Legal Summits to Tackle Linux

An anonymous reader writes "BuilderAU has the story that the Linux Foundation, custodians of the Linux trademark, have announced that they will host two summits to deal with legal issues surrounding Linux and open-source software. Attendance at the first summit will be restricted to members of the Linux Foundation and their legal counsel. The second summit — an open meeting — will be held in Autumn 2008 where legal experts from any background will be able to attend."

Comments

The foundation owns only the trademark

[jkrise]

Trademark violations of Linux are few, and insignificant. Linus himself seems to be against the spirit of the GPL - either version 2 or 3. Had he chosen the BSD, MS would've swallowed it like Kerberos or the TCP/IP stack and bastardised them, and Linux would've been kicked dead before it started breathing.

The danger from Linus is the one that eeds to be tackled, IMO.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

Trademark violations of Linux are few, and insignificant. Linus himself seems to be against the spirit of the GPL - either version 2 or 3. Had he chosen the BSD, MS would've swallowed it like Kerberos or the TCP/IP stack and bastardised them, and Linux would've been kicked dead before it started breathing.

The danger from Linus is the one that eeds to be tackled, IMO. Yes, we must follow the Linus way or the RMS way. It only seems logical to invite them both in and have them fight to the death in a cagematch. The survivor gets to determine the GPL version.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[_merlin]

Linus made Linux in the first place. It's his baby. He should be able to take it wherever he wants, whether you or I like it. Whether Linux is in accord with the spirit of the GPL v2 or v3 is irrelevant - the fact is he likes the letter of GPL v2 (I think his assertion that he understands the spirit of GPL v2 better than it's authors is silly, though).

Personally, I disagree with a lot of things about Linux. And you know what I can do about it? Just not use Linux at home. Sure, I use Linux at work, because I develop software for it, because customers want to use it, just as I use Windows at work for developing Windows software for customers who want to use Windows. You can call me a sellout, but the reason I'm at work is to provide something that customers want, to make money to buy food, etc.

If you want an OS that fits your ideology, find like-minded people and build one. Isn't that what HURD is meant to be? Don't try to take over Linux. Since HURD is going nowhere, it would appear that not that many significant developers care about building an OS on an ideology.

Linux seems to get the balance right for a lot of people: open enough that you can modify it and feel in control, but not overly restricted so you can't build a workable business around it. It may be an uncomfortable fact for some, but Linux wouldn't be where it is now without the commercial backing it's got from IBM, Novell, etc. Building and maintaining something like an OS requires huge effort, and the only way to muster that in a capitalist society is with the prospect of building a profitable business on it.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[fuzzyping1]

How exactly did MS swallow "the BSD"? Last time I checked, BSD projects and communities were as strong as ever. If MS chose to use BSD code in their product, good for them! The end result is less crappy code.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[jkrise]

Linus made Linux in the first place. It's his baby. He should be able to take it wherever he wants, whether you or I like it.

And RMS and the FSF made the GPL in the first place, and also wrote lots of code under that license and made it popular. It's their baby, and the FSF have stated their goals and aims very clearly in the text of the GPL, which even a baby can understand. The cry-baby corporate goons who are trying to steal the thunder of the GPL have been checkmated by the FSF which has upgraded the license. Linus' reluctance to adopt the GPL3 shows him as a true hypocrite, enemy of freedom, enemy of the GPL, and accomplice of the corporate interests in the Linux Foundation.

If not the GPL3, Linus should re-release the kernel in BSD then, if he hates what the GPL stands for.

If you want an OS that fits your ideology, find like-minded people and build one.

So, if you don't like the laws of your home country will you flee or build one? What planet are you on? Linux is licensed under the GPL and violations of the spirit of the GPL are more harmful to it's continued growth than trademark violations which this Foundation governs.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[TheRaven64]

Linus made Linux in the first place. It's his baby. He should be able to take it wherever he wants, whether you or I like it. The first place was a long time ago. The first release of Linux was about 10K lines of code; about half the amount of code that I have released so far this year as Free Software (not to Linux, so I have no personal stake in this). Since then, he hasn't exactly done nothing, but his contributions are dwarfed by the large number of other people who have contributed. He can do whatever he wants irrespective of what I want, but I don't think he should ignore the hundreds of other people who who have written the code that makes the kernel what it is today.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[donaldm]

From what I have read Linus appears quite accepting of GPL2 otherwise the Linux kernel would not have it, but he does not think the GPL3 is warranted. Of course that is his opinion and I respect him for it. Like it or not Law becomes a matter of precedent (INAL) and ruthless companies are always looking at ways of bending or circumventing but not actually breaking the Law, hence the need for laws to be expanded and hopefully improved on and because of this we now have the GPL3. In a few more years I would not be surprised if a GPL4 appears since companies like Microsoft have a bevy of very highly skilled lawyers on retainer and they would be very astute at finding a loop hole in the GPL3 if there is one.

