Open Source As Legal Time Bomb

Hwyman writes "TechWorld is reporting on the latest attack on open-source software by the Microsoft-backed Alexis de Toqueville Institution (ADTI). Many here will remember ADTI's previous assertion that Linux Torvald was NOT the true father of the Linux kernel. Taking the stance that OSS is in conflict with IP law, ADTI president Kenneth Brown states, 'After a brief glance at much open source software development, it becomes readily apparent that a number of open source practices directly conflict with best practices associated with protecting intellectual property.' With references like 'open sores software,' it's easy to believe that ADTI might be somewhat biased."

Comments

They don't just lie about Linux.

[Slartibartfast]

It will come as a surprise to no one that the AdTI, which attempts to portray itself as bipartisan, is actually 100% scum. The following is the text of an e-mail I sent to AdTI president Ken Brown (kenbrown@adti.net) not five minutes before I saw the Slashdot story:

=== cut here ===

Subject: Oh, my.

How had I not hit this link yet?
http://www.answers.com/topic/alexis-de-tocqu eville -institution

It goes without saying that my opinion of you has suddenly -- and almost incredibly -- dropped several notches. Nothing you have to say in your defense will in the least matter. I will gladly -- and publicly -- continue to flame you, but believe me; nothing you write will ever sway me.

Until today, I thought you were merely "for sale." Now I know that you are reprehensible, and without redeeming value of any kind. Covert collusion with the tobacco corporations?

Hanging is too good for you.

Good day, and good riddance.

Re:They don't just lie about Linux.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why play their game? Closed source by it's nature is competitive. Why does everyone feel a burning need to prove that linux is superior. Don't play these games.

Lets not fight, use and develop linux, and leave the fools to use inferior closed source products.

Re:They don't just lie about Linux.

[morleron]

What bothers me is that I actually spent five irrecoverable minutes reading the trash spewed by this so-called think tank. If Ken Brown is representative of the type of intellectual talent found in the typical "think tank" it's no wonder the world is in trouble from listening to those folks. I suspect that, given enough money, Mr. Brown would be able to "prove" that he's his own father; which, frankly, is the only way that I can figure out for him to have come into being.

Just my $.02,
Ron

Re:They don't just lie about Linux.

[emurphy42]

Try linking to Wikipedia directly and correctly. :)

Re:They don't just lie about Linux.

[mcc]

Why does everyone feel a burning need to prove that linux is superior

Among the people performing quality development of open source software at this time are for-profit companies that have found a way to work open source into their business model.

If the enemies of open source can find a way to put these companies at an unfair disadvantage with customers through paid public slander, open source will indirectly suffer as a result of their problems.

I think most of the possible "fight" responses, as you put it, to this sort of thing are unlikely to be meaningfully productive. But it's definitely worth caring about.

True Fathers

[LordHatrus]

James Earl Jones: Tux... I AM your father.
Tux: Noooooooo!

Typo

[Anonymous Coward]

"Linux Torvald"

Linus Torvald..

Um...

[neXus_umr]

Umm... I would agree that Linux Torvald didn't create Linux, but Linus Torvalds did.

Re:Um...

[imroy]

I often mistype Linus as Linux. You have to remember that us Linux geeks spend a lot of time typing the word "linux". Either in online discussion or compiling source code, the letters l-i-n-u-x cross our keyboards very often. So when we try to type Linus, habit takes over and the 's' is replaced with 'x'. I even find that almost any word starting with 'lin' quickly becomes 'linux' purely by habit.

Big Stick Policy?

[inertia187]

So the proposed solution is to sue the pants off of anyone involved with open source and take their money. Open source developers have a great defense against this: they have no money.

Re:Big Stick Policy?

[nc_yori]

How would you like it if I took your...gourd....thing....Mr. click-click-dirk?! *apologizes to anyone who doesn't get the South Park reference*

Re:Big Stick Policy?

[Tablizer]

Open source developers have a great defense against this: they have no money.

Then the courts will take away their girlfriends. Oh wait

Not serious journalism or research

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt if anyone takes these people seriously.
If anyone does, well, they're just not too bright to start with.

Re:Not serious journalism or research

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

They've certainly lost any shred of credibility with me. "Open sores" indeed. Imagine the outcry if the OSI or FSF put "Microshit" or something on their front page.

Link is buggered.

[Frodo Crockett]

Fixed link.

Stupid slashcode.

"Microsoft Backed"

[tquinlan]

...'nuff said. While there may be those PHBs out there that will buy this stuff, I'm pleased that those that I've been speaking to lately (a lot more since I got a new job) don't really buy this stuff, and usually do take into account where these studies, reports, and FUD come from.

Biased, with a point

[nurb432]

While they may be biased, and slant their findings, the concept of 'a problem' is valid.

Even if nothing ever comes to light from IP/patent problems, it can ( and is ) keeping some companies away from adoption of anything open source out of fear of lawsuits.

Remember, even if you win, the fight can easily cost you enough to put you out of business..

