Slashdot Mirror
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."
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:
u eville -institution
=== cut here ===
Subject: Oh, my.
How had I not hit this link yet?
http://www.answers.com/topic/alexis-de-tocq
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.
James Earl Jones: Tux... I AM your father.
Tux: Noooooooo!
Umm... I would agree that Linux Torvald didn't create Linux, but Linus Torvalds did.
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.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
I doubt if anyone takes these people seriously.
If anyone does, well, they're just not too bright to start with.
Fixed link.
Stupid slashcode.
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
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..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Linus Torvald..
Linus Torvalds
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.
Let's see what happened in the last few days:
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.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
The only thing that's been proved here is that too much toke does indeed fry brain cells.
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.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
Our next report will reflect on offer new insights on orbital mechanics based on the unprecidented rotations obsrved in Mr. de Tocqueville's grave.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
"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.
--
make install -not war
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...
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!
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
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:
l le
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocquevi
Truely ashame that they should damage his name.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
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.
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...
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.
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.
Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
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?
"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
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
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.
True. Example: Inslaw's PROMIS. -kgj
-kgj
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
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.