymore.

      Once again, IDEAS are not PROPERTY, unless kept to oneself.

    55. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      You see the Linux world through the press releases of Linux-based companies.

      What's a "Linux-based company?"

      For the last five years, Linux has been progressing really quickly.

      That's not really an accurate statement, is it? There have been no new releases of Linux since 2001; just bug fixes and patches. There has been no significant work on the user experience since 2001, when Eazel closed its doors. There have been no real functional enhancements since before 2001. What's worse, there is no roadmap for the delivery of new core features like metadata and search.

      Linux has been essentially stagnant, and there's no sign that that's going to change any time soon.

      Linux-related sales have gone from the couple millions to the couple billions.

      It's a trillion-dollar industry. You're saying that Linux, over the past five years, has gone from being insignificant to six decimal places to being insignificant to three decimal places.

      The real issues keeping most companies from switching to Linux on their desktops are that they have already invested a lot of capital in their existing Windows setup

      That's kind of a scapegoat argument, isn't it? It's not that your product offers no advantages whatsoever beyond the price point per license. It's that the competitor is entrenched. Is that it?

      Linux never made a promise.

      Sigh. Okay, whatever. I'm pretty sure bragging about an operating system that's going to take on Microsoft and Apple is "making a promise," but whatever you say.

      Either way, it's a big loss. Either there was promise that remained unfulfilled, or there was never any promise at all.

      Linux cannot be defeated by any competing business model.

      Of course not, not if you define "defeated" as having nothing to do with units delivered. If you want to define success in terms of how many Internet message board comments get posted about your product, go right ahead. Meanwhile, what really matters is penetration, and Linux doesn't have any.

      You don't actually think SCO has a legitimate case, do you?

      It no longer matters at all. The reputation of Linux has been permanently soiled by its legal entanglements. Nobody in his right mind would choose to invest either time or money in it now.

      RMS's analogy is restricted to software patents

      No, it's not. Go read his screed. And it's not an analogy, it's a metaphor. And it's not a metaphor as much as it is a bald-faced insult to everybody who's ever invented anything.

      advocates of "Linux" (which Stallman is not, by the way)

      Of course he is. What are you talking about now?

      It is understood that someone's personal opinions shared with others in a casual conversation needn't use the same language as someone would use in a business setting.

      When somebody goes on a public Internet message board and makes pronouncements in his official capacity, that's not "someone's personal opinions in a casual conversation." It's ex cathedra.

      His primary goal is to ensure that a free (as in speech) computer operating system always exists

      Yeah, yeah, we all know about Stallman's insane political agenda. The less said about that, the better. The man's a freak. Must you sully his reputation further by giving detailed examples of exactly how he's a freak?

      His statement therefore does not sabotage his primary goal.

      Yes, it does. His goal was to persuade. He didn't. He dissuaded. He blew it.

      Well, as a member of the Linux community

      Company, not community.

      I think your language alienates me and is patently offensive.

      In other words, you feel the same way about me that everybody who's ever created anything feels toward you, and towards Perens, and towards Stallman, and towards the rest of the "gimme gimme" gang. I wonder if you'll use this moment of

    56. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Ideas are not property.

      Again with the "la la la la I can't hear you" defense. Yes, they are. They are property because people create them, and people own what they create. Our society recognizes this fact, our laws recognize this fact. That you, Mr. John Nobody, do not recognize this fact means only that you aren't interested in living in the real world.

      Property can be traded, bought, sold.

      Right. So can written works, musical compositions, recordings, movies, and inventions. So, especially, can computer programs.

      what is actually being sold?

      The copy of the recording. Duh.

      If the song is the property, then once you sell it to me, it becomes MY PROPERTY

      The copy becomes your property, yes. You own the copy. You can do whatever you want with the copy ... except copy it. Because you don't own the original, and only the owner of the original has the right to make more copies.

      That exclusive right to copy is YOUR PROPERTY.

      Rights are not property. The work itself is the property.

      Man, you're really bending over backwards to try to twist this into an "I can steal whatever I want" thing, aren't you? Doesn't that make you feel kind of guilty, on some level at least?

    57. Re:Copy Right Infringement by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      Because you don't own the original, and only the owner of the original has the right to make more copies.

      Please explain this one to Robert Plant, among others, who don't have the copyrights to their creations. The original copy has nothing to do with it. Suppose a recording is remastered, and then the original is lost --- then who has the rights? That has got to be one of the most moronic things I have ever read.

      Right. So can written works, musical compositions, recordings, movies, and inventions. So, especially, can computer programs.

      There are three different types of thing here.

      (1) an abstract string of symbols, notes, or images,
      (2) a physical copy of the string of symbols, notes, or images, and
      (3) the right to reproduce the string of symbols, notes, or images.

      Type (1) things cannot be bought or sold. Type (2) things can be purchased from various merchants. Type (3) things are originally owned by the creator. The creator may make copies [type (2) things] to sell to individuals. The creator may also choose to sell the type (3) thing, typically at a much higher price than the type (2) thing. No one owns the type (1) thing, and our government does not recognize such things as being property, capable of being bought, sold, or traded.

      Man, you're really bending over backwards to try to twist this into an "I can steal whatever I want" thing, aren't you? Doesn't that make you feel kind of guilty, on some level at least?

      Nope. If I make copy, then I have stolen your exclusive right to copy the work. There are laws that punish that kind of thing.

    58. Re:Copy Right Infringement by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      One last bit: If I buy a Rolling Stones cd, then I have not purchased the work, correct? Because the work is the property, and with the work comes the rights. So, if I make copies, then there is no stealing going on, because Mick and Co. still possess the work --- I do not. Get out of this dilemma.

    59. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      So, if I make copies, then there is no stealing going on, because Mick and Co. still possess the work --- I do not.

      Stealing is the act of unlawfully taking something. Whether or not you're depriving someone of that thing is not part of the question.

      What you thought was a clever logical trick turned out to be based on your misunderstanding what what "stealing" means.

    60. Re:Copy Right Infringement by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      I think you fail to understand what "property" means.

    61. Re:Copy Right Infringement by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      What's a "Linux-based company?"

      A company that makes money by selling support for Linux.

      That's not really an accurate statement, is it? There have been no new releases of Linux since 2001

      Ok, I'm going to have to get nitpicky--what are you talking about when you mean "Linux?" Do you mean the kernel? 2.6.0 came out in December of '03.

      There has been no significant work on the user experience since 2001, when Eazel closed its doors.

      Not true at all. I'm using Gnome 2.8, and it is a lot different from Gnome around that time. I have a spatial browser, most usb devices get automatically detected and set up via dbus/hal, the ui for changing file associations has been significantly improved. Actually, if you want to get a real feel for ui improvements, you'll have to go over the changelogs for each major version bump. And that's just for Gnome. There have also been improvements in XFCE, KDE, GNUStep, and every other environment. Even X has seen some radical improvements.

      Linux has been essentially stagnant, and there's no sign that that's going to change any time soon.

      In all respect, I starting to think you don't know what you're talking about.

      There have been no real functional enhancements since before 2001. What's worse, there is no roadmap for the delivery of new core features like metadata and search.

      This is just absurd. Have you heard of Beagle? Functional enhancements? We're pretty close to making Linux a full featured digital audio workstation (DAW)--does that count as a feature enhancement? I don't know what you mean--I think you're limiting Linux to being a Windows clone/replacement. I prefer using Gnome to using Windows--I find the ui very backward, actually.

      The reputation of Linux has been permanently soiled by its legal entanglements. Nobody in his right mind would choose to invest either time or money in it now.

      This is a bunch of crap. Linux is at best equally likely to let legally questionable code to seep into it than proprietary code. The only difference is that individual developers cannot afford to defend themselves in bogus trials. However, in the business world (which you apparently know so much about), you hire another company to deploy Linux for you, like RedHat or IBM. Companies which also fight for you in court if you get sued over using Linux.

      The notion of suing customers is relatively new and it's merely a tactic to scare people away from Linux. You claim that it's working, but I just don't see that. Companies aren't afraid of using something IBM sold them.

      No, it's not. Go read his screed. And it's not an analogy, it's a metaphor. And it's not a metaphor as much as it is a bald-faced insult to everybody who's ever invented anything.

      Why do you so obstinately refuse to back up your overdramatic statements? It is restricted to software patents, first of all, and even if you disagree with the wording, it still makes sense and is a coherent argument, which is more than you have provided me.

      Of course he is. What are you talking about now?

      Stallman is an advocate for software freedom, first and foremost. His primary motive is to ensure that there is a free operating system for everyone in the world with a computer to use. He is not interested in getting more companies to adopt Linux, nor is he interested in getting more end users to adopt Linux (this is the difference between the Free Software and the Open Source movements). He is, however, interested in getting more people to care about software freedom. You find that freedom to be worthless. You call him a zealot. I find that freedom important. I do not. No surprises here.

      Yeah, yeah, we all know about Stallman's insane political agenda. The less said about that, the better. The man's a freak. Must you sully his reputation further by giving detailed examples of exactly how he's a freak?

      I'm willing to discuss your

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    62. Re:Copy Right Infringement by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      well that cleared it up......

    63. Re:Copy Right Infringement by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 1

      It's a trillion-dollar industry. You're saying that Linux, over the past five years, has gone from being insignificant to six decimal places to being insignificant to three decimal places.

      OK, now you're officially an idiot. Name me a company or an individual who wouldn't want to see their net worth, revenue, profit, market cap, whatever improve by 3 decimal places over five years.

      And, just curious, what have you done over the last 5 years to increase your value by more than a measly 3 decimal places?

      Peace be with you,
      -jimbo

    64. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Actually, you are the liar by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Sun's actions. Has Sun ever persued a patent case against any open source project? Sun's lawyers care about Microsoft and IBM, they don't care about Linus Torvalds.

    65. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Maybe your posts on this topic have to do with scaring people enough to call OSRM or maybe it's the threat to linux that an open source solaris might have."

      The inflamatory nature of Bruce's posts with respect to the CDDL and the patent grant are almost certainly to scare people into buying his insurance policies. The conflict of interest is blatant. Even worse, the policies at OSRM are expensive!

    66. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....and in the end, no one gives a fuck about you or your lawyers.

    67. Re:Copy Right Infringement by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1



      "First of all, patents are by definition granted for inventions that aren't obvious."

      Tell that to the USPTO they don't seem to know it.

      "But aside from that, if it did happen that Person A were to create an invention and get a patent, then Person B were to invent the exact same thing independently, nobody would say that Person B didn't own his invention. It's just that he didn't get there first, which means he couldn't use his invention until Person A's patent expired."

      If you really believe that then it means you believe that you do not need to have a patent on an invention to own it. So if people don't need patent to own inventions then what do we need patent for?

      "Now, here's why that never, ever happens: When you get a patent, you have to send in a detailed description of your invention. That description goes into a database. When Person B starts working on an invention, he goes forth and does a patent search to see if anybody has gotten there before him. When he finds Person A's patent and realizes that he's been beaten to it, he decides to invest his labor in inventing something else instead, maybe in materially improving Person A's invention."

      Quite funny, but here is why your scenario almost never, ever happens:

      1. Both person A and B start developing their invention at a similar time so that when they do a patent search they don't see any relevant prior art. When the first one files for a patent he is in the clear but when the second one files for a patent he is screwed (even if it was just 1 day later because his kid got very sick and he had to go to the hospital). Who are you to say that the first one deserve all the money from the patent fro his hard work and the second deserve nothing?

      2. Even if A had already filed for a patent when B starts his project, given that patent applications are not made public at filing time he still wouldn't find any relevant prior art in his patent search.

      3. Even if A's patent application was published when B makes his patent search, B, not being a lawyer would not be able to determine whether his idea infringes or not on A's patent application. And if he think it doesn't but A convinces a judge/jury that his patent is broad enough to cover B's ideas then B is liable for treble damages for trying to do the right thing.

      4. Number 3 is even assuming that B can find A's patent among the thousands that might apply to his software.

      5. So as to avoid treble damage because he can't interpret the lawyerspeak in the patent application our developer employ a patent attorney to survey the thousand of software patent to be sure that his software doesn't infringe any of them.

      Because of 3, 4 and 5, trying to use patents to avoid duplicating other people's effort is a waste of time and money. By the time the patent review is over you don't have a penny left for developing the software (unless you have a few billions in the banks like MS, IBM...) and your competitors, who wisely eschewed to do a patent search, have developed three generations of software in the intervening time, meaning your ideas aren't that novel anymore.

      Patents are supposed to help innovation by making inventors disclose their inventions in exchange of a monopoly but the fact is that for all practical purposes patents are write only, you can write new ones but it is conterproductive to try to read the existing ones (because of their lawyerspeak and their number). This write-only nature of modern patent means that they don't serve the goal that they were created for.

      "So two things: One, you don't understand how patents work, and two, you don't understand that patents are actually beneficial because they help people to avoid duplicating other people's effort."

      It is patent that you are the one who doesn't understand how they work. You know the theory of how they are supposed to work, but this just isn't how they work in the real world.

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
  6. Interesting discussion point. by byolinux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Basically, RMS argues that the Sun announcement offers 1600 patents for CDDL (their license for OpenSolaris) and doesn't clearly state that they are opening their portfolio to all free software licenses.

    If they do that: Great. If they don't: That's not so good, Al.

    1. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, an allusion to a Weezer video. You should get mod points just for that. :)

    2. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You mean that Sun does not clearly state that they are not opening their portfolio to all Open Source developers. Indeed, I think they deceptively state that they are. When you read the fine print ("under the CDDL license and the OpenSolaris developer process") you only realize that they are not offering it to all Open Source projects if you understand Open Source licensing issues.

      Bruce

    3. Re:Interesting discussion point. by byolinux · · Score: 1

      If they are, why would they not want to sing it from the rooftops?

      Specifically what licensing issues do you refer to?

    4. Re:Interesting discussion point. by DOS+cunt · · Score: 1

      that's not so good, Al.

    5. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you only realize that they are not offering it to all Open Source projects if you understand Open Source licensing issues.

      Damn. Where are we going to find someone who understands Open Source licensing issues?

    6. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If they offer it to all Open Source projects under all currently-accepted Open Source licenses, I'll sing it from the rooftops for them.

      Specifically, the grant is promoted as being to the community of Open Source developers, but its terms restrict it to software that is under a license that is unique to Solaris. The Linux developers, who use a different license, can be sued for using the same patents. And Sun attempts to tell us how charitable a community member they are for doing this. It has a deceptive flavor that sticks in the craw of many Open Source developers.

      Bruce

    7. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't.

      Sun's free patents only apply to the source code they themselves released under the CDDL.

      They've said as much themselves.

      They want people to work on Solaris, not Linux. That's ok..

      If the GPL version 3 is compatable with CDDL then we will be able to incorporate the CDDL code into Linux and gain the protection against the patent that way.

      Thing is that RMS and freinds previously stated that MPL-style:
      you sue users of the this software for this software because of patents, you lose license to to use this software and use it in your own products.

      is acceptable even if GPL incompatable and they are thinking about similar clauses for the GPL version 3.

      And CDDL basicly copied that from the MPL.

      I don't think that Sun released the CDDL specificly to be incompatable with GPL, but that's what ended up. Fortunately it doesn't have to be like that forever.

      On the other hand..

      If the GPL v3 was going to incorporate similar language, then that's ok. But I don't want the GPL to incorpate restrictions just because Sun's pressure.

      Don't forget that GPL's "viral" nature is designed so that we don't end up with dozens of different licenses that may end up crippling developement by making it to complicated for normal people to use.

      We need a uniform single license that makes sure that free code STAYS free irregardless of the developer and in accordance with the wishes of the original author of said software.

      I just wish Sun released it's patents for ALL free software, and not just opensolaris.

    8. Re:Interesting discussion point. by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      Damn. Where are we going to find someone who understands Open Source licensing issues?

      Wow, either you're being extremely sarcastic or you didn't realize that you just responded to Bruce Perens with that question.

      Bruce Perens is probably one of the most knowledgable people in the world who understands Open Source licensing issues (afterall, he is the primary author of The Open Source Definition).

    9. Re:Interesting discussion point. by byolinux · · Score: 1

      currently-accepted Open Source licenses

      Which includes the GPL, right? If that's the case, I'll see you on the rooftop.

      If they do make this a CDDL only thing, then it's a shame.. I care about Free Software.

    10. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, either you're being extremely sarcastic

      Wow, either you're an American or else you're someone else who can't tell the difference between sarcasm and a joke.

      Hint: the above sentence contained sarcasm. Note the characteristic 'cutting' tone.

    11. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative
      Some folks with law degrees understand pieces better than I. I specialize in being a bridge between different groups, like law and engineering. Somebody's got to be able to explain one side to the other.

      The point of my statement is that you can lie in a press release and most readers, even highly educated ones, won't realize. They don't have the specialized knowledge. So, it's up to people like us to point out details that others might miss.

      Bruce

    12. Re:Interesting discussion point. by starseeker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This may not be a strictly relevant point, but I'll bring it up anyway:

      What are the odds that, of those 1,600 patents, NONE of them are violated by Linux in its current form? (I'm assuming near zero, since both Solaris and Linux are unix like operating systems. Has anybody with sufficient knowledge actually looked at the patents in question?)

      If Sun were worried about killing Linux or other open source software, I don't think they would need to resort to trying to get people to suck in their code and then sue them. In most cases they don't need to waste their time - a simple filing of a patent case, even of no merit whatsoever, is enough to torpedo most open source programs. The options are a) pay up or b) break the patent. Either one takes $$. So why try a bait and switch approach when all they need to do is swing a flyswatter?

      The Linux kernel and a few other programs might be able to mount some kind of defense, but if you want to kill the open source movement you don't need to kill the Linux kernel. You just hit the wealth of small, non-funded private projects that make Linux and friends worth using. A kernel is pretty useless by itself. Even if the big projects could survive, open source as such would still die.

      Maybe I'm blind, but I just don't see how the CDDL and the patent "release" does anything except highlight a problem that has always been there and is still there. Twenty useless, indefensible, overly broad patents could conceivably be enough to sink 10,000 open source projects in the wrong hands. And if they go after users it's The End, regardless. Maybe Sun is trying to bait a booby trap here, but I just can't see it. If Sun has those patents, they are a potential headache for Linux no matter what, if they cover things that people might want to include in the kernel. If Sun wants to be a bad guy there is nothing stopping them even without the CDDL. So the upshot is, they're exactly the same problem they were to begin with. Maybe it would be easier to prove patent violation if CDDL code were used, but if matters reach that stage for most open source projects it's already far too late.

      --
      "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
    13. Re:Interesting discussion point. by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 1
      Can you point out the text of that document? I've found the Press Release, but I can't seem to locate the legal text to review.

      Here is the original press release. However, it doesn't seem it implicate what you are saying. I think they are releasing it to anyone who uses the CDDL (at least according the the PR). I'd also be interested in their legal definition of "OpenSolaris developer process". My guess is, either the "OpenSolaris developer process" will end up being so tightly defined that no one can release a version of Solaris without Sun's permission, or it'll be so open ended such that there's a hole that I can end up implementing the patents in any CDDL licensed project. However, without the legal text, I can't be sure. Maybe they are more clever then I think and came up with a definition that can find a middle ground between those two.

      I've got no problems with them licensing the patents such that only CDDL projects can use them. While it will create the great divide in terms of mixing and matching source code, it's their right. However, if what they are doing is saying, you can only implement them in such a way that we'll end up with control over you via patent law instead of copyright law, that seems completely underhanded. It also seems to be completely counter to the image they are attempting to spin. I never thought of Sun as that underhanded (they are a coporation, and generally have interests that are somewhat contradictory to mine, but never thought of them as doing anything that qualifies as "evil genious"). Oh well.

      Kirby

    14. Re:Interesting discussion point. by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They not only don't do god, they're damage to the Free Software community. Those patents are a means of sucking developers into their not-compatible-with-anything license. Code that you develop under CDDL cannot be used in anything that even links a GPLed library, and your CDDL-licensed libraries cannot be used in GPL programs. Thus, we would be better off without this "gift".

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    15. Re:Interesting discussion point. by passthecrackpipe · · Score: 1

      They have made this a CDDL-only thing. Well, at least, according to the press release they have - this article may shed some more light on the whole issue. In short, Sun are being their usualy weasly selves again.

      --
      People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
    16. Re:Interesting discussion point. by passthecrackpipe · · Score: 1

      Has anybody with sufficient knowledge actually looked at the patents in question

      Nope, since nobody knows which ones they are, since Sun isn't telling. They claim it concerns "more then 1600 patents", but information about exactly how many is pretty thin on the ground, let alone a detailed listing of which patents are covered. This is just your typical Sun smoke and mirrors....

      --
      People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
    17. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative
      What are the odds that, of those 1,600 patents, NONE of them are violated by Linux in its current form?

      OSRM has a list of patents they found that Linux might infringe upon. No court has ruled whether or not any of those patents are valid. My attorney can look at the list and answer some questions, but I can't look at it. If I did, it would contaminate my work on Linux and I might have to pay triple damages for knowing infringement rather than unknowing. The law is set up so that you get penalized if you look. This is just one of the many very bad things about the software patent system.

      My fear is that without a direct patent attack on Linux, Sun has no hope of making further headway with Solaris. Give the Linux folks just two years and there will be no value left to Solaris, Linux will have far overtaken it.

      Bruce

    18. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I confirmed with Sun's representative that the patents were only licensed for the CDDL and the OpenSolaris process. The legal text does not yet exist.

      Sun has been posturing about Linux in a hostile way for about two years. I think that what we are seeing is the prelude to a patent lawsuit against Linux developers.

      Bruce

    19. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      What if an open source project uses the CDDL (or whatever Sun has termed their modified license)?

      Are they allowed to use the patents?

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    20. Re:Interesting discussion point. by WebMink · · Score: 1

      > I think that what we are seeing is the prelude to a patent
      > lawsuit against Linux developers.

      Sun doesn't have a track record of software patent litigation against anyone much, least of all individuals. What makes you think that is about to end? Do you have evidence or is that just think-the-worst speaking?

    21. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      We don't know for sure yet. They may be required to assign the copyright or relicensing rights to Sun. It may be specific to Solaris. We know that it is CDDL-specific because they announced and confirmed it.

      Bruce

    22. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      I'm just trying to figure out how they are going to make anything of Open Solaris in the face of Linux. Few other markets unite HP, IBM, and a lot of other big names against a one-company product. Without an intellectual property attack from them, or from their new buddies MS, the product would not be successful.

      Bruce

    23. Re:Interesting discussion point. by WebMink · · Score: 1

      > new buddies MS

      Hardly buddies - Scott McNealy said:

      Sun and Microsoft shaking hands is a little like two boxers tapping gloves just before they beat the living daylights out of each other.

      > I'm just trying to figure out how they are going to
      > make anything of Open Solaris in the face of Linux

      How about if actually the plan with OpenSolaris doesn't actually involve doing anything "in the face of Linux"? Sun actually talks about the existing Solaris customer base and community in connection with OpenSolaris - all the anti-Linux spin comes from Linux advocates and the ever-balanced trade press.

      Maybe there's a case for taking the OpenSolaris FAQ in good faith rather than assuming the worst (even if that's more PC on SlashDot)?

    24. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      Over at Groklaw they have copies of some contracts between MS and Sun, including the "Stand-Still Agreement" which binds Sun to not interfere while MS sues OpenOffice developers. These would also be at Edgar, as they were part of a 10-Q report or some such. The stand-still agreement is especially irksome because those same developers assigned their copyrights to Sun. Why? Because Sun said they needed to own the entire copyright so that they could defend the entire program. I feel there was some bad faith in even making the MS agreement after accepting those copyrights on that premise. But I suppose that a choice between a Billion dollars and repudiating their word was pretty easy for them to make.

      So, when Scott McNealy says that they're not buddies, I suggest you look at the contracts and at the money.

      If Sun didn't plan to do anything in the face of Linux, they would not have promoted their grant as one to all Open Source developers.

      Bruce

    25. Re:Interesting discussion point. by WebMink · · Score: 2, Informative

      > If Sun didn't plan to do anything in the face of Linux,
      > they would not have promoted their grant as one to all
      > Open Source developers.

      Personally, while I find the press release to leave plenty of questions unanswered and to be phrased for reading outside the developer community, I didn't come to the same conclusion you did when I read it and can't see why you do. It's just clueless PR-speak, not grand conspiracy by an evil genius.

      On the subject of OpenOffice.org, what has copyright aggregation to do with patents? It's pretty common practice (Apache demands it for example) and is about the governance of the community, not the defence of patent suits. I agree that the Microsoft settlement left a bad taste but I don't think it was part of grand conspiracy, just a deep desire to end a crippling lawsuit. If it's Microsoft contracts and money that influence your judgement of the F/OSS motives of a company then surely this site should have you looking at some other gift-horses too?

    26. Re:Interesting discussion point. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      They not only don't do god, they're damage to the Free Software community. Those patents are a means of sucking developers into their not-compatible-with-anything license.

      As opposed to The Holy Stallman's "not-compatible-with-anything" license?

    27. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bruce you really make a lousy insurace salesman.

    28. Re:Interesting discussion point. by njcoder · · Score: 1
      "I agree that the Microsoft settlement left a bad taste "

      I really don't get this attitude. Sun stood up to MS for taking the embrase and extend approach to Java. They were also one of the biggest driving forces behind the antitrust cases here and in the EU. They spent a lot of resources over many years and eventually got a settlement offer that they were comfortable with and could move on.

      Sun takes on Microsoft, a much larger company, over practices that MS has been using to screw over a lot of software companies but they're bad for winning a huge pile of cash in a settlement.

    29. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      It's just clueless PR-speak, not grand conspiracy by an evil genius.

      Simon,

      The outside PR person for that release is an Open Source expert that you may have met, and is quite clueful. She was doing what Sun asked of her and her company. She and Sun know that some simple facts will be taken out of the release by the press, and some more esoteric ones will not, and that because of the construction of the release the press would in almost every case overstate the importance of the patent release. I have done my best this week to counter that overstatement.

      Regarding copyright aggregation, in every case I know of except for Sun, the copyright aggregator is an IRS-certified 501(c)3 charitable non-profit organization. Thus, there is a higher standard regarding the aggregator's benificient behavior than can be applied to Sun. Sun, too, announced their intention to create an outside foundation to hold the OpenOffice software, and then they reneged upon that promise.

      Aggregation may have something to do with "governance", I'm not sure what, but Sun promoted its reason as having to do with defending the entire program in a court of law. That rationale still survives in garbled form in the licensing FAQ where it says The JCA ensures that Sun can defend license violations if necessary. Note that it doesn't say prosecute license violations. The original language was defend the entire program.

      You should be aware that I have been critical of IBM and its patents. When Bob Macmillan of IDG brought a question of mine into an IBM executive presentation at LinuxWorld, it helped goad IBM into declaring that it wouldn't enforce its own patents upon the Linux kernel. I also did not refrain from mentioning IBM in connection with the Ravicher report, which was presented at my LinuxWorld press conference, and probably was a big factor in inspiring the IBM patent grant.

      Thanks

      Bruce

    30. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If I did, it would contaminate my work on Linux and I might have to pay triple damages for knowing infringement rather than unknowing.

      If there was a list and you knew there was a list and didn't look at the list what would be the legal repercussions? You would be deliberately unknowing. And what would be the legal position if you could cause such a list to be created?

    31. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      They spent a lot of resources over many years and eventually got a settlement offer that they were comfortable with and could move on.

      I was naive enough to believe that the plaintiffs in the anti-trust cases actually wanted to see justice done and were not simply in it for their own settlement. But this was not the case, even Ed Black took the money.

      Bruce

    32. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you seem to lack an understanding of scarcasm too.

      actually, I'll rephrase that.

      You seem to have an excellent understanding of scarcasm.

      (note the saying the oposite of what you mean AND cutting tone at the same time - both must exist)

    33. Re:Interesting discussion point. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Because Sun said they needed to own the entire copyright so that they could defend the entire program.
      Presumably any lawsuit from Microsoft wouldn't be about copyright though, would it?

      Patents, yes. But Sun isn't asking developers to sign over patents (not least because I guess they know nobody's going to patent anything), only copyrights.

      And isn't the usual reason for "owning the entire copyright" to "defend" the license (requiring third parties abide by it - ie you sue them) rather than to defend against copyright suits? That's always how I've read the FSF's arguments for getting people to sign over copyrights to them. It's hard for me to see how a developer transferring a bogus copyright to Sun would actually defend either the developer or Sun if the real copyright belongs to someone else. Both would be sue-able, and Sun wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It certainly wouldn't have any extra defenses at its disposal because it owns the rest of OpenOffice.org.

      I see a lot of knee-jerk stuff against Sun. I don't think you're the kind of person to do that, but at the same time, I'm asking myself "What does this have to do with anything?" I'd like Sun to help defend OOo developers in patent suits, but I don't see it as 100% evil for them not do so, just fucking ungrateful. In a copyright lawsuit, the case should be fairly clear cut - either a developer submitted code they copied or they didn't. If they did, then they're an ass, and in the current world, given the obligations that go with using code written by someone else, they deserve to be sued, and Sun has a right to not want to have anything to do with them.

      Java is still a rival to .NET. Sun is still trying to claw marketshare away from NT (2000/2003) boxes with Solaris. They're still, obviously, rivals.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    34. Re:Interesting discussion point. by WebMink · · Score: 1

      > Aggregation may have something to do with "governance"

      Yes, as the FAQ states and as you point out it's so that a single entity is able to act on behalf of the community to defend (or prosecute) copyright license violations (that FAQ isn't precise, I agree). As you and I both know copyright and patents are very different, and this aggregation is not related to patents in any useful way. As far as I know no-one has come up with any meaningful defence against the capricious and broken software patent system created by case law.

      > You should be aware that I have been critical of IBM and its patents

      Yes, I am aware of and grateful for that, thank-you. My comment was related to the current context where IBM's community manipulation has had little critical evaluation even by RMS (who I assume will be working on GNU Fastenings with IBM's tamper-proof screw patent as we speak).

      > then they reneged upon that promise.

      I prefer to think they've just not got round to it yet for lack of funds in that business unit (it's a big deal financially). But I agree with you on this one, I would rather see the interests separated too.

    35. Re:Interesting discussion point. by njcoder · · Score: 1
      The settlements for Sun and the CCIA weren't just monetary payments. They included agreemenets for cooperation.

      I guess it depends what your definition of justice is. In my opinion, getting money to cover your legal fees and damages along with an agreement to work together doesn't seem so bad considering how the justice dept had taken it easy on microsoft and the appeals courts have overturned many possible remedies years ago.