People may think why has not a ruthless company found a way of circumventing the GPL3 as well. This is actually quite complex and from what I can gather they have not, but all that is needed is a small but significant change in Law and a loophole may appear then watch said company pounce.

It is good that Linux is trademarked so that unscrupulous companies cannot steal or subvert it, however you still have to be vigilant otherwise I would not be surprised that a company or even a person trying to show good faith provides code that is not open or is under copyright or patent which then brings Linux into disrepute. Maybe I am getting cynical in my old age but I do think these words attributed to Thomas Jefferson (1779) sum it up "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance". I hope that is out of trademark or copyright otherwise I am in trouble :-)

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[jkrise]

How exactly did MS swallow "the BSD"? Last time I checked, BSD projects and communities were as strong as ever.

How dd they swallow BSD? Simple:
1.First they drank the BSD licensed code, like Kerberos from MIT and the BSD TCP-IP stack.
2. As it descended down their oesophagus, they added proprietary extensions to it, and bundled it with their inferior monopoly Windows OS.
3. The corporate types were then fed with choice quotes and reviews, and Active (Craptive) Directory got deployed.
4. The market leading authentication mechanism is now incompatible with the original BSD Kerberos; thus it has been effectively swallowed.
Clear?

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[larry bagina]

Had he chosen the BSD, MS would've swallowed it like Kerberos or the TCP/IP stack and bastardised them, and Linux would've been kicked dead before it started breathing.

And yet OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD were not kicked dead.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[rucs_hack]

Lets clear one thing up right here. Microsoft was not only allowed, but very wise to use the bsd TCP/IP stack. Berkley were asked to produce the definitive version of the stack, so as to ensure that all vendors were on the same page, so far as the specification was concerned.

Microsoft changed some parts, as is their wont, but much of it remains unchanged. They may be buggers about a lot of things, but lets get this right, if they hadn't adopted BSDs TCP/IP code, windows would be even worse then it is now.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[smittyoneeach]

Linus himself seems to be against the spirit of the GPL - either version 2 or 3

His summary of GPLv2, "tit for tat", represents an optimized, reductionist, and ultimately simple expression of the license.
Linus Torvalds must be stopped.
Remember The Trial

Before the law, there stands a guard. A man comes from the country, begging admittance to the law. But the guard cannot admit him. May he hope to enter at a later time? That is possible, said the guard. The man tries to peer through the entrance. He'd been taught that the law was to be accessible to every man. "Do not attempt to enter without my permission", says the guard. I am very powerful. Yet I am the least of all the guards. From hall to hall, door after door, each guard is more powerful than the last. By the guard's permission, the man sits by the side of the door, and there he waits. For years, he waits. Everything he has, he gives away in the hope of bribing the guard, who never fails to say to him "I take what you give me only so that you will not feel that you left something undone." Keeping his watch during the long years, the man has come to know even the fleas on the guard's fur collar. Growing childish in old age, he begs the fleas to persuade the guard to change his mind and allow him to enter. His sight has dimmed, but in the darkness he perceives a radiance streaming immortally from the door of the law. And now, before he dies, all he's experienced condenses into one question, a question he's never asked. He beckons the guard. Says the guard, "You are insatiable! What is it now?" Says the man, "Every man strives to attain the law. How is it then that in all these years, no one else has ever come here, seeking admittance?" His hearing has failed, so the guard yells into his ear. "Nobody else but you could ever have obtained admittance. No one else could enter this door! This door was intended only for you! And now, I'm going to close it." This tale is told during the story called "The Trial". It's been said that the logic of this story is the logic of a dream... a nightmare.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[bytesex]

You seem to be trolling a bit but no, there is an alternative; keep the kernel GPLv2 and fork the GNU userland just before they go to GPLv3. That isn't such a herculean task as it at first might seem: much of the GNU stuff is at an end, so to speak; textutils, binutils, the shells and compilers are all pretty much finished works. Even Linus said that there may not be a Linux v3, because it's 'done'. Much of the applications that otherwise play on top of Linux are either windowed (which is a whole story onto itself - the quality of Gnome is debatable to put it friendlily) or services (most of those aren't made by the FSF at all). And there exist good alternatives for the GNU userland, as well - shells, compilers, you name it. The FSF may think they're holding Linux by the ears, but they're not.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[suranyip]

MS can always come up with a proprietary protocol and make it the "market leading" protocol, whether it is based on an open one or not does not really matter. It does not limit the use of BSD Kerberos protocol by open-source systems, and it wouldn't have changed if it had been GPL'd (in fact, quite possibly even fewer systems would support it).