Re:Biased, with a point

[Anonymous Coward]

> it can ( and is ) keeping some companies away from adoption of anything open source out of fear of lawsuits.

And while they're doing that, they're losing $$$ to the companies that DO leverage FS/OSS to do it better, cheaper.

The "Boo-hoo -- don't use FS/OSS!" is going to fly about as well as "Boo-hoo -- don't buy foreign cars!"

Re:Biased, with a point

[Ohreally_factor]

As with many other things, Let The Market Decide.

If there are businesses that are too afraid and meek to even explore OSS, it's quite possible that their competitors will find that edge and beat them in the marketplace (assuming, as I do, that OSS does provide a competitive edge). The least a business should do is to examine what the risks really are, instead of being buffaloed by the likes of Ken Brown.

On the other hand, there will still be companies that develop proprietary software, and they'll have to find their place in the new ecosystem. Many of them already are. There's room for both models.

The same goes for nations. If a country allows patents to stifle innovation*, as we're seeing here in the U.S., then other countries will step up to the bat and be happy to take our place.

*I'm not against patents in principle, but it's clear that 1) Software patents are not a good thing for the most part, and 2) Our current patent system in the U.S. is broken and not creating an environment for innovation.

Re:Biased, with a point

[Vellmont]

True, but IP/patent problems are a concern with ALL software, not just open source. If you don't think IP theft happens in corporate software, think again. There's been several very public lawsuits where code theft from one company to another happened. Patents are just ammunition to attack or defend yourself against other companies. All the Open Source community needs is its own patent ammunition to protect itself.

Even MS had some issues with developers using non-licensed tools to create.. sound files I think it was. We only find out the issues that go public. How many IP/patent issues do we never hear about because of the closed nature of closed-source software and private companies?

Pure ADTI bias aside, I think this is the most dishonest thing about this article. Open Source will likely have to solve the problems differently than private companies, but the issues aren't a whole lot different.

Re:Biased, with a point

[Cyno]

Remember, even if you win, the fight can easily cost you enough to put you out of business..

And that is the heart of the problem, isn't it? Not the law, but the cost of protecting yourself in court against false accusations.

EVERY business is at risk of law suits. Even Microsoft. However it is the big multi-billion-dollar corporations that promote and thrive in this type of legal ecosystem.

What needs to be done here is to remove this money/power from those big corporations. And how that is done is by changing public perception, boycotts, and alternatives like F/OSS.

So if all we do is go around crying wolf everytime we feel insecure we don't shift public perception in the right direction and F/OSS loses support. It doesn't need any support, but if you want to remedy the situation, and the real problem of IP/patent abuse, F/OSS is the best way to fight it.

But I realize most of you are cowards and would rather run than fight. So, what are you waiting for? Run for the hills! The rest of us will hold our ground and let you know when its safe to come back down.

Re:Biased, with a point

[fermion]

I think these stories are published to maintain the market perception that the software is valuable. Right now MS is basically charges huge amounts of money for essentially legacy software, and not very reliable legacy software. They have a market because of vendor lock in and some useful integration. The company likes MS Exchange Server and the individual doesn't want the hassle of not being compatible with everyone else. As I have mentioned before, the fact that so much MS stuff can be had for free does not hurt either.

So the current fight is to keep prices high by creating the perception that there are hidden costs associated with competitors software, while MS costs can be exactly enumerated up front. This is a valuable asset, as purchasing decisions are often made based on the vendors ability to guarantee COA.

But MS has a problem. Unlike traditional companies, it does not provide end to end solutions. It provides one piece, and claims that it's piece is infinitely more valuable than all the other pieces. It doesn't even support it's piece, leaving that to the manufactures of the hardware that MS claims should be free. And this is the cause of the desperate measures. MS was and is the cheap alternative. It stuff is not great, just good enough. Now there is another cheap alternative, sold by people who will support the product, and people who have the ability to customize the product, just like a traditional computer company.

So, does MS become cheaper, or does it try to add value, or does it just make vague threats. Clearly it is the later. You must upgrade or you lose your rights, as it has done with VPC. MS will actively break competitors systems to insure that customers have no choice. All this to make sure that MS Office does not drop to $150 and MS Windows does not drop to $100. Or, even worse, $200 for a five license pack like Apple.

Re:Biased, with a point

[back_pages]

This is probably one of the best arguments against this type of textbook FUD.

What would it cost to stick with your tried and true closed source software while paying a small number of guys (1 to, say, 15 depending on the size of your organization) to spend a portion of their work week (10-20%) devoted to seeing what they can do with FS/OSS? You could probably budget it as R&D for your IT department, and after those guys come through with one or two big wins (StarOffice, OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird) the investment would either pay for itself, begin to pay for itself, or look REALLY good to your investors.

Whaddya know, it would probably increase the job satisfaction of your IT staff, a notoriously frustrating job, and could contribute to a geek-friendly atmosphere at your company, making it easier to hire and retain more qualified IT workers.