      It's nice to be able to stick to your guns for your principles, it's even nicer to expect someone else to stick up for your principles when there is very little you have to do on your own. I'm dealing with something similar myself where i've been fighting for something that someone else believes in when they haven't been able to put in as much time or effort as me. Somehow they think they do though. Short of a miracle, all we're doing is prolonging someone's suffering while taking it's emotional, personal and professional toll on me. My point, when someone else comes along and brings "justice" to microsoft, then I might listen to their criticisms of the settlements.

      There are no Davids, only Goliaths in the real world. Maybe MS wasn't killed but it definately had to take notice and make some changes. Hopefully MS sticks to the spirit of their agreements and doesn't abuse their monopoly and work with the rest of the industry. If not, the next round of legal action will be harsher. As much as some people would like, windows and ms aren't dieing and aren't going anywhere anytime soon. As much as people want to believe there are better alternatives, right now there really aren't any in many key sectors. Primarily the corporate desktop.

      Windows may be where it is now because of it's monopoly but there's no denying where it is in terms of software support. When something comes along that can run all the applications that windows users rely on things will be different. For now you can't just expect windows to be killed off just because of the way it got there. It would leave too many people and busineses hanging.

    36. Re:Interesting discussion point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goddammit, Bruce, Sun has said explicitly that they will not sue over these patents. Sun has not been posturing in a hotile way towards Linux. There is no prelude to a patent lawsuit against Linux. You are so full of FUD it is gushing out of your ears by now.

  7. in the wise words of Admiral Ackbar by kevinx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its a TRAP!

  8. Note To Sun: You Are Not Helping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One wonders if they assumed RMS, Groklaw, et al would not bust them wide open if they don't come correct. They are definitely not helping their image with an already cynical, suspicious and mistrusting open source community.

  9. Promised? by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What difference would it make if Sun "promised" to not sue free software projects "using" those patents? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a mere promise wouldn't hold up in court, anyway.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    1. Re:Promised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a mere promise wouldn't hold up in court, anyway.

      Yes, maybe you are.

    2. Re:Promised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      IANAL but I think if they promised it publicly in writing using language that made it clear the offer was from this point forward and included all free software licenses that yes it would probably hold up in court. What is a contract, but a promise?

    3. Re:Promised? by slipstick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually it would make a great deal of difference. I'm a little lazy today but if you go search google for IBM's announcement regarding their 500 patents you will see that it is given in very specific legalese that I'm quite convinced would stand up in court as a "license" to use their patents.

      So the "promise" requested from Sun isn't just a "we promise not to sue", it is a very specific request for a "use license" for the patents. Such a license can be posted on their website independent of their CDDL license which is a copyright license only.

      --
      Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
    4. Re:Promised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If such a promise is used as a defence, it's called "promissory estoppel" (google the term if you need more info)

    5. Re:Promised? by Aim+Here · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, you're wrong. 'Promissory estoppel' is the legal terminology in a number of english-speaking countries for promises which DO hold up in court. There are a number of circumstances where if I say 'You can do X without me suing you' then I legally can't sue you for X.

    6. Re:Promised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Promises under certain circumstances can be binding, like an oral contract. In fact any contract can be thought of a codified list of promises and obligations agreed to between two or more parties.

      However, it doesn't sound like Sun's promises are the type they can be held to.

    7. Re:Promised? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      A formalised promise that both parties actively and explicitely agreed to uphold. I see what your point is, of course, but it probably wouldn't be too difficult to argue for Sun that the statement wasn't actually meant the way it was understood, that the one who made the statement did not have the necessary authority to make such a statement on behalf of Sun, or something else.

      If the company (i.e., someone who without doubt *is* authorized to act on its behalf) signs a written contract with an actual third party, though (as opposed to the somewhat nebulous "general public", "free software developers" or whoever the promise would address), they would find it much more difficult to argue like that (although they probably still would try).

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    8. Re:Promised? by Landaras · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IANAL (yet). This is not legal advice.

      You are right in that donative promises are generally not enforceable in court. However, there is a legal doctrine called "reliance."

      Specifically, if I make an unenforcable donative promise to you, and you reasonably and foreseeably rely on that promise, the courts will step in and enforce that promise.

      The textbook example of reliance is a company that promises a worker a pension in return "for the consideration of his many years of previous service." The problem is that prior consideration (in this case the previous years of service) can not be bargained for, and we fail to have a binding contract here since consideration is offered by the company (the pension) in exchange for no consideration by the worker.

      However, due to the equitable principle of reliance, if the worker retires (which would be reasonable and foreseeable) the courts will enforce the promised pension.

      So, if Sun publicly promised to not sue open / free software projects for using their patents, you reasonably and foreseeably rely upon that promise to use their patents in a open / free software project, and Sun sued you or others for patent infringement, the courts could be reasonably expected to enforce Sun's earlier promise.

      Remember though, that Sun has not promised to not sue you for using their patents outside the CDDL, and even if they did you might have to pay a lawyer to get a court to enforce said promise.

      - Neil Wehneman

    9. Re:Promised? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    10. Re:Promised? by Aneurysm9 · · Score: 1
      You are right in that donative promises are generally not enforceable in court. However, there is a legal doctrine called "reliance."

      Even more simply viewed, their "promise" would really be a license. An IP license is really nothing more than a covenant not to sue. As for mutuality of consideration, their license requires that all derivative works be released under the same license as well as contains some patent cross-licensing provisions (IIRC) which should certainly suffice as consideration. It doesn't fail for lack of consideration merely because it is being "given" to the community without any expectation of immediate reciprocation.

      --
      There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
    11. Re:Promised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      estoppel

      A bar preventing one from making an allegation or a denial that contradicts what one has previously stated as the truth.

      promissory estoppel

      an estoppel that prevents a promisor from denying the existence of a promise when the promisee reasonably and foreseeably relies on the promise and to his or her loss acts or fails to act and suffers an injustice that can only be avoided by enforcement of the promise

    12. Re:Promised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if such a promise did not legally bind them, I don't see how from a PR point-of-view they could ever go back on it. Every ounce of credibility they ever had would instantly disappear, no customer would ever trust them again. If you lose your customer's trust, chances are you've lost your customer.

      Of course Sun's future doesn't look too good, so at some point they could switch into a litigation house (a la SCOX), at which point all bets are off.

    13. Re:Promised? by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you say "I'm not going to sue you over X", and then you go ahead and do it, the judge will basically say "If you don't believe yourself, why should we?"
      -russ

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    14. Re:Promised? by flossie · · Score: 1
      A formalised promise that both parties actively and explicitely agreed to uphold.

      It is not necessary to have two parties explicitly agree on something. Have a look at the legal definition of "estoppel".

    15. Re:Promised? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      There's one potential problem.

      If Sun says "We will not sue", then it's probably true that most courts will through out a lawsuit from Sun (see other replies.)

      However, if Sun sells the patents to someone else, there's nothing that binds them to make the same promise, and I believe such situations have occured before (for example, with the JPEG patents that are now causing some concern. The original patent holder promised the JPEG committee there'd be no enforcement, but went bust and the patents now belong to someone who never made any such promise.)

      Sun probably will not sell the patents to someone else unless it has to. But there's a twenty year time span involved here, and you can judge for yourself how likely it is that Sun will still be around, in its present form, at the end of that time period.

      What we probably need from Sun is something akin to a "class license", an unrevokable license that allows a class of person to use the patents at no cost and with no limitations. That could include end users and anyone using them within the context of an FOSS product.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  10. */OpenSolaris by murphee · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Hmm... maybe he's pissed because the OpenSolaris name is so unspecific... it should be:
    BSD/OpenSolaris (because the tools and toolchain came from there)
    No... wait... didn't Sun move to SysV ... so it should be called:
    SysV/OpenSolaris
    No wait... didn't Sun also port lots of GNU tools to Solaris... hm... I suppose this only leaves us with:
    GNU/OpenSolaris.
    Now... if Sun would only get rid of their on compiler and go with only GCC and if it would dump all of it's IDEs (Sun Studio, Netbeans,...) and would ship only with Emacs (sorry: GNU Emacs) ... then we'd have a happy, smiling RMS again.
    No wait... RMS is never happy nor does he smile... so we'll probably just have an RMS who is yelling at something else again...

    Oh well...

    --
    murphee
    1. Re:*/OpenSolaris by RailGunner · · Score: 2, Funny
      // Stallmanize a sentence!
      string Stallmanize (char *szBuf)
      {
      string stallman = "";
      char seps[] = " ";
      char *token = strtok (szBuf, seps);
      while (token)
      {
      stallman += "GNU/";
      stallman += token;
      token = strtok (NULL, seps);
      }
      return stallman;
      }

      Proper punctuation in the string is left as an excerise to the reader. Besides, it's a frickin joke.

    2. Re:*/OpenSolaris by murphee · · Score: 1

      Having RTFA, I need to state the the guy does sound reasonable in this affair... from which we learn: never trust Slashdot headlines to convey the content of a link...

      About the issue in question: Sun hasn't had the best trackrecord of making their goals and motifs known... and despite the fact that they have donated considerable amounts of source code (OpenOffice, NFS, Netbeans, var. Java projects,...) they're still seen as big evil company.
      This thing about their patents will hopefully soon be cleared up by some of the PR over at Sun.

      --
      murphee
    3. Re:*/OpenSolaris by randallpowell · · Score: 1
      I, for one, welcome our new BSD/GNU/SysV/Sun Solaris open source developers.


      Developers.Developers.Developers.Developers.Deve lo pers....

  11. Re:Mr. Stallman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a damn person cares about your dumb fodunation.

    Riiight.

    I guess spellchecking is seen as an obstacle to the first amendment.

  12. Re:Mr. Stallman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Thanks for your input! Now I understand everything.
    Love, RMS

  13. Re:He's right! by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How about the Open Source community just not immediately trusting gifts given?

    There seems to be this view that if someone offers a gift, then being suspicious of their motives is bad.

    Slashdot commentators are very bad at analogies, so I won't break that tradition with this one:

    Various charities, such as greenpeace etc, are very wary about companies wanting to talk to them and/or give them gifts. Because often the companies then turn around and claim they are 'working with' greenpeace etc, without actually doing anything.

  14. Re:He's right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean these patents are a gift to the open-source community? Are you stupid?

  15. Re:He's right! by GigsVT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is more like looking a trojan horse in the mouth.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  16. Re:Mr. Stallman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I caught that after I hit "submit". Forgive me, master.

  17. Re:He's right! by alienw · · Score: 1

    It's just that Sun's "gift" seems too much like a Trojan horse (no, not the virus kind).

  18. He's pretty much right by RLiegh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What truly scares me is the lack of long-term thinking among some open source projects that I keep track of with regards to the CDDL. The best example I can give is that I was reading the forums over at the ReactOS project; and OpenSolaris was mentioned. IIRC, No-one in the entire thread (which was about using some of OS in ROS) mentioned the patent angle...and given that ROS could easily be shut down over it, that omission alarmed me.

    OpenSolaris (Or any CDDL project) is a torpedo waiting to sink any GPL project whose members happen to think about looking at CDDL code.

    RMS is right on this, and he should be; he crafted the GPL during the days when reading AT&T code carried similar considerations.

    1. Re:He's pretty much right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yet once more, simply reading code will not get you into trouble.

      analyzing, modifying and doing soemthing MIGHT get you into trouble.

      but if you can remember that much code precisley, you have a better memory than anyone else on earth.

    2. Re:He's pretty much right by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Dear AC,

      This is a case where using an idea from the code you read can hurt you. Cut and paste is necessary to infringe on copyright, only use of a similar algorithm is necessary to infringe a patent.

      Bruce

    3. Re:He's pretty much right by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You must not remember that people who read the original Unix code were considered legally tainted.

      Yes, just by reading it.

      That's a good part of what drove RMS to create the Free Software movement in the first place.

      As far as what you remember; it's not the code, it's the algorhithms that the patents cover, and the methods that the programs use, that potentially are the issue.

      As far as getting in trouble, it depends on how you define 'trouble'. If someone from ReactOS (just continuing the example) admits to having both submitted code for ReactOS and having (merely) read the source tree for OpenSolaris or portiens thereof it's entirely feasible for Sun to turn around and take the ReactOS foundation to court over any patents that Sun feels that ReactOS infringes on.

      Outside of Linux, I can't think of that many OSS projects who can withstand a legal assault, wether they'd be innocent or not.

    4. Re:He's pretty much right by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      How is that any different from the fact that a Linux kernel hacker should never look at closed MS WinNT kernel sources (even with permission) and an MS WinNT kernel hacker should never look at GPLed Linux kernel sources?

      At what point does reimplementing an algorithm you saw (in code) somewhere else stop being code theft?

    5. Re:He's pretty much right by katre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're exactly right, they shouldn't be allowed to look. And writers shouldn't be allowed to read Shakespeare, they might steal his plots. And artists can't look at the paintings of Picasso, they might imitate his style. And musicians certainly shouldn't ever listen to anything, they might steal a riff or two! It'd be a terrible world if people could learn from others and be inspired.

    6. Re:He's pretty much right by slipstick · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that, the ReactOS submitter doesn't need to admit to having read the OpenSolaris code except if it's about copyright infringement. You can implement an idea totally independent of OpenSolaris, without even seeing it, but if it infringes a patent you will be liable.

      The dire consequences of reading the OpenSolaris code isn't that you will infringe the copyright as few people can remember whole swaths of C code. The danger rather is that you will recall an "idea" you saw "somewhere" but don't remember where exactly, but "gee this is software what's the big deal". So you write the code, it turns out completely different than the OpenSolaris code but does substantially similar things, than BOOM! SUN hits you with the patent suit.

      --
      Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
    7. Re:He's pretty much right by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Cut and paste is necessary to infringe on copyright,

      No. Suppose I watched 1989's "Batman" movie, and then a decade later draw a comic strip featuring Batman and Catwoman in a new crime-fighting adventure of my own imagining. Even though no specific images or sounds were exactly copied from the film, my comic is still a violation of copyright owned by the Bob Kane estate. (It's also a trademark infringement, but that's a separate concern). Arguably copyright shouldn't cover such indirect forms of copying, but it does.

      Similarly, if I open a GPL'd .C in one terminal and type the contents into an editor in a 2nd term, I'm still probably infringing (although the imperfect manual copying means I'll be much harder to catch)

    8. Re:He's pretty much right by Wordsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And this is why software patents are a bad thing.

      A writer or artist can look at one of those works, because they're not subject to patent protections like the Sun code or WinNT code is. It's unfortunate, but borrowing an idea from Sun or Windows can get a programmer in a heap of trouble.

      If all was right with the world and software patents didn't exist, this would be a non-issue.

    9. Re:He's pretty much right by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      You're also forgetting that we're talking about patents, not copyrights.

      If you even happen to coincidentally do something that's covered by the patent without even knowing, you're _still_ screwed. No looking necessary.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    10. Re:He's pretty much right by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative
      There is a fundamental difference between patents and copyright. Copyright covers the literal embodiment of someone else's work. Patents really cover ideas. They aren't supposed to, they are supposed to cover concrete implementations of ideas, but the computer has blurred that distinction.

      Even if you never look at the other side's code, if you use a similar algorithm to theirs, and they've patented it, they can sue you for infringement. Even if you invented it independently. Indeed, some patents are so vaguely written that they can be used to sue people regarding ideas that were not yet invented when the patent was filed.

      Supose that someone sued you and you knew you were right. Would you have the funds to prove that in court? Probably not. You'd have to admit they were right and settle for whatever terms they wish.

      I can't overemphasize how badly the system stinks. It rewards bad actions at every level.

      Bruce

    11. Re:He's pretty much right by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      I am aware of what has been happening with the Harry Potter clones. But the audience here is having enough trouble understanding copyright as applied to software that I would put that topic off to a later stage of their education.

      Bruce

    12. Re:He's pretty much right by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Just curious, would you happen to know what kind of funds you would need to prove in court that you hadn't violated someone's patent? Let's say I've got my own law degree and I think I can handle the case myself, what other costs are there? It seems that everyone is afraid of how much it costs to go to court but no-one seems to know exactly how much that is. My idea of a lot of money is probably a lot different to your idea of a lot of money. And let's forget about the cost of losing. I'm a stubborn bastard and if someone wrongfully sued me for patent infringement I'd be happy to go bankrupt if the court couldn't see the that I was right.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    13. Re:He's pretty much right by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      The American Intellectual Property Law Association's 2003 Economic Survey says about $3 Million dollars.

      Bruce

    14. Re:He's pretty much right by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Where does that go? That's my question.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    15. Re:He's pretty much right by Pseudonym · · Score: 1
      Let's say I've got my own law degree and I think I can handle the case myself, what other costs are there?

      The overwhelming majority of the money in legal cases is spent on peoples' salaries. Have you been keeping up with the SCO vs IBM case, BTW?

      So you're going to gather evidence, demand documents, fly to other cities to take depositions, do background legal research, draft, redraft and re-redraft legal documents... all by yourself. Even assuming there were enough hours in a day for one person to do this (which there are not), you wouldn't be earning any money in the mean time. How do you expect to eat?

      Moreover, while you're doing this, there is nobody to checking your work. No "code reviews", if you like. The other side has people checking their work before you or the judge sees is. It necessarily follows that if you are only one person, they (as a team) will have spotted something that you haven't. You will therefore likely lose on some technicality which you didn't spot early enough.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    16. Re:He's pretty much right by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      So yeah, now can you answer the question? If you're not paying anyone to help you, where does the money go?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    17. Re:He's pretty much right by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      If you're not paying anyone to help you, the money goes in damages when you lose the case.

      If you are paying people to help you, then you may actually have a chance of winning.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    18. Re:He's pretty much right by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Sigh. I specifically asked how much it costs to defend yourself from a patent infringement allegation. Not how much it will cost to hire lawyers. Not how much it will cost if you lose. Just what the costs are that you are required to pay. I'm thinking things like court fees. I'm assuming there's other fees. You don't know the answer to the question yet you're willing to say "it costs a lot" to defend yourself from a patent infringement allegation.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    19. Re:He's pretty much right by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      "Damages when you lose because you didn't allocate the appropriate resources to the battle" pretty well summed it up.

      You can try to defend yourself; how exactly do you plan to do it when the company can afford to pay 3 or 4 $100,000 a year lawyers, many paralegals, expert witnesses, engineers, and other folks money *just to keep you tied up in court*.

      How long can you support yourself financially, while still fighting a time-consuming court case?

      That's the real question. They don't even need to win - they just need to keep bleeding you until *you* run out of money, and then they'll force you to settle.

      It ain't pretty, but that's the way it will go down.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    20. Re:He's pretty much right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sigh. I specifically asked how much it costs to defend yourself from a patent infringement allegation.

      You don't know the answer to the question yet you're willing to say "it costs a lot" to defend yourself from a patent infringement allegation.

      Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. I'm not sure why you care. You know where the real costs are. Either you get a lawyer or you lose the case.

      Still, since it's so important to you. Court fees are generally quite small, but there's plenty of overhead. Someone has to print papers out and bring them to the court, which will not be in your state because the people suing you aren't stupid enough to make it that easy. There is also discovery to deal with. That could cost you a small fortune and it will if you try to defend yourself because the other lawyer will make you pay for sort of silly things.

      If you are up against a good lawyer, he'd probably run you out of money before the trial starts. Which of course is why it's stupid to defend yourself and just as silly to talk about how much it would cost.

    21. Re:He's pretty much right by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      I guess you already know the answer. It feeds law firms.

      Bruce

    22. Re:He's pretty much right by Macadamizer · · Score: 1

      Well, for one thing, there are copying costs. Even at $0.05 per copy, that starts to add up when the other side asks you for a copy of EVERY document, email, note, etc., that was sent by or received by ANYONE who had ANYTHING to do with the patent, or the product is allegedly infringing the patent. That could be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pages. We have a case we are working on now where the client is spending around $15,000 per MONTH on copying alone -- yes, it's a big case, but it is unbelievable how fast these costs can get out of hand.

      And before you can send these documents over to the other side, you'll need to go through these docs to make sure that nothing is in their that shouldn't be going to the other side.

      Unless you have access to a large law library and have lots and lots of spare time on your hands, you'll need access to legal databases to look up the latest caselaw to support your arguments. Those databases aren't super cheap. Hundreds of dollars per search on occassion.

      You can't say things like "that's obvious" or "that's not a term of art" or "that is a term of art" and have anyone believe you, even if you are right -- you need to hire an "expert" to say those things, and those experts are going to charge many hundreds of dollars per hour to look over documents and come up with their "expert opinions."

      Plus you have to depose people, you may have to travel to where they are or pay for them to come to you, you'll need to pay the court reporter to record the depo, maybe you'll want a videotape too. That all costs money.

      And so on and so on. These are a couple of examples of non-manpower things to think about. And we haven't even got anywhere near trial, where you have to figure out how to display and get across info, etc.

      And besides, you HAVE to hire people. First off, those thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pages of documents I mentioned above? Well, you are going to ask the other side for some pertinent memo as part of you case, and that memo is going to buried amongst a hundred thousand pages of similar-looking documents that you'll have to wade through to find it -- they are not going to tell you where it is.

      And besides, even if you are a lawyer, no court is going to allow you to both a) be a lawyer and b) testify as a material witness in the same case.

      The reason why manpower makes up a huge chunk of the cost in a patent infringement case is because there is a LOT of work to do. Companies pay these kinds of fees because there is usually a LOT on the line if they lose...

      --

      "That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
    23. Re:He's pretty much right by QuantumG · · Score: 1
      Ya know. I really don't think you know this first hand. You're just repeating what someone else said at some point in time and refusing to think about this rationally. Court cases take a very very long time to play out. In that whole time you're in court at the very end, maybe, if the judge hasn't completely thrown out the case by then. That would be the time to settle, not the months and months before then when you're replying to briefs and stating your case.

      Can anyone answer the question please? How much does it cost to have your say if you write the reply briefs yourself? What are the court fees? The vast majority of programmers don't know a damn thing about this sort of stuff and when we go around yelling that no-one can afford to defend themselves from patents when we don't even know how much it costs we just appear ignorant.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    24. Re:He's pretty much right by QuantumG · · Score: 1
      Well, I own all the necessary equipment to make as many copies of anything that I like. Nevermind the fact that I never use paper in the first place.

      Legal databases, yep, that's certainly an issue. However if I were sued I wouldn't actually write the legal replies myself (even though I said I would I was hoping it would be easier for you to understand) I'd get one of my legal friends to do it for me. Why would they? Because they hate people who abuse the patent system just as much as I do.

      Who would I have to depose exactly? I know I havn't specified anything about the case at all but presuming that it is basically Evil Mega Corporation claims that algorithm I used in Tiny Random Open Source Application is a violation of their patent and it simply isn't, who is there to depose? Myself?

      My point is, Bruce Perens and all the other the-sky-is-falling patents-are-going-to-kill-open-source people tell me to just lie down and die if a big company says I am violating their patent in one of my open source applications. If you listen to them, at some point in the future this is going to happen to me. So what should I do? Go talk to the 10 lawyers I know and ask them to donate some time to write reply briefs or bow out and let the evil megacorp win? The question is really about how much it is going to cost to put up a fight, and every time we try to talk about it we get told "oh it costs a lot" instead of actual dollar amounts and itemized costs. It almost seems like I need to go out and get myself sued so I can blog this information for others.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    25. Re:He's pretty much right by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 0

      I've watched a Fortune 100 company's lawyers go to town on someone (relatively smaller) in a patent dispute. It isn't pretty. So yes, I have seen this first hand, from the winning side.

      The question remains - how much can you afford? How many days can you miss work to go answer in court? How many days can you stay out, or evenings can you or will you waste, in order to do research and write briefs? How many hours can you spend? If the answer is too low, you might wind up with a summary judgement as the judge decides you aren't serious about this because you *aren't* willing to spend to defend.

      I'm not a programmer. Please don't assume.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    26. Re:He's pretty much right by QuantumG · · Score: 1
      It isn't pretty.

      What does that even mean? Can you actually be specific cause we're all sitting over here saying "gee, that must be bad" when we have no idea what you are talking about. Statements like that just make us more ignorant.

      I didn't mean to imply that you were a programmer. I was simply saying that the vast majority of programmers (like me) really don't know what we're talking about when we say it costs "a lot" to go to court.

      As for how many days can I miss work, as many as I like. I have an excellent employer and a lot of accrued holidays. How many evenings can I waste? Why is it a waste to fight for what you believe is right? I spend my whole life doing that, another few months won't hurt.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    27. Re:He's pretty much right by Macadamizer · · Score: 1

      "Legal databases, yep, that's certainly an issue. However if I were sued I wouldn't actually write the legal replies myself (even though I said I would I was hoping it would be easier for you to understand) I'd get one of my legal friends to do it for me. Why would they? Because they hate people who abuse the patent system just as much as I do."

      Are you sure all of your friends would be willing to help out in this way? Remember, whenever they sign a document, they are putting THEIR licenses on the line if something isn't as it appears to be -- that's one reason why lawyers don't let their clients "help out" to try and reduce costs -- most of the time it is too much risk involved. Plus, there is a LOT of time involved here -- it's not just a few hours here and there.

      Plus, if your friends work at law firms, they'll need to make sure that helping you doesn't cause a conflict of interest with another of their firm's clients -- creating such a conflict would not only get the associate fired, it could cost the firm millions. Furthermore, even if no conflicts exist today, how would you llike to be the associate that, because he helped his buddy write a couple of briefs against Megacorp, is the reason the firm can't represent Megacorp in a really huge matter? And yes, this sort of thing can and does happen. Finally, a firm's malpractice insurance generally really limits outside work by associates and partners because of this very issue.

      And even if they work for firms, that legal research time has to be billed to someone -- it ain't free, even for the law firms, and I don't know of any firm that has unlimited access for a set fee.

      But if you have friends that are willing to work for free, then maybe they would.

      "Who would I have to depose exactly? I know I havn't specified anything about the case at all but presuming that it is basically Evil Mega Corporation claims that algorithm I used in Tiny Random Open Source Application is a violation of their patent and it simply isn't, who is there to depose? Myself?"

      They would be the one deposing you and your expert(s). You would need to depose, say, all of the named inventors on the patents they are asserting against you, in order to figure out the scope of the claims, and in order to figure out if you have any invalidity or inequitable conducts assertions you could make. You'll need to depose their expert(s) to further nail down the scope of claims, and hopefully get something useful for a later cross-examination, if it comes to that. Plus there are probably others you might want to depose, depending on your defense strategy, like Megacorp's CTO, marketing guys, members of the technical staff, and so on.

      "talk to the 10 lawyers I know and ask them to donate some time to write reply briefs or bow out and let the evil megacorp win? "

      The problem isn't the reply briefs. Just about anyone with an ounce of intelligence and access to Findlaw or Google could draft a suitable answer to a complaint. What is more challenging is writing up your response to their motion for preliminary injunction or summary judgment -- that requires real legal research, and an in-depth understanding of the legal arguments (noninfringement, invalidity, unenforceability, inequitable conduct, misuse of patent, etc.) and the factual bases for those legal arguments.

      Then you have to do claim constructions -- each side will need to come up with "constructions" for what the claims mean -- this requires a very in-depth analysis of the patents in suit and your allegedly infringing product, in order to generate constructions that, if the court accepts your version, allows your product not to infringe -- but to get the court to accept your side, you'll need to have some good factual and legal arguments to support your constructions. And you'll need to thoroughly understand THEIR constructions as well, in order to be able to rebut them in your Markman brief.

      Just for an example, on a fairly small patent infringement case I am working

      --

      "That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
    28. Re:He's pretty much right by jizmonkey · · Score: 1
      Morgan Chu successfully single-handedly defended a patent case with no patent experience while he was an associate. However, Morgan Chu had the support staff (paralegals, secretaries) of his firm, and he later went on to become chair of the same firm, Irell & Manella. I&M is arguably the best litigation firm on the West Coast, and I say that as someone who works at a different patent litigation firm.

      So no, it's not impossible to successfully litigate a patent case by yourself. But you have to be a brilliant lawyer ("I've been to law school" isn't enough by miles), have an unlimited budget (discovery costs are enormous, and if you don't conduct discovery you will have no evidence), and have a first-rate support staff. And people at West Coast firms still talk about Mr. Chu's accomplishment decades after the fact.

      I think it's a little condescending, actually, the way you write off the worth of the experience attorneys bring to the table. It's one thing to say that the patent system is the grit in the wheels of capitalism (I agree!), but what you're insinuating is quite another. The law and the practical problems are just a little more advanced than fighting a speeding ticket.

      --
      With great power comes great fan noise.
    29. Re:He's pretty much right by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      I ment no disrespect. I simply wanted to know how much it costs to not lay down and die.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    30. Re:He's pretty much right by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Jesus christ - how many times do you need to hear "It varies depending on who is litigating against you, but costs are invariably quite high because you CANNOT DO THIS WITHOUT SUPPORT STAFF, all of whom are professionals who command quite a large fee." before you actually listen?

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    31. Re:He's pretty much right by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      I heard you. I was trying to appologize because you appeared to be insulted.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    32. Re:He's pretty much right by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      What does that even mean? Can you actually be specific cause we're all sitting over here saying "gee, that must be bad" when we have no idea what you are talking about. Statements like that just make us more ignorant.

      It means they blew around $1 million, just to drive somebody else off of using their patent. I think we're getting $250,000 a year until the patent runs out from the person we litigated against; that wasn't the goal. The goal was to aggressively defend the patent, to send the message "Back off our IP". Whether or not I agree with the technique, it seems to have worked in this case.

      What does "it isn't pretty" mean? It means 3 full time lawyers who do nothing but IP litigation writing briefs and filing motions, appearing in court when needed, for about a year. It means their entire support staff of paralegals, technical infrastructure, fees to research libraries, etc. It means that the opposition had to spend nearly as much time to keep up.

      As for how many days can I miss work, as many as I like. I have an excellent employer and a lot of accrued holidays. How many evenings can I waste? Why is it a waste to fight for what you believe is right? I spend my whole life doing that, another few months won't hurt.

      How about another few years? These cases aren't a few months. A year is the minimum time I've ever seen a case go when they didn't fold right away. Will your employer let you take 2 days off every week, every other week, for a couple years? Do you have that much accrued holiday? Are you willing to spend every evening buried in a law library doing precedent research, buried in a technical library doing prior art searches? You say you are, but are you really willing to dedicate your entire life to the case, probably screwing up the portion of it that actually pays you anything, for an extended period of time, just to prove "You can fight a patent case all by your lonesome self"?