Also, I didn't really get what your problem was with MS's use of BSD TCP/IP, how it hindered open source or anything at all... Again, had it been GPL'd, they would have had to reimplement it, possibly in less than 100% compatible manner. Who would have benefited from that?

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[_merlin]

And RMS and the FSF made the GPL in the first place, and also wrote lots of code under that license and made it popular. It's their baby, and the FSF have stated their goals and aims very clearly in the text of the GPL, which even a baby can understand.

And if they want to release future versions under the GPL v3, fair enough. They're free to do that, and I won't complain. If I don't like the terms of GPL v3, I don't have to use new versions released under it. However, I can fork older GPL v2 versions and keep them under GPL v2 if I like the idea of that any better - that's one of the freedoms afforded by the GPL v2.

The cry-baby corporate goons who are trying to steal the thunder of the GPL have been checkmated by the FSF which has upgraded the license.

No-one has been checkmated. Making a new version of the GPL that may not be as easy to build a business around does not in any way affect the large volume of software already under GPL v2, and anyone is free to fork it and keep it under the GPL v2.

Linus' reluctance to adopt the GPL3 shows him as a true hypocrite, enemy of freedom, enemy of the GPL, and accomplice of the corporate interests in the Linux Foundation.

No it doesn't. It just shows that his goals are not the same as those of the FSF, and that distributing code under GPL v2 still suits his goals, while the FSF believes their goals are better served by releasing code under GPL v3. Enemy of freedom? Now you're starting to sound a bit like George Dubbya. The GPL v3 is more restrictive than the GPL v2 which is more restrictive than a BSD license. What about the freedom to use code in a commercial, closed-source product? You might not like the idea of that freedom being available to recipients of your code, but it's still a freedom you're denying people by releasing code under GPL. But once again, it's your code - if you don't want it to end up in closed-source software, fair enough - I can't complain.

If not the GPL3, Linus should re-release the kernel in BSD then, if he hates what the GPL stands for.

Why? Whether Linus agrees with what the FSF and their GPLs stand for is irrelevant. The fact is, the GPL v2 happens to suit his goals quite nicely, so he can release code under it if he sees fit.

So, if you don't like the laws of your home country will you flee or build one? What planet are you on?

If I don't like the laws enough, I will flee. I'll choose a country with laws I like. But I need to think about feeding my family, too. I have to weigh up opportunities for employment, health care, etc. as well as whether I like the law when choosing where to live. And the situation is the same with an OS - if you don't like Linux's license, go and use HURD, but remember it's like living in Siberia. Now Siberia is a perfectly good place to live if you want to live in Siberia. But the thing is, most people don't want to live in Siberia. So you end up feeling a bit isolated, and you don't get a great deal of infrastructure out there.

Linux is licensed under the GPL and violations of the spirit of the GPL are more harmful to it's continued growth than trademark violations which this Foundation governs.

Linux is licensed under the GPL v2, and Linus doesn't see the GPL v3 as serving his purposes. He sees no problem with violations of what the FSF sees as the spirit of the GPL. If you don't agree with that, you can stop supporting Linux: don't contribute to Linux, don't release software for Linux and don't use Linux. And you know what will harm Linux's continued growth even more than violations of the GPL? Placing undue restrictions on its use, like those in the GPL v3. All the commercial vendors, who are largely responsible for driving Linux, would either be scared off, or fork it and keep it under GPL v2. I actually agree with Linus on this one - GPL v2 seems to strike the necessary balance.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[Dhalka226]

4. The market leading authentication mechanism is now incompatible with the original BSD Kerberos; thus it has been effectively swallowed.

This seems fairly inevitable. I highly doubt that if these projects had been GPL instead, that Microsoft would have gone "shit! Now we have to play by their rules!" They would have just created their own proprietary authentication mechanism, and given their market position it would almost certainly have become the market leader anyway.

The only difference that I can see is their incompatible version is based on the BSD version instead of completely separate. "Swallowed" isn't the right word; "buried" is more accurate, and it's likely that it would have been buried regardless of license.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[TheRaven64]

Another good example is X11. This was distributed under the MIT license, which is even less restrictive than the BSD license. Proprietary UNIX vendors added their own features, while Free UNIXes kept the MIT-licensed version (XFree86, and later x.org). The amount of work done on x.org has dwarfed the proprietary versions. Apple and Sun's versions of X11, for example, lack good support for the Composite extension, which means they can't do things like translucent windows or drop shadows.