I'm being realistic here - for most companies, it simply isn't reasonable to expect them to ditch Microsoft or whatever closed source vendor they're using overnight. Just being honest here, a lot of FS/OSS doesn't work very well, but some does.

That said, nearly everybody deals with spam, Windows/ActiveX/Outlook/IE exploits/viruses, and the high cost of dealing with these vendors. FS/OSS isn't an entirely free lunch - big deal. You'd be an idiot to say that FS/OSS is going to solve all your problems overnight, but you'd be a bigger idiot to deny that there is a lot of potential in FS/OSS. You'll look like a real ass when your competition has researched, invested in, and profited from FS/OSS while you're still using Windows 2000 and IE 5.0 because "it's trusted and secure" or whatever the FUD of the week is.

long O when you read this

[bersl2]

I think they've been "Tocque"-ing up a bit too much.

Re:Typo #2

[Gnavpot]

Linus Torvald..

Linus Torvalds

steps

[JMZorko]

... with apologies to Mahatma Ghandi:

first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win

:-)

Regards,

John

It's FUD and it will work

[Stevyn]

Nobody wants to lose their job because they "gambled on an open source alternative and lost". It's going to take more court wins to substantiate the GPL and dismantle the threat of patents that have no basis. This is a smart move on the part of those who do not wish an "open source revolution".

I'm all for open source, but I can understand how companies are afraid to risk backing it if it means it could end up costing them more later. And sadly, I feel this can slow down adoption of open source software. But for companies with good lawyers who can see past the FUD and who take the risk and use OSS, I hope they are successful because they are paving the way for others.

Re:It's FUD and it will work

[Almost-Retired]

It's going to take more court wins to substantiate the GPL

Which is going to take a while yet. But I don't suppose you've felt the need to try and analyze why there hasn't been a truely precedent setting court case just yet, have you?

Think about those that have been through what passes for our legal system, and try and explain why it is that they've not went down to the wire and had a judges opinion rendered so it gets into recorded case law.

Go ahead, I've got a bit of time while you cogitate on the subject of the relative lack of suitable precedent setting cases....
.
.
.
.
.
. ...

Have you got it figured out yet? No?

Here is a hint: What do most folks do when they know they've been had?

They try to deal their way out of the corner, hopefully with their shirt still on their back, right? The natural tendency to 'cut your losses' usually results in the violating party agreeing to comply with the terms of the license and reaching a settlement, at which point the court case dissolves on both sides to cut the monetary losses in paying all those attorneys & costs. And therefore the precedent setting decision is never rendered. I don't see that the GPL is toothless like some loudly proclaim, because everytime somebodies legal help sits down to see what it is they are up against, the legal teams advice going back to the boardroom, in very firm words, is to comply, which is usually the settlement agreed to, and cut your losses while you still have something to lose.

Make sense yet? If not, go back to the top and re-read, until it does.

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.34% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly

Re:Hurrah!! More Biased Crap!!

[Winckle]

Who wouldn't be scared of tux the penquin, according to this report I just read by Microsoft, his diet consists of the brains of tiny children, and Linus Torvalds is the reincarnation of Hitler an dStalin put together

I agree... but have to disagree.

[Slartibartfast]

If the AdTI were in any way objective, I would welcome their criticism. But, having seen their lies many, many times over the past couple of years, I know that it is hopeless. It is one thing to leverage criticism, but someone whose sole interest is to see the demise of Linux is not someone I am going to allow to influence -any- of my corporate decisions.

Oh my gosh!

[Noryungi]

You mean... You mean... Microsoft has not realized yet that FUD does not work against Open Source? Wow. I am shocked, shocked!

Let's see what happened in the last few days:

• Another Microsoft-sponsored study proved that Linux is less secure than Windows.
• Another rant by the what's-his-name Institute of Lies, Damn lies, and Distortion proved that Linux is a legal time bomb ticking away.

What's next? SCO will publish another inane series of press releases on its latest strategic re-deployment?

It's FUD, people. Nothing new here. Move along. Film at 11, and could the last person out of the building please shut down the lights? Thanks.

Sheeesh. They should have figured it out by now. What do they teach MBAs these days anyway?

Seriously, though, this is another attempt by a really worried company to smear the competition. A clue for Microsoft: it did not work for IBM. It won't work for you.

Re:Oh my gosh!

[DoraLives]

What do they teach MBAs these days anyway?

From the looks of things, Applied Greed for the most part.

No I didn't read it, but ...

[I don't want to spen]

" ... a number of open source practices directly conflict with best practices associated with protecting intellectual property ..."

... surely that's the whole reason its called open source?

Re:No I didn't read it, but ...

[Dionysus]

The open-source movement is founded on the rights of the creator.

The Open-Source movement, maybe, but not the Free Software movement.

Dude! Tokey McTokerson

[Snoop Donkey Donk]

The only thing that's been proved here is that too much toke does indeed fry brain cells.