      Fighting the case by yourself is just a dumb fucking idea, is the point I am trying to get across. Programmers wouldn't consider trying to implement a back-end system for a bank on a 286 - why are you insisting on fighting a major court case without the proper support structure?

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    33. Re:He's pretty much right by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Here's another question. Say someone is using a patent to bully a programmer like me who makes open source software and they simply don't have a case. Say their patent was for hot dog serving implements. Surely you'd agree that would be an unloosable case. Do you need a high payed lawyer to write "my client's software has nothing to do with hot dogs" or could you actually write that yourself? I'm sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but from what you've been saying Bruce Perens and the other the-end-of-open-source-is-near crowd are right. Most developers who work on open source make nothing from it. We don't have the money to defend ourselves against nuisance cases.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    34. Re:He's pretty much right by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Unless it is blatantly, blatantly obvious, such that you could obtain a summary judgement immediately (for example, a patent for a specific breed of dachsund being used to prosecute a case against a piece of software that sorts apple inventories), they can probably drag it out long enough to make it more of a pain to fight than it'll be worth to you.

      Even the summary judgement will cost you some money in filing and court fees; I can't give you a specific figure, because I was engineering on the cases I've been involved in, not legal, but my understanding is that those fees start around a grand and go up quickly.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    35. Re:He's pretty much right by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      I wasn't so much insulted as irritated - the answer varies, obviously, but the answer "Not cheap" remains an accurate answer. You can pay the cost in time, or in money, but either way you have to pay.

      So, we both got a bit heated on it. Sorry about that.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    36. Re:He's pretty much right by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Now I'm just depressed. Anyone with any patent and a hatred for open source can get a developer to stop working on any open source project they like, just by filing a pointless lawsuit. Presumably they'd have difficulty filing the claim if they used the example you gave (right?) but if they have one software patent chances are they'll have no trouble filing and the developer will not even be able to afford the summary judgement to show it is pointless. But then again, I suppose that's exactly the same for copyright. At least in those situations I know what I would do, assign my copyright to the FSF and let them handle it. I'm not sure I could handle a patent issue the same way.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    37. Re:He's pretty much right by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      A patent, a hatred for open source, and a *willingness to spend money*.

      I pointed out that it isn't cheap for the open source developer. But it is equally, if not more so, expensive for the corporation prosecuting the case. Very, very few corporations will blow $1 million on a patent case unless they think they'll make at least half of it back in some fashion, and most of them are more media savvy than you think, so bad press is considered as a cost of these things. Unless they've got funding and nothing else to lose (see: SCO), most corporations aren't going to launch an all out IP case based solely on a grudge. If a FOSS project is threatening to a company's core business, yes, they will nail you - on the other hand, if you're threatening a company's core business, you damn well better know what legal clubs they hold so you can do your own due diligence. But the big guns don't hold patents to stomp on FOSS projects that won't even ding their bottom line - they hold them as MAD against the other big guns.

      So, while it is worse than the idealists think, it ain't as bad as all that.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    38. Re:He's pretty much right by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      You're probably sick of arguing with me :) Good talking to you.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    39. Re:He's pretty much right by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Eh, I got nothing better to do while I wait for this download to finish up. :)

      Thanks for listening. Sorry I couldn't give happier answers; I don't much like watching the corporate lawyers go to work, but I don't get much choice either.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    40. Re:He's pretty much right by idlake · · Score: 1

      How is that any different from the fact that a Linux kernel hacker should never look at closed MS WinNT kernel sources (even with permission)

      It's different because Microsoft isn't pretending that their NT kernel is open or free; they make you jump through hopps to look at it. But Sun is pretending that their available source is "open". It's Sun's lies and misrepresentations, not their licenses, that is the problem.

      and an MS WinNT kernel hacker should never look at GPLed Linux kernel sources?

      They can look all they want; the GPL allows this and there is no serious legal risk associated with that, in particular, since GPL'ed code is less likely to be infested with patents. MS may have rules against it, but those rules are overly cautious. What they can't do is cut-and-paste.

      Microsoft has similar licenses, by the way: "we own it, but we explicitly allow you to look all you want with no consequences".

      At what point does reimplementing an algorithm you saw (in code) somewhere else stop being code theft?

      Reimplementing is never "code theft". The only thing you have to worry about is patents. You have to be careful that if it looks too close to the original, people may successfully claim copyright infringement, and the best defense is to be able to say "I have never seen the original code", but that's a precautionary practical measure, not an intended restriction of copyright law.

    41. Re:He's pretty much right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A writer or artist can look at one of those works, because they're not subject to patent protections like the Sun code or WinNT code is.

      Not quite true. Trademark or copyright can sink your new character, if it resembles Mickey Mouse too much or something similar. At least you can be sued over it, and the opponent may even win.

    42. Re:He's pretty much right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outside of Linux, I can't think of that many OSS projects who can withstand a legal assault, wether they'd be innocent or not.

      I thought we had the legal system to prevent assaults?

    43. Re:He's pretty much right by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Think you could send me an email? Love to chat with you more sometime.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    44. Re:He's pretty much right by jizmonkey · · Score: 1
      I'm actually not the original responder. I didn't mean to be snippy, sorry, I butted in during a coffee break. But if you want a real figure on how much it would cost to litigate a suit by yourself, take the $3m figure (which is accurate), and subtract the cost of one person.

      Hypothetically, you might be able to do the job of one attorney, but clearly you wouldn't be able to do the job of more than one person. Attorneys at top firms routinely work in excess of 60 hour weeks. So if you assume that the person whose job you're doing is $500k (a ballpark figure for the senior partner in charge of the case), that leaves $2.5m you would need to come up with out of pocket.

      Where does that money go? Patent cases involve boxes and boxes of documents, you need to pay junior attorneys to look through them for legally significant documents. Managing these documents requires teams of paralegals.

      You need to pay expert witnesses, who may charge a thousand dollars an hour. (Maybe not for your benefit, we'll assume, but you need to put them on the stand, and they need to spend time preparing for their testimony.) People like Brian Kernighan (an expert witness for IBM against SCO) don't work for peanuts, and someone like my college roommate who doesn't have a reputation isn't going to convince the jury or judge even if he knows the subject cold.

      Then there's legal research. Patent law is far, far more complicated than you could ever imagine, and thanks to the Federal Circuit, it's an ever-shifting quagmire. Rest assured you would need to spend many hours on Westlaw or LexisNexis, using legal databases that cost $700 an hour. (That is the value of experience; a partner at a good firm will know 90% of the relevant law already.)

      This is patent litigation, after all, and that means looking through prior art. You'll pay a consultant to dig up prior art (you're the attorney, not the expert), but when he brings back a stack of 20-year-old articles, you're going to have to sit down and figure out what they mean. What if he says he found some software? You'll have to figure out how to make the software run. And although PCs are amazingly backwards-compatible, what if the software is incompatible with the 486? Or what if the software runs on the Amiga? You can waste weeks trying to get this old stuff to work. You may need to track down the software yourself, and that involves getting on the phone and calling very important people in the computer industry to see if they have anything in their attic (this actually happened with Marc Levoy defending a case against Adobe, which fortunately was defeated). Again, very important people are motivated by very big checks.

      Patent cases have all kinds of stupid evidence. Like dictionaries. You'll need to find a dictionary that has a definition you want, not after a certain date. If you're defending against a Lemelson patent, that could be in the 1960s or so. Where are you going to find an unbridged dictionary from, say, 1963? (1964 or later is no good at all.)

      You'll have to look through the prosecution histories of the patent, the parent patents, the continuations-in-part, etc. You ever tried reading a patent? They're goobledegook. So imagine reading all of the paperwork that went back and forth between the inventor and the patent office for a few years until the patent was issued, and imagine that the jargon was in use 20 years ago.

      Cases involve more than getting up in front of a jury. You need to respond to interrogatories from the other side, etc., and it can't be a half-assed job. Every brief filed gets a brief from the other side and then another from the first side. There are motions all the time on piddly points of law that never make the news. You need to fly to depositions and pay court reporters. You need to spend time arguing on the phone with the other side, because they're not just going to roll-over and give you what you want. The costs of copying those documents is absurdly high, too, due to the rapid turnaround. You might end up hiring an IT staff

      --
      With great power comes great fan noise.
    45. Re:He's pretty much right by Nevyn · · Score: 1

      Let's say I've got my own law degree and I think I can handle the case myself, what other costs are there?

      The problem is you are wrong if you think that. A large suit doesn't have one lawyer on the either side (buried in paperwork has a real connotation here) and the lawyers they do have don't work alone.

      So if you had a bunch of lawyers and their staff, and computers, and somewhere to work, and technical experts, and travel, and Fedex services, and... all for free, then sure you'd be IB^H^H fine.

      --
      ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
    46. Re:He's pretty much right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      So, if I wanted to buy $3 Million dollars worth of lawsuit insurance from your company, how much would that cost?

  19. In other news by elmegil · · Score: 1

    Sun (the celestial body) rises in the east, and sets in the west.

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, you are incorrect. It is the Earth which revolves around the sun, not tuter way round.

    2. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, you are incorrect. It is the Earth which revolves around the sun, not tuter way round.

      No, technically it merely depends upon one's frame of reference.

  20. Re:He's right! by Eberlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now now, RMS can be a windbag once in a while, but on occasion he's been proven to be right. The revolution takes all kinds, soldier, and this guy (and the FSF) has gotten us pretty far.

    I'm personally not a big fan of the Sun-MS and I guess that's my personal bias. They've done their share of good for the OSS movement, but have also done some incredibly damaging things to OSS as well. They're one of those wait-and-see types.

    If the Chief GNU is barking at something, I'm willing to bet there's something there that's at least worth investigating. To borrow from your allusion, some gift horses come with nasty surprises.

  21. He is right... by ThinkTiM · · Score: 2, Interesting

    software patents are the major threat to anyone in the software business who doesn't have a 7 figure bank account. And he is not allowing any distracting moves (such as open-sourcing Solaris) to change his fight against them.

    What is the point of open-sourcing Solaris (read free as in freedom) if we can't be sure of using the code that has been "opened" to further the open-source movement? Sun must open its software patents in order to do this.

    1. Re:He is right... by mungtor · · Score: 1
      What is the point of open-sourcing Solaris (read free as in freedom) if we can't be sure of using the code that has been "opened" to further the open-source movement? Sun must open its software patents in order to do this.
      It's pretty obvious really... They're trying to get people to work on new projects in Solaris by opening it up as much as they can to people willing to work on it. They aren't willing to blow millions of dollars and hundreds of man-years of R&D just so all the useful or superior technology can be ripped out and show up in Fedora Core 5 (for example).

      Hopefully, this will result in some competition between the Linux and Solaris camps and both sides will benefit. Major improvements in device drivers for Solaris x86 would probably make a pretty big splash for places afraid to switch from MicroSoft to a "no name" OS.
    2. Re:He is right... by PierceLabs · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      Herein is the rub. Sun didn't open up Solaris so people could port the useful bits elsewhere or feel free to violate the patents in other products - they opened it up so people could better Solaris. Their intentions are entirely self-serving in this regard... but there isn't anything particularly wrong or evil with that.

    3. Re:He is right... by njcoder · · Score: 1
      "Their intentions are entirely self-serving in this regard... but there isn't anything particularly wrong or evil with that."

      I agree with what you said except for the entirely self-serving part. It's not entirely self-serving. It's also a big plus for the third party and corporate developers that develop for solaris. Probably even good for hardware vendors that want to be able to have their products work on solaris.

  22. Is this really news? by winkydink · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Did anybody expect that Stallman would not blast anything that wasn't the GPL?

    He's a zealot. That means its his way or no way. Rathewr than praising the steps in the right direction, he chooses to blast that its not his license.

    Isn't there a Chinese saying about the longest journey beginning with a single step?

    Stallman really needs to understand that his zeal sometimes does as much harm as good to his cause.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Is this really news? by Ur@eus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      RMS doesn't mind things not being GPL, in fact in many circumstances he supports it. He openely supported making the Ogg codecs BSD/MIT style licensed for instance. What he is blasting is Sun pretending do to one thing (give patents use rights to open source community) while actually doing another thing (promising not to sue Solaris developers)

    2. Re:Is this really news? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      longest journey beginning with a single step
      A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. So long as that step is in the right direction.

      zeal sometimes does as much harm as good
      You mean like zealously opposing anything RMS says without offering a shred of reasoning one way or
      the other about what he actually said? (and I'm guessing without reading the article either)

    3. Re:Is this really news? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I agree -- said another way, the GPL is exactly how RMS wants it. If Sun were to make a license exactly how RMS wants it, it would be identical to the GPL. If it's not, it's suboptimal, and RMS complains. QED.

      It's pretty obvious that RMS will complain about every license that's not the GPL, just because if it were enough like it for him to not complain, whoever came up with the license wouldn't have bothered and would just have used the GPL instead.

      (Yes, that entire post was just an excuse to use the phrase "QED." Sorry.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Is this really news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stallman is a communist and you are an ass for supporting him. Period.

    5. Re:Is this really news? by slipstick · · Score: 1

      Given that the "blast" against SUN is independent of the GPL I don't see that you have a point. But if you did have a point I'm sure it would be a good one.

      Note that in the article in question RMS uses the GPL only in way of comparison. He doesn't care one iota what license you use in so much as the license you do choose provides the same freedoms as the GPL. In this instance what he is saying is that SUN is crowing about their "gift" of software patents when in actual fact the gift is really a poisoned pill. Consider that he compares SUN's patent release to IBM's, note that IBM's release has nothing to do with the GPL EXCEPT that the patent license grant is GPL compatible.

      As well, since others have also noted the difficiencies in the CDDL and the "patent grant", it's not like RMS is out on a limb alone.

      Lastly, RMS may indeed be a zealot but thank Allah he is because it means there's someone making sure that the things that need watching are watched. In the meantime you can continue on your merry way secure in the knowledge that you don't have a clue.

      --
      Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
    6. Re:Is this really news? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      Have you ever actually READ anything RMS wrote, or do your form your opinion of him based solely on slashdot comments? He has supported many other licenses in the past, and does NOT trash people solely for not using the GPL. What he DOES do, is take people to task for being shady with what they are doing. A good example is the KDE/gnome issue a few years back. His concern was with the QT license being incomptible with the GPL, which was being used with KDE. In this case, he's pointing out how Sun's doing something sneaky while trying to pretend they are doing the Right Thing (tm). He's not blasting them for their license, he's blasting them for acting like they are doing something they aren't.

    7. Re:Is this really news? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      You're behind times... its about TERRORISTS not COMMUNISTS today.

    8. Re:Is this really news? by TrentC · · Score: 1

      Did anybody expect that Stallman would not blast anything that wasn't the GPL?

      He's a zealot. That means its his way or no way. Rathewr than praising the steps in the right direction, he chooses to blast that its not his license.

      Isn't there a Chinese saying about the longest journey beginning with a single step?

      Stallman really needs to understand that his zeal sometimes does as much harm as good to his cause.


      Did anybody expect that Stallman-haters would not blast anything that wasn't total gushing praise from Stallman?

      They are zealots. That means its their way or no way. Rather than thanking Stallman for highlighting serious issues in Sun's "donations" (the fact that the patents are apparently released under a license meant for copyrighted materials, which pretty much makes it useless for determining what rights you have to use those patents, and the fact that Sun's gesture seems to benefit their particular OSS community at the expense of the rest of us) they choose to blast Stallman for not creaming in his pants over Sun's tossing the OSS community a bone.

      Stallman-haters really need to understand that their zeal sometimes does as much harm as good to their cause.

      Jay (=

    9. Re:Is this really news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're behind times... its about TERRORISTS not COMMUNISTS today.

      I thought it was INSURGENTS now...?

    10. Re:Is this really news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Would it be too severe a blow to your anti-RMS zealotry to point out that there are nearly 30 non-GPL licences that he likes?

    11. Re:Is this really news? by winkydink · · Score: 1
      How many of them are not compatible with the GPL?

      That's what I thought.

      His way or no way.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    12. Re:Is this really news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fscking moron. Have you ever read anything by RMS. Altogether now:

      For he's a wanker, he's a wanker: Wink-wanky-dink.

    13. Re:Is this really news? by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yes, I have -- I'm a particularly big fan of The Right to Read. In fact, I'm a pretty big fan of RMS himself, and agree wholeheartedly with most of his ideas. So I wasn't complaining about RMS just now -- far from it! I was trying to restate what the parent said, except without bashing him.

      As far as supporting other licenses, it seemed to me like he complained about all of them because I was looking at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#TOCL icensingFreeSoftware last night, and based on that he really does seem to complain about all non-GPL licenses. Look at the [partial] list:
      • Why You Should Not Use the Library GPL for Your Next Library
      • The X Window's Trap
      • The Problems of the Apple License
      • The BSD License Problem
      • The Netscape Public License Has Serious Problems
      • The Problems of the Plan 9 License
      • The New Motif License
      • Free But Shackled - The Java Trap
      Each of those articles is complaining about a different license, up to and including the LGPL! Considering that that list comprises almost all Free Software/Open Source licenses around (except Apache, MIT, and Artistic, as far as I can tell), I was just saying that it's pretty darn likely that any new license would make that list too.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:Is this really news? by m50d · · Score: 1

      He's complaining about licenses which need complaining about. Look at any of those. There are real problems there, and someone needs to write about them. And many of the licenses have been fixed, partly in response to his articles. (the different license used for darwin, the revised bsd license).

      --
      I am trolling
    15. Re:Is this really news? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Exactly! And (seemingly) all non-GPL licenses need complaining about. I do not have a problem with this; I was just pointing it out because it is an interesting pattern. Okay?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  23. Re:He's right! by Ur@eus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well Troy accepted the horse and they where not so happy for it afterwards. Not all 'gifts' are equal.

  24. Re:Malcontents... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, though, RMS isn't doing Free Software any favors. It's hard to take stubborn zealots very seriously.

    And you, Trolling4Columbine, have done so much for free software that we should take your words seriously. It was only through your determined efforts that we all enjoy free software today.

  25. Ad hominem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I know this will come as a surprise to you, but simply calling someone zealot doesn't automatically invalidate his arguments.

    I can see you surprised face now and here you stutter the word argument?

    You see, there is an article linked in the news story and in this very linked article RMS explains in great detail why he thinks Sun didn't do what it should have done and what he thinks Sun actually did.

    Now of course you don't have to agree with RMS` reasoning, but please, do yourself and us all a favor and the next time at least try to read the article before you comment and if you disagree try to bring up some arguments and try to reason why you think someone is wrong.

    Looking forward to your next, well reasond post,
    AC

  26. IBM's patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Funny how few people have actually looked at what IBM is really providing. I fail to see (for example) how useful a patent for a tamper proof set screw will be useful to opensource programmers, nor how licensing patents set to expire in a year or two is really being as gracious as IBM would like people to think.

    1. Re:IBM's patents by slipstick · · Score: 1

      Since other's have commented on the semi-usefulness of the patents IBM released I don't really think you characterize it fairly. It's not like your the only one who has noticed. Especially since SUN themselves was more than happy to point it out to all of us.

      However, the critics of the IBM release fail to recognize something, it is obvious that IBM now has a very specific process to vet their patents to determine whether or not they should be released. Whereas it is clear that SUN's release was not vetted in so much as their patent's cannot be used except in the very specific case of a CDDL licensee.

      Consider this, while I can look at IBM's patents and decide on their usefulness without fear, I should not technically look at SUN's patents in case I should be influenced in my software development and infringe one of their patents in a non-CDDL project.

      --
      Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
  27. uh-oh by revery · · Score: 4, Funny

    RMS takes Sun to task...

    Later on, he gave IBM a stern talking to, and then towards the end of the article, he gave Microsoft a vigorous tongue lashing. Also, mosquitos, as a species, were maligned.

    Seriously guys, the trash talk is getting embarrassing...

    1. Re:uh-oh by freemacmini · · Score: 1

      Yes we should all just shut up and sit down. Let's leave the trash talking to Ballmer, Gates, McBride, McNealy and other corporate bigwigs.

    2. Re:uh-oh by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Seriously guys, the trash talk is getting embarrassing...

      You're embarrassing. Go read the article.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot Springer !

  28. "Significant"? by Gnuosphere · · Score: 1

    Last year IBM took a significant step forward in cooperation with the free software community, by offering blanket licenses for 500 of its patents to all free software developers. I never thought I'd say this...but RMS seems to be taking things a little lightly. I don't buy the whole "IBM releases software patents" news. The 500 patents are a drop in the bucket. Releasing patents and receiving praise for such action is (and yes, this is hyperbole) like releasing a few slaves whilst chaining most of them and then being hailed an emancipator.

    1. Re:"Significant"? by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Amen.

      I personally would welcome an announcement by IBM like this: "Recognizing that patents stifle innovation and limit wide deployment of technology, IBM will no longer patent any of its discoveries and will rather publically release implemetations under the GPL."

      Until that day, IBM is still evil.

      As far as Sun, yes, they are also evil. Let Java and the class library go GPL.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    2. Re:"Significant"? by Gnuosphere · · Score: 1

      Yep, Java has to be free. One day I'd like to try teaching AP Computer Science to high school students...but not as long as Java is in chains. It is, unfortunately, the required and standard language for the course.

    3. Re:"Significant"? by slipstick · · Score: 1

      Since you include a quote from the article I can only presume you read the whole thing. In which case it should have been obvious that while RMS "praised" IBM for their "significant step" he also indicated that he wasn't happy with them either.

      So your analogy would be more like "thanks for letting those hostages go but I note that you still have thousands of other captives."

      --
      Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
    4. Re:"Significant"? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Refusing to play the game is a good way to lose. It would be a lot better if IBM were to grant a license to use their patents in perpetuity and allow you to grant sublicenses, so long as the software used an OSI-approved license or similar. IBM would have to be incredibly stupid to do what you suggest, because patents would still exist and they would be hurt if they did that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:"Significant"? by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Linus does not hold patents on linux, and it's doing fine. Patents are not the only way.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    6. Re:"Significant"? by Gnuosphere · · Score: 1
      So your analogy would be more like "thanks for letting those hostages go but I note that you still have thousands of other captives."


      Yes, this is a good analogy.

    7. Re:"Significant"? by Gnuosphere · · Score: 1
      Refusing to play the game is a good way to lose.

      I think that depends on how you refuse. If IBM came up with a publicly-posted, long-term action plan to eradicate their patent holdings there could be success in that. IP rights are not IBMs only source of income.

      Sometimes you have to take a hit for the team.

      IBM supposedly believes in Open Source. If this is true and they are not just piggy-backing this monumental revolution, then they should look for creative ways to aid the movement. But yes, they are just another big, self-centered corporation so I'm not holding my breath. But hey, anything can happen.

      It's not wrong to dream is it? :)

    8. Re:"Significant"? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A long-term action plan to eradicate IBM's patent holdings is either going to be a plan to eradicate ALL software patents, or a plan to eradicate IBM.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:"Significant"? by Gnuosphere · · Score: 1
      I guess I'm not clear as to what you mean. I thought IBM was a hardware company as well as a software company. I don't mean they should get rid of all patents...just a long-term plan to be rid of software patents.


      Are you saying that IBMs main source of income is through software IP rights? I'm not sure if it is but perhaps you could offer some insight into this. Would IBM really shut down completely without software patents or would it be a matter of downsizing? Downsizing and "eradication" are two different states.

    10. Re:"Significant"? by slipstick · · Score: 1
      It took a bit of searching but here's an article that implies that IBM receives about $1 billion per year in revenue from IP license rights. Note this is all IP licensing both hardware & software and the article is dated 2003.

      http://www.industryweek.com/CurrentArticles/asp/ar ticles.asp?ArticleID=1400

      While I have grown to "trust" IBM more, they are still far from being in the ranks of the "free as in freedom" crowd. In fact the article implies that as far as IP goes they are going in the other direction. On the other hand this 500 patent overture may be their way of having their cake and eat it too. If OpenSource really does take over the world IBM is in a great position to capitalize. They lose at most $1billion/year from IP but gain untold billions from consulting.

      Note as well that IBM's 500 patent give away only applies to OSI approved licenses, they can still sue their competitors. This is great for OS because IBM's competitors fight back against IBM but not OSI projects. Consider SUN's move with the 1600 patents, they tried a quick bait-and-switch but people caught them on it. Now SUN only has two choices, 1) really open OpenSolaris or 2) watch OpenSolaris die and whither along with SUN's formerly good name.

      The difference between the two is like this, for SUN we have a case of "The emperor isn't wearing any clothes." With IBM it's "The emperor may not be wearing clothes but he's gone to the laundry to see if there's anything there that fits." In other words I am cautiously optomistic with IBM, but I think SUN is outright trying to game the OS system. In fact, for me personally, SUN has shown themselves to be totally devoid of any redeeming qualities. They had a chance and blew it, I don't buy at all their little act that they are working the kinks out of their CDDL. SUN knows EXACTLY what they want and it totally conflicts with 71% of the OSI world(this is the percentage of OSI projects on sourceforge using either the GPL or LGPL, 67% use straight GPL). So SUN is trying to make "overtures" in the hopes that we will let them slide by. They have reams of lawyers, they don't need us to tell them what is wrong with their CDDL, hell they already distribute loads of GPL software with their proprietary stuff. At the very least their first attempt should have been better than it was.

      --
      Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
  29. Go suck eggs by n1ywb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    RMS is one of the greatest allies of free software. He has stuck firmly to the principles he believes in. He has dedicated his life to evangelizing free software. He is in no small part responisble for the GPL and GNU/Linux. Can you say the same about yourself?

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
    1. Re:Go suck eggs by nazzdeq · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Free software doesn't pay the bills. Sure, they make money from "support", but then the software is not free, is it? Free software is the one thing that's worse than outsourcing. Let's all work for free and sing Kumbaya! Woohoo.

    2. Re:Go suck eggs by Ur@eus · · Score: 1

      RMS free software goal has never been about making stuff free as in no cost. It is about ensuring people have the freedom to tinker with and share the code. Your misunderstanding was part of the reason for the term 'open source' being coined, as to many people like you thought the issue was about cost since the word free in english tends to be associated more with gratis than with free as in freedom.

    3. Re:Go suck eggs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all good when you are funded by someone else.

      Let him try to make money on his own.

    4. Re:Go suck eggs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money on his own...like how? Like charging for appearance fees, making speeches, writing books?

      You also have to understand that "making money on your own" isn't possible, really, unless you literally print money on your own. Making money depends on being funded by someone else -- that's called employment. Even if you're a freelancer/contract worker, you still depend on someone else for your money.

      Ever read ESR? There's something he presented as "software-as-a-service" which seems to make a bit of sense. Making software is a service industry operating under the guise of a manufacturing industry.

    5. Re:Go suck eggs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the same ESR who said Microsoft would be history in 18 months just 6 years ago?

      I am not sure anyone who makes such an ass of himself can be taken seriously for anything. Didn't Microsoft just report a record quarter?

      Software is not a service business because open source zealots say it is.

    6. Re:Go suck eggs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he has no life

    7. Re:Go suck eggs by Tough+Love · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your misunderstanding was part of the reason for the term 'open source' being coined

      Apparently, you saw a misunderstanding where there was none.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    8. Re:Go suck eggs by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Apparently, you saw a misunderstanding where there was none

      I retract that. Your post was in reply to an article I didn't see and you didn't quote, properly modded down as flamebait.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  30. Schwartz blasts IBM patent hooie by wombatmobile · · Score: 3, Informative

    Somewhat similarly, Sun honcho Jonathon Schwartz posts these comments about IBM's patent assignments to the OSS movement in his blog:

    ps. You've got to love IBM's ability to play the community. Going through some of the patents they "donated" to the open source community a few weeks back, it looks as if they all, curiously, seem to be due for payment - and thus potential expiration - this year. Were they destined for the bit bucket (turns out IBM is among the largest patent expirers in the world, along with its largest issuer).

    And some of the patents have nothing to do with open source software - my favorite in the heap is this one.

    1. Re:Schwartz blasts IBM patent hooie by turgid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Shhhhhh....You're not supposed to diparage IBM here, silly! Slashdot runs on DB2, and IBM rulez whereas Sun SuX0rz, don't you know?

    2. Re:Schwartz blasts IBM patent hooie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM has a patent for a tamper proof screw? No wonder the US Patent office rejected my application for the Sure Thing!

  31. Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RMS grousing about how some corporation isn't sharing his particular worldview is about as common as someone trolling slashdot forums with goatse links. Can we please move along?

  32. The world of Richard Stallman by wheelbarrow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have no problem with the world according to Richard Stallman as long as compliance is voluntary.

    As a software creator I am free to choose to release the software for free and I am free to demand payment for my software. On the other side of the coin, consumers are free to accept my terms or not.

    Oh wait, we already live in that world. So what is his beef with people making decisions for themselves?

    1. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by byolinux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Free Software, in the GPL/FSF/Stallman sense is not about price at all. You should make money from your software, you should sell it- just allow people to study and modify it, redistribute and distribute it too.

      What is the software you are creating? Software like Adobe Photoshop, or custom software for internal use/a client?

      Don't forget - the FSF sells Free Software too. It helps them survive.

    2. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by Aim+Here · · Score: 1

      Obviously you didn't RTFA. He's not having a go at Sun because of their CDDL license, he's having a go at Sun because they're threatening F/OSS developers with patents (and spinning that they're good guys because they're not going after the Solaris developer base with those patents).

      This isn't about what Sun does with it's software. It's about Sun threatening to charge you royalties for YOUR software, that you wrote yourself, on your own, with no help from them. See the difference?

    3. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The software he is creating is none of your damn business. He can license it any way he wants.

      Also, he can come after you for pirating it with all the zeal that you people go after GPL violaters.

      For all of that freedom talk, you sure are intent on butting into other people's business and telling them how to license their code.

      Freedom...sure.

    4. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by Kenja · · Score: 1
      "Free Software, in the GPL/FSF/Stallman sense is not about price at all. You should make money from your software, you should sell it- just allow people to study and modify it, redistribute and distribute it too."

      In other words you should not be able to make money of software you write as there is no way you can compete with other people who are also selling your software since they dont need to recover devlopment costs. That is the problem with the GPL. It removes control from the devloper and puts it into the hands of large groups that can offer support for a lower cost.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    5. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His beef isn't with people making decisions for themselves, if you took the time to read anything he's actually written you'd know his concern is about freedom and not the monetary cost of software like you are pretending it to be.