There were a lot of problems with incompatibilities among the proprietary UNIX vendors' versions of X11. They all added incompatible extensions. The extensions that were contributed back to the MITL version were deployed everywhere, and code started to assume they existed. Other extensions were ignored. Unfortunately for the proprietary vendors, they were often slow merging their changes with the upstream version, so it was often better to run the Free version. On Solaris/x86, for example, x.org is typically a better choice than XSun.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[rbanffy]

"If not the GPL3, Linus should re-release the kernel in BSD then, if he hates what the GPL stands for."

That would be the stupidest thing to do. The GPL (all of them) keeps corporations honest and preserve the rights of users by requiring the distribution of source needed to rebuild those binaries. BSD has no such provision and the result is that corporations can do as they please. And they have been doing. That's probably why Linux has seen so much more contributions given back to it than BSD. If I am a corporation, the last thing I want is to my competitors to be able to improve upon what I have contributed and to keep those improvements to themselves.

So, if you insist on GPL2, you can stay with Linux. Linus does not want to change the license (and, since he doesn't have the copyrights, he can't). Keep in mind that Linux is just a kernel. I currently run software that's licensed in all kinds of terms and models, from GPL to BSD to whatever-Oracle-wants-me-to.

If you really want GPL3, you can go the Solaris route. Right now I suspect there is limited driver support and that (and the BSD-ness of it) are the main reasons I don't use it on my notebook. ZFS is incredibly cool, BTW.

Or you can help finish Hurd (which will be great technology, if and when it gets ready). Since they share the same license, Hurd and Solaris should be able to share a lot of technology.

As for the software that is "for Linux", most of it will run just fine over any Unix-like OS. In fact, quite a lot of it runs very happily over Windows with Cygwin. Every time I am required to use Windows, Cygwin is the first thing I install. It even makes Windows a bearable environment.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[EvilRyry]

MS can always come up with a proprietary protocol and make it the "market leading" protocol, whether it is based on an open one or not does not really matter. It does not limit the use of BSD Kerberos protocol by open-source systems, and it wouldn't have changed if it had been GPL'd (in fact, quite possibly even fewer systems would support it). Yes, they tried this. They called it NTLM and it sucked. Hence the move to Kerberos which was then mangled a tad to make it incompatible. Why reinvent the wheel (poorly) when you can just modify the existing one a tiny bit it so that it doesn't fit your competitors product?

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[_merlin]

The first place was a long time ago. The first release of Linux was about 10K lines of code; about half the amount of code that I have released so far this year as Free Software (not to Linux, so I have no personal stake in this). Since then, he hasn't exactly done nothing, but his contributions are dwarfed by the large number of other people who have contributed.

Yes, you make a fair point. I know Linus hasn't written all of what is now Linux. But when people/corporations contribute to Linux, they are granting rights rights to that code to the "Linux project", of which Linus is still effectively the "spiritual leader".

He can do whatever he wants irrespective of what I want, but I don't think he should ignore the hundreds of other people who who have written the code that makes the kernel what it is today.

Two uncomfortable facts:

• Contributors have granted rights to their code, so Linus can do what he sees fit - sure, they can contribute their code to other projects, too if they want, but they can't take back the rights they granted when they submitted the code. And when the code was submitted, one condition was that it could be distributed under GPL v2. As harsh as it may seem, they can't now go and say they only want it distributed under GPL v3.
• A lot of contributions are from corporations like IBM and Novell - people who have commercial interests in Linux. I honestly doubt these contributors would like to see their contributions restricted under GPL v3. Linus also needs to respect these contributors.

Whether I like Linux or not, I think staying with GPL v2 is probably the most sensible path forward to keep the most people happy. As a wise politician once said, "You can please all of the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time; but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[crimperman]

Ahh...
So if they've swallowed BSD and added their extensions during the digestive process, that explains how they've managed to consistently release such a crap OS!