Liars can still tell the truth.

[Tiger4]

Unfortunately there is a point here. The non-traceability of the Open Source process leaves any given product open to contamination from copyrighted/patented IP. Most projects don't have tight checking of who did what, and they definitely don't know where the contributor got the input. That is an invitation for trouble. Worse, a project could have an "IP bomb" placed inside it by an agent of a less than scrupulous SCO, er... proprietary company that wants to stir up trouble later.

On the good side, it is a problem that is easily fixed. Traceability of the code base back to the contributor can be implemented, but it means some sort of centralized repository AND use of good tracking tools. IMO, no major distribution, and definitely no kernel, should leave the foundry without knowing who touched it.

Re:Liars can still tell the truth.

[cot]

"Twice in the past year, I've submitted patches to the Linux kernel that contained code that was either copyrighted and/or patented by my employer. Both times my patches were accepted."

uhh... are you admitting to trying to poison the kernel? It'd be nice if you gave a reason for doing that and said whether the code is still in there.

Re:Liars can still tell the truth.

[mrchaotica]

I would think that all skilled trolls have good karma; there's too much overlap between "insightful" and "inciteful" for it to be otherwise...

Re:Liars can still tell the truth.

[bgarrett]

Well, Clem, ah dunno what yew city folk use, but us rural country folk use this here "cvs" and "subversion", which do alla that.

Seriously, you do realize that any non-trivial project is already using revision control software of some kind, that submissions are logged, and that users are authenticated before they can commit to the repository, right?

Re:Liars can still tell the truth.

[laird]

"The non-traceability of the Open Source process leaves any given product open to contamination from copyrighted/patented IP."

This claim gets the real world situation backwards.

All major open source projects retain a complete and precise development history through use of a a source code repository (e.g. CVS). This source code repository is open to public inspection, so anyone who wishes can determine the exact time and submitter of every line in that project. This has the effect of discouraging cheating, because the cheating is easy to detect, and the perpetrator is easily identified.

Proprietary software, on the other hand, may not have such a record o contributions, and even if one exists, it's certainly not open to public inspection (short of a lawsuit). So if you question the origin of some aspect of a proprietary system, you have to ask the company (i.e. sue them) for the information that you want. This is a bit of a catch-22, since you can't provide evidence of cheating until after you sue them in order to reveal the evidence.

It's certainly true that someone could illegally submit code that they don't own into an open source project, but the same is true for a proprietary project. And if someone thinks that their IP has been incorporated into an open source project, they can easily inspect the project's source code repository, and determine where the code came from and when, which should clarify the situation (and if someone submitted code illegally, smack them and remove the code from the project).

The only case where there's a problem is with proprietary code bases, where it's very difficult to determine whether IP has been illegally used, and if so it's extremely difficult to determine the source of the code.

Note that despite the theoretical risk of commercial IP getting into Open Sourrce projects, in practice I can't think of any cases where that's been shown to have occurred (even SCO gave up making all such charges against IBM), perhaps because the open source projects are open to inspection so such cheating is discouraged, while proprietary products are revealed fairly regularly to include open source software (or illegally used proprietary software), perhaps because the perpetrators thought that nobody outside their company would see the source code, so the cheating was "safe".

"no major distribution, and definitely no kernel, should leave the foundry without knowing who touched it."

You should be happy, because that's already the case for open source software. If the same were true of proprietary software, then we could put the whole issue to bed.

In the spirit of Alexis de Tocqueville...

[LaminatorX]

...and in keeping wih our mission to study "the spread and perfection of democracy around the world... without rushing to judgement about which means will be most affective in producing it;" we have decided to purport that software that shares freedoms with the end users and spreads across economic and national barriers is somehow bad, and that software that restricts freedoms and concentrates wealth and power in the hands of first-world mega-corps is somehow good.

Our next report will reflect on offer new insights on orbital mechanics based on the unprecidented rotations obsrved in Mr. de Tocqueville's grave.

Re:In the spirit of Alexis de Tocqueville...

[johannesg]

Let me give you this handy key:

"spread and perfection of democracy around the world" = "spread and perfect of American hegemony around the world"

"without rushing to judgement about which means will be most affective in producing it" = "we may use lies, economic sanctions or outright war to get what we want"

And since power in the USA resides with the corporations that means that pushing their agenda is indeed compatible with the AdTI's mission.

Biased or just idiots.

[gnuorder]

With references like 'open sores software,' it's easy to believe that ADTI might be somewhat biased."

What's all this I hear about Open sores software? don't we have enough bad software out there? We have viruses and dirty worms, yuck. Some software has bugs in it. I'm sure that's not healthy. I think if we have open sores software, it will get infected and will die. I think we should put some ointment on open sores software and....

What? Open source software?

Never mind.

Re:This whole thing is ludicrous

[symbolic]

Give someone a computer, some time, and some programming skills, and they can empower themselves for FREE - that is, without compensating anyone else that somehow manages to lay claim to what they've created. They can also decide to empower others by sharing what the've created. How can any law sanely deny someone what seems to me, to be such a fundamental freedom?