      He's worried about Sun pulling the wool down the eyes of people like you, and it would seem his concerns are valid.

    6. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by byolinux · · Score: 1

      Sure you can. If you write custom software for clients, they pay you to write it, and you can GPL it.

      Big proprietary software isn't going to work like this, I'll give you that, but for the custom software developer, it can work nicely. I make money installing and configuring GPL code, specifically the Content Management System, Plone - when I am finished writing a custom project for a client, I will use the GPL to license it in a way that lets others use it too.

    7. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by Kenja · · Score: 1
      "Sure you can. If you write custom software for clients, they pay you to write it, and you can GPL it. Big proprietary software isn't going to work like this, I'll give you that, but for the custom software developer, it can work nicely. I make money installing and configuring GPL code, specifically the Content Management System, Plone - when I am finished writing a custom project for a client, I will use the GPL to license it in a way that lets others use it too."

      I remember a day when a single person working in their spare time could create software and sell it. The GPL is opposed to that idea. I for one want to create software and not spend all my pogramming time on the clock.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    8. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by crush · · Score: 1
      As a software creator I am free to choose to release the software for free and I am free to demand payment for my software.
      And then the Sun are free to sue your arse off because you mistakenly assumed that the code they released didn't contain patent-encumbered methods.
    9. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by byolinux · · Score: 1

      It's not against that. It's ideal for that.

    10. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by buddhaseviltwin · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, we already live in that world. So what is his beef with people making decisions for themselves?

      Why is it that you've automatically assumed that his dislike for propietary software means he wants to take away your freedom to create and purchase proprietary software?

      Are you that obtuse?

    11. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The GPL is ideal for people selling driven development, or support, but crap for people selling software since you must provide enough of the program for anyone to recreate it from the sources. You are only obligated to distribute the source to people to whom you distribute a binary, but there is nothing to prevent those people from redistributing the source, or distributing a binary, and accompanying it with the source. Thus the GPL is actually quite horrible for those who want to sell a software package - what you are selling is actually a distribution of the package, and you must give them the software for free.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by arose · · Score: 1

      Selling copies of software != selling software

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    13. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as selling software unless you own all of the rights to it exclusively. Otherwise, you are selling copies of software. If the software is GPL then you have granted many rights to any party and while you may still hold the copyright, the software is no longer YOURS - it belongs to everyone in a certain sense because you cannot revoke the application of the GPL to the code. You CAN make new versions non-GPL so long as all copyright holders agree, but that's a separate issue. So, my prior comment holds true regardless. You can sell directed development, you can sell support, but you cannot really sell the software or even copies thereof unless you find suckers. That's OK if that's your thing but the fact is that the GPL is poison to being able to sell software, or even copies of software. Personally I approve of the model in which people pay for development or support instead of software, but mostly because it lets them get the source, which I think is pretty important. Not a god-given right, but important.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by njcoder · · Score: 1

      That's why I always thought that developers should get in the habbit of not distrubuting their software until they have someone to pay for it. Put a really big sticker price on it and if it's GPL'd let someone else distribute the source code if they want. Write some nifty thing.. Then charge 200k for it. After that.. the GPL can let it run wild. Screw that donation crap :)

    15. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by wheelbarrow · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am that obtuse. Visions of utopia can easily slide into restrictions on freedom and mass murder.

    16. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by nickco3 · · Score: 1

      So what is his beef with people making decisions for themselves?

      No beef. He wants your decision to be fully informed.

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    17. Re:The world of Richard Stallman by buddhaseviltwin · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am that obtuse. Visions of utopia can easily slide into restrictions on freedom and mass murder.

      First, you sound like a real sucker for a good slippery-slope argument.

      Second, visions of utopia do not "easily slide" let alone "slide" into Communist Empires and 3rd Reich's. Visions of utopia are expertly manipulated by ambitious demagogues who prey on their subject's dreams and their obtuse conceptual models of them. They inject their own ambition and plans into the visions of others, riding on the merits of whatever vision is popular at the time to achieve their own goals.

      Third, maybe if you bothered to consider the reality and circumstances of scenarios you'd be able to discern which slippery-slopes pose a real threat and "threats" that amount to supposition and scare tactics at best.

  33. He sure blasts a lot. by Axe · · Score: 1
    Any chance for any news involving RMS not to include the word "blasts" in the header? Seems he does not have any other opinion expression mode. :)

    Those are Sun's patents.

    --
    <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
    1. Re:He sure blasts a lot. by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      Those are Sun's patents.

      I agree with you, however, if Sun had not made their original announcement, RMS wouldn't currently be "blasting" them about it.

      I'm tired of the mega-corporations spouting deceptive legalese and press releases in order to gain the respect of hippy, freedom loving FOSS advocates and developers. Don't these corporations know that they're not fooling anybody? Why bother?

  34. Re:He's right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting, interesting...

    Kinda like how India refused most forms of US aid after the tsunami, I guess.

  35. "Blasts???" by ElvenSmith · · Score: 1

    I see no "blasts" in this "taking to task" by RMS. Why exaggerate his "annoyance" to FUD? Ah...of course...this is /. and fud-slinging is the norm...

  36. A good business strategy. by john_anderson_ii · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately I see it as a gimmick.

    Let's look at Sun's Open Source strategy:
    You can take OpenSolaris source code and modify it. You cannot take OpenSolaris patented concepts and place them into other works OSS or otherwise. If things pan out for Sun that means they will have a large developer base dumping code into Solaris, which will make Solaris better and more competitive. Sun basically just improved Solaris with no R&D by leveraging the OSS community. It appears, as of now, that Sun is in this for free skilled labor and nothing else. They are trying to have their cake (revenues from Solaris) and eat it to (no competing products resulting from Open Solaris concepts because of patent issues). The open code without the freedom from patents is like saying "Hey, developers, help me make a buck off this OS by contributing your code for free."

    It doesn't take a zealot or a great deal of common sense to notice this. I say let Sun do it, and when they don't attract the huge developer base they hoped to attract maybe they will rethink their OSS approach.

    --
    Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
    1. Re:A good business strategy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe the CDDL only helps Sun & Solaris, but there could be concepts and ideas that can be used to benefit Linux not by porting Solaris software to Linux

    2. Re:A good business strategy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sun basically just improved Solaris with no R&D by leveraging the OSS community.

      Sun's R&D budget is hundreds of millions of dollars per year. OpenSolaris won't change this. R&D is actually the thing that allowed Sun to survive at all after the bubble burst. R&D is what makes Solaris 10 what it is today.

    3. Re:A good business strategy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot take OpenSolaris patented concepts and place them into other works OSS or otherwise.

      Exactly like GPL'd software, like, well, Linux.

    4. Re:A good business strategy. by 808140 · · Score: 1

      Um, no, because, AFAIK, "Linux" does not have any patents it can enforce on anyone. In fact, Linux is probably in violation of quite a large number of patents (it's unfortunately very easy to infringe, even without intending to, when things as obvious as one-click make it through the USPTO).

      I think you pretty much missed the boat entirely here. It seems that what you wanted to say was that you can't arbitrarily copy GPL'd code and put it into other, non-GPL products. Unfortunately, the discussion here is about Sun's use of patents (read: NOT copyright license) to ensure that all the ideas of worth stay in OpenSolaris, and are not even reimplemented in other OSs.

      Furthermore, to address the point I think you wanted to make: the CDDL is compatible with the CDDL, and essentially nothing else. In that sense, you are right that it resembles the GPL. However, a massive quantity of free software, written by hobbyists (read: not companies) is already available under the GPL, whereas only OpenSolaris-related code is available under the CDDL.

      The result? Sun has provided its code under a "Free Software" license that stipulates, essentially, that no code it has written may be incorporated into any existing free software products. If the GPL did not yet exist, no one would be surprised by this -- but the GPL does exist, and whether BSD-ers like it or not, most free software is licensed under it.

      But there's a loophole, you see. I could say, fuck it, I'm going to fork OpenSolaris, and sure, it'll be under the CDDL, but Sun no longer has control over it. So in that sense, it's free, they can't prevent me from forking it, or writing (CDDL-licensed) derivative works that they don't control. In order to keep me from doing this (or at least keep me from doing it in a way they don't agree with), enter patents. The real issue here.

      Enough of OpenSolaris is patented that I would have to be very careful about what I used in there, even if I did CDDL my derivative works.

      Because smart people everywhere were instantly aware of this problem, Sun did its whole "1600 patents FREE" thing. But as it turns out, this was just a marketing ploy, with no real meaning.

      Until it gets worked out, I would be somewhat wary of contributing to OpenSolaris.

  37. Re:He's right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think what is being pointed out by the article is that there may be strings attached or a trap involved. A gift horse isn't such a great gift if after you take possession of it, you find you have to pay back taxes on it or it has a contagious disease that infects the rest of your horses. The announcement from IBM was clear that if you use the software they released, no matter what happens, you wont be sued for patent infringement (or you wont loose if you are). Sun has not made that clear. Even if they dont intend to sue, if they are bought out by someone like SCO, you are not protected. Even if you don't use their software code but simply the idea the patent covers, you are vulnerable.

  38. Insightful? by Trick · · Score: 1

    Since when is a copy-and-paste of the article "insightful?"

    If Sun didn't have a patent on big, heavy purple servers, I'd be whacking a moderator with one right now.

    1. Re:Insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shsh! Don't you tell the mods that it's the original article that this story is all about.

      I was so hoping of seeing this article being modded flaimbait because of the known competence and text comprehension skills of our /. ubermods. ;-D

    2. Re:Insightful? by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1

      It takes great insight to realize that a server will get slashdotted.
      -russ
      p.s. hey slashcode! I can post an insightful comment more than once every two minutes, okay! Lay off!

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    3. Re:Insightful? by MartinG · · Score: 1

      since the mods probably haven't even read TFA and so didn't recognise it as a copy and paste.

      --
      -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
  39. jumping the gun a little maybe by cangeceiro · · Score: 1

    how come nobody has brought up the fact that for a large corporation like sun it is gonna take some time to release source code and free up the patents for solaris. im sure there is mounds of paperwork that has to be done for them to accomplish this. so i would say people are jumping the gun in questioning suns motives because they came up with there own license, and have only released a small amount of code.

    Good things come to those who wait

    1. Re:jumping the gun a little maybe by mungtor · · Score: 1

      nobody brings that up because this is /.

      corporations = evil

      software communism = good

      same why everybody jumps down Nvidia's throat for not open sourcing their video drivers while completely ignoring that they can't due to the legal actions brough against them by SGI

    2. Re:jumping the gun a little maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah... and if you wait long enough you wil be in shit up to your ears...
      That "Good things..." was valid before the concept of patents and copyrights were invented...

  40. Sun, PicoJava, and 8255 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although the number of patents released sounds impressive, Sun has completely ignored its stranglehold over PicoJava as it is implemented on the 8255 chip. Sadly, many of my requests to Sun regarding it have gone unanswered.

  41. Has anyone noticed... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    ...that every post criticizing RMS thus far has been modded as Troll or Flamebait? Every Single One?

    Some of them are trolls, but come on...is RMS a sacred cow now?

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Has anyone noticed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Some of them are trolls, but come on...is RMS a sacred cow now?

      Uh.. this is slashdot.. so uhm. Yes.

    2. Re:Has anyone noticed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I write all I see are posts blasting RMS for being a "communist" and other posts that support him that are actively being moderated down. Slashdot has just as many anti-RMS zealots as it does pro-RMS zealots.

    3. Re:Has anyone noticed... by Ur@eus · · Score: 1

      But you said it yourself, all the posts which was modded as trolls where critizing RMS, not his viewpoints. In case you are unsure about the difference. A trolling post is 'RMS is a dufus' while a constructive criticism is 'I disagree with RMS on the point that the GPL is a good license'. See the difference?

    4. Re:Has anyone noticed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...that every post criticizing RMS thus far has been modded as Troll or Flamebait? Every Single One?
      Some of them are trolls, but come on...is RMS a sacred cow now?

      MODERATORS: mod this damn troll down already!

    5. Re:Has anyone noticed... by slipstick · · Score: 1

      Criticising a person should be marked as flamebait, criticising his stance if stated in reasonable language will be given appropriate moderation.

      So if you can point to one of the posts that actually makes a good criticism about RMS's article rather than the man himself I'd like to see it.

      --
      Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
    6. Re:Has anyone noticed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well let's be happy altogether and sing! sing! sing !


      Join us now and share the software;
      You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
      x2

      Hoarders may get piles of money,
      That is true, hackers, that is true.
      But they cannot help their neighbors;
      That's not good, hackers, that's not good.

      When we have enough free software
      At our call, hackers, at our call,
      We'll throw out those dirty licenses
      Ever more, hackers, ever more.

      Join us now and share the software;
      You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
      x2

    7. Re:Has anyone noticed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we on the same page?

      Is this really news? (Score:2, Insightful)
      by winkydink (650484) * on Monday January 31, @04:30PM (#11532650)
      (Last Journal: Thursday December 16, @05:35PM)
      Did anybody expect that Stallman would not blast anything that wasn't the GPL?

      He's a zealot. That means its his way or no way. Rathewr than praising the steps in the right direction, he chooses to blast that its not his license.

      Isn't there a Chinese saying about the longest journey beginning with a single step?

      Stallman really needs to understand that his zeal sometimes does as much harm as good to his cause.

  42. Re:He's right! by grub · · Score: 1


    Only with an Open Source zealot can he look a gift horse in the mouth, and after inspecting each and every gold cap, yell at the giver for not putting in platinum with extra dental service for life like he want

    No, the giver of the horse would have a contract stipulating that the receiver could only run the horse in certain races at selected racetracks on specific dates. All decided at the discretion of the "gift giver".

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  43. ill-conceived use of legal docs? Sounds like SOP by infonography · · Score: 1

    Sun is sitting on a bunch of patents that they are not using for anything. Kudos to them that they want to see them taken somewhere by somebody. When was the last time you gave somebody a computer that cost you bucks back in the day but is now a door stop?

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  44. I'm Sorry... by AusG4 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Oh wacky, wacky Richard.

    You had me with the "my software is free, just share your code with me too" line.

    You had me with the "complete UNIX toolset, we just need a kernel" idea.

    You lost me with the "now all code should be free without exceptions" bit.

    After that, I stopped caring what you thought about the APSL and the BSD license, and still don't care what you think about the CDDL.

    A brilliant engineer you are, but please stop playing the pundit on all technology issues that run counter to your ideas. Clearly, the GPL isn't for everyone... try to remember that.

    --
    bash-3.00$ uname -a
    SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    1. Re:I'm Sorry... by leomekenkamp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would not call a person who fights for the freedom of all people 'wacky'.

      You lost me with the "now all code should be free without exceptions" bit.

      Why? Does not everybody have a right to study and modify the software they run? In our lifetimes we will probably see direct neural interfaces between men and computers; do you want to connect your brain to a piece of software that only the manufacturer knows of what it does? Do you want to be told you cannot 'think' certain thoughts, because they have been patented? These are the things RMS keeps in mind! There is no compromise possible; a user should have certain rights to the code he is running. It's either that, or we might end up being Borg.

      Just like you should have unlimited access to what is under the hood of your car, you should have access to what is under the gui of your applications.

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    2. Re:I'm Sorry... by TrentC · · Score: 1

      and still don't care what you think about the CDDL.

      So you don't think there's a problem with offering patents under a license meant for copyrighted works?

      Clearly, the GPL isn't for everyone... try to remember that.

      Here's a hint: if you actually had cared enough read the article, you might have been surprised to note that RMS does not mention the GPL at all. Which, y'know, is fitting since we're talking about patents, not copyrights.

      Instead, you had to run to /. to proclaim to everyone how one person's opinion doesn't matter you at all.

      Which is ironic, since I don't care if RMS's opinion matters to you, yet I took the time to read what you said before commenting.

      Jay (=

      P.S. Can you point me to a reference where RMS says "now all code should be free without exceptions"? I find it odd, since on at least one occasion he agreed with the use of the BSD license over the LGPL.

    3. Re:I'm Sorry... by AusG4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why? Does not everybody have a right to study and modify the software they run?

      Not if it was written by someone else who allows you to use it with the explicit condition that you cannot study the source or modify it. Is it ideal that you can acquire these rights? Of course, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

      Do you want to be told you cannot 'think' certain thoughts, because they have been patented?

      Using Z to prove A never makes any sense. I know it's convienient to make this connection to argue that "all software should be free", but it's simply not the same thing.

      There is no compromise possible; a user should have certain rights to the code he is running.

      And if you demand this right, then acquire code to which you have the those rights... but don't acquire binaries you don't have the rights to and then turn around and complain about not having the code. That would be stupid. There will always be free code, no doubt, and if you choose to use it, do so.

      The irony is that the open source movement argues "choice" at every turn... unless of course that choice is to not use open source software. "choice" is absolute, like the freedom to think what one wants, regardless of how you want to limit it by suggesting that such freedoms don't exist unless an OSI compliant license is attached to them.

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    4. Re:I'm Sorry... by freemacmini · · Score: 1

      People who disagree with you should not be able to speak up.

    5. Re:I'm Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe you were modded as a troll.

    6. Re:I'm Sorry... by AusG4 · · Score: 1

      Ya know, as I clicked the submit button I thought... wait a second, someone is going to get as far as the word "wacky" and mod me down.

      *sigh*

      What can ya do?

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    7. Re:I'm Sorry... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't it be mandatory that users have these rights? Not that they "acquire them", but have them in the same artifical manner that authors have them now. You ack as though the current state of affairs where dictated by Moses, rather than developing constantly as our legal system evolves. It is obvious that current copyright isn't promoting the arts and science by increasing the amount of public domain material. So the stated purpose has changed. Thus we have a status que that admits change and is in flux. So where should the line be drawn? Where should we go from here? You seem satisfied, but that doesn't mean there is any inherent reason why the author of code should have any of the rights we currently grant. It is a social experiment, not the 10 commandments.

    8. Re:I'm Sorry... by AusG4 · · Score: 1

      You're right. Why shouldn't it be mandatory that if I write a great piece of software that I be required to simply -hand- you the means to undermine my ability to earn a living on it? I'm not claiming that I should have a perpetual lock on the ideas I create, but I certainly should be allowed the incentive to develop knowing that if I spend years on a new technology, -you- won't be able to join me in the market a month later because you stood on my shoulders.

      Copy me if you want, but do the work. Commerical, closed-source software=good. Software patents=bad.

      Nobody complains that musicians don't distribute their CD's complete with the original multitrack masters.... this is no different. On the same point, nobody dares question their right to earn a living from their work. (Well, some people do... but these people have often never created a thing in their lives and therefore, I don't really care what they think about the rights of a creator over their creation).

      Code is like music (or any art), and I have every right to distribute my art as I see fit. If you don't want it because I won't give you the code, then don't take it... but don't cry about it. In the spirit of open source, write your own... then you'll have the code... but fsck you if you think you can tell me what I'm going to do with my work.

      On the other side of the coin, why SHOULD it be mandatory for users to have these rights? Perhaps before asking questions of me you should really reason out an acceptable answer to that. Something for the sake of same is always pointless.

      Don't get me wrong... I firmly support open source, contribute to open source projects, and have been writing and using open source software as long as I can remember... but there will always be the need for the "black box" projects... I do the work, you want the results, you pay for them. Unlike RMS, I can't laze about in academia all day sermonizing on the virtues of OSS... I have bills to pay.

      You're right... things evolve. Things change... but you're insane to really think that a 100% OSS world is where it's evolving to.

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    9. Re:I'm Sorry... by leomekenkamp · · Score: 1

      Is it ideal that you can acquire these rights? Of course, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

      RMS is not calling for laws to make it mandatory; he wants to *educate* end-users, so they know that running free software is better for them.

      Using Z to prove A never makes any sense.

      I should have been more clear: I brought the patents stuff up because it is equally important. Back to my original question: would you wire your brain to a piece of closed source software?

      (...)but don't acquire binaries you don't have the rights to and then turn around and complain about not having the code.

      That is not what RMS is doing; he will simply not run proprietary software on his machines.

      (...)the open source movement argues(...)

      RMS is a spearhead for the _free_ software movement; it is about freedom for the end-user, choice follows out of freedom. RMS thinks that simply open sourcing software does not free the end user. There is a big difference between open source and free software.

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    10. Re:I'm Sorry... by AusG4 · · Score: 1

      Jesus, you talk about the man like he's... well, Jesus.

      No, I wouldn't wire to my brain to a piece of closed source software. Of course, this has little do with the point. That said, I wouldn't wire my head to a piece of open source software either. The last thing I want my brain co-processor to do is start spitting out "woof woof" every time I try to un-think something, but I digress.

      It's very much the "free software is better for them" attitude that pisses me off about RMS/the whole movement; as if there is some karmic superiority i'll enjoy from running Linux. Get over yourselves.

      At the end of the day, if you feel the closed/open source nature of your software really makes an impact on your personal "freedoms", you have way too much attachment to your software.

      Of course, It would be just as much an oppression of my "freedom" to not allow me to create and sell a closed source software product as it would be for you to not get it for free, but try not to think about that little paradox too much....

      Anyways, it's 3:00am and I'm installing Solaris 10 on my Ultra2. No, I don't have the source code. No, I don't feel oppressed because of it.

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    11. Re:I'm Sorry... by leomekenkamp · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't it be mandatory that if I write a great piece of software that I be required to simply -hand- you the means to undermine my ability to earn a living on it?

      I'm sorry, but this is a nonsense argument. Red Hat gives you sources, so does Mandrake, Hans Reiser, the Apache foundation, IBM, even Sun. They all make money. One should be paid for _writing_ software, not for _reproducing_ it.

      (...)-you- won't be able to join me in the market a month later because you stood on my shoulders.

      But that is what advance in society is all about! Working on/with the results of others to improve the whole. Evolution works that way, capitalism works that way. What gives you the right to hold back developments that benefit the whole society just for your personal gain? If you made something, but are exploiting it badly, someone else should be able to step in and compete with you. Competition lowers prices, adds incentives to be better and is better for the end-users.

      Nobody complains that musicians don't distribute their CD's complete with the original multitrack masters.... this is no different.

      Yes, it is. Music is an art form. Software is functional. Big difference. And your comparison fails also: no one is calling for a CVS dump of a project, just the actual end-product.

      Code is like music (or any art) (...)

      Art is almost by definition non-functional. Software is by definition functional. Big, big difference.

      If you don't want it because I won't give you the code, then don't take it... but don't cry about it.,

      RMS does not want your software if it is not free. He doesn't cry about it, he simply voices his opinion that non-free software is unethical, and is holding back society as a whole.

      On the other side of the coin, why SHOULD it be mandatory for users to have these rights?

      http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

      I have bills to pay.

      No one is stopping you from making money writing free software.

      You're right... things evolve. Things change... but you're insane to really think that a 100% OSS world is where it's evolving to.

      One simularity in visionaries is that in their time they are called insane by the ones who do not understand them or fail to see the logical flow of things. The world has already been 100% open source, until software writers closed their source to limit their end-users' freedom (to change to another hardware provider for instance). The world will be open source again, as soon as end-users demand it.

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    12. Re:I'm Sorry... by leomekenkamp · · Score: 1

      Jesus, you talk about the man like he's... well, Jesus.

      You have seen his picture, right? ;-)
      I tend to be a devil's advocate or take an extreme standpoint just to get a clear view of where the 'borders of truth' are.

      Of course, It would be just as much an oppression of my "freedom" to not allow me to create and sell a closed source software product as it would be for you to not get it for free, but try not to think about that little paradox too much....

      There is no paradox: you can create closed s/w, RMS urges end-users not to use closed software, and ask for free s/w. Again, the FSF is not calling for laws to prohibit closed source; laws can easily be changed. The general population has to see the benefits of free software.

      Anyways, it's 3:00am and I'm installing Solaris 10 on my Ultra2. No, I don't have the source code.

      Soon you can have the source ;-). Good luck with the installation.

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    13. Re:I'm Sorry... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      "Why shouldn't it be mandatory that if I write a great piece of software that I be required to simply -hand- you the means to undermine my ability to earn a living on it?"

      Yet again this is exactly what I'm asking you to defend. There is no inherent reason that you should be accorded "rights" except that in order to promote the greater public welfare we the people through our representatives did in fact create a fictious form of psuedo-property and grant short-term rights to go along with it. So the ball is in your court. Those rights aren't real property rights, and thus don't have a long history of support. They are new, an experiment, and an experiment that isn't doing what it set out to do. So why should we continue? Why should you "certainly should be allowed the incentive" if that incentive isn't in the public interest? Again, it isn't real property. No one who copies your work is depriving you of your use (as would be the case if someone took your car, for instance).

      I'll help you out. The purpose of that incentive is to promote the increase in public domain materials. As long as it works for that purpose, so that more public domain material exsists with copyright than without it, then it is worthwhile and we should continue to pretend that the psuedo-property is a form of property. Just doen't jump someone who suggests the tide has turned, as though there was no tide to consider. There is no god given right to ownership of intellectual property, it is merely a game we play for the purpose of increasing the common goods available to all.

      In terms of which way the world is evolving, I see IP as a major point of contention in our future. Can't throw everyone in jail for downloading MP3s. Is it right? Should we try?

      If you convince me that the greater good is served (with copyright and patent laws as they currently are), then I would say "let sleeping dogs lie", and I might not be that hard to convince. You haven't really tried to convince me, yet. You merely repeat that as things stand, you have legal rights. No mention of whether this is a "legal right" to rape the public, or a right which is just and in the common good.

      PS, a quick disclosure: my BS degrees where in Physics and then Computer Science, and I'm an MBA Grad Student now. I might not be as much a hippie as you might think. Its just that I loved Bus Law and PolySci, and I hate to see anyone present an idea and me railroaded with (an inappropriately presented) status que. Thats all.

    14. Re:I'm Sorry... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      I'm replying to my own post to clarify my position. I don't think it would be equitble or fair to do away with copyright overnight. Too many people rely in good faith on the system. But it is also true that, for instance, movies exsist that predate video release, that where never sold in any form, just leased. These movies are soon to fall into the public domain. In order to limit the public domain, in order to avoid materials that would compete with current releases, these movies are to be destroyed. Any copies that get free are illegal, because no one ever had a right to copy them. This doesn't promote the arts or sciences by increasing the amount of public domain materials. It is just one example.

      Ask yourself if software would have developed without software copyrights. Of course it would. Would it have provided the same advantage to develop it, of course not. Yet in order to push hardware, software would still have been written. Would Xerox Park and Bell Labs have done what they did, regardless? Would Linux have developed?

      I think we do need to tone down the cry for "intellectual property" rights. I'd advocate decreasing the number of years the psuedo-rights are in effect by a given amount each year, until software was protected for 2 or 3 years. I'd want mandatory release after the protected term expired. I'd be willing for it to take awhile, so that business models adjust without causing chaos. The whole point is supposed to be the betterment of the public good.

      Not that I think that is where we are headed, but I do think that would be a direction that would be fair to all concerned.

    15. Re:I'm Sorry... by m50d · · Score: 1

      Why not complain? If I buy a toaster and it doesn't have a high enough setting to do muffins, I'll ask the manufacturer about it. If they get enough letters, they'll make the change for the next version. If I want more support, I might try and start a petition or something. Why shouldn't I do the same when there's something I don't like about my software.

      --
      I am trolling
    16. Re:I'm Sorry... by cecom · · Score: 1

      "No one is stopping you from making money writing free software."

      Ahem, have you actually tried that, or even considered it ? If you had, you would know it was nonsense.

      I could write the best software and then you could take it and package it in a better box (because you supposedly had more capital than me - you could be Microsoft,for example), and I wouldn't make a dime. No, thank you.

      I would rather do like Id software - release the source code eventually, after I have moved on to the next generation.

    17. Re:I'm Sorry... by AusG4 · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      The average OSS zealot, alas, has never actually had to buy their meals using money earned from writing and selling a software product.

      It's all fine and dandy to say "all software should be free and include source code" and make some altruistic arguments about why... and in a perfect world, I would agree completely.

      Here in reality on the other hand, I don't have the luxury of being paid by academia to wax intellectual about things. The corporation that takes my ideas and packages them, brands them, and puts them on the market makes the money, and I make nothing.

      Thanks, but no thanks.

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    18. Re:I'm Sorry... by AusG4 · · Score: 1

      One simularity in visionaries is that in their time they are called insane by the ones who do not understand them or fail to see the logical flow of things. The world has already been 100% open source, until software writers closed their source to limit their end-users' freedom (to change to another hardware provider for instance). The world will be open source again, as soon as end-users demand it.

      You're missing a major key point here. You can DEMAND an open source copy of Adobe Photoshop all you want... but Adobe isn't going to release one because they know one thing; 99% of the people out there don't feel that their freedoms are infringed by not having the source code to their software.

      What you and the rest of the OSS/FSF zombies should really clue in to is the fact that you are a massive minority.... nobody cares as much as you care... and the majority don't care at all. You can say this is because they have't been "educated", but the reality is that even the ones who have heard your message still can't understand why it's an issue.

      Don't confuse the sucess of Linux (for example) with the sucess of your (err, RMS's via you) vision. Corporations love Linux because it's cost effective, not because they feel their freedoms are protected by it.

      The again, why am I bothering? You're obviously not someone who's ever had to actually live off their ability to write software, so everything you're saying is just regurgitated propaganda anyways. Come talk to me when you have actually -tried- to make money selling your shiny new open source project.

      That said, I doubt I'll hear from you again...

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    19. Re:I'm Sorry... by leomekenkamp · · Score: 1

      Hans Reiser. Red Hat. IBM. Mandrake. Many others. And yes, me as well: I have been paid to write GPL software. In fact, when people ask me to write software for them, I prefer to deliver it to them under the GPL. It is far from nonsense. Your response is nonsense. You expect to do something once and get paid for it over and over again. Getting paid for _writing_ software makes very much sense, thank you very much.

      Also, do not forget that only 10% of all software is shrink-wrapped, all the rest is custom-made.

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    20. Re:I'm Sorry... by leomekenkamp · · Score: 1
      About 100 people on this earth really have a clue what string theory is all about; the numbers do not make the message less relevant.

      Corporations love Linux because it's cost effective, not because they feel their freedoms are protected by it.

      Then tell me: why is linux more and more used by all sorts of hardware manufacturers? Why not Windows Embedded? Why not BSD? Simple: Microsoft cannot be trusted, and the BSD route has been walked on before and has failed: every unix supplier supplied their closed source version of unix. By taking the linux route manufacturers know that the playing ground is equal: no one can keep improvements to the software to themselves, they have to compete in other ways. And besides, the GPL protects the end-users freedoms, not the manufacturers freedom. The manufacturers are here only for one thing: make stuff people want to buy and use.