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[suranyip]

The OP was suggesting that BSD licensing is bad because it allows embrace-and-extend. My point was that this is not something that can be solved by licensing, and that actually with BSD licensed code there are better chances of compatible implementations (as shown by the TCP/IP example) than with the GPL for example. In fact, even RMS agreed that a less restrictive license (compared to the GPL) is suitable for reference implementation of a standard to gain wider adoptation. Thus the OGG Vorbis reference implementation library was licensed BSD.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[TheRaven64]

It's worth noting that a lot of contributors offer their code under different licenses. Some files are MIT or BSD licensed. Some are public domain. Some are GPLv2 or later. Linus uses GPLv2-only, but it is not the only license used. I'd be interested to see how much of the kernel code is under the GPLv2-only license.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[plague3106]

He seems to like GPL2 though, so I don't think you can call Linus a danger. Its just that he isn't as willing to have developers give up all rights so that the user is better off.. I think he understands the needs for a balance.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[MMC Monster]

Linus has no option but to release the linux kernel under the letter of the GPLv2. He doesn't own copyright to the vast majority of the modern kernel. Each of the individual coders retains copyright of their parts. Even if Linus wanted to release under GPLv3 or BSD or some other license, he could not do so legally.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[mengel]

But they don't have support for nearly as much networking hardware as Windows does. In a GPL world, much of that support would have had to be contributed back. With a BSD license, Microsoft can have a whole herd of programmers extend the code, and keep all their extensions, and the improvements to the code don't go back to BSD.

No big deal, you say, that doesn't hurt the BSD code as it exists, sure. But now take 4 or 5 or 20 groups all doing this to the BSD code -- the codebase doesn't move much, even though lots of people are making individual improvements -- even worse, those 20 groups don't get to leverage off of each others improvements.

So while people can contribute changes to BSD code back to the code base (and many folks do), big players like Microsoft can mooch off of them and contribute nothing back; making their product always a little bit better than the BSD licensed one, which starves the BSD licencsed product of customers. And in an open source project, customers are also a developer pool.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you really want GPL3, you can go the Solaris route. Right now I suspect there is limited driver support and that (and the BSD-ness of it) are the main reasons I don't use it on my notebook. ZFS is incredibly cool, BTW."

OpenSolaris is not (yet) licensed under GPL3, and there are many indications that it never will be. The OpenSolaris community doesn't want to use GPL (either 2 or 3), no matter what Sun executive management thinks.

You should check out the OpenSolaris Driver and Laptop communities, if that is your feeling. OpenSolaris has very broad coverage in the laptop arena. I bought an off the shelf laptop a year ago, and had almost zero problems getting OpenSolaris running on it, including wifi, sound, and graphics.

What BSD-ness of Solaris? Solaris was the reference architecture for SVR4, and still maintains the closest to the SVR4 specification. There is very little BSD about Solaris, except for some compatibility stuff in /usr/ucb.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[huckamania]

"I think his assertion that he understands the spirit of GPL v2 better than it's authors is silly, though"

Considering that the authors have abandoned GPLv2, I would say they never understood the spirit of GPLv2. For them it was just a stepping stone to GPLv3, which itself is just a stepping stone to GPLv4.

RMS can take his toys and go home, but he's fooling himself if he thinks he's got the only toys in town.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[seandiggity]

Since HURD is going nowhere, it would appear that not that many significant developers care about building an OS on an ideology.

Can't comment on HURD development (I know next to nothing about it), but it seems like both gNewSense and Gobuntu (who should combine efforts, IMO) are built "on an ideology".

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[einhverfr]

Ok, I may be violating the roles here by bringing facts to the table, but:

How exactly did MS swallow "the BSD"? Last time I checked, BSD projects and communities were as strong as ever.

How dd they swallow BSD? Simple:
1.First they drank the BSD licensed code, like Kerberos from MIT and the BSD TCP-IP stack.
2. As it descended down their oesophagus, they added proprietary extensions to it, and bundled it with their inferior monopoly Windows OS.
3. The corporate types were then fed with choice quotes and reviews, and Active (Craptive) Directory got deployed.
4. The market leading authentication mechanism is now incompatible with the original BSD Kerberos; thus it has been effectively swallowed.
Clear? A couple points here:
1) Active Directory has had a few bugs in interop with non-AD Kerberos implementations. These have generally been fixed when discovered, however an tended to address corner cases in error handling rather than actual interop program logic. (There was an amusing bug that caused the Windows user to get a message saying that a password of several thousand characters was required when the MIT Kerberos realm issued an error that the password was too weak.)

2) Active Directory is a *heck* of a lot better for management of users, and for interop than was NTLM. It is still anything but perfect (it is basically an LDAP server which also supports Kerberos in a sort of tacked-on manner which means you often get the worst of both worlds). I have written a number of papers on doing this sort of interop (in both directions!).