Why feed the troll?

[orin]

Posting this on Slashdot is just feeding the ADTI troll. Effective advocacy isn't about dealing with every troll lobbed your way. If these guys really had a legal time bomb they'd use it as a basis litigate. It isn't as though people today ever really show restraint when they think they have a cause (however dodgy) that will stand up in court.

Maybe we should start collecting...

[3seas]

sponsorships for funding of libel suits against such slanderers.

Recall what Mozilla firefox got for advertising!

And of course it'd be done thru EFF...

proceeds of the winning would of course go towards sponsoring FOSS works. In fact sponsorship of such a case might included what project you'd like your return percentage to go to...

Protecting IP rights?

[Max Threshold]

Whoa, Open Source not conducive to protecting IP rights? Well, at least they're finally catching on. Maybe next they'll realize that IP isn't real property - it's a privelege granted for a limited time by the government.

The best part of OSS

[nate nice]

Is that if you have a problem with it, look under the hood. The keys are right there. Stop spewing stupid "theory" and have a look. Show us what's wrong. It's all there, look! Found anything? Keep looking. In fact, look until you find something...keep looking. Go for it! Found anything yet? No? Hmmm, I would suggest to keep looking actually. What's that, you're tired of looking? You would rather write an aricle about how you bet if you looked hard you would find something? Ok, the look!
Show us what's wrong. It's all there, look! Found anything? Keep looking. In fact, look until you find something...keep looking. Go for it! Found anything yet? No? Hmmm, I would suggest to keep looking actually. What's that, you're tired of looking? You would rather write an aricle about how you bet if you looked hard you would find something? Ok, the look!
Show us what's wrong. It's all there, look! Found anything? Keep looking. In fact, look until you find something...keep looking. Go for it! Found anything yet? No? Hmmm, I would suggest to keep looking actually. What's that, you're tired of looking? You would rather write an aricle about how you bet if you looked hard you would find something? Ok, the look!

Re:The best part of OSS

[Wybaar]

No, it's more like telling that average driver:

"If something goes wrong on your car and you want to look under the hood, be my guest. If not, you can go to any mechanic you want to try to fix it -- you don't have to go back to the dealer and take their word as to what's wrong with your car."

Best of Show

[Doc Ruby]

"best practices associated with protecting intellectual property"

Like frivolous patents, astroturf, monopoly lobbying, and, most important, funding the AdTI. Yep, Linux and most "open source" projects don't do any of that stuff.

"public domain"

[Mike Markley]

Maybe I'm being a pedant (and it wouldn't be the first time), but how are we to trust the judgment of ADTI on the topic of licensing and IP when they aren't even aware of the difference between copyleft and public domain?

Public domain is pretty clearly defined under current IP laws, and just about the only thing it has in common with open source, free software, copyleft, etc. is the fact that all generally permit anyone to look and touch. In fact, public domain refers to who owns it and only implies the license terms (to the best of my understanding, it's basically "the public owns this and, as the owner, the public can do whatever they want with it"). Copyleft does not release ownership of IP to the public.

Then again, that's probably exactly what these clowns want the public to think it does...

Easter bunny implicated?

[D4C5CE]

Many here will remember ADTI's previous assertion that Linux Torvald was NOT the true father of the Linux kernel.

Hope we'll get to see an equally memorable retort this time...

As Linus wrote last year:

Ok, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. (...) I've lived a life of subterfuge, always afraid that somebody would find out the truth. (...) I can now go back to my chosen profession, the exploration of the fascinating mating dance of the common newt.

Re:One comment...

[Ohreally_factor]

You're giving the man waaaaay too much credit. Let's look at what he wrote again:

employees beholden to strict employee/invention/intellectual property agreements, in their spare time (and even during work-hours) freely give away ideas, code, and products to open source projects

It's just a venomous insinuation and nonsense. These employees (untold amounts of them) are giving away whose ideas, code, and products? We're meant to believe the employer's IP, but he can't come out and say directly: "Hey, big corporations, your employees are stealing your IP," because then he'd actually have to back up his words.

This is all a smear campaign. Make vile insinuations, prove nothing.

Your mistake is to take him at face value, and to try counter arguments. I say, DON'T! Instead, let's get him to support his allegations. Guess what? He can't!

Alexis de Tocqueville is rolling over in his grave

[borgheron]

It's a travesty that this name is used by these nafarious folks at ADTI. The real Tocqueville was a philosopher and lover of freedom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocquevil le

Truely ashame that they should damage his name.

GJC

Not quite

[dusanv]

It seems they liked Kerry in the last election. A couple of quotes from the article:

... Mr. Kerry has put himself firmly in the camp of presidents from Reagan to Roosevelt, from Kennedy to Truman. These men insisted -- to a chorus of elite skepticism from both the left and right -- that, yes, democracy could triumph."