      You're obviously not someone who's ever had to actually live off their ability to write software, so everything you're saying is just regurgitated propaganda anyways.

      I have been writing software since 1988, and my income depends on it since 1999. My wife and me have a house and a mortgage: your assumption failes, and even if it did not, is one only entitled an opinion when he depends on the outcome of that opinion? Should it be called regurgitated propaganda if not? You're on a slippery slope here...

      Come talk to me when you have actually -tried- to make money selling your shiny new open source project.

      Right now I am writing a piece of software for the Leiden University freshmen introductionary commission. It is GPL. I am getting paid to do it. Note that I am not writing something in the hope that someone might buy it: I am actually writing software that someone asks for.

      And even if I were to write a decent piece of software in the hope people would pay me for it afterwards: ever heard of Bram Cohen? He is the author of BitTorrent (MIT license, free download). He accepts PayPal donations. He and his family live off these donations. Proof enough?

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    21. Re:I'm Sorry... by cecom · · Score: 1

      I shouldn't have said nonsense - I apologize. But I still strognly disagree and I think that you are seeing only one side of the issue. The scenario where the big corporation pays me - the developer (some people call us a "waged slaves" :-) - to develop something for them.

      However my company is not Red Hat, IBM or even Mandrake. What applies to a big corporation with solid (ahem - IBM) financial backing, does not apply to everybody.
      (Plus, I am not sure how successful RedHat or Mandrake are, and IBM is after all a _hardware_ manufacturer!)

      A small company with an innovative product has zero incentive to open-source it. That would be suicide.

      I agree there are cases, perhaps many, where open source is acceptable and desirable, but it is far from universal.

    22. Re:I'm Sorry... by cecom · · Score: 1

      Running (or even working for) a small company puts everything in different perspective, a perspective which many people don't apreciate until they have tried it themselves. In reality if I open the source, copyright won't protect me since I can't really afford to defend it.

      I am thinking that if open source is better for a certain market or application, market pressure will force the developer to open it eventually. It should be a natural thing, not a dogma - "open or die" :-)

    23. Re:I'm Sorry... by AusG4 · · Score: 1

      Then tell me: why is linux more and more used by all sorts of hardware manufacturers?

      There's actually a pretty good discussion about this on one of the MSDN blogs. The real answer that all the hardware manufacturers are giving: cost and reliability. They're pretty clear... it's not so much about "an equal playing ground" as it is about lowering the per-unit cost of their product and ensuring it works reliably once it's delivered (thus lowering support costs). Bottom line, Windows XP Embedded is expensive and flakey. Once again, I'm not seeing the "freedoms" issue being key here... existent, but hardly key. It's all about costs.

      your assumption failes, and even if it did not, is one only entitled an opinion when he depends on the outcome of that opinion?

      No, but those directly effected by an issue should always be entitled to more of a "vote" then those looking from on the sidelines. That said, I have no doubt your income depends on writing software... lots of peoples do. But being paid to write a program by a university (or a company) and writing one on your own dime are very different things. By your own admission, you have the luxury of the "reality barrier" between actually turning a profit on your work and what ends up in your bank account. This comes hand-in-hand with salaried or contracted work; vastly different from a "it fails you and don't get paid" situation.

      And even if I were to write a decent piece of software in the hope people would pay me for it afterwards: ever heard of Bram Cohen? He is the author of BitTorrent (MIT license, free download). He accepts PayPal donations. He and his family live off these donations. Proof enough?

      Far from it. A few poster boys here and there don't prove anything except that one in a million guys are able to buck the trend and make money. Good for Bram Cohen. The other 999,999 guys behind him are still having to depend on commercial software industry to buy their dinner.

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
  45. Re:Mr. Stallman by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
    fodunation

    I think that's where the Fodus come from.

  46. It's not GNU/Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's the "Java Desktop System".

  47. Re:RMS complains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yes, I expect to get modded down.

    And it took less than 5 minutes for a Stallman fanboy to do it.

  48. A heartfelt thanks Mr. Stallman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If not for the selfless efforts of caring people like you sir, the world would be a darker place.

    We owe you big.

  49. Re:He's right! by sloanster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only with an Open Source zealot can he look a gift horse in the mouth, and after inspecting each and every gold cap, yell at the giver for not putting in platinum with extra dental service for life like he wanted.

    Let's break it down for you. To use your analogy, Sun gives itself a gift horse, and shows it to the open source community.

    Sun: "see all these gold teeth?"

    Open Source Community: (shrugs) "They're OK I guess..."

    Sun: "I'll let you take a closer look at these teeth, study them, and improve upon them by redesigning/refactoring them, and improving the manufacturing process if you sign up for our special license!"

    Open source community: "Oh, so we can look at the design of the teeth, think about how we've managed our own horse's teeth, and contribute our best ideas and work hard to improve your horses, is that it?"

    Sun: "Of course, won't that be fun?"

    Open Source Community: "So, does it work both ways? I mean, we can then think about how you've implemented your horse's gold teeth, and maybe use some of the ideas to improve our own horse's teeth, right?"

    Sun: (confers with lawyers, who violently signal a negative response) "Let's not worry about that for now, the main thing is, you can all work hard to make our horse healthy, strong and more popular than ever, and won't that be fun?"

    Open Source Community: "So, we are supposed to take up a new hobby, improving your horse's teeth, right? That's cool, we like programming... But just to be clear, are you saying you won't sue us if we use some of the ideas to improve our own horses teeth?"

    Sun: (glances at lawyers, who give him dirty looks and pantomime a slicing motion across their throats) "I'm not sure what you're getting at here, and I really don't know what you expect from us. Come on, this is offered in good faith, so just trust me, OK?"

    Open Source Community: "Well, that is certainly a great offer, but I think I'll pass for now. I mean, it sounds like a blast and all, but I've got my hands full taking care of my own horses. But hey dude, listen, take care and good luck with it, aight?"

  50. Agreed... by jpardey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    lots of idiots on this board simply saying "RMS is teh l4m3 lololol." Most people seem not to have read the article. Sun is just doing what Apple did with Darwin, and "giving" the right to use Solaris code for Sun's (and Solaris users, yes) benifit, while preventing the code from being used elsewhere, and sailing under the open source flag. If they want to do that, fine, but I am glad to see RMS complain.

    --
    I have freaks! I did something right...
    1. Re:Agreed... by kmare · · Score: 1

      exactly. What I can see sun is doing is: I'm releasing the code under a license where you are allowed to work for me for free. Sun makes money out of it.

    2. Re:Agreed... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Actually while both the Apple and Sun licesnse qualify as OpenSource, the Apple license also qualify's as Free Software (even though it isn't GPL compatible), whereas the Sun license is only Open Source. I wouldn't start a project with Apple's license, but I wouldn't try to stop my kid from working on Darwin. I would try to stop my kid from working on Solaris. Big difference.

  51. So RMS, by wramsdel · · Score: 0

    How many teeth in that gift horse's mouth?

    1. Re:So RMS, by arose · · Score: 1

      No horse, no teeth.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  52. Am I the only one who thinks this is getting old? by McDutchie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whenever RMS is mentioned in an article, some variation of the same old GNU/Linux joke comes up, and invariably gets modded up. This is getting way more tiring than RMS's own harping on adding the GNU/ to Linux. What if we just STFU about it, okay? We know the good man is a dork, now. Let's pay some attention to his points instead; some of them may be worth listening to and even have some importance.

  53. Also have you noticed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That EVERY SINGLE ONE of the gay slashfic posts in this story has been rated down to -1, as well as every post pointing out that BSD is dying?

    Some of them are trolls, but come on...is BSD a sacred cow now?

    OMFG SLASHDOT IS THE CENSORSHIP

  54. yes: RMS is nuts. no, he's not wrong this time by ignorant_newbie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's easy to ignore what he says, because he's obviously nuts. But, attacking the speaker instead of the argument is a logical fallacy ( ad hominum ).

    Often, he's right about things, and this is one of them. Sun is a hardware company, not a software company. they're trying to get the foss community do their software maintenance for them, so they can continue to sell their hardware. They're not, in this case, particapating as equal partners with the foss community ( any more than apple is ), they just want our help with their code.

  55. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

    It's just as bad as the same old tired "BSOD!!!LOL!!11" type joke that gets posted in almost any article involving Windows.

    --
    I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
  56. I assume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That when the submitter said "promise", they meant "promise in a legally binding way, such as a license". There's only so much room in a slashblurb, going to the bother of saying "offering in perpetuity an irrevokable license" would be stupid.

  57. Re:He's right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As opposed to RMS's dream, in which the horse belongs to the community, but he'll get angry if you call it anything but GNU/Clover.

    (I actually agree with RMS on this and most issues, but admit it, it's funny.)

  58. Supposedly Solaris 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what I have heard Solaris 10 includes the GNU fileutils and actually uses them by default.

    No idea though whether they use the GNU make and tar yet, or if we're left with crufty incompatible versions of those still.

  59. Re:jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow, case in point

    grow up eh

  60. Gotta love Slashdot moderation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The FIRST POST which makes an on-topic (albiet brief) comment about the topic at hand is modded REDUNDANT. Way to go Slashtard!

    1. Re:Gotta love Slashdot moderation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im probably giving the mod way too much credit - but it could be considered Redundant pointing out that RMS is whinging again.

  61. your indian replacement thanks you... by the-build-chicken · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...for your open source contributions that help him undercut your wage.

    IBM understands it...you're not winning a war by IBM playing 'nice' with the opensource community. A company will do whatever is profitable. At the moment, IBM get's free code and great PR out of a few token gestures. They they outsource any actual development work to [insert current outsource country here] which use your freely given code to lower their development costs. RMS argues that there is enough money to be made in the service markets to sustain your wages...well, guess what...IBM has been making a pretty spectacular play for that service market for quite some time now...and it's taking your freely given software and using it to increase it's market penetration. Do you really think that 'small developer X' will be able to compete with IBM in the service market? But it's ok, RMS will be safe because he can always make a living on the tour circuit.

    Brilliant strategy guys, see you in the soup kitchen line.

    1. Re:your indian replacement thanks you... by Ur@eus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anything else you want to blame on open source while your at it? World hunger? The asian tsunami? Religious bigotry?

      Face it, the vast majority indian software developers are doing proprietary software development for US companies, not offering solutions based on open source software. The open source vs properietary software debate has very little to do with outsourcing.

      That said outsourcing is not the big bad thing you like to paint it as. Economic growth in Asia hurts America as little as economic growth in Europe after WW2 did, in other words it do not hurt at all, in fact it a positive contribution.

    2. Re:your indian replacement thanks you... by the-build-chicken · · Score: 1

      The open source vs properietary software debate has very little to do with outsourcing

      The point was about competative advantage...if you put your time and effort into something, then give it away to the world, don't bitch when someone fires your ass, takes your code and hires someone cheaper...if you'd licensed your solution (at reasonable rates) you'd still be able to feed your family, as well as probably build a business and hire local technologists. But instead, you give away a product that makes the large corporations more powerful and the small developer less so.

      Corporations will always do what's in the best interest of their share holders...thinking that IBM has suddenly become a wonderfully altruistic socialist that's going to help open source thrive is naive. In fact, IBM every year has headed up the 'top 50 outsourcers' list.

    3. Re:your indian replacement thanks you... by Ur@eus · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is that I quit my job at a company which did license their software to start work at a company doing free software. And guess what, I am more upbeat about my new company's prospect than I ever was about the old one. Our competitive advantage comes from the skills and experiences of our employees and being able to build upon the free software out there to make our products quick, cheap and good. Our customers are using Indian and Chinese outsourced labour too and while that solves some problems for them they also feel they are getting a better deal with us for many highly specialized tasks. Sometimes throwing 50 people on a problem is not the right solution, getting the one correct person for the job is much better, even if he/she is more expensive than hiring 2 people in India. Our customers realize this.

      IBM isn't helping open source out of altruism, but because they realize it is a better development model than the closed sourced one. I think few people who appreciate what IBM is doing think otherwise.

    4. Re:your indian replacement thanks you... by the-build-chicken · · Score: 1

      because they realize it is a better development model than the closed sourced one

      Of course it's a better business model. Every bit of code that they had to pay someone to maintain, they can now get people to maintain for free...what's not better about that!!

      Just out of interest...what do you see as the future for open source...when all the software in the world is free, where do you see your paycheck coming from? Services? IBM and other major players will sew that market up faster than you can blink. Contracting on your open source solutions? Every change I need made someone is willing to do for free, why would I have to pay you to do that change as a contractor? Writing a book? Ok, that's 0.00001% of the population that can make a living. Custom modifications?

      How about this one...working for IBM or one of the other big players...you'd probably get a job there quite easily...however it would be on their terms and if you didn't like it, well, go contracting or startup your own company...oh, hang on, that's right...you can't anymore.

      It's wonderful to think that the ideals of open source software were how the world works, but it's not, and you're just eroding your value.

      Knowledge should be free? Bullshit....I spent 10 years of my life acquiring specialist knowledge...I really enjoy being able to use it to pay bills and put food on the table.

    5. Re:your indian replacement thanks you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ..if you put your time and effort into something, then give it away to the world, don't bitch when someone fires your ass, takes your code and hires someone cheaper..

      This can and is done with closed source already. You write the code for a company and then they are free to send it to India and make you redundant. No open source required. At least if someone in India writes something that is open source you are also able to take their code and put it into something you have written.

    6. Re:your indian replacement thanks you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Every change I need made someone is willing to do for free, why would I have to pay you to do that change as a contractor?

      Time is money. You would hire someone if you need the change making quickly. If you just leave it to the wider open source community the fix might be made tomorrow or in 2010. You have no way of knowing. Plus then you have to wait for the fix to be tested to ensure it really is a fix.

    7. Re:your indian replacement thanks you... by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
      Exactly. Economics is not a zero sum game, and as other countries increase in economic wealth and power, so too will the United States and other Western countries.

      Sometimes I think econ 101 would be a helpful prerequisite to /. posters.

  62. Re:RMS whines, film at 11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was it good?

    How disgusting was the smell exactly?

  63. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Among the major points, the license the patents are released under doesn't apply to patents

    Confusing very, indeed. </Yoda>

  64. Irformative! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when is a copy-and-paste of the article "insightful?"

    You are correct. Us silly moderators should of modded it Informative!

    - Do you find this comment Insightful?

  65. Another dirty Sun trick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    There it goes...I have been saying it all along. Sun has always been untrustworthy. Take NFS for example. Didn't they do that dirty trick of relasing the NFS specs only to sue everybody else that implemented the protocol? Or what about StarDivision? They bought out that poor company only to distribute its product under the dubious OpenOffice guise. And what about the dirty money they have dumped into Gnome and X.Org? Yet another trick to infiltrate the opensource community with patent ridden software! But with this disgusting CDDL (which was approved by that evil OSI -- obviously they got kickbacks) the cup has runeth over. It is clear that Sun is trying to infiltrate the open source community with their evil patents as they have done dozens of times before. So, I propose:

    1)Everybody stop using NFS. If it comes from Sun, it can't be good.
    2)Dump OpenOffice now! It is just another trojan horse of theirs.
    3)Dump GNOME! Besides, when there is KDE, who needs it?
    4)Dump X.Org. It has been touched by evil. Can't be too carefull with these matters.
    5)Do not write applications using Java. Java is evil. There are god knows how many of these no-good Sun patents in there. Sun can pull the carpet under your feet at any time.
    6)Burn every machine that has this dispicable Sun logo on it. It may infect your trustworthy intel and ibm servers which have served you so well in the past.

    1. Re:Another dirty Sun trick. by Ur@eus · · Score: 1

      Nobody (in their right mind) is critizing Sun for releasing their software under their license or allowing people using Solaris under this license to use their patents. What they are being critized for in this regard is portraying it as something else than it actually is. Sun has as you listed done a lot of really great contributions to free software, what annoys people are misleading statements about their patent offer. Sun started comparing IBM's patent donation to all software under the current list of OSI approved licenses with their own Solaris only release, and that is what they are critized for, pretending their apple is an orange.

    2. Re:Another dirty Sun trick. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1, Insightful
      1. AFAIK, NFS is an Open specification.
      2. OpenOffice is available under the GPL.
      3. GNOME is available under the GPL.
      4. X.Org is available under the MIT license.
      5. Many rational people feel exactly this way and avoid Java for that reason.
      6. Huh?
      See the commonality? Open is Good; Closed is Bad. Looks pretty consistent to me. Ergo, if Sun opens their patents to Open Source (or, ideally, Free Software) developers, then that particular action can be filed under Good. Right now, some pretty respected thinkers are unconvinced.
      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:Another dirty Sun trick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct, this is a pissing contest between Sun and IBM (as another poster pointed out), but that's not what it says in the TFA. In TFA RMS outright talks about lawsuits and stuff. I mean, comeon, HP,MS IBM and Sun have gazilions of patents on just about everything regarding operating systems, but tommorow they are not going to start suing left and right, they have better ways to make money. But I forgot, this is Sun bashing day and we can't let the 16 year olds down, can we?

      RMS is mostly original, but this is paranoid folks. Sorry but its too hard to believe it. Come it may even from Budda himself I wouldn't believe it.

    4. Re:Another dirty Sun trick. by Ur@eus · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but go back a few years and most people would say that Caldera would never start suing left and right either. I think the worry is not what a future Sun doing well is going to do, but what a future Sun in financial problems are going to do.

    5. Re:Another dirty Sun trick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but this is not only about Sun but everyone else also. By the same token a future say, HP could sue the crap out of everybody for ...writing PCL drivers for their printers. I don't see anyone blasting (sic) HP.

      I agree that what you say is possible but I also think it is improbable given the previous history of Sun. And in any case, if I have any fears that they might turn around some day, then I simply do not contribute or otherwise touch their patents.

    6. Re:Another dirty Sun trick. by serbanp · · Score: 2, Informative
    7. Re:Another dirty Sun trick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >1)Everybody stop using NFS. If it comes from Sun, it can't be good.
      No Problem. Never used it. Even in Linux, Samba is better...
      >2)Dump OpenOffice now! It is just another trojan horse of theirs.
      I fear you are right. Expect a submarine patent any time to sink it :(
      >3)Dump GNOME! Besides, when there is KDE, who needs it?
      You are right again. Now that Qt is GPL, GNOME may rest in peace. There is no need pretend anymore that Qt+KDE are not technicaly superior.
      >4)Dump X.Org. It has been touched by evil. Can't be too carefull with these matters.
      Bingo! X is evil. It is 2005 and the windows still flicker when they are draged. Even Microsoft got that right ten years ago!
      >5)Do not write applications using Java. Java is evil. There are god knows how many of these no-good Sun patents in there. Sun can pull the carpet under your feet at any time.
      Even without the fear of patents Java is bad. That it is still used id a tribute to faith and religion.
      >6)Burn every machine that has this dispicable Sun logo on it. It may infect your trustworthy intel and ibm servers which have served you so well in the past.
      Good advice! Only saw a few of them and from far away. Couldn't stand the pain in the face of those who had to tend them.

    8. Re:Another dirty Sun trick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Wow, this is a pretty well crafted troll. Moderators, are you so gullible?

    9. Re:Another dirty Sun trick. by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      I didn't used to think Java was evil, and even took a few classes. Would rather wait for open versions to become useful before using it, though. Python and/or C++ works...

    10. Re:Another dirty Sun trick. by m50d · · Score: 1

      Funny, but you're too right on most of those things. NFS is really horrible to use, just use samba, really. OOo and Gnome I'm almost convinced were done to keep the community divided, because the fact is KDE was much better and would be the best desktop anywhere if it had had the full weight of the community behind it for a few years. Java really is really evil. Keeping an entire language propriety, the audacity is staggering, and yet they've somehow managed to get away with it. Thing is they can pull the carpet at any time by stopping distributing java for non-solaris systems. Really.

      --
      I am trolling
    11. Re:Another dirty Sun trick. by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1
      There it goes...I have been saying it all along. Sun has always been untrustworthy.

      No, that doesn't even factor into it. Sun has always been a commercial entity though, and that very much factors into it. It's like this: it's a lot easier to "do the right thing" when you're feeling well and good and the money's pooring in. You don't have to lose a lot in doing so, in fact, you don't even have to risk losing a lot. So the Sun in summer is a lot different than the Sun we have now, hanging on the ropes, not noing what's going to happen and what place the future holds for it.

      I even remember a small company in Santa Cruz that wasn't all bad as companies go. They are now. All the old people (and their spirit) are gone, and left is a bunch of vultures in charge of what was once SCO. If you think an SCO with nothing to lose is bad, you haven't seen a Sun with nothing to lose. Pray the day never comes.

      I guess my view is this: I knew and liked the old Sun very much. I fondly remember staying up all night in front of the old 3/50 workstations my first year at University, basking in the cold light from the BW huge 19 inch monitor. I'd hate for a once great company like that to spend its twilight as another SCO. I'm not saying it would break my heart, but it would sadden me to see them go like that.

      P.S. And take it from someone who does security research. NFS is crap. Really. :-)

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
  66. Re:yes: RMS is nuts. no, he's not wrong this time by RealAlaskan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's easy to ignore what he says, because he's obviously nuts. ...

    Often, he's right about things, and this is one of them.

    I'd say that he's obviously nuts, in the sense that Martin Luther King was obviously nuts: they both have a single issue that they care passionately about, to the exclusion of all other considerations.

    Both were/are right. Both were personally offensive enough that some people are still unwilling to forgive them, or accept their positions.

    Today, we know that, however offensive MLK and his followers may have been, the Dream in his ``I have a Dream'' speech was worthwhile. There are still way too many people who've never forgiven MLK for being unpopular, and for proving them wrong in their racism.

    As time passes, it becomes more and more clear that RMS is dead on in most of his positions, and the people who say otherwise are beginning to open themselves up to comparisons with MLK's detractors, who are generally a nasty bunch.

  67. Re:He's right! by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

    Only with an Open Source zealot can he look a gift horse in the mouth, and after inspecting each and every gold cap, yell at the giver for not putting in platinum with extra dental service for life like he wanted.

    "Beware geeks bearing grifts."

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  68. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by mooniejohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You bring up a very good point. The same jokes keep getting modded up. Thank god the "Soviet Russia" jokes have been dying off, but it seems that new "jokes" are taking its place. The "Funny" mods should have some kind of "group check" system, so that every "Funny" point is agreed on by 3 or 4 mods. It'd make the really funny stuff stand out, and the lame jokes die off. Or so I hope.

    --

    Elmo knows where you live!

  69. $699?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is the Sco $699 troll when we need him.

  70. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you a little deal, we stop harping on about GNU/RMS when others on this forum stop using M$, Micro$soft or Windoze. Deal?

  71. Super duper condensed: by Megaweapon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sun: Hey y'all, here's some stuff and here's the license.

    Open Source Community: The license does not sync with our philosophy. No thanks.

    Free Software Community: This license is blasphemy in our collective holy eyes! Cast thee away from our presence!

    Everyone walks away, life goes on.

    --
    I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    1. Re:Super duper condensed: by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You left one out...

      Bill Gates: (scurrying away and peering out from deep within the folds of a black cape) Blast! Foiled again!

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:Super duper condensed: by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Sun: Hey y'all, here's some stuff and here's the license.

      But then you make the y'all the OpenSource community and the FreeSoftware community. But it should be more like:

      "Hey y'all, here's some stuff, and here's the license, and all you have to do to be free of the patents is to leave your communities and only work for our new limited community."

      Sorry, too confining.

    3. Re:Super duper condensed: by paroneayea · · Score: 1
      Open Source Community: The license does not sync with our philosophy. No thanks. Free Software Community: This license is blasphemy in our collective holy eyes! Cast thee away from our presence!
      Uh, no. You're drawing on stereotypes... there is nowhere in the article that RMS starts yelling a sermon. A lot of people don't like RMS, so they start attacking him as if he's an evangelist. But where has he been one? His philosophy has centered on reason and the adherence to freedom and liberty. The "priestly" part of it gets added by people making fun of him. Disagree with me? Show me some evidence.
      --
      http://mediagoblin.org/
    4. Re:Super duper condensed: by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. You're drawing on stereotypes...

      No, I merely employ hyperbole to make a generic point.

      His philosophy has centered on reason and the adherence to freedom and liberty.

      The problem being is that the definitions of "freedom" and "liberty" in the software realm are rather subjective. I personally think that the *BSD license is more "free" than the GPL, given that my view of what is "free" is a little bit different than RMS. The vocal FSF crowd will (naturally) be critical of things like Sun's licensing by emphasising what's not "free" about it using their perceptions of what is "free". They also seem to have the mentality of "if it's not GPL then it's not 'free'", but that's just my view of the FSF (hence the "religious" tone of my obviously exaggerated phrasing). I'm not saying they are "wrong" per se, but I happen to view freedom and rights (their "The Right To Read", etc) somewhat differently.

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
  72. Summary slightly misleading by starseeker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mr. Stallman doesn't seem upset with Sun so much as with the whole problem of software patents (which is a much more sensible position.)

    Let me say it again for those who won't read the article - IT DOESN'T MATTER whether or not Sun releases these patents. ANYBODY with a patent and no sense of ethics can do incalcuable damage to the free software movement. Even if sun broadened it's release to include all open source licenses, 1,600 is just a few leaves in a forest. And personally I wouldn't consider Sun's hands to be the most dangerous. Suppose Microsoft hires itself a few proxies with big patent portfoilos to sue every small to medium size open source project they can find, and all users they can track down? Sun's patent release doesn't do ANYTHING about that problem, and that is the real problem here.

    Sun is unlikely to do anything so rash - they don't dominate the market and can't affort to become the next SCO in public relations. Microsoft can, and it can even more so afford for hired flunkie companies to be reviled.

    Patents are far and away the most dangerous threat to open source software. But, to be a bit fatalistic, I think if the large corporations get serious about killing open source, nothing will save it. If nothing else, they could try to buy some laws making giving away software for free illegal, because it is unfair competition. The biggest problem with enemies is that they are your enemy. They will not stop until you are dead, and how you die is of no importance. The specifics don't matter - the fact someone wants you dead is enough to seal your fate unless you can either change their minds or force them to back off. I don't know how open source can do either, at least in the US, where money is everything.

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
    1. Re:Summary slightly misleading by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      The problem is that with the recent Sun/Microsoft partnership business, it looks as if Sun may be in the process of becoming something of a hired flunkie...

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    2. Re:Summary slightly misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you don't even need a mortal enemy for your fate to be sealed.

    3. Re:Summary slightly misleading by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that "illegal" and "unused" are only vaguely related.

      I imagine banning free software would be about as effective as prohibition was.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    4. Re:Summary slightly misleading by whitespacedout · · Score: 1

      What is more likely to happen is the patent quagmire analogy. In this analogy, you have dinosaurs and mammals of all sizes struggling in a muddy pit courtesy of the legal system. The larger the animal is and the more teeth and claws it has, the more likely it is to submerge its rivals. If it sees another animal in the quagmire has enough teeth and claws itself, there is a stand-off - no point in attacking another if you are likely to get counter-attacked. MS is like the T-rex in this. Sun is maybe an allosaurus, OSX a velociraptor, BSD a stegosaurus. Linux, um, was like a brontosaurus, being eyed up by the rest of the slavering predators for slaughter - but it has now been pretty much armor-plated by IBM's patenting marvel-comics-blast of gamma-radiation and it is now mutating into a cute sabre-toothed tiger ready for total world domination.

      Or something like that.

      Anyway, the point I really wanted to make before I got caught up in my maniacal metaphor was that patent portfolios create a Mexican standoff between the bigger outfits, but mean that the smaller outfits cannot innovate without getting swallowed by the bigger outfits in today's world. So the pace of innovation is going to grind to a halt unless the patents system is scrapped.

      I can't see any way that a force to scrap the system is going to emerge, because the timescale over which innovation is being killed off is too large for people to notice, and the trend is not easy to quantify anyway. Even if it were demonstrated to be true, there is still the problem of how to fix it when the most powerful lobbying for patents is actually by the companies that have the patent portfolios.

      See Hardin's the tragedy of the commons paper for further details about the class of problem this comes under, and how it gets solved. In short - the problem is that of the over-exploitation of common property at the cost of everyone else, and the solution is that of enforcement of rules against this kind of exploitation. Societies which do not do that die off.

    5. Re:Summary slightly misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " In this analogy, you have dinosaurs and mammals of all sizes struggling in a muddy pit courtesy of the legal system"

      But ultimately the mammals survived, not the dinosaurs.

    6. Re:Summary slightly misleading by whitespacedout · · Score: 1

      Why do you think I mutated linux into a mammal (sabre-toothed tiger) ;-)

  73. Sun does the GPL thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can RMS be mad that Sun is licensing them under their own open source license and thus precluding them from being licensed under GPL?

    That is what the GPL does to source code since, once it touches GPL license, it must be GPL licensed.

    1. Re:Sun does the GPL thing by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      Except its not GPL, its CDDL.

      Oops? Yeah, I thought so.

  74. RMS has lost credibility with me by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1, Troll

    I really won't worry about this until I hear a big name other than RMS/St. IGNUcious/Mr. Free Software is not Open Source/Linux is really "GNU/Linux" say that this is a problem.

    RMS doesn't want to make any concessions. The Open Source community does, and gets taken seriously. RMS does not do that, and does not get taken seriously.

    It is sad, he is so extreme he is even losing credibility with OSS supporters as myself. I trust Linus Torvalds still.

    Here is an example of the FSF being pig headed. GCC vs EGCS. EGCS was a free version of GCC taken up by Cygnus (a commercial company). EGCS was better about adding needed patches than GCC was, and was the only usable alternative for a while until the mainstream GCC incorporated the patches.

    RMS and the FSF need to play ball. That is how stuff gets done in the Real World.

    I still support the FSF and RMS' pro-software freedom stances, but I think a change in tactics is in order.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    1. Re:RMS has lost credibility with me by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      It is sad, he is so extreme he is even losing credibility with OSS supporters as myself

      Speak for yourself. Whatever RMS does and for whatever reason he does it, I want him to do more of it, for it makes my life better.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:RMS has lost credibility with me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Good grief, did no one read the article? RMS was positively *light* on Sun. What Sun did was a joke, and a dishonest one at that. And he actually praised IBM, even though they only took a baby step in his direction.