3) Active Directory, because it is proprietary, is largely unable to take advantage of improvements made by MIT. Now, some of the improvements which AD made (use of svr records for example) appeared fairly quickly in the MIT version. So longer-run, I don't think the code is likely to be compatible. Hence Microsoft pays the "stupid tax" for not contributing back. To be fair, porting the code to work with an AD back-end probably more or less requires a full fork anyway, so it isn't really a loss to either side.

4) The *only* think that AD has in terms of usefullness is the multimaster replication of the AD user db. In every other way, open source implementations are better. When I have to work with AD, I generally get frustrated by how inflexible the Kerberos side is (no separation of service principles, for example).

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[meatspray]

Actually AD has one more thing going for it. A huge install base and companies full of people that don't mind populating it.

Interop of AD and existing LDAP projects will ease the progression of Linux in to the work place.

It was easy to sell them on CENT VM servers because there was almost no interoperability required. Samba out of the box with AD logins and better integration with evolution would go a long way to selling the bosses on OSS.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[rbanffy]

"What BSD-ness of Solaris?"

OK. I should have said "Unix-ness" or, better, "non-GNU-ness". I miss the "-h" switch the most. While old time SunOS was very BSD-ish (or so I recall), it's been a while since I used it on a 386i.

And no. By no means I am a heavy Solaris user. Perhaps I should give it a shot. I will as soon as there is a "Debian GNU/OpenSolaris" or something with great package management available.

I don't want to go back to the tweak-everything-until-it-works days.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[kdemetter]

I thought it was something like : you can foul all of the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time .

But the i guess there is little difference between fooling someone and keeping someone happy , from the politician's point of view .

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? +5?? This is pure insightful flame bait...

>Linus made Linux in the first place. It's his baby. He should be able to take it wherever he wants, whether you or I like it. ...
Huh? What about all those other developers that worked on the kernel for years. It stands without reason Linus Torvalds would/could never claim single ownership of the kernel.

>Personally, I disagree with a lot of things about Linux. ...
I don't get people like you that say that. How could you "disagree" with Linux? Disagree with software? Do you mean on a technical level you don't like how things are done? Like you don't like the "everything is a file" concept or the age-old microkernel thing... You might at least give some examples... so we can debunk those ;-)

>And you know what I can do about it? Just not use Linux at home. Sure, I use Linux at work, because I develop software for it, because customers want to use it, just as I use Windows at work for developing Windows software for customers who want to use Windows. You can call me a sellout, but the reason I'm at work is to provide something that customers want, to make money to buy food, etc.
You should call yourself lucky you get to develop under Linux for your work, for me it's Windows gui and luckily also middletier stuff. This is since most businesses still see Windows as the only option. (Yeah fuck Dell and the like.) It's probably like that for most (at least business application) developers. So how would "people call you a sellout" that doesn't make sense since most people are in the same boat. Where do you think a big part of free software developers come from?

>If you want an OS that fits your ideology, find like-minded people and build one. Isn't that what HURD is meant to be? Don't try to take over Linux. Since HURD is going nowhere, it would appear that not that many significant developers care about building an OS on an ideology.
How do you build an OS on an ideology? HURD development was slow because they chose a very difficult architecture to get right and so, since Linux existed, most people didn't care anymore. Nothing to do with ideology.

>Linux seems to get the balance right for a lot of people: open enough that you can modify it and feel in control, but not overly restricted so you can't build a workable business around it. It may be an uncomfortable fact for some, but Linux wouldn't be where it is now without the commercial backing it's got from IBM, Novell, etc. Building and maintaining something like an OS requires huge effort, and the only way to muster that in a capitalist society is with the prospect of building a profitable business on it.

Linux would be just fine without IBM and the likes. You're forgetting they have joined the game only very recently.

So, to conclude, this is a pretty non-argumentative post with the same old bullshit. Why is it modded insightful?

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[_merlin]

Huh? What about all those other developers that worked on the kernel for years. It stands without reason Linus Torvalds would/could never claim single ownership of the kernel.

The other developers have willingly submitted their code to Linux - it's no longer their own.

I don't get people like you that say that. How could you "disagree" with Linux? Disagree with software? Do you mean on a technical level you don't like how things are done? Like you don't like the "everything is a file" concept or the age-old microkernel thing... You might at least give some examples... so we can debunk those ;-)

OK, here are a few: the antagonism against binary blob drivers, the lack of stable kernel interfaces, exporting certain kernel interfaces in a way that they can only be used by GPL code, the difficulty in debugging kernel extensions compared to a microkernel architecture. Enough for you?