When President Bush first mused, just before his party's convention, that the war on terror might be unwinnable...

Seriously, how are republicans any different from democrats?

Re:Not quite

[SA Stevens]

Mr. Kerry has put himself firmly in the camp of presidents

Thank goodness the rest of us didn't.

Some companies are smart, some are stupid

[blackhedd]

Brown finds it "intriguing" that many open-source contributors work for large IT companies. "Every day, an untold amount (sic) of employees beholden to strict employee/invention/intellectual property agreements, in their spare time (and even during work-hours) freely give away ideas, code, and products to open source projects," he writes. This opens up questions around the legal ownership of contributions...
There's no conflict with people contributing to open-source projects while employed by business firms. When you agree to assign IP to your employer as a condition of working for him, the employer becomes the legal owner of what you create. (Why is that so hard for everyone to understand?) The best companies have no problem contributing their code to the community because it benefits them in the end. Most big companies are wary of using open-source technology because they can't afford to be without support. The smartest ones know that they can anchor their own communities, especially around the more specialized and vertical software applications. The stupid companies are the ones asking "How am I going to protect my investment if I don't keep this stuff secret?"

Re:This whole thing is ludicrous

[Anonymous Coward]

Because most law makers are interested in controlling power. People can't just go around haphazardly GIVING empowerment. And if they have something worthy, then someone wants to control it by whatever ridiculous means they can think of.

Rhetoric is a dangerous weapon and we should be cautious. If they say it often enough, people really will begin to believe it despite it being completely preposterous.

Re:Alexis of Tocqueville Instituion: our mission

[rewt66]

No, it's a bit worse than that. If you're named after Alexis de Tocqueville, and you're in favor of "civil liberties, political equality, and economic freedom and opportunity", but you're against open source, you must be...

Misnamed. And lying about what you stand for.

It's more like someone who claims to be speaking for the Democrats talking about how the unions are damaging businesses...

Sci Fi

[datafr0g]

Just been reading the earlier post about the Sci Fi Hall of Fame additions and was surprised to find out that Ken Brown never made it.

he's writing some fantastic fantasy work these days - outta this world man!

Which is why ADTI is hosted on FreeBSD...

[shoppa]

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.adti. net.

They were on Irix up until a few years ago.

If de Toqueville were alive.

[puppetluva]

If Alexis de Toquevill were alive and realized what these shitheads were doing in his name, he'd probably barf out his heart.

Here's a quote from the real Alexis de Toqueville about the tendencies of American's to help each other out:
"I must say that I have seen Americans make great and real sacrifices to the public welfare; and I have noticed a hundred instances in which they hardly ever failed to lend faithful support to one another."

Sounds pretty different from the message of these bought-off scumbags.

They also have a big brother

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect the reason that no FOSS has been sued for patent infringement is that the patent holders fear that they would lose. IBM and Novell have bet the farm on FOSS. They have no choice but to make sure that open source survives.

By utterly crushing tSCOg, IBM is making it very clear that anyone who threatens the viability of open source is in serious trouble.

Re:Institutionalized...

[mikael]

Alexis de Toqueville Institution

Is that Toqueville as in Toque? Sounds like some kind of happy home where everyone wears little woollen hats.

British places of higher education had a similar obsession with titles. First of all, once many places gained degree granting status, they dumped the "polytechnic" title. Then when competition for students became more intense, various "Institutes of Technology" paid a grand sum to image rebranding consultants who advised them to dump the "IT" part of their acronym and become U instead (imagine MIT becoming MU). Then when that didn't work out, they added "The" to prefix the name.

Alexis de Tocqueville must bespinning in his grave

[TheBracket]

Alexis de Tocqueville must bespinning in his grave right now. The gentleman for whom this think-tank is named was a very forward-thinking member of the French nobility, right around the time that being of noble blood in France was hazardous to one's health. He is most famous for his comparison of Russia and the fledgling USA. He saw a lot of potential in the US, but believed that it's promise of democracy could be curbed by apathy, strengthening central governance, and a resulting tyranny of the strong over the smaller folk. That's pretty insightful for a French tourist in the 1800s! Given his observations, it seems likely that today he would believe that the use of patents, and shill-thinktanks to beat down the promise of OSS is exactly the type of thing that could lead to the nation's downfall. I'm sure he wouldn't want his name lent to such policies.

If I win the lottery...

[Radical Rad]

If I were to win the lottery then just to amuse my Slashdot friends I promise to commission a study by the Alexis de Toqueville Institute which finds that small hairy dwarves who live in the sewer actually invented Linux. I will have Ken Brown include in the bibliography the ingredients label on a can of Lima beans as well as a second ADTI report which finds that the Law of Gravity is on a collision course with intellectual "property" law, and I will pay him extra if he agrees to entitle the report "The Secret Incestual Goat Fetish of My Immediate Family". How much do you think he will do it for, about 5 or 10 grand?

If I was disgruntled...