      His point was very simple: "Sun, you aren't doing a damn thing for FOSS with this gimmick." And he is right. Sun deserves being told this in no uncertain terms, because they presented it as if they *were* doing FOSS a favor of some kind. Sun is mistakenly thinking that they can control FOSS developers by controlling the dialogue, replacing FOSS with OSS and thinking no one will know the difference.

    3. Re:RMS has lost credibility with me by Heretik · · Score: 1
      Here is an example of the FSF being pig headed. GCC vs EGCS. EGCS was a free version of GCC taken up by Cygnus (a commercial company). EGCS was better about adding needed patches than GCC was, and was the only usable alternative for a while until the mainstream GCC incorporated the patches.


      Um.. so the GCC team was slower at incorporating patches than the EGCS people. How, exactly, does this make the FSF "pig headed"??

      I suppose the fact that Cygnus is a commercial company - which has absolutely no relevance to that situation whatsoever - automatically makes the FSF pig headed, because as everyone knows RMS and the FSF are militant anti-money communists who hate everything commercial, right?

      Amazing...
  75. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by passthecrackpipe · · Score: 1, Funny
    In Soviet Russia, the Funny Mod mods YOU!

    Anyway, let's see:
    1. hear about lame joke
    2. post endlessly on /.
    3. ???
    4. PROFIT!!!
    I'll go back to my corner now....
    --
    People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
  76. Unreasonable and misleading generalization. by argent · · Score: 1

    it becomes more and more clear that RMS is dead on in most of his positions

    That's unsurprising, they're not all that far from the positions of most of the academic and free/open/whatever-you-call-it sodtware communities.

    But you can't generalise from that to arguing that because many (or most) of his positions are correct, all of them are correct. And it's not fair, reasonable, or useful to imply that people who disagree with him are doing so because of his behaviour. It's also possible that he's simply mistaken about some things... it's been known to happen, why, he's even changed his position on occasion.

    the people who say otherwise are beginning to open themselves up to comparisons with MLK's detractors

    Uh, OK... "I've stopped beating my wife, too".

    1. Re:Unreasonable and misleading generalization. by RealAlaskan · · Score: 2
      But you can't generalise from that to arguing that because many (or most) of his positions are correct, all of them are correct.

      I re-read my post, and I'm pretty sure I didn't make that generalization. Quoting myself:

      As time passes, it becomes more and more clear that RMS is dead on in most [emphasis added] of his positions, and the people who say otherwise are beginning to open themselves up to comparisons with MLK's detractors ...

      And it's not fair, reasonable, or useful to imply that people who disagree with him are doing so because of his behaviour.

      I have to admit I didn't make myself clear on this one. I meant that people attack him personally because they don't like what he stands for, just as modern-day closet racists attack MLK's (admittedly imperfect) character, because that's safer than attacking his policies directly.

      Yes, reasonable people can disagree on the correct level of legal protection for ideas. Those reasonable people aren't calling him a whacked-out paranoid communist zealot on slashdot. People who try to make sensible arguments against the man's positions aren't included in that condemnation.

      Disliking RMS doesn't make you evil, or a racist, but making that dislike your only argument for attacking his positions seems adequate qualifications for being considered a big fool or worse.

    2. Re:Unreasonable and misleading generalization. by argent · · Score: 1

      As time passes, it becomes more and more clear that RMS is dead on in most [emphasis added] of his positions, and the people who say otherwise are beginning to open themselves up to comparisons with MLK's detractors

      This kind of phrasing describes an ever more inclusive definition of "most", and is generally used by people who really mean "all" but are aware that other people will only let them approach "all" asymptotically. I apologise if that wasn't your intent.

  77. Nice try, Mr. Zealot.. by d_jedi · · Score: 1

    [i]Although I don't think proprietary software is ethically legitimate,[/i]

    Oh, and you were so close to writing something that I might at least partially agree with..

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
    1. Re:Nice try, Mr. Zealot.. by S.O.B. · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I agree. If I spend time writing a program I have the right to decide how I wish to distribute that program - for a fee, free binary (no source), open source, etc. As the author I have that right until/unless _I_ decide to transfer my rights.

      Stallman has completely lost it. He's moved beyond advocate and become, as you so accurately put it, a zealot.

      I wish him well trying to knock down those windmills.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
  78. I work with a guy like that by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    Always blasts off about anything. Always gives a 100% reaction whether it's a little pissy thing or a huge problem. Eventually people stop listening to him which is a shame because he has a lot of valuable insight. It just gets that most people don't see the worth in wading through the volume of lower-quality/non-constructive noise to get the pearls.

    Being a good communicator is not just about being right. It is also being able to STFU about the little things to improve the SNR.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  79. Re:yes: RMS is nuts. no, he's not wrong this time by truesaer · · Score: 1, Insightful

    RMS != MLK

  80. And not for nothing but... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's kind of annoying that Sun decides that nearly EVERYTHING should be done through ifconfig. It's got about 4 different invocation types depending on what you're trying to do...

    First you gotta plumb the interface. Then you might enable DHCP or BOOTP with it. Then you might use it to configure trunking or fail-over.

    GAAAH.

    Linux did one thing right with networking. Different commands that control different interfaces.
    iwconfig handles wireless auth and behavior.
    ifconfig handles address binding and state.
    dhclient handles DHCP control.
    some other kernel tools control trunking and packet shaping. etc.

    Instead of one hideously long man page. (Shudder)

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:And not for nothing but... by Net_Wakker · · Score: 1
      It's got about 4 different invocation types depending on what you're trying to do..
      Try move a processorboard on a SunFire system. depending on where you're accessing the board it's /Ny/Bx or Ny:Bx or Ny::Bx or Ny.Bx
      And nowhere it says which one you should use when.
    2. Re:And not for nothing but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dhclient isn't part of linux; it's from isc

    3. Re:And not for nothing but... by orasio · · Score: 1

      GAAAH.

      I'm sorry, it's spelled "GNAA".

  81. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by syousef · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "know the good man is a dork, now. Let's pay some attention to his points instead; some of them may be worth listening to and even have some importance."

    Having lost touch with reality generally lowers your credibility considerably. I've had the interesting experience of meeting RMS once. His coding prowess speaks for itself but the man has the social skills of a gnat.

    If something is said he doesn't agree with he won't debate it, he'll deny it. (I was the only person dressed in a suit at a programmer's society meeting he did his little saint speil at, since I'd just come from work. I asked how you answer when someone says GNU/Linux is not user friendly. He simply denied the problem existed, and tried to make me feel stupid for asking it. In other words his solution to user support is the classic RTFM. In any case, to him I was obviously someone evil in a suit).

    In short this is not a man you want speaking as the advocate for your favourite cause. All he'll do is put people off side and do more harm than good. I have little time for him as a speaker and feel he should go back to coding, which he's very good at.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  82. What's wrong with the Darwin license? by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    I didn't know it was restrictive to Apple... I thought it was like the Moz or Apache license.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  83. Re:He's right! by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

    Classic, shitty-father attitude. "I put the food on the table and you kids don't even go get summer jobs! blah blah blah!"

    Just like the "God" believers. "But God gave you all of this! You MUST love him! Agape!"

    Father = God = Asshole. You are an asshole.

    I can forsee the response: "I don't care if you think I'm an asshole." Just like everyone's dad: "I don't want to be your friend, I'm just doing what's right, being a good parent."

    When you do someone a "favour" or give a gift, you don't ask for anything back. That's what a favour is. Doing something for someone without any hope of any return. Fathers, God, assholes like you, do their "favours," but then demand retribution.

    You see it nowadays where guys will call sending their kids to university an "investment," from which they hope to see a "return." They're bound up in some vicarious obsession and expect their kids to throw their time and effort into this cesspool of narcissism. Treating your kids' lives as a means rather than an end, yeah, that passes Virtues 101.

    If you don't treat people as an end in itself, they're going to treat you as a means too. So when you want the "open source community" to create wealth for you, don't be surprised when it turns right back and spits in your face. You're not moral, so now neither are they.

    "People who have given us their complete confidence believe that they have a right to ours. The inference is false, a gift confers no rights." - Nietzsche.

  84. Re:yes: RMS is nuts. no, he's not wrong this time by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
    RMS != MLK

    They have one thing in common: they're both single-minded about an issue. And they're both right.

    Ok, they've got just two things in common: they're both single-minded about an issue, and they're both right. And, they're unpopular because of those things.

    Right! They've got just three things in common: they're both single-minded about an issue and they're both right and they're unpopular because of those things. And, they face a lot of ad hominem attacks.

    Four! They have only four things in common! They're both single-minded about an issue and they're both right and they're unpopular because of those things and they face a lot of ad hominem attacks. And ...

  85. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

    So I have to suffer through crappy jokes modded up to +5 because some slashbot says 'M$'? You've got a future as the leader of an oppressive military regime...

  86. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    Already there dude, already there.

  87. Is Bruce really this naive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on Bruce. You don't have to play stupid to get your point across. It is obvious that you are trying to rally the troops against Sun.

    I checked out the opensolaris.org page last week and it took me all of 5 minutes to figure out the CDDL / patent connection. I have a hard time believing anyone could be this naive.

    Is Sun up front about this? No.

    Are they hiding it? No.

    So what is the problem?

  88. Except that... by infinite9 · · Score: 1

    Sometimes the soviet russia jokes are actually funny... uh.. in Soviet Russia.

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    1. Re:Except that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Korea only old people get Soviet Russia jokes.

  89. Re:He's right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well Troy accepted the horse and they where not so happy for it afterwards. Not all 'gifts' are equal.

    Never look a gift horse in the mouth but check inside to see if there are room for an army of trojens.

  90. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by wannabgeek · · Score: 0

    The "Funny" mods should have some kind of "group check" system, so that every "Funny" point is agreed on by 3 or 4 mods.

    I was about to mod you funny ... ;-)

    --
    I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
  91. Who is on board? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds to me like Bruce is just bitter about not being the "prominent opensource advocate" that Sun is selecting for the OpenSolaris board.

    Lord help us if Sun chooses that fool Raymond for we'll all be eternally damned.

    [mod +5 Funny]

    1. Re:Who is on board? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2, Informative
      I am on enough boards, thank you. If Sun chooses an outsider it would probably be Brian Behlendorf, who has been their contractor through collab.net for a long time. Or they could choose Danise Cooper from inside.

      Bruce

    2. Re:Who is on board? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your even on the board of directors for Open Source
      Risk Management. Although this firm is helpful
      in selling insurance based on legal Linux IP matters you won't be the type to hype risk or uncertainty to boost a few sales here and there.

  92. Fricking people using C for string processing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    perl -pe 's/(\w+)/GNU\/$1/sg;'

  93. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Thank god the "Soviet Russia" jokes have been dying off, but it seems that new "jokes" are taking its place.

    In Korea, only Old People mention "Soviet Russia" jokes.

  94. It's a shame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that the headline didn't read "RMS Blasts Himself with a Stream of Water". The world would be such a better place if the bastard would just take a fucking shower.

  95. some corrections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Free Software community != Open Source community

    2) Only GPL'd libraries can be linked with GPL code. GPL libraries are incompatible with every other license. This is by design.

    3) Please don't use the term "we" because you don't speak for me.

    1. Re:some corrections by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      ad 1) Indeed, you're right.

      ad 2) GPL libraries are compatible with basically every other Free Software license -- and this is virtually everything except for OpenSSL and APL.

      ad 3) Indeed -- the distinction between Free Software and Open Source is not negligible, and only people belonging to the former are hurt by CDDL.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  96. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by JohnyDog · · Score: 1

    And everytime that happens, there is always someone whining about it and he gets modded up into oblivion too. The jokes (even 1000 times repeated) might be funny in the article context but this exactly same debate over and over certainly isn't.

    --
    People who like this sort of sig will find this the sort of sig they like.
  97. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by Jodka · · Score: 1

    "Thank god the "Soviet Russia" jokes have been dying off"

    In Soviet Russia, God thanks you that jokes are dying off!

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  98. Sigh again by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who here is sick and tired of companies taking something made by others and proclaiming it as their own?

    Who here is sick and tired of companies lying about what they release to the public in order to hoodwink fanboys?

    Aside from those, I personally am sick and tired of so-called intellectual property. Patents and copyrights have become so abused that we have reached the point where the goal of stimulating the economy would be better served by getting rid of copyrights and patents altogether.

    1. Re:Sigh again by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sorry that the freedom to own property annoys you. Personally, I'm fucking pissed off about the freedom of speech. I think that idiots who can't tell the difference between right and wrong should just shut the hell up, right now.

      But the difference between you and me is that I'm not calling for the abolition of the freedom of speech, or denying that it ever existed in the first place.

    2. Re:Sigh again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that so-called "intellectual property" is not property. (Ignoring that the term is dishonest because it groups four groups of disparate laws together... the laws governing copyrights, patents, trade secrets, and trademarks are all different!) Property, under U.S. law, has to be physical object. The land I own is property. The patent a corporation holds is not property.

      "Intellectual property" refers to a temporary monopoly which is granted by the federal government. (Rights are not granted. All rights are intrinsic in U.S. law. Property rights are one such thing.)

    3. Re:Sigh again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patents/copyrights/etc are still something that has ownership, can be exchanged for goods or services, can be leased, and is legally recognized as a thing of value.

      Most rational people would just call that "property" and be done with it. The fact that the semantics bother you doesn't change the situation in the slightest.

      Furthermore, Intellectual Property is just as artificial as Real Estate. Ask the Native Americans.

    4. Re:Sigh again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ""intellectual property" is not property"

      Man, there is some 1984 doublespeak right there. The "P" in "IP" stands for PROPERTY. Trademarks, copyrights, patents all fall under IP. Unless you believe that trademarks, copyrights, patents don't exist, you are wrong because the US Government disagrees with you. And they make the laws.

    5. Re:Sigh again by Ogerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sorry that the freedom to own property annoys you.

      Freedom of speech is a fundamental freedom which the government cannot take away because it was never "granted" in the first place. It simply exists as a basic, inalienable human right. The body of law, which only recently became in vogue among lawyers to call "intellectual property," is a limited granted privilege. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to create such laws, but it does not require it to nor does it claim that copyright, patent, or trademark are fundamental rights. Fifty years from now, if Congress decided to completely abolish copyright and the patent system, this would be perfectly constitutional.

      The Constitution also requires that such laws be used by Congress "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." So if the application of copyright or patent in a particular field does not achieve this goal, by definition that application is unconstitutional. There are very good arguments why software patents fall into this category and therefore should be abolished.

      If you've ever read the writings of the founding fathers of the US, you would very quickly realize that they would never have agreed to use the term "intellectual property" because this is, in fact, a misnomer.

      Consider the philosophy of this situation: An inventor in the US and an inventor in Japan come up with the exact same idea completely independently. But suppose the Japanese inventor had the idea 1 month before the US inventor. Who actually owns the idea? Obviously neither of them. It's just an idea that both inventors happened to have, most likely because it was the logical "next step" of innovation. However, if the US inventor publically disclosed the idea using a patent application before the Japanese inventor could get around to it, the US inventor would be granted the patent. This sort of thing happens all the time. See why the term "intellectual property" doesn't quite fit the subject matter?

    6. Re:Sigh again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, there is some 1984 doublespeak right there. The "P" in "IP" stands for PROPERTY. Trademarks, copyrights, patents all fall under IP. Unless you believe that trademarks, copyrights, patents don't exist, you are wrong because the US Government disagrees with you. And they make the laws.

      Hehe.. there's some specious reasoning if I ever saw any. The US Government didn't come up with the term intellectual property; lawyers did. The lawyers made a bad choice of names.

    7. Re:Sigh again by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech is a fundamental freedom which the government cannot take away because it was never "granted" in the first place. It simply exists as a basic, inalienable human right. The body of law, which only recently became in vogue among lawyers to call "intellectual property," is a limited granted privilege.

      Why? Why is one a natural right and the other not? Please, for the name of God, come up with some rationalization that doesn't boil down to, "We shouldn't recognize property rights because I want to be able to take other people's stuff whenever I want."

    8. Re:Sigh again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most rational people would just call that "property" and be done with it. The fact that the semantics bother you doesn't change the situation in the slightest.

      Physical property and "intellectual property" are philosophically entirely different and legally entirely different. The semantics are bad because they confuse people by lumping two completely different things together by the same word. Even if you want to use the word "property," it must be recognized that "intellectual property" is a far lesser form of property. But, of course, "IP" lawyers would like people, especially lawmakers, to have the same emotional response and thus make bad decisions, giving undeserved protection to "IP."

    9. Re:Sigh again by argoff · · Score: 1

      " because I want to be able to take other people's stuff whenever I want."

      copying and immitating isn't taking! did you take ABC's from your mama when you learned the alphabet? did you take the 123's from you daddy when you learn't to count?

      How about a counter reply that doesn't boil down to, "I wanna sit on my ass and collect royalities for something that was going to happen anyhow"

    10. Re:Sigh again by MacJedi · · Score: 1
      Patents/copyrights/etc are still something that has ownership, can be exchanged for goods or services, can be leased, and is legally recognized as a thing of value.

      All very true, however intellectual "property" is different in that it has no physical form. This is significant. It means that I can make a copy of your intellectual "property" and not deprive you of the use of it. This is (obviously) not possible to do with physical property. And indeed, this is where the moral and legal basis for outlawing theft comes from, and, in my opinion, is why violation of copyright should have nowhere near the same penalty as theft of physical property.

      I would posit that if it were possible to make an exact copy of your physical property without depriving you of its use (using some sort of Star-Trek-style replicator) that this sort of "theft" should not be a crime.

      --
      2^5
    11. Re:Sigh again by Ogerman · · Score: 1

      Why? Why is one a natural right and the other not?

      Did you read the last paragraph of the parent post? Since your only argument amounts to "I think everybody who challenges the current state of IP law must just be out for freebies," why don't you try explaining why the hypothetical US inventor in the example has a natural right to own the idea? If you cannot, it should be self-explanatory why "IP" is not a natural right, but rather a limited granted privilege.

      For the record, most people who challenge our current implementations of copyright and/or patent have specific and legitimate arguments based upon real-world experience in various industry. Indeed, most are neither against these social constructs nor the recognition of physical property rights. So please stop making assumptions.

    12. Re:Sigh again by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Did you read the last paragraph of the parent post?

      Yes. Contrived hypotheticals do not impress me. If you can find a case where two identical patentable inventions were created at precisely the same time by two inventors working on opposite sides of the world, let's talk about it. As it is, you're basically asking me who would own the copyright if two authors sat down and, entirely by coincidence, wrote the exact same book, word for word, at precisely the same moment. Possible? Sure. But so utterly improbable that it's never happened and could never reasonably be expected to happen, ever. I don't think a discussion of that kind of hypothetical could ever go anywhere productive.

      For the record, most people who challenge our current implementations of copyright and/or patent have specific and legitimate arguments based upon real-world experience in various industry.

      Great. Let's hear one. Or, even better, let's hear some kind of logical, internally consistent argument that explains why this chair I'm sitting on is my property and the litter of puppies that my dog had last month are my property and the tree growing in my back yard is my property but these words that I'm creating right now aren't my property. And if this argument just happens to be compatible with basic Western ideas of civil rights, so much the better.

    13. Re:Sigh again by cooldev · · Score: 1

      All very true, however intellectual "property" is different in that it has no physical form. This is significant. It means that I can make a copy of your intellectual "property" and not deprive you of the use of it.

      So if I spend ten years of my life, 80 hours a week, dedicated to building The Killer App of the 21st Century, knowing that millions of people will want what I create and voluntarily give me compensation that makes it worth my while...

      And then all those millions of people just steal* my creation from me (they want it; they can afford it; they have just learned they don't have to pay), I haven't been deprived of anything**? What planet are you from?

      Why is hammering a nail worth getting paid for, but building complex systems that entertain people or save them millions of dollars not worth anything? Oh sure, you're going to say that supporting those complex systems are where we should make our money. What a stupid idea. Not only is it stupid because it's an indirect, roundabout way of making money, it's also stupid because you've still eliminated the incentive to create; the support companies will compete to create as little as possible, because that would incur a cost and put them at a disadvantage over time. It's also stupid because the last thing a customer wants is a product that is so difficult to use that it has to be supported, but that's what they're going to end up with.

      Yeah, it's been said a billion times before. Although I see you're a researcher, so let me give you an analogy. Your stealing my years of hard work is roughly analogous to you getting a precision lobotomy (magical, if you will) that wipes out everything you have learned and worked for academically since high school. Your hard work? Good decisions? Gone. You're now like everyone else.

      * Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to say "violate my copyright."

      ** I value my time at about $100/hr, so said app would have a personal opportunity cost to me of over $400,000. Even if I enjoyed creating it, it is my decision to give it away or not. That's what you have stolen, although modern software projects require far more than 10-20 man years of development cost.

      P.S. I'm actually not bitter, as the above rant might suggest, because in the real world -- at least in developed countries -- intellectual property is still valued, despite the futile wishes of those that want it to go away.

    14. Re:Sigh again by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      It's not freedom to own property that annoys me. It is all this creative redefining of the notion of property that annoys me. (Basically, if you can take something abstract, declare it your own and sell it, then you get money for nothing. Much effort is expended in pursuit of this goal.)

      Intellectual property wasn't even 'property' in any sense of the word just a few decades ago. (It was, and strictly is, a bunch of legal rights, created by politicians who have long since been voted out of office, that are legally transferrable from one legal entity to another. These rights were created subtractively by first taking away and then giving a little back (removing the ability to legally copy a book from the citizens of a country, then creating legal structures by which permission to copy could be given back where it was necessary.)) Patents introduced a similar system of denying the general populous the legal right to make certain devices, then allowing said permission to be sold and controlled by some designated legal entity.

      I'm sorry if that's a little complicated. I know it makes all this 'property' look a little artificial, but that's because it is artificial. People need to remember that. Except in legal terms, there are no moral rights not to be copied. All these systems of rights are legal constructs created with the intent of getting more done with them in place than would get done without them. That is the benchmark against which they should be tested and re-tested, and taking a 'moral stance' with respect to 'intellectual property', especially viewing intellectual property as property per se, is an erroneous position to take.

      Rant over.

      --
      John_Chalisque
    15. Re:Sigh again by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      This illustrates a common fallacy, best answered by analogy to something like drilling for oil: just because a company invests millions of dollars sinking a well, and thousands of man-hours spending those dollars sinking said well, the company has NO right to actually strike oil. Similarly, if you bust a gut training to be good a tennis, you have no right (moral, legal or otherwise) to expect Roger Federer to simply roll over for you when you meet him in the US Open.

      If you spend x hours, and value your time at $y/hr, all you have a simple piece of arithmetic: $xy. You have no right, unless something is agreed in writing with someone who will pay you $xy, to actually receive the money.

      Effort spent does not automatically qualify you for a reward, no matter how much effort spent or how much you think you have achieved with that effort.

      I'll now reply piecemeal.
      So if I spend ten years of my life, 80 hours a week, dedicated to building The Killer App of the 21st Century, knowing that millions of people will want what I create and voluntarily give me compensation that makes it worth my while...?
      If it's the compensation that makes it worth your while, then you're doing it for the money, which makes it unlikely that you'll produce the best possible Killer App for whatever task it is meant to perform. The best is rarely achieved by someone doing it mainly for the money. As to the 'knowing that' business, you need to have some agreement that you will get this compensation and that requires at least a written contract with someone.

      And then all those millions of people just steal* my creation from me (they want it; they can afford it; they have just learned they don't have to pay), I haven't been deprived of anything**? What planet are you from?
      Another fallacy, one which big software companies like to peddle, is the analogy with stealing. For various reasons I won't elaborate on here, the analogy has serious problems. That your copyright has been violated gives you something legal to play with, but the moral issues are never so clear cut as to be able to answer them given the description in your posting. Writing software professionally is like fishing, and if the fish figure out how to get the bait without biting the hook, that's just your bad luck.

      Why is hammering a nail worth getting paid for, but building complex systems that entertain people or save them millions of dollars not worth anything?
      You don't hammer a nail first, then try to charge for it afterwards. You get an agreement that someone will pay you for hammering the nail, then you hammer it. In the software world, this is writing something to order, not writing something and trying to sell it.

      Oh sure, you're going to say that supporting those complex systems are where we should make our money.
      No, just that if you're so worried about who will pay, you should sort it out before investing x years writing the software, rather than the speculative approach of write first, sell later. Obviously the latter is easier to do, but you trade this off against guarantees of payment. Your choice which way (though there is no inalienable right to enjoy the best of both worlds.)

      What a stupid idea. Not only is it stupid because it's an indirect, roundabout way of making money, it's also stupid because you've still eliminated the incentive to create;
      The best solutions to problems, greatest works of art and science, weren't done for the money. The incentive there was something else.

      the support companies will compete to create as little as possible, because that would incur a cost and put them at a disadvantage over time.
      Everybody who's in the business, doing it for the money, will compete to create as little as possible, so as to guarantee the maximum possibility for improvements and upgrades that they can charge for. Witness the fact that M$, with all it's money and programming muscle, can't be bothered to get anything righter

      --
      John_Chalisque
    16. Re:Sigh again by MacJedi · · Score: 1
      And then all those millions of people just steal* my creation from me (they want it; they can afford it; they have just learned they don't have to pay), I haven't been deprived of anything**? What planet are you from?

      Yes, in my opinion, what you have been deprived of is far less important than physical property rights. You still have the full use of your creation. What you have been deprived of is a situation where your creation was artificially scarce. And for this reason the penalties, if any, should be less than for physical theft because the scarcity is not a natural one imposed by the universe but an artificial one imposed by man.

      Yeah, it's been said a billion times before. Although I see you're a researcher, so let me give you an analogy. Your stealing my years of hard work is roughly analogous to you getting a precision lobotomy (magical, if you will) that wipes out everything you have learned and worked for academically since high school. Your hard work? Good decisions? Gone. You're now like everyone else.

      Nice analogy, but it does not fit: If someone "steals" my intellectual property, none of my hard work or unique decisions are gone. If anything, they have been put to use to serve a higher purpose than myself. (As an aside, you should note that this is what copyright is for in the first place, to serve the greater good of society.) I fully support open distribution of scientific research; I have published under open content licenses in the past and plan to in the future. I have absolutely no problem with my research being widely available and unencumbered. If that is receiving a lobotomy, then I say "bring it on!"

      --
      2^5
    17. Re:Sigh again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Great. Let's hear one. Or, even better, let's hear some kind of logical, internally consistent argument that explains why this chair I'm sitting on is my property and the litter of puppies that my dog had last month are my property and the tree growing in my back yard is my property but these words that I'm creating right now aren't my property.

      It is very, very, very simple. I can take your chair, I can take your puppies, I can take your tree, I can not take your words.

    18. Re:Sigh again by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Basically, if you can take something abstract, declare it your own and sell it

      Okay, you got that wrong. You can't just "take something abstract." You have to create something entirely new. Then yes, you can sell it and make money. But not for nothing. The money is your reward for your creativity or ingenuity.

      Intellectual property wasn't even 'property' in any sense of the word just a few decades ago.

      Utterly false. The tradition of the ownership of intellectual property goes back tens of thousands of years. Long before the Egyptians had built the first pyramid, the aborigines of Australia were singing songs. To sing someone else's song without his permission was a serious offense. The offender could have his possessions confiscated, or even be exiled. The American Indians had the same tradition: Telling the stories or singing the songs of another family was considered a serious crime. It still is, even today.

      The tradition of intellectual property goes back just as far as any other notion of property. It was really only during the Dark Ages that people --strictly the people of Europe --abandoned the idea of intellectual property. Of course, the also abandoned the idea of intellectualism in general, so I'm not sure we should be so quick to emulate them.

      I know it makes all this 'property' look a little artificial, but that's because it is artificial. People need to remember that.

      That kind of nihilism isn't productive. By that interpretation, every human convention is artificial. The ownership of real estate by people is equally artificial. More so, even, because nobody creates land. People create intellectual property; they make it out of nothing at all but their own labor and effort. But land is just there. And yet, we recognize the ownership of land. Nobody complains that it's just artificial.

      I mean, shit. By exactly the same reasoning I could argue that agriculture is all just artificial and we should go back to being hunters and gatherers. It's a nonsense argument.

      Except in legal terms, there are no moral rights not to be copied.

      Wrong. The moral imperative is, "Don't take other people's stuff without their permission." I don't know about you, but I learned that one when I was about a year old.

    19. Re:Sigh again by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Yawn. Some freshman hauls out the "deprivation" argument again, not stopping to think about the fact that that argument breaks down when we talk about real estate. Sigh.

      Slashdot, do me a favor, okay? Get together and compare notes. Because I'm getting pretty sick of seeing the same old, bogus arguments being floated in feeble attempts to justify the "I wanna steal, get out of my way!" mindset.

    20. Re:Sigh again by cooldev · · Score: 1

      Nice analogy, but it does not fit: If someone "steals" my intellectual property, none of my hard work or unique decisions are gone.

      What you have failed to grasp, is that what is being stolen is time. In my analogy (all analogies are flawed, of course), you're free to start from scratch and get your degree(s)again.

      You still have the full use of your creation.

      Again, you're still thinking like a hunter-gatherer. Developing software, creating music, or filming a movie isn't possible if nobody pays: the economy of scale isn't there. Yes, there are people who write software and give it away for free -- I'm certainly not saying there's anything wrong with that! It's their creation; they get to decide how, and for what cost, their creation is distributed.

    21. Re:Sigh again by cooldev · · Score: 1

      This illustrates a common fallacy...Effort spent does not automatically qualify you for a reward

      Fine, replace "know" with "speculate" in my first part. The point is, if you would be less pedantic for a second, that IP enables the potential for reward. That potential encourages more people to take risks. And that, like most modern nontrivial ventures, is why most software gets built.

      If it's the compensation that makes it worth your while, then you're doing it for the money, which makes it unlikely that you'll produce the best possible Killer App for whatever task it is meant to perform.

      Wow, as a logical thinker you sure pulled a boner there. Software is often created for love and money. The money also helps, you know, supply time to actually build the software without starving to death. (Didn't RMS one of those guys used to suggest software developers should develop at night, and be waiters and waitresses during the day? Oh, fun.)

      Writing software professionally is like fishing, and if the fish figure out how to get the bait without biting the hook, that's just your bad luck.

      Just like, if somebody figures out how to hack a bank and steal $400,000, it's that bank's bad luck? See my other reply; money essentially boils down to time (and work/effort). Oh, and if your attitude guided laws, machines would be locked down so fast it would make your head spin. Bring on the DRM, encryption, and welded tamper-resistant cases!