You should call yourself lucky you get to develop under Linux for your work, for me it's Windows gui and luckily also middletier stuff. This is since most businesses still see Windows as the only option. (Yeah fuck Dell and the like.) It's probably like that for most (at least business application) developers. So how would "people call you a sellout" that doesn't make sense since most people are in the same boat. Where do you think a big part of free software developers come from?

No, most people aren't in the same boat. Most people don't have an ideology when it comes to software, so they don't care what they use. It's only GNU hippies, BSD acid trippers, and their respective antagonists who are faced with the issue. And a lot of businesses do want to use Linux. Some of our bigger Linux customers are Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles, MessageLabs and AdvanStar. And Linux is just one of many platforms - we do Windows, Solaris, MacOSX, HP-UX and AIX as well, to meet cusomer demand.

How do you build an OS on an ideology? HURD development was slow because they chose a very difficult architecture to get right and so, since Linux existed, most people didn't care anymore. Nothing to do with ideology.

No, HURD is based on a proven architecture that is relatively easy to debug and get right (cf. QNX, NeXT, MacOSX, etc.). HURD development is slow because of everything it stands for: it exists purely for the purpose of being truly "free" as defined by the FSF - an ideological goal. Not enough people care about that to want to work on it.

Linux would be just fine without IBM and the likes. You're forgetting they have joined the game only very recently.

And it's only recently that Linux has moved ahead in leaps and bounds. Red Hat has been a commercial vendor pushing Linux ahead for a while, as was Caldera (now SCO). It's the same story with GCC - it can actually compete with commercial compilers now, but it couldn't before version 3.3, because that was when it got major commercial support - IBM, Apple and Sun all needed it to be good enough to compete with commercial compilers.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really believe this stuff? And what is your point anyway?

The other developers have willingly submitted their code to Linux - it's no longer their own. Exactly and the same can be said for Linus. You seem not te be able to get the concept of shared ownership.

... the antagonism against binary blob drivers, Oh, it's not normal to *prefer* source over binary in an open source project? Strange reasoning, especially since closed binary blobs are allowed when they cannot be considered derivative works, which most significant ones are not. What's unreasonable about that? It seems your the unreasonable one. Linux is very flexible regarding closed drivers, that's a reason for it's popularity.

... the lack of stable kernel interfaces Are you going to say a significant amount of developers or code ever directly use kernel interfaces? And stuff like mmap is pretty stable, so... Plus a lot of interfaces stay deprecated but available. Plus you're forgetting the whole Unix/POSIX thing. Do you hold it against Linux that it tries to evolve itself and create new interfaces? That's just stupid.

... exporting certain kernel interfaces in a way that they can only be used by GPL code Yes, only derivative works. Just as your commercial business want to keep on to it's intellectual property, is it really unreasonable for Linux people to do the same to some degree?

... the difficulty in debugging kernel extensions compared to a microkernel architecture. Same argument, there's no significant amount of developers or code that do that. It seems to be a very academical point. (Are you a student?)

No, most people aren't in the same boat. Most people don't have an ideology when it comes to software, so they don't care what they use. It's only GNU hippies, BSD acid trippers, and their respective antagonists who are faced with the issue. What always with the stereotypes and the ideology stuff? Have you ever read an interview with say Linus Torvalds? Also thing people like RMS say always get taken out of context and exaggerated. The idea of Free Software is not as radical as you depict it, nor does it exclude businesses use at all. Which you know, because you say yourself you use it for work...

And a lot of businesses do want to use Linux. Some of our bigger Linux customers are Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles, MessageLabs and AdvanStar. And Linux is just one of many platforms - we do Windows, Solaris, MacOSX, HP-UX and AIX as well, to meet cusomer demand. Again, you should feel lucky to be able to work with diverse platforms not nag about Linux because of it.

No, HURD is based on a proven architecture that is relatively easy to debug and get right (cf. QNX, NeXT, MacOSX, etc.). HURD development is slow because of everything it stands for: it exists purely for the purpose of being truly "free" as defined by the FSF - an ideological goal. Not enough people care about that to want to work on it. (Yeah I'm sure for you everything is relatively easy...) Indeed most developers don't care that extremely about GPL or politics and nor do they do about microkernels, which really is the reason HURD failed. And BTW Linux has a lot a characteristics of a microkernel, internally it is one, ie. the use kernel threads.

To conclude, what the hell really is your problem? Your arguments don't seem to make a coherent point nor propose any alternatives. In other words, you're still a troll modded insightful.

Re:The foundation owns only the trademark

[dpuryear]

The whole "Windows uses the BSD TCP/IP stack" thing is a bad myth. They did include some common tools originally from common BSD source, but it didn't extend much past that.