[purves]

This opens up questions around the legal ownership of contributions, and could even open an avenue for a "disgruntled employee" to give away company secrets by contributing them to open-source projects, the report argues.

He makes it sound like open source suddenly gives disgruntled employees an avenue to hurt their former employer when none existed before. Let's evaluate the choice of a disgruntled employee:

A) Give IP to Open Source Project

• Company finds IP because, well, it's an open source project
• Company forces project to remove IP
• Project at the very least is considerably set back if not closed
• Everyone on project hates me, possibly sued by former company for releasing IP

B) Quit and work for the competition

• Get a raise
• Watch former company lose market share to new employer
• Make insulting jokes about former employer with new co-workers

C) Burn down employers building

• Go to prison

Your results may vary, but you get the idea. Contributing IP to an open-source is hardly the best option for a vindictive person.

Re:This whole thing is ludicrous

[menkhaura]

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Minister of Propaganda

Solution: Go Low.

[Simonetta]

Even if laws don't exist yet to kill Open Source, the laws are coming if they threaten the big corporations.

When this happens, the open source community in the developed world will continue what they're doing quietly. Their code development won't stop: it will just not be implemented into businesses in the developed world (i.e. any country where the lawyers have more money than the industrialists).

However in the developing world, corporate lawyers don't have enough money to retard the development of industries that have the potential of making bigger payoffs to the politicians than the corporate lawyers do. In other words, the open source programs will be adopted by businesses and industries in the developing world regardless of the quasi-legal roadblocks that Microsoft uses to prevent OS use by businesses in the wealthy countries.

In countries that are rich enough to allow businesses to have the resources to both pay off the politicians and buy legal copies of Microsoft applications, businesses will allow Microsoft to control the laws applicable to open-source programs. In countries where businesses can't afford to pay off the politicians and buy legal Microsoft aps, the local governments will refuse to allow Microsoft to use the government's legal structures for that company's sole gain because the local politicians know that in the long run they will get more money in pay-offs from business that are using open-source software than they will from Microsoft.
When you can grasp the pay-off structures, then you can understand the how the law will be interpreted and applied in most situations.

There is nothing majestic and omnipresent about the Law. Underneath all the rhetoric about justice and order, the law is merely a means to facilate the flow of money to those who control the application of violence in a society. If they feel that you are not sending enough money their way, then they will direct their control of violence your way. This is the fundamental guiding principle of how the world works.

This applies in the developed world even more than the developing world, but in developed countries these primal forces are better hidden through patents, copyrights, and academic consultants.

Some comments on the ADTI mission statement

[PenguinX]

Something I noticed from http://www.adti.net/background/mission.html

Paragraph 1:
ADTI: Since 1988, the Alexis de' Tocqueville Institution has studied the spread of perfection of democracy around the world.

BjL: Most open source pundits do not believe that perfection is something to be attained through democracy.

ADTI: In this, we follow the principles of Tocqueville himself, while claiming no unique mandate to represent them. Among these liberal ideas are civil liberty, political equality, and economic freedom and opportunity.

At the root, perhaps, is a populist belief in the basic goodness, perfectibility, and nobility of mankind and the human community.

BjL: I simply do not buy or agree with their seemingly objective, however quite positive self-assessment in paragraph two.

It is my experience the open source community tends to have an entirely antithetical epistemological structure to the to the structure expressed by ADTI.

It also seems to me as though the open source community does more to advance the 'human community' through their nearly postmodern approach to technology than ADTI does through stoically expressing their 'liberal' views as fact.

Software Theft: PROMIS

[handy_vandal]

If you don't think IP theft happens in corporate software, think again. There's been several very public lawsuits where code theft from one company to another happened.

True. Example: Inslaw's PROMIS.

Based on their knowledge and belief, the Hamiltons [William and Nancy, owners of Inslaw] have alleged that high level officials in the Department of Justice conspired to steal the Enhanced PROMIS software system. As an element of this theft, these officials, who included former Attorney General Edwin Meese and Deputy Attorney General Lowell Jensen, forced INSLAW into bankruptcy by intentionally creating a sham contract dispute over the terms and conditions of the contract which led to the withholding of payments due INSLAW by the Department. The Hamiltons maintain that, after driving the company into bankruptcy, Justice officials attempted to force the conversion of INSLAW's bankruptcy status from Chapter 11: Reorganization to Chapter 7: Liquidation. They assert that such a change in bankruptcy status would have resulted in the forced sale of INSLAW'S assets, including Enhanced PROMIS to a rival computer company called Hadron, Inc., which, at the time, was attempting to conduct a hostile buyout of INSLAW.
- Source

-kgj

at least it ends good

[suezz]

Brown's 2004 report alleged that credit for the origin of Linux should go to projects such as Minix, authored by Andrew Tanenbaum. That report drew criticism from many quarters, including Tanenbaum himself. "My conclusion is that Ken Brown doesn't have a clue what he is talking about," Tanenbaum wrote in a web posting at the time.

yup brown is an idiot - bring on the legal challenges - who is he actually trying to scare.

who does think he is anyway - my company doesn't own me and I am free to think and come up with ideas without the company saying they own it.

this could be applied to anything - if I think of someway to paint my garage in five minutes and then my company wants to use the idea for their buildings - are they going to claim they own the idea because when I thought of it I worked for them? companies don't own you - what a moron.

this guy sure likes mental masturbation a lot -

depressing thought

[rknop]

From the article:

Most worrying of all is the absence of litigation around open-source projects, Brown says.