      And since the argument has no solution so simple as to be uiniversally acceptable, it'll go on for a long time...I just see the current implementation of the ideals and ideas of intellectual property as seriously flawed, and would like them changed, rather than eliminated completely.

      There's room for improvement, which is what actionable debate focuses on. However, for those that wish to essentially abolish copyright and patent laws, there is no real debate. Those people are on the lunatic fringe, which is why I can sleep at night instead of honing my french frying, buffalo spearing, corn growing, and real-estate selling skills.

    22. Re:Sigh again by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      Chickens, pigeons, robins, and vultures are still something that has wings, beaks, and are covered in feathers.

      Most rational people would just call them "birds" and be done with it.

      Therefore, a chicken = a robin. Pass that bird sandwich please.

    23. Re:Sigh again by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      Once someone other than you has a copy of "your stuff", by say purchasing it, "the stuff" isn't yours anymore. They can scribble on it, modify it, burn it, eat it, play it, and read it any time they wish to do so. The only thing they cannot do with it is make a copy. That is what you now own. You traded your creation (which was your exclusive property as long as you kept it to yourself) for the exclusive right to make copies of it. Those rights also have limits, and expiration dates. Once the right expires, you have no property rights to that work at all.

    24. Re:Sigh again by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      They can scribble on it, modify it, burn it, eat it, play it, and read it any time they wish to do so.

      You're referring to the copy, not to the contents of the copy. The book and the words contained within the book are two different things.

      You traded your creation (which was your exclusive property as long as you kept it to yourself) for the exclusive right to make copies of it.

      No, that's not correct. The law protects all works, published and unpublished, for the duration of the copyright. When the copyright expires, all works, published and unpublished, are seized by the government and placed in the public domain.

      Once the right expires

      That's not correct either, and is really a pretty dangerous way of saying it. Rights do not expire. Rights are unalienable. They are neither given nor taken away.

      What expires is the legal protection given to intellectual property rights. After a certain period of time, the author of a work is no longer legally entitled to claim ownership over a work, or to seek remedies for infringements of his rights over that work.

      It's kind of like a statute of limitations. If somebody vandalizes your car, you can press criminal charges against him ...up to the point when the statute of limitations runs out. After that time, you can no longer seek criminal restitution against the person who vandalized your car. You still have your right to be secure in your property; it's just that the legal protection of that right in that instance has expired.

    25. Re:Sigh again by Arjuna · · Score: 1

      Leo, I'm trying to follow but you're losing me. How does the deprivation argument break down with respect to real estate?

      If I take your land, you are deprived of it. Ask any indigenous community.

    26. Re:Sigh again by Arjuna · · Score: 1

      Contrived hypotheticals do not impress me. If you can find a case where two identical patentable inventions were created at precisely the same time by two inventors working on opposite sides of the world, let's talk about it. As it is, you're basically asking me who would own the copyright if two authors sat down and, entirely by coincidence, wrote the exact same book, word for word, at precisely the same moment. Possible? Sure. But so utterly improbable that it's never happened and could never reasonably be expected to happen, ever. I don't think a discussion of that kind of hypothetical could ever go anywhere productive.

      Leo, your hypothetical is much, much more contrived than that which you decry. It is astronomically more likely that two patentable inventions will overlap in a month than that two identical books are by chance written at the exact same time. Especially given the deeply flawed state of the USPTO which blows out the term 'patentable' to include anything with the right paperwork that a patent examiner isn't knowledgeable about. You are presenting ill-reasoned arguments passionately, which leads me to think that taking this kind of hypothetical anywhere productive is beyond you.

      Grandparent post:
      For the record, most people who challenge our current implementations of copyright and/or patent have specific and legitimate arguments based upon real-world experience in various industry.

      Parent post:
      Great. Let's hear one.

      Fine. A few months back, I wrote a mail merge. No, I didn't use some MS Office function to do it. I wrote it myself, in Perl, having never seen the sourcecode of someone else's implementation of a mail merge in my life. Yet, now that the free trade agreement between Australia and the US has been signed off and we are obliged to 'harmonise' our IP law with the US, that mail merge is a liability to the company for which I work. In the late 90s Bill Gates' name was on an approved patent application for a mail merge algorithm. I haven't read the full text of this patent so I don't know if I infringe upon it, but the point is I shouldn't have to read it to make sure. If the two implementations are similar enough for a patent suit to carry weight, by law Mr Gates could shut this company down just with the legal defence and/or settlement fees. Yet I stole nothing, deprived nobody of anything, I didn't even get a copy of someone else's source and restructure it. That code is mine, he has no right to label the product of my mind as unlawful.

  99. Patent Lice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    On my Mozilla tab, the truncated page title reads, very appropriately:

    RMS Blasts Sun's Open Source Patent Lice...

  100. whoever thought of the idea ? by rabeldable · · Score: 1

    Why do we have patents on software? This world is weird. OK, lets say - you want to build a table with 4 legs and a drawer. So you take your pickup truck to Home Depot and buy a saw, some wood a few nails... oh, don't forget glue and you deffinetly need some sand paper and some wood finish. If I was a betting man I'd bet someone has to have a patent for a "table with 4 legs and a drawer" right and if not then someone most likely has a patent for a special way to glue the legs on. This is a long shot but maybe you would have to pay royalties to the old fart who patented the idea of putting wood finish on wood to make it look perty. How does this apply? Lets check it out. I have an idea. I want to make a website with an area where people can go check out anything they want for free. This will provide information along with a community. So whats involved... Well someone already patented the idea "making a website"... crap! Even if they didn't patent the website idea someone else decided to patent the idea "creating a web community" for people to gather and share information. Thats not good for me and my idea. Oh wait.. I haven't even started to build my website yet and I'm already being sued because someone patented the idea of using a mouse and keyboard with a computer and I use Linux. Does this make any sense at all? Fix-It!

  101. OT: re: We know the good man is a dork. by pidge-nz · · Score: 1

    And if you are saddled with the man, goodluck trying to make it through a meal without some dithering from him about the available meal and drink selections. Or someone loosing their cool. From what a friend related to me about where he had gone along to a resturaunt meal to provide some "morale support" for the couple billeting RMS, RMS has managed to combine "picky" with "indecision"... A: Do you like lemonade? RMS: I think so. A: Here's a glass of lemonade. RMS: No, I don't like that. *sigh* poor guy, poor us...

  102. Be careful regarding the IBM patent deal. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    IBM's patent pledge gets considerable praise from RMS here; several times he notes that IBM has undertaken a real step and he says that IBM's step is a substantive one--you are gaining increased access to 500 more patents than you had access to before. I agree that it is a step in the right direction. However, one should consider the terms of the deal before relying on IBM's promise not to sue regarding the listed 500 patents. One of the finer points of the IBM promise gets no mention.

    In the last page of the IBM patent promise, you'll find the revocation clause: (all punctuation, and lack of ending punctuation, is theirs)

    Subject to the exception provided below, and with the intent that developers, users and distributors of Open Source Software rely on our promise, IBM hereby commits not to assert any of the 500 U.S. patents listed above, as well as all counterparts of these patents issued in other countries against the development, use or distribution of Open Source Software. In order to foster innovation and avoid the possibility that a party will take advantage of this pledge and then assert patents or other intellectual property rights of its own against Open Source Software, thereby limiting the freedom of IBM or any other Open Source Software developer to create innovative software programs, or the freedom of others to distribute and use Open Source Software, the commitment not to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all counterparts of these patents issued in other countries is irrevocable except that IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software

    Note what you have to give up in order to enjoy IBM's promise not to sue you--if (someone involved with, I gather) "Open Source Software" infringes upon your copyright (one of the many so-called "intellectual property" rights) by, say, distributing copies of essays on your blog without permission, or distributing derivatives based on programs you hold the copyright to without complying with your license, you are put in a serious conundrum: you have to choose between enforcing your rights under law and continuing to enjoy IBM's non-aggression promise. I think this is an exchange one should consider very carefully, particularly considering how different and numerous so-called "intellectual property" laws are (another essay worth reading which RMS points to in his essay on Sun's "no-op announcement"; an essay one should read with IBM's patent promise as well). The number of laws under that overgeneralized catch-all phrase might catch you off guard, thus making you more vulnerable to patent infringement regarding these 500 patents than you thought you were.

    1. Re:Be careful regarding the IBM patent deal. by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      IBM's patent pledge gets considerable praise from RMS here ...

      Do you think that RMS hasn't read that section you quote? Or that he forgot to mention it? Thoroughness seems to be one of his faults.

      ... he [RMS] says that IBM's step is a substantive one--you are gaining increased access to 500 more patents than you had access to before.

      Makes sense to me. In a way, it would seem better if IBM were to leave the ``except'' out of the ``irrevocable except'' clause. On the other hand, that would weaken IBM's hand when it came time to defend against patent or other infringement claims by some MS-funded shill company. If RMS is keeping silent about that clause because it's the best compromise our imperfect world allows, I think I'd agree with him.

      Under that IBM ``irrevocable except'' clause, if you were to sue Red Hat for plagarizing your blog, IBM could decide to revoke your licenses on those patents. Even if RH asked IBM to do that, IBM might decide it's not in their best interest to do so.

      It seems to me that IBM has given us quite a bit, and the worst scenario you've come up with, I think, is that by filing the wrong lawsuit, one could go back to the pre-IBM-gift status quo. It's really hard to criticise IBM for that.

      Contrast that to the worst-case scenario for the Sun offering, where participating in their ``gift'' could taint you, and keep you from contributing to Libre software. That's clearly worse than the pre-Sun-``gift'' status quo. It's really hard not to criticise Sun for that.

    2. Re:Be careful regarding the IBM patent deal. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      Do you think that RMS hasn't read that section you quote? Or that he forgot to mention it?

      I don't know what he's read, but I see no mention of the IBM patent promise revocation clause in the philsophical documents on gnu.org or in this essay about Sun. Keeping silent as political negotiation seems to be out of step with how RMS has behaved in the past: pointing out good and bad things organizations do, and reminding us that we must not judge an organization by one thing that they do.

      It seems to me that IBM has given us quite a bit, and the worst scenario you've come up with, I think, is that by filing the wrong lawsuit, one could go back to the pre-IBM-gift status quo. It's really hard to criticise IBM for that.

      Defending your rights is hardly the wrong thing to want to do. My interest in free software comes from my increased awareness of my rights and my eagerness to defend them. The rest of your statement hits at my problem with IBM's offer: it's impossible for me to agree with that until I know the real value of what IBM is offering.

      Clearly IBM is offering something, but how easy it is to lose this pledge and what must one trade away to stay in IBM's good graces? These are more practical ways to measure the value of IBM's pledge rather than unexamined silence. What IBM has given us is not a gift, it is a conditional promise. A gift with strings attached is a questionable gift. You don't give someone a birthday gift on the condition that they don't sue you for copyright infringement, thus allowing you to illicitly make derivatives from their blog.

      I don't see a problem with encouraging people to consider what rights they're being asked to waive in exchange for this increased access. But I don't see press reports or opinion pieces doing this. When I consider how many more patents IBM has, and if I assume the best conditions (where I don't get sued over these 500 patents so long as I behave in a certain way), I have to wonder what programs might I might deal in which would leverage the 500 patented ideas I now have access to without leveraging any of IBM's other active patents. I'm not asking about this as a setup to fail, this is not a trick question.

      The vague terms of the promise--terms that would receive criticism in other contexts--make it hard to know what lawsuit to avoiding filing, assuming you want to act to continue access to these patents. I can't easily say how much this access is worth to me, and therefore, I can't conclude that I'm actually under less risk than I was before IBM published the pledge. To agree with you that we've been given "quite a bit" suggests that it's possible to ascertain the value of IBM's promise.

      Regarding criticizing Sun's "offer": I have no qualm with such criticism here; it seems more like shooting fish in a barrel if you read what Sun published. What sticks out to me is the difference in coverage--virtually nothing of the full terms of IBM's pledge, deservedly close examination for Sun. I don't think it's healthy to let people come away thinking they've been given something good because something else is so much worse (or non-existant).

    3. Re:Be careful regarding the IBM patent deal. by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      Well, as I said, the worst thing that could come of IBM's gift is the pre-gift status quo, if you file a lawsuit they interpret as an attack on Libre software (or IBM, I'm sure).

      If that's correct, the worth of IBM's gift could turn out to be zero, in the worst case. For the vast majority of us, who will never file such a suit, the worth is clearly positive.

      The vague terms of the promise--terms that would receive criticism in other contexts--make it hard to know what lawsuit to avoiding filing, assuming you want to act to continue access to these patents. I can't easily say how much this access is worth to me, and therefore, I can't conclude that I'm actually under less risk than I was before IBM published the pledge.

      You are clearly ``under less risk'' until you file the lawsuit, and are under no more risk after the lawsuit. That's the point I've been trying to make: without IBM's gift, suers face the same risk they do with IBM's gift. You aren't giving up anything if you don't sue. You are going back to the pre-gift status quo if you do sue. My understanding is that there are no new penalties, period. Post-gift, there is something to gain if we don't sue, no new problems if we do sue.

      IBM has had the big stick of those patents all along. Now they've told us that they usually won't hit us with it. That's a better deal than we had before.

    4. Re:Be careful regarding the IBM patent deal. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      In order to take advantage of IBM's promise, you take on a new risk: you must forgo enforcing your "intellectual property" rights against "Open Source Software". You don't know if you'll remain in IBM's good graces otherwise.

      So, what programs might I deal in that leverage any of the 500 patented ideas listed in the pledge and none of patented ideas from the rest of IBM's active patents?

      If there aren't significant programs in this answer, you're under no less risk than you were before. All you really get out of the pledge is not enforcing your rights under "intellectual property" law (which, as the FSF is right to point out, is not a real subject at all being both purposefully overgeneral and prejudicial).

    5. Re:Be careful regarding the IBM patent deal. by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      We seem to be talking about different things?

      My understanding is that anyone who chooses to sue may (at IBM's option) go back in the pre-IBM-gift status quo, while anyone who chooses to not sue gets a better deal.

      The ones who file a suit IBM doesn't like don't gain, but they don't lose, either!

      Have I missed something? Does anyone go in the hole as a result of the IBM patent gift? Remember, we need to compare before and after the gift, not compare the gift to some better gift we wish we had.

    6. Re:Be careful regarding the IBM patent deal. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      No, we're talking about the same thing, the IBM patent pledge, but you refuse to see a nebulously defined condition that ultimately results in suppressing your ability to defend your rights under law as a loss. This condition is why I refuse to join you and call what IBM is offering a "gift". Gifts don't come with conditions.

      Let's weigh the IBM patent pledge in terms of what you had before and after the pledge (your framing) and the set of programs you can now deal in without fearing lawsuits so long as you behave in a certain way (my framing):

      Before the pledge, most people had no access to any of IBM's patents and one could defend all of their rights under law (including those defined under the prejudicial and overgeneral term "intellectual property"). One could defend those rights against anyone (including against "Open Source Software", again citing the purposefully imprecise language of the IBM patent pledge; it's not clear exactly whom one is not to sue).

      The only way to leverage the pledge for sure is to forgo defending these rights against "Open Source Software". If one defends their rights they risk losing access to these 500 patents. Your point that there's no guarantee of losing access to these 500 patents by defending one's ("intellectual property") rights (against "Open Source Software") is true but another reason why one can come away thinking this pledge is not all it has been cracked up to be. Businesses are the target audience of the open source movement, yet I would not want to build a business making or distributing "Open Source Software" by leveraging these 500 patents because IBM has left enough wiggle room in their pledge to be able to shut off my access to these 500 patents at any time.

      Let's consider what this pledge actually gets us: what programs can you deal in (run, write, distribute, modify, etc.) leveraging the ideas described in these 500 patents that also do not leverage the ideas described in any of IBM's other active patents? This is the set of programs where you genuinely benefit from the pledge. The larger the set of qualifying programs, the more beneficial this pledge is to you.

      I don't know for sure what the answer to this question is. But this is a perfectly valid way to weigh the value of the pledge, and we must weigh it before concluding that this is a good or bad offer. If the set of programs that qualify is empty, you gain nothing and in exchange (if you behave to continue your access to the 500 patents) you choose not to defend some of your "intellectual property" rights against "Open Source Software". Effectively, this means you lose those rights against those defendants (an undefended right is no right at all). If the set of qualifying programs is small, you gain something but it's not much more than you had before the pledge. In either of these situations, you are trading away something valuable for something of little value. I believe one of these two cases is likely.

    7. Re:Be careful regarding the IBM patent deal. by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      I keep saying that there is no loss from the IBM offer (I agree that gift is not quite the ideal description). There may or may not be any gain, for any individual, but definitely, there is no loss. In the worst case, your situation will be the same as if IBM had never made their offer.

      I mentioned that IBM might not choose to retract their offer if you sued. That possibility isn't why I say that there is no loss to you: I say you don't lose because, in the worst case, your situation is the same as if IBM had never made you that offer.

      You keep asking what you could gain from IBM's offer, and my answer is that it doesn't matter! The gain may be positive, it may be zero, but we know that it isn't negative, so you can be no worse off because of it. Note that you can't really ``accept'' it, since it requires no action from you. It's my understanding that that's radically different from Sun's offer.

      If you want to build a business on Open or Libre software, do it. Don't read the patents, whether you think you'll sue IBM or not, because reading the patents opens you to greater liability, for IBM's patents, and for any which might be referenced in them. Knowing violation of a patent is exactly 3 times more serious than unknowing violation, so never be aware of patents! If you don't sue IBM, their offer means one less worry. If you do sue IBM or their Linux-loving minions, you are no worse off for IBM having made their offer, because you would have built your business around the same patents, offer or no, because you should never read the patents.

      If you choose to build a business specifically around one of those IBM patents, specifically relying on their offer, you are potentially giving up some nebulous future lawsuit for a very real, present benefit. You might find it more profitable to negotiate a separate contract with them, and IBM's offer doesn't preclude that. You are still no worse off for their having made the offer.

      To bring this thread back on topic:

      • What IBM's offer boils down to is: ``We won't use some few of our patents to initiate attacks on Libre developers.'' That's a weak promise, but we're none of us worse off for their having made it.
      • I think we've agreed that Sun's offer could taint developers who take advantage of it, and leave them unable to contribute to Libre software.

      That possibility of harm is present in the Sun offer, absent in the IBM offer, and that's why there's complaint about one and not about the other. I'm not very excited about IBM's offer, but I'm not worried by it, either. Sun worries me a bit.
  103. Re:He's right! by ozbird · · Score: 1

    "Beware of Geeks bearing gifts."

  104. Corporate anti-RMS spin by Jack+Action · · Score: 1

    RMS doesn't want to make any concessions. The Open Source community does, and gets taken seriously.

    Taken seriously by who, Business Week? Check out this cover story that praises Linus, but then goes on to do a hatchet job on RMS. Both Linus and RMS shared the EFF's inaugral Pioneer Award. Beware of those who play one up and put down another.

    Its easy to see what the agenda is here. As FOSS gains mainstream acceptance, the corporate world signals to its members who the trouble-makers are. The ones who managers should avoid.

    People say RMS is a great coder and spokesmen too, but his real legacy is the GPL. It will go down with Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence as one of the great documents of history. Its already spawned the creative commons, copyleft movement that is transforming our culture.

    His legacy for the future is huge.

  105. Here's your problem by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    You people need to send the message ...

    See, there's your problem. You think only in terms of organizations, of corporations is it? You can't seem to wrap your head around the basic idea of people existing all by themselves, or cooperating all by themselves, without some overriding bureaucracy to control things. Thus you think patents and copyrights can only be good because they further the interests of big organized corporations. The idea that mere people would be better off without copyrights and patents as they are now abused is a foreign thought to you.

    Right now, "Linux" is "Gimme gimme."

    See? More of the same. Your thought patterns are one with the dinosaurs of the corporate world.

    You are incapable of understanding the idea that people would say "Here, take this, see what I've done. Use it, but don't steal it as your own. Redistribute it, modify it, have a good time with it, but pass it on under the same circumstances as I gave it to you."

    1. Re:Here's your problem by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      You think only in terms of organizations

      Well, apart from being untrue, that's kind of what we're talking about here, isn't it? There's a group of people who make and want to promote this thing called Linux. They want everybody to adopt it ...but there are some things standing in the way. First and foremost is the fact that this group of people can't even agree on what Linux is. There are dozens of varieties of the damn thing, with no clear points of distinction among them. Heck, just a few hours ago there was a discussion on this very site about which Linux is right for which user, a discussion that went nowhere at all.

      But let's set all this aside. Let's pretend there were a single product, Linux, that everybody involved wanted to support. The product would have a huge branding problem because it doesn't seem to be associated with anything good. There are people who want to advance the opinion that Linux is synonymous with freedom, but these are the same people who like to bitch when Sun gives things away for free. So that approach has, to date, been kind of self-defeating.

      And anybody who looks at Linux can tell, at a glance, that it's not a high-quality product. It just doesn't have much fit and finish. Nor is it a fun, whimsical product, nor is it a trendy product, nor is it a professional-grade, no-nonsense product.

      The only value Linux really has going for it right now is that it's cheap ...and cheap by itself is going to be a hard sell. The adage "you get what you pay for" is (1) universally understood, and (2) nearly always true.

      So "Linux, Inc.," for lack of a better name, is in a really desperate situation right now. There's a customer base that it wants to attract --individual users of cheap computers who are fed up with Windows and who aren't exactly on the front of the "digital lifestyle" curve --but the product seems to be doing everything possible to dissuade those people from signing up. It's kind of self-defeating.

      Linux either needs a massive leadership transplant, or ...well, maybe it just needs leadership, period. Because it's not gaining positive mindshare like this.

      Your thought patterns are one with the dinosaurs of the corporate world.

      I know it's fashionable to think of the incumbent as a dinosaur, but doesn't that analogy only work if you're a mammal? It's entirely possible that your business model isn't symbolic of mammals, but rather of trilobites: small, irrelevant, just as extinct.

      It's not sufficient just to be different from the one's with the power. You also have to be better. Right now, that's strictly a matter of opinion, and from the lay of the land, it doesn't seem to be a particularly widely held opinion.

  106. Re:He's right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm certainly no license expert, but it seems like a lot of people are missing the point. Even if the CDDL *is* incompatible with existing GPL projects, you are still free to take this horse Sun is showing you, give it a fancy new hat, and charge people for rides. You can take a bunch of their amazing horsies, put them on a revolving platter, and share the new carousel you just made. It seems that the only thing in question is whether you can integrate their code/idea into an existing GPL project. Am I wrong? I'm not being rhetorical, I'm just trying to understand the beef here. Is the problem just that the GPL is currently so popular, and the CDDL may be imcompatible with it? What if in ten years, CDDL-like licenses dominate the landscape, and GPL-licensed code is racing toward "legacy?" Would that change people's view of what Sun has done? Again, no rhetoric here.

    Given that (as I understand it), the CDDL is just a variant of the MPL, I think we need only look so far as Firefox to see that 'the community' can indeed embrace such a proposition, we can make use of such a license, and that good things can result.

  107. Lots of People Still Don't Believe by Bondolo · · Score: 1
    Sun and many others (Apache, X.org, *BSD, me, etc.) don't believe in the GPL.

    It's easy to understand that they don't wish their contributions to be co-opted into the GPL realm. As Sun, and many others see it, that would reduce their rights. Avoiding a GPL lockup is undoubtably part of Sun's strategy.

    Even RMS is very clear that copyleft is intended to achieve the much same effects as the patent system, though with a very different goal. see Wikipedia on GPL Ideology.

    I personally think most technology patents have been a significant deterrent to industry adoption. I believe the GPL has the same effect. There's a huge disincentive for commercial businesses to make significant contributions to GPL projects. Unless their real goal is not to "make the world a better place", but instead to cripple the revenue stream of their competitors a la Microsoft's favourite tactics. I'm generally very cynical about any commerical donation of GPL code. If it's a real donation then it should be under a BSD-like "copycenter" license.

    --
    -- "Most people prefer a popular myth to an unpopular truth"
  108. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by Entropy · · Score: 1

    All your old jokes are belong to Soviet Russia.

    --
    The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
  109. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by MuMart · · Score: 1

    How about just removing the +5 limit?

  110. Cheap laughs by amightywind · · Score: 1

    They should moderate you +3 stupid. Going for cheap laughs, karma whore?

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  111. Right now, "Linux" is "Gimme gimme." WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong,
    GPL says TAKE and USE for free and freely,
    But if you distribute share.

  112. No you still don't get it by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    There's a group of people who make and want to promote this thing called Linux.

    Let's pretend there were a single product, Linux, that everybody involved wanted to support.

    No no no. There are people using Linux. Period. Forget this group nonsense. This is not like a Hollywood movie trying to promote itself, or the Boy Scouts trying to promote themselves, or anything else like that. Linux is NOT a group of anything. It is people period.

    There are corporations promoting their collection of Linux and utilities and services. They are not Linux. They are corporations promoting their own self interest.

    You just don't get it. And that leads you to insult something you don't understand:

    And anybody who looks at Linux can tell, at a glance, that it's not a high-quality product.

    Wrong wrong wrong. It is NOT a product. Red Hat Linux is a product, Mandrake is a product, but Linux is NOT a product.

    And aside from that, the only people who would be so foolish as to declare Linux low quality "at a glance" are those who look at boxes on shelves and tell the quality of the inner product by the flashy colors on the box. You simply cannot tell "at a glance" that millions of lines of code are indeed "low quality".

    You go on and on, about branding, desperation, and so on. All show that you simply cannot grasp the concept of something standing on its own.

    Whta is the sound of one hand clapping? You had better try to understand that before you try to understand something as simple as Linux.

    1. Re:No you still don't get it by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      There are people using Linux. Period.

      Um, no. There are people who use it, yes. But there are also people who make, distribute, sell and promote it. These people, who are all working with a common purpose, comprise a -- surprise! --group.

      It is NOT a product.

      Of course it is. It's a thing that some people offer to other people. It's a product.

      However, your ramble goes a long way toward demonstrating my point. The "this Linux is a product, that Linux isn't a product" nonsense is an excellent example of why Linux has a massive PR problem.

      You simply cannot tell "at a glance" that millions of lines of code are indeed "low quality".

      Hang on a sec. Let's go real slow here. Are you saying, with a straight face, that your customers are not going to form an opinion about your product when they use it? Because I feel pretty safe here in saying that they are.

  113. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the "Soviet Russia" jokes have been dying off

    OK.. you asked for it:

    IN SOVIET RUSSIA.. jokes die off YOU!

  114. Copy Right Infringement-IBM Mirrors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "I think the difference between IBM and Sun in this case is that IBM did not give us everything, but did not attempt to tell us that they were. Sun attempted to promote that they were giving more than they actually did."


    "Schwartz @ his blog:

    ps. You've got to love IBM's ability to play the community. Going through some of the patents they "donated" to the open source community a few weeks back, it looks as if they all, curiously, seem to be due for payment - and thus potential expiration - this year. Were they destined for the bit bucket (turns out IBM is among the largest patent expirers in the world, along with its largest issuer).

    And some of the patents have nothing to do with open source software - my favorite in the heap is this one. Not sure that's going to be quite the comfort the community's looking for. Here are a few others - for those working in gel embodiments; and for the open source doctors in the crowd.

    We know we need to help the community understand how to take advantage of our grant - but at least all 1600 of the patents we've granted to the world were for operating systems and software (USPTO 700, for the wonks in the crowd)."
  115. Speak english RMS! by dbIII · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    To sum up the article, RMS says not to use any licence other than his own and mangles english, 'merican or ebonics with "treacherous computing" added to his own definitions of free, open and his invented word copyleft. Things will improve without RMS, so he needs to make a statement every now and again to prove to his peers at MIT that he is important. We should just ignore him until he says something new. The GPL was a big contribution, the emacs macros were a big contirbution, and if he really wrote the early versions of gcc that was good too. I'm sure that he is doing important things now in academic politics at MIT, but do not really care.

    I think Suns actions and licence should be taken on their merits, and not dismissed because it is not RMS's own licence. Also Sun is not capable of fixing the broken US patent system, and unlike RMS I don't think they should go broke trying to do so.

  116. IBM's patents, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Sun has listed out 1600 patents that they state they will not sue if used with their CDDL license and people get upset because they are not being given to the GPL Licensed software developers (they never claimed they were). But all the GPL fans love IBM because they released 500 patents for use under GPL.

    Take a look at the IBM patents being donated, they are all due for payment this year (or they'll expire) and they are not even all software related!? Maybe your next GPL project was going to be based around the means for migrating and separating a portion of a biomolecule in a gel? ya, I didn't think so.
    I know I feel safe from IBM knowing that they won't sue me for using their tamper proof set screw patent against me when I use it in my next GPL'd project!

    Now truthfully I did not look at all of IBM's 500 patents real close but with them all about to expire, and some of them not even applicable to software who is really screwing the Open Source comunity? Sun, the one who truthfully tells you what they are giving you (maybe not the terms you like, but they are not claiming otherwise)? Or IBM, the one contributing a bunch of patents about to expire and filling the list with ones that are of no use to software developers so they can get their numbers up to look good.

    IBM's PR dept. looks to be playing the Open Source comunity like a puppet and a bunch of you are jumping around asking where you should dance next. Come on folks wake up. And stop beating up any Company that does not bow down in front of the alter of GPL. When a company starts to open up don't rip them apart because they didn't go whole hog for the GPL right out of the gate, give them a chance to show us what they are about and what they have to offer maybe after they open up a little and things go well they might be more open to moving to the GPL in the future. But the way people on slashdot are treating Sun right now I don't blame them for not going straight to the GPL. I've seen plenty of posts that basically say "Solaris sucks! GPL it so we can take the cool stuff out and port it to linux then there will be no reason to ever run 'Slowaris'" with that type of mentality around here is it any wonder that companies with alot of software IP are not jumping on the GPL bandwagon?

  117. Let this play out, please. by SunFan · · Score: 1


    The FUD from the GPL crowd is astonishing, given their history of receiving it en mass from Microsoft just a few years ago. Why is it that so many people are so damn quick in firing shots at Sun? If you don't think that Sun's intentions are genuine, you don't even have to waste another thought on OpenSolaris. You can go on with your lives as if nothing has happened. You can stay with Linux and the GPL, resting assured that code is not intermingling from Solaris. Sun's choice of license works both ways, you know.

    Do you lose sleep at night about code from Free/Net/OpenBSD finding its way into Linux causing some sort of gigantic IP nightmare? If it didn't bother you for the last fifteen years, why start now?

    This reactionary rhetoric against Sun is diluting the meaning of the word hypocrisy.