Wow. If that's not an indictment of the thinking of these sorts of people, the nature of our society, and the assumptions behind what people say about IP, then I don't know what is.

If people aren't getting sued, then something must be wrong, eh? My god, what a depressing thought.

-Rob

No code, no case, no worry

[towatatalko]

All he has are allegations, no facts. He constructs his argument around the idea that "many open-source contributors work for large IT companies" and therefore there has to be a potential for copyright IP abuse, simple on the basis of statistical probability that such cross-over would have to occur. Nonetheless, he doesn't give any facts. None, zero. Then he goes on to point out that OSS is a ticking bomb before some serious court case will blow it up. Well, good news is that in court there would have to be some hard evidence and facts, allegations is not enough, not even close, especially in software cases where someone would have to show that copyrighted code was used, abused, etc. No code, no case, in my opinion, and no worry so far as the case with SCO shows, the case which is in big trouble for the lack of evidence.

Re:This whole thing is ludicrous

[the gnat]

I used to dismiss this type of thinking as paranoid whining. However, as I get older I'm becoming more and more libertarian, and I'm now convinced that even the most well-intentioned congressmen just don't know when the fuck to stop. And then there are assclowns like Ted Stevens, who thinks the FCC ought to be able to regulate profanity on cable. Such hackery is bipartisan; Tipper Gore was notorious for this, and Hillary seems determined to carry on the good fight.

The frequent attacks on open-source as "communism" only hold true to the extent that RMS has more or less admitted that he'd like to outlaw closed-source software. And I've seen posters here claim that copyright is immoral and I should write software for the betterment of humanity. In the context of our current system, however, it's 100% compatible with capitalism. Everyone has a choice whether or not they want to contribute, or whether they want to use the products. If the software or business model is superior, it'll succeed because of that, not because the government is forcing anyone to use it. And if conventional software companies go bankrupt because of competition from the open-source movement, fuck 'em. The free market's a bitch. Learn to love it.

ADTI Is An Unethical Organization

[Goo.cc]

I can't understand why anyone, except the unexpecting, would even take Brown or ADTI seriously at this point, given the ludicrous and obviously false statements that have been making.

Face it ADTI: you are nothing more than unethical Microsoft whores.

Re:Alexis de Tocqueville is rolling over in his gr

[Alsee]

The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.
-- Alexis de Tocqueville

-

M$ Desparate!

[crusher-1]

Does this surprise anyone? M$ stock has been flat for over 3 years. M$ is betting the farm on Longhorn and unless the code base isn't as porous as it's previous products M$ is going to have a lot of negative and very critical reviews and recommendation by various analysts in a wide spectrum of sectors. Pair this with the continuing growth and acceptance of F/OSS. Even the U.S. Navy has formally announced a serious look into F/OSS. Governments are turning to F/OSS, Lenovo has a viable PC business in the fastest growing economy in the world at present - China (aka PRC) and IBM is sitting in the catbird seat to provide middleware and aid development.

M$ is finding that the status quo is not being accepted wholesale and many former allies are looking to vet their markets by giving serious thought to F/OSS and Linux - this continues to threaten M$ and they're running out of options for FUD. Not many people believe the FUD M$ spews - at least not anywhere near the numbers they used to.

Look, let's face it. M$ is going to attempt, at every opportunity, to smear the perception that F/OSS and Linux are inferior and uncapable. Anyone that has ever read any comments I have posted on /. knows they I'm a stanch F/OSS and Linux advocate. So, in all honesty - Linux has a fair distance to go to realize its full potential. But giving the time and amount of progress F/OSS and Linux has made, they community has done a stellar job IMHO. And the bigboys in Redmond know this all too well - they're not stupid - just suffering form a monoculture and denial.

So expect more of the same from such as ADTI - they were paid and therefore must produce something anti-Linux. The only thing that I find well.., pathetic, is that ADTI claims are on the edge of being out and out ridiculous. And in my mind that goes to show just how desparate M$ is getting. M$ viewed F/OSS and Linux as a developers play toy and a non-starter. Now that this is clearly not the case M$ has for the last few years been on a FUD campaign. The "Open Source As Legal Time Bomb" stance is just another tactic along the same lines as the SCOX(E) attempt to thwart the growth of F/OSS and Linux - The is the "F" in FUD - its main focus is FEAR. M$ is the one that's feeling the fear - and uncertainty and doubt are growing in the ranks of Redmond and their likely to be former clientele.