    --
    -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
  118. Tamper proof screw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBM has a patent for a tamper proof screw?

    Yes, but Microsoft has the Windows franchise.

  119. Re:He's right! by njcoder · · Score: 1
    "but have also done some incredibly damaging things to OSS as well.

    What exactly have they done that has been incredibly damaging?

  120. Lots of People Still Don't Believe-In trust. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the central point about both licenses is "trust". The GPL assumes that users are untrustworthy and must be forced to do what is right. The BSD basically saying that we trust you to do what's right, and doesn't force you.

  121. The world of Richard Stallman-Boat Float. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The GPL is geared towards eventually making all software a commodity. Even that custom CMS someone mentioned will eventually become a commodity due to the downward pressure of the network effect.

    That leaves the "filling of the holes" OSS leaves behind. e.g. documentation, service. However there are side-effects from the GPL that will drive even that to commodity status. All those who can no longer earn money due to the previously mentioned effect. Now move into service and support and devalue that market. e.g. see the present crisis IT is going through, and what "oversupply" has done to it.

    In the short term. A couple boats will be lifted. In the long term all boats will be lifted. But not as high as they would have under a different system.

  122. If it hasn't been covered yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what I understand (and my understanding is somewhat limited at this point) the sun license works like this:

    You can look at the code.
    You can take the code, modify it, and release it.
    You may write a closed source app and use this code in it, as long as you release our code, but not your closed source.
    You may not change this license.

    I think the key point here is that it is GPL incompatable. Because of the way that the GPL is designed, GPL'd code cannot be used with any other license. So because you cannot change the sun license, and the GPL license forbids any non-GPL works in a GPL release, it is incompatable with linux.

    The license itself is actually a lot more loose than the GPL is :p.

    However, as for the patents, I agree that it is an implied promise of use. You release the code, you relinquish the right to sue the people that use that code in the terms you released it under. If you violate the license... well, that's your problem.

  123. Re:yes: RMS is nuts. no, he's not wrong this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, attacking the speaker instead of the argument is a logical fallacy ( ad hominum ).

    It's called argumentum ad hominem, a genetic fallacy of personal attack, a red herring informal fallacy, like argumentum ad verecundiam. Argumentum ad hominem can be abusive or circumstantial. There are related fallacies called poisoning the well and tu quoque.

  124. Copy Right Infringement-Feet of clay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Slavery was the first one I thought of, and certainly it's the most obvious sort of property ownership that is held to be offensive these days but in an earlier day was legal, and socially acceptable - indeed the ownership of many slaves was held to be a sign of high social status at one time. As a society, we've grown up since then. But we still have much growing to do."

    And yet the irony is that every time an IP debate comes up. Someone's quoting that most famous of slave owners...Jefferson. Next thing you know people will be quoting Hitler.

  125. It's *really* about the Hardware by argoff · · Score: 1


    You see, when all the systems run Linux - then that pits Sun directly against the x86 PC commodity market just at the time it's starting to go 64 bit. In order for Sun to compete, they must do everything and anything to differentiate to make sure that they can cost justify the higher cost of their hardware.

  126. Copy Right Infringement-History...Minor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The only people who want patents are the ones who want to sit on their ass for ideas were happening anyhow and collect royalities for it."

    Let me guess. American History: The Scribble-Notes version.

    Oh don't mind me. One should never let factual history get in the way of a weak point.

  127. RMS will never be an MLK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As time passes, it becomes more and more clear that RMS is dead on in most of his positions, and the people who say otherwise are beginning to open themselves up to comparisons with MLK's detractors, who are generally a nasty bunch.

    Do you realize that you just called everyone who doesn't like the GPL a racist? FreeBSD fans are decent people too you know?

    1. Re:RMS will never be an MLK by 808140 · · Score: 1

      Unlike most GPL-zealots, RMS sees nothing wrong with the BSD license -- he considers it free. He just happened to author the GPL, and so he supports it.

      Also, he (the OP) didn't call everyone who doesn't like the GPL a racist, but I expect you know that and are deliberately misrepresenting him. What he did say, though, is that attacking someone's person instead of his ideas suggests two related possibilities. One, the attacker finds the ideas of the protagonist repulsive, but cannot find firm logical ground on which to discredit them, and so defaults to the easier ad homniem attack; and two, the attacker finds the ideas of the protagonist repulsive, but fears attacking those ideas directly, as his criticisms are not shared by the majority.

      I think that the MLK/RMS comparison is not a good one, but not because it isn't valid -- rather, because very few people see the freeing of software as being as noble a cause as freeing african americans from racial biggotry. This results in emotionally laden non-productive responses to the argument, rather than well thought out discourse (this is why Goodwin's Law still applies, for example, even if a comparison with Nazis is accurate).

      For what it's worth, though, RMS at least does see Free Software as a struggle very much on par with Freedom from Biggotry. Very few people care about it as passionately as he does.

      I think, though, that Slashdot has a lot of industry-geeks: people that appreciate Free Software on one hand, but, because they depend on software for their economic well-being, fear the future that Stallman envisions. Many of them know he is right, or at least, are frightened enough by what he says that they try their best to ignore his arguments, and instead criticize his facial hair or alleged lack of hygiene. These people are in the latter group I spoke of: they have misgivings, at some level, about the movement. They want free software for their personal use, but they also want a paycheck, and when push comes to shove, they won't quit their jobs to promote Free Software (as RMS has).

      RMS is a tremendously consistant, logical guy. He very rarely contradicts himself, he very rarely comments passionately on anything other than this one issue, and his arguments are all very well thought out -- all of this is independant of whether or not people agree with him or not. But it makes his position a difficult one to criticize, especially by someone less skilled in rhetoric than he is -- which includes 98% of all of us. This invites use of the ad homniem attack -- RMS is hard to argue with, he leaves you feeling stupid.

      Getting back to the BSD issue, RMS is concerned about BSD-licensed code being co-opted by organizations hostile to Software freedom. BSDers, for what its worth, are not concerned about this -- and that is their right, and RMS doesn't seem to bother with those that understand the choice they are making. What I think he does worry about it people that develop under the BSD license without a full understanding of the risks they are taking when they license that code.

      In a way, BSD-zealots are even more rabidly-freedom loving than GPL-zealots are (as evidenced by the countless threads loudly advancing the notion that the BSD license is much more free than the GPL).

      In this situation, though, it is time for BSDers and GPLers to put down their pitchforks and stop fighting with each other, because the issue RMS is talking about here is one that affects the BSDs as well -- the issue of software patents.

      Right now, Microsoft can co-opt OpenBSD code, for example, and stick it into NT, and never pay anyone a dime. Theo de Raadt understands this and supports it, in the name of freedom -- a noble view. But in a world with Software Patents, Microsoft could co-opt OpenBSD code and use it -- and then turn around and prevent free uses of OpenBSD, by charging outrageous license fees on patents infringed by OpenBSD code.

      The standard view on the BSD side: sure,

  128. It's not SUN, ... by quarkscat · · Score: 1

    and I really hate to sound like an old
    timer, but I rather like SGI IRIX 6.5's
    "chkconfig" and separate "rc" scripts
    much better.

    The interface is uniform, it's easy to
    program for, and everything is laid out
    by runlevel. But hey, back in the old
    days I used to walk uphill to school,
    both ways!

  129. Don't be by argoff · · Score: 1

    Using Z to prove A never makes any sense.

    Well, that's funny, because that's exactly what people are trying to do when they equate patents to property, "intellectual property" to be more specific. I tell you what, get them to knock off the former and I'll be happy to knock off the latter.

    The irony is that the open source movement argues "choice" at every turn... unless of course that choice is to not use open source software.

    You can choose your choices, but you can not choose your consequences. Choosing software that helps others limit your freedoms has consequences that very very predictable and understandable. Why can't people get that!!

  130. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 1

    in Korea, Soviet Russia jokes are only for old people.

  131. Sigh again-"Real" Deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This sort of thing happens all the time. See why the term "intellectual property" doesn't quite fit the subject matter?"

    IP fits as well as any other.

  132. Re:He's right! by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

    Well it isn't like Sun gave the Open Source community anything. Rather, Sun is trying to clone their own personal community which is Open with its Source in their private little club. Not the same thing.

  133. Apache demands it for example by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

    No, Apache doesn't demand it. The difference is that Apache doesn't say, in effect, "give us the copyright" so that MS can then turn around and sue you, the developer, while Apache gets to use the code you gave them in a forked and closed ApacheTwo project.

    The concern is that n days down the road, MS sues and shuts down OpenOffice due to patent infringement that Sun could even know about right now, while Sun remains free and clear to continue with StarOffice. Thus all the work that was GPLed is lost to the community but remains the property of Sun.

    1. Re:Apache demands it for example by WebMink · · Score: 1

      You're conflating two concerns here, the fear of a patent infringement lawsuit and the mistrust of Sun as a steward of OpenOffice.org.

      Sun, like Apache, aggregates copyrights so it can manage the codebase effectively and defend license violations. I believe both Sun and Apache are right to do this and that it's sound practice to get contributor agreements and copyright assignments from committers.

      Contributor agreements are the best anyone can do right now defending against patents. When it comes to a patent infringement lawsuit, the stupidity of the patent system means that no-one can anticipate it ("no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition", as Monty Python observed). To rephrase your example, if Apache were to be shut down by patent lawsuits, IBM Websphere would happily carry on rolling independently of it - in fact that's one of the strengths of open source. The possibility of that in no way implies either that Apache should not aggregate copyrights for good governance or that IBM should not sit on the Apache board.

      Your concern therefore seems to boil down to not liking Sun being the steward of openoffice.org. Understood. I'll work on it.

    2. Re:Apache demands it for example by txtracer · · Score: 1
      The concern is that n days down the road, MS sues and shuts down OpenOffice due to patent infringement that Sun could even know about right now, while Sun remains free and clear to continue with StarOffice. Thus all the work that was GPLed is lost to the community but remains the property of Sun.


      Bah, this is all irrelevant navel-gazing. MS can sue in the U.S. all they want, but even they don't have the resources to sue in every jurisdiction in the world where OpenOffice can be developed. As the U.S. closes down FOSS development, it will move to other countries. It will continue, and the U.S. will continue its decline from technological leader (which it has already largely lost) to insular, xenophobic irrelevancy.
      --

      -=+>txtracer<+=-
      -Those who do not learn from history are doomed.
    3. Re:Apache demands it for example by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Nope, you understand my concern not at all. You ignore the key difference between the two stewardships, and label the synergy between the CDDL, Sun patents, MS patents, and the Sun/MS agreements as "conflating".

      So please change that to "Misunderstood", but do please continure working on it. The key difference is that if OpenOffice were shutdown by MS patents, Sun gets to continue with StarOffice. If Apache were shutdown by patent infringements, where is the agreement that Apache gets to release closed source code versions of the code? Big difference.

  134. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1

    when the issue of freedom "gets old" to you, that means you are ready to die. the dead don't care about freedom of others, having truly found it for themselves. this is no surprise.

    if you want to be entertained by novelty, consider taking RMS's position and surprising the people around you by your actions.

  135. I don't think you are going to convince anybody by spitzak · · Score: 1

    If some company is worried about a GPL project "stealing" their code that they release under the GPL, then they certainly won't release it BSD, becasuse that allows anybody to "steal" it, including the very same GPL people, plus many other!. Trying to use this as an argument for the BSD license is just stupid.

    1. Re:I don't think you are going to convince anybody by Bondolo · · Score: 1

      It works like this:

      1. Company releases a significant work under a BSD-like license.

      2. GPL-fan produces a useful non-trivial addition to the work, releases the whole result under GPL license.

      3. Company has to either replicate the addition to maintain BSD-license and their own rights or accept that their work is now under GPL even if it's still largely their work.

      And yes, it's happened more than a few times.

      --
      -- "Most people prefer a popular myth to an unpopular truth"
    2. Re:I don't think you are going to convince anybody by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I didn't understand your original post.

      I thought you were claiming that a company is better off releasing stuff BSD than GPL. But you just said right there the same thing I did, which was that if they don't like GPL stuff, they must like BSD even less, since all the GPL people can "steal" their code, but now even *more* people can "steal" their code.

      In the real world somebody trying to control their code would be much better off with GPL than BSD, but neither approaches just copyrighting the work and letting nobody redistribute it.

  136. RMS lives in the real world by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

    I think people misunderstand RMS' goals with the GPL:

    RMS wants to do away with copyright and all "Intellectual Property-rights" entirely. He does not want to force everyone to use the GPL, but he created the GPL, "copyleft" as an answer to copyright: Since Free Software cannot legally obtain source or dumps from proprietary software, there was a need for a license that allowed everything to be shared. Except to proprietary software, since they're restricting sharing unnaturally. How else would Free Software be able to compete against copyright? It's an ironical stab at copyright.

    When RMS started, he was laughed at. Nobody believed quality software could be made by people in their spare time. Leaders of corporations thought that making something like a UNIX OS would be impossible for others to achieve, but forgot it's us, human beings , who really created the software in the first place. Now, we're seeing Free Software is ahead in many respects, and is slowly overtaking proprietary solutions and making them uncomfortable.

    RMS doesn't live in his own world, he sees the illusion our society is building its card-house on. He sees "IP-rights" as unnatural: It is natural to share information. With the advent of free cost copying and distribution of information (The Internet), we as a society now have roughly two choices:

    1) Implement more and more draconian laws to conserve our social structure as it is now. Only the elite will be able to produce and invent, while the poor becomes poorer both in monetary riches and knowledge - one of the ways to oppress people. There's no way to prevent the freedom of information, except to create higher and higher barriers between every entity in this world: nations, cities, communities, institutions, neighbours, family, your own brain. Yes, it becomes ludicrous at a point, but at that point, who can stop it? When you've already lost touch with your community, nobody is on your side anymore.

    A way to do this, is to create an artificial war against an abstract enemy, thus making people think they need these laws for protection. Even though more people die in car-accidents each year, than to this fictious enemy.

    Back to point #2:

    2) Another approach is to create a natural abundant society where people collaborate and contribute to the whole. Free Software is only the beginning, and has already proven its more efficient, flexible and reusable than proprietary solutions. Technology will slowly eliminate limitations and create abundance. In such a society, work will be more like play than the hour-wrecking, time-stretching, guilt-ridden, manipulative, forced labour we have today. Why are we waiting for the clock to turn 4-5 if there's not more work to be done that day? In fact, most of the population will not be required to "work" at all, and what work exist can be done taking turns on it. It requires a mature society that will take care of all its inhabitants. Like it or not: socialism, though just like in Europe not everybody need be treated equally.

    The GPL is not forcing anybody to do anything. Copyright and so called "Intellectual Property-rights" are forcing people, and is the enemy to a natural progression towards an abundant society.

    Abundance or not, is really a state of mind. Some people want to create a future of everlasting feeling of lack. You need more, and more, and in order to get it you have to do what they tell you to do. No matter how advanced technologically we get, we will never be happy, we will be slaves to emotions being manipulated by a paranoid society.

    I want to live in a mature, natural and abundant society, don't you?

    Ask yourself, who is working against the natural progression of evolution, a happy and abundant society, or a draconian fear-induced, lack-ridden society. What society is able to cope with reality , make rational decisions and make crime unattractive?

    Both will eventually perish in time, but I want to go down with a calm smile, than a paranoid and greedy grin.

  137. RMS is on to something.. by Steeltoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To properly understand people, it's crucial to see where they're coming from, not brand them as crazy, that's just an easy way to opt out of understanding. I think people misunderstand RMS' goals with the GPL.

    RMS wants to do away with copyright and all "Intellectual Property-rights" entirely. He does not want to force everyone to use the GPL, but he created the GPL, "copyleft" as an answer to copyright: Since Free Software cannot legally obtain source or dumps from proprietary software, there was a need for a license that allowed everything to be shared. Except to proprietary software, since they're restricting sharing unnaturally. How else would Free Software be able to compete against copyright? It's an ironical stab at copyright.

    When RMS started, he was laughed at. Nobody believed quality software could be made by people in their spare time. Leaders of corporations thought that making something like a UNIX OS would be impossible for others to achieve, but forgot it's us, human beings , who really created the software in the first place. Now, we're seeing Free Software is ahead in some respects, and is slowly overtaking proprietary solutions and making them uncomfortable.

    RMS doesn't live in his own world, he sees the illusion our society is building its card-house on. He sees "IP-rights" as unnatural: It is natural to share information. With the advent of free cost copying and distribution of information (The Internet), we as a society now have roughly two choices:

    1) Implement more and more draconian laws to conserve our social structure as it is now. Only the elite will be able to produce and invent, while the poor becomes poorer both in monetary riches and knowledge - one of the ways to oppress people. There's no way to prevent the freedom of information, except to create higher and higher barriers between every entity in this world: nations, cities, communities, institutions, neighbours, family, your own brain. Yes, it becomes ludicrous at a point, but at that point, who can stop it? When you've already lost touch with your community, nobody is on your side anymore.

    A way to do this, is to create an artificial war against an abstract enemy, thus making people think they need these laws for protection. Even though more people die in car-accidents each year, than to this fictious enemy.

    Back to point #2:

    2) Another approach is to create a natural abundant society where people collaborate and contribute to the whole. Free Software is only the beginning, and has already proven its more efficient, flexible and reusable than proprietary solutions. Technology will slowly eliminate limitations and create abundance. In such a society, work will be more like play than the hour-wrecking, time-stretching, guilt-ridden, manipulative, forced labour we have today. Why are we waiting for the clock to turn 4-5 if there's not more work to be done that day? In fact, most of the population will not be required to "work" at all, and what work exist can be done taking turns on it. It requires a mature society that will take care of all its inhabitants. Like it or not: socialism, though just like in Europe not everybody need be treated equally.

    The GPL is not forcing anybody to do anything. Copyright and so called "Intellectual Property-rights" are forcing people, and is the enemy to a natural progression towards an abundant society.

    Abundance or not, is really a state of mind. Some people want to create a future of everlasting feeling of lack. You need more, and more, and in order to get it you have to do what they tell you to do. No matter how advanced technologically we get, we will never be happy, we will be slaves to emotions being manipulated by a paranoid society - our spirit crushed or perverted into material goal-chasing.

    I want to live in a mature, natural and abundant society, don't you?

    Ask yourself, who is working against the natural progression of evolution,

    1. Re:RMS is on to something.. by Paul+Crowley · · Score: 1

      When RMS started, he was laughed at. Nobody believed quality software could be made by people in their spare time.

      There was quite a bit of Open Source software when RMS started, actually. Sendmail, BIND and TeX predate the GNU Project IIRC.

    2. Re:RMS is on to something.. by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      You're making the Socialist Mistake: you assume that everybody has the same desire to achieve and better themselves that you do. Unfortunately, the reality of the world is that most people want to get as much as possible for as little as posible. It's endemic in human nature - from the kids at school who disrupt the class, to those living a life of relative luxury on social security and other benefits who have no intention of getting jobs. Trying to force such a system doesn't work. Take the theory of Comprehensive Education - by combinging students of every level, those who were not as successful would be inspired to better themselves, pulling the education of the group up from the average to level of the high achievers. The real result? Bullying and disruption dragged down overall achievement to the lowest common denominator. The same effects can be seen where socialist housing projects built estates next to established communities. Instead of pulling up the standard of living, the people living in the established communities are frightened to leave the house, and railings, etc. have been commonly installed to try to improve security. It's a lovely idea, but it's flawed by the fact that human beings are fundamentally detestable.

    3. Re:RMS is on to something.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the longest comment on /. ?

    4. Re:RMS is on to something.. by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 1

      I might consider your appeal to utopia, if you can convincingly answer me this one question:

      How do you decide who gets to live in the Manhattan Upper East(/West) Side apartment overlooking Central Park?

      Peace be with you,
      -jimbo

    5. Re:RMS is on to something.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a commie freak. Capitalism / greed is good. That's the only thing that keeps the whole human race alive... Just kidding..

    6. Re:RMS is on to something.. by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      Please reread my post. To share information and knowledge is not utopia, but the reality we live in.

      What is utopia is the card-house that there exist something called "IP-rights", and that we need more and more draconian laws to protect information from escaping out clutched hands.

      Umm, let me rephrase that: Not utopia, but living nightmare. Who needs bands whose only desire is to become rich and famous? It certainly doesn't add any artistic flavour to the sound.

      Reality is that advances in technology will slowly make more and more people unemployed. Either that, or we will have to go back to biodynamic and organic farming (which would be a good thing for the quality of food).

      It is not a question of utopia, but what we do ABOUT the changing reality we live in. If machines do more of the work, we should get more free time, right?

      To accept even more work is insanity! We accept insane solutions in this world on a daily basis. If you open your eyes, you can see that.

      Why? Because of fear: What if we don't? We'll be insecure.. Fear is running amok in this world, and most of how people live their lives and make decisions in based on it. Even indifference, because that is fear of participation and standing up for something important.

      To answer your question in specific: This is not a revolution, so whoever lives there and owns it, continues to do so. This is about a shift, a change in consciousness, which will change both people's attitudes and the mechanics of society over time.

      For individuals, it may shift over night.

  138. Re:He's right! [winhat] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A compiler is a study of the mouth.

    I am a human being, which means i do what i have retained my credibility in the page cache. The buffer cache is also pretty good, except when things break, which does happen. The sun is the meat derived from the sun.

    My riches consist not in the mouth, and after inspecting each and every gold cap, yell at the positive ions in the mouth, and after inspecting each and every gold cap, yell at the centre of the nervous system. You are a group of primates closely related to the open source community.

    The sun is a study of the alimentary canal is the study of the relationship between an organism and its offset within the body.

    I think you could leave your brain at the positive ions in the book and the negative ions will collect at the design of the kind in common use at the design of the level you want me to study the tcsec?

    Aristotle was an article about microsoft, sco, or sun... My bad.

    You are a part of the ideas to improve writing performance. Instead of carrying out all writes immediately, the kernel stores data temporally in the file i-node number and its contents.

    I don't care how strong the apple engineers' kung-fu is, there's just no way to the horse you rode in on.

    To minimise management overhead, all buffers are held in one of these things, as has happened to me on a windows machine, then microsoft will be open source.

    I think i've worked it out! You are the one that we can't trust?

    You want to cut, leaving the hole itself barren, then submerging it in saltwater and electrifying it, causing the exposed metal to oxidize and be communist, because all open source community.

  139. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by matric · · Score: 1

    A joke is funny if its funny. It may sound stupid, but there isn't any more logic to it than that. Besides, trying to implement a "group think" system for Funny moderation works against the purpose of jokes anyway. I find a joke funny because I find it funny. If you don't like it, well .. move along or make your own joke.

  140. He's a good writer, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuff said

  141. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by ynohoo · · Score: 1

    yeah thats old, to be up to date you should use MICROS~1 ;P

  142. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by netdudeuk · · Score: 1

    I know that it will not exactly shake this community but I've recently taken out /. from my favourites, despite this being my most frequented site (I'm sure that IP logs will show what a fan I've been). And I bet I'm not the only one.

    The reason ? While there are loads of cool things on here, the constant bickering about M$, open sores, etc, is turning this place into a pretty boring one that is less pleasant to visit. And this is at a time when open source is becoming more prominent and people want more information !

    The site will continue to look like the ideal place for bickering when all the MS flaws get reported but very few of those related to Linux. Stating the obvious here, but surely professional Linux admins would like to hear more about what affects their systems in the first instance ? Reporting MS flaws is just a hook to catch another set of anti-MS sentiment.

    Now, if someone could tell me why FileZilla has failed to stop downloading my SUSE 9.2 at 3.1 GB, and wants to carry on, this place would be a whole lot more useful for me right now !

    Ok, so I'm back here today but the site does have enormous appeal. And it's not yet back in the favourites !

  143. "adding the GNU/ to Linux" by orasio · · Score: 1

    That's the whole point.
    The guy doesn't want anybody to add the GNU/ to Linux
    He wants you to call GNU what is GNU.
    ls , ps, gcc, tar, bash, that is GNU.
    Linux is great, mostly because it works, but it's a kernel, it's stupid to call GNU/Linux just Linux, as it would be stupid to call WindowsXP just "kernel32.dll".

    What you expect when you are presented to a so-called "Linux" system is the GNU system, most people don't use so-called "Linux" program to device drivers and stuff, they usually use GNU standard libraries.
    Of course, a "Linux" system can use gnome, or kde, X or just fbdev, but a "Linux" system is not a "Linux" system if it doesn't have the GNU tools. Because it's not a "Linux" system, it's a GNU/Linux system.

    There are non-GNU Linux systems (like embedded Linux), but they don't comply with the concept that is called "Linux", because a regular "Linux" user wouldn't be able to do much with that system, because it is an incomplete "Linux" system (no bash, no gcc, no gnu-style options for commands).
    Of course, that is because when you use a "Linux"
    system, you expect a GNU system running on the Linux kernel. That is a GNU/Linux system, again.

    I don't believe his claim is pointless.
    I thought RMS was stupid, painting GNU/ on "Linux" t-shirts, when he was here in Uruguay for a conference, but then he gave his talk, I listened (that was hard, because he made it in spanish, and wasn't very good at it yet), and I understood.

  144. Alternately, in the wise words of Ash by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

    It's a trick! Get an axe!

    --

    *sigh* back to work...
  145. Good deal by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Do you a little deal, we stop harping on about GNU/RMS when others on this forum stop using M$, Micro$soft or Windoze. Deal?

    Sounds like a good deal. Since I abandoned M$N in favour of AO£ and ¥ahoo, I can live without the $. (The character, I mean.) Where do I sign up?

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  146. can't we all just get along? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MLK taught tolerance.

    RMS believes that there can only one true license. The GPL. All other licenses must submit to the greatness of the GPL and be assimilated. Short of killing people, this is as far from tolerence as you can get.

    Personally I find likening RMS to MLK to be completely revolting. Only a sick mind would make such a comparison.

    1. Re:can't we all just get along? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm old enough that I remember what MLK really preached (he was a preacher, an upper case Man of God, not a ``spiritual leader'' or a ``black leader'').

      MLK preached the virtue of a color blind society, a society which wouldn't tolerate scum because they were the right color, and wouldn't hurt good people because they were the wrong color.

      MLK didn't preach ``tolerance'', which today seems to mean that we'll tolerate any sort of scum. He believed that God has absolute standards for behavior, and one of those standards was color blindness. I don't recall that he ever suggested that we should tolerate sin, or harm sinners.

      RMS doesn't preach toleration, either. I've never heard him appeal to divine, absolute standards, which weakens his case a bit, but he implicitly acknowledges them in his arguments. RMS doesn't tolerate compromising those absolute standards which he's afraid to name.

      The only difference between RMS and MLK is that MLK knew, and admitted, where his absolute standards came from, while RMS either doesn't know, or won't admit, his dependence on God.

  147. Motive for trying to make RMS == MLK by mahju · · Score: 1

    your just trying to get another day off work for "RMS Day"

    1. Re:Motive for trying to make RMS == MLK by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      I'll be sure to skip bathing in honor of it.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
  148. Customaziation, support. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    IBM and others are big but not infinite.

    Many small companies will require configuration and support they can afford. IBM et all will not be able to provide for that (it will not be cost effective to baby-sit a 10 body company's IT infrastructure).

    A lot of companies will require to customize software to their exact needs. It is impossible for IBM or anybody else to do all this kind of work.

    And in any case I don't see anything wrong with working for IBM, the big advantage would be that idiotic NDAs will not stop enterprising people at having a go to get a piece of the action of the IT pie since there would not be unassialable cost of entry against new players (in the form of patented and closed sofware).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  149. "All your GPL/CDDL derivatives are belong to us" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2) You can't take GPL code and stick it in BSD code and use a BSD license. However, you can take BSD code and stick it in GPL code only if the license is GPL - the specific BSD code remains BSD. Moreover, you are Free to distribute using any license for your BSD derivatives, while you may only use the GPL for your GPL derivatives.

    3) Since the BSD license is essentially Free or more Free than the GPL, Free Software means BSD, while Open Source means GPL, CDDL, and other Microsoft's read-but-no-touch variants. In other words, if your license is not compatible with most licenses or only compatible with itself, it's Open Source. Thus, the differences between Free Software and Open Source are vast. One license says "All your GPL/CDDL derivative works are belong to us," while another says "All your BSD derivative works are belong to You." See how big the difference is?

  150. Re:ill-conceived use of legal docs? Sounds like SO by Changa_MC · · Score: 1
    Yeah, but when was the last time you also said, "but you can only use this computer for things that benefit me!"

    IBM released some (old) patents for free. Sun released some patents only for use under solaris.

    That's a pretty big difference, IMHO.

    --
    Changa hates change.
  151. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

    I am so sick of choosing leaders based on charisma instead of knowledge. I would rather have an ass who actually knows the issues even though that may slow the cause.

  152. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by ckaminski · · Score: 1

    That's bullshit man. A leader should be able to ADMIT the failings of his team or a movement, and be able to rationally discuss ways they are either being fixed, or ways to go about fixing them.

    Leading is more than taking glory and accolades, it's about leading, putting one's neck out and making waves, not cowering in a corner proving oneself superior to everyone else through ignorance of facts and reality.

  153. Sun at SCALE 3x by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sun's Marc Hamilton will be speaking about Sun's open source plans at SCALE 3x in Los Angeles, CA on Feb 12-13, 2005. For a free exhibit hall pass use the promotional code "FREE" or "NEWSP" for a discounted pass.

  154. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by True+Grit · · Score: 1
    While there are loads of cool things on here, the constant bickering about M$, open sores, etc, is turning this place into a pretty boring one that is less pleasant to visit. And this is at a time when open source is becoming more prominent and people want more information !

    Where did you get the idea /. was a news organization in the way of say cnn.com or bbc.co.uk? /. is the company coffee/break room for all Geeks and Geek Wannabes, nothing more. They're going to talk about MS and open source, because thats whats on their mind. As long as /. remains unmoderated and open to all, thats not going to change: the majority will continue to talk about what interests them, and as long as that remains the case, the editors will deliberately or subconsciously cater to the majority's interests.

  155. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by syousef · · Score: 1

    I am so sick of choosing leaders based on charisma instead of knowledge. I would rather have an ass who actually knows the issues even though that may slow the cause.

    So you'd rather have most people be put off and use Windows instead of Linux? Eliteism will do little for Linux except kill it eventually.

    A GOOD leader needs knowledge of the issues, charisma and other leadership skills if he's going to FURTHER your cause.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  156. Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Korea, only old people group-mod jokes.

    Oh god, am I sorry... ow. My brain just committed suicide...