--
Dustin Puryear
Author, Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers
http://www.puryear-it.com

Now THAT should be a party

[lottameez]

Two, not one, but two! summits to discuss Linux legal issues. SIGN ME UP!

Will we get to see PJ.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The second summit -- an open meeting -- will be held in Autumn 2008 where legal experts from any background will be able to attend."

Oh I do hope so.

Re:Will we get to see PJ.

[Anonymous Coward]

PJ isn't much to look at. Take it from someone who has seen photos.

This must be the FUD thin i heard talking about...

[xophos]

Seriously people, that's not news.

Re:Bullet and Ballot Box

[Anonymous Coward]

> Linux directly or indirectly tramples over intellectual proeprty

I don't think you know what that statement means. However you could be forgiven in this instance since there is a good reason for that; it doesn't mean anything.

• Linux is a piece of software. It doesn't trample; people trample, but normally with boots.
  
• Intellectual property is a meaningless term. Do you mean trademarks copyright or patents?
  
• directly or indirectly is just a distractor from the lack of examples.
  

If you mean copyrights; please could you point to the code? Linux has pretty clearly been exhonerated by the results of the SCO lawsuit from accusations of copyright infringement. If you mean trademarks that's a first accusation; Linux is pretty clearly a trademark given by a court to Linus Torvalds. If you mean patents, the you'll notice that not even Microsoft has been able to point to one despite direct requests and full access to the source code.

Please feel free to restate your feelings in a way that can actually be usefully discussed.

Against the spirit...

[Enderandrew]

...the spirit of the GPL was to keep software free so that the source code can't be made proprietary (such as what happened with Microsoft swallowing pieces of BSD like you stated). Linus very much supports that clause, and has always spoken in favor of the GPLv2. I'm curious why you suggest he is against the spirit of the GPLv2. The only anti-GPL statements I've seen him make are in regards to GPLv3, in that he doesn't think a software license should govern or have anything to do with hardware.

Re:Against the spirit...

[jkrise]

the spirit of the GPL was to keep software free so that the source code can't be made proprietary ... The only anti-GPL statements I've seen him make are in regards to GPLv3, in that he doesn't think a software license should govern or have anything to do with hardware.

From TFA: The Linux Foundation was created in 2007 by the merger of the Open Source Development Labs and the Free Standards Group. It sponsors the work of Linus Torvalds and counts companies such as Google, HP, IBM, Intel and Novell among its members.

What have these companies done to advance the spirit of GPL in Linux?

Google : Has made full use of the community built code and made proprietary extensions; without contributing a single bit; since they aren't distributing it.

HP : The company which kicked Bruce Perens out, built winprinters and winmodems on their Windows PCs, kindly took over Compaq and destroyed their Unix offerings.

IBM: Despite the SCO fiasco, they still maintain both AIX and Linux offerings, and have not clearly indicated which way they will go. Also, they are behind TCPA, TPM chips and DRM as well.

Novell : Need I say more? They provoked a version upgrade to the GPL2 by their sleazy dealings and destroyed a decent distro, namely SuSE. After kindly enacting a suicide of their own Novell Netware.

With friends like this in the Linux Foundation, and a clueless Linus at the top, does Linux need any enemies?

Re:Against the spirit...

[Aladrin]

No, the spirit of the GPL was to ensure that anyone who benefits from the code returns any upgrades they make to it.

BSD software cannot 'be made proprietary'. The original code will ALWAYS be available under the BSD.

If Linus had chosen BSD License, Microsoft would not have 'swallowed' Linux. It may have improved Windows with it, and may even have ended up with a better system than Linux, but absolutely no real harm would have come to Linux itself.

Re:Against the spirit...

[TheRaven64]

Google : Has made full use of the community built code and made proprietary extensions; without contributing a single bit; since they aren't distributing it. This is not against the spirit of the GPL. The GPL is designed to ensure that the code remains free, and that no one receives a derived work of the original without the accompanying rights. Not distributing changes is entirely allowed under the GPL, and endorsed by the FSF. Google has contributed a huge amount to Free Software. The Summer of Code alone accounts for an incredible amount of time spent on Free Software, and a lot of Google employees use their 20% time to work on Free Software projects (the Mac port of FUSE, for example, was one of these).

HP : The company which kicked Bruce Perens out, built winprinters and winmodems on their Windows PCs, kindly took over Compaq and destroyed their Unix offerings. Compaq had UNIX offerings? HP have made a lot of mistakes in recent years (killing the Alpha, marginalising VMS, etc). Perhaps you are thinking of Digital; they pretty much killed of Tru64. They still offer HP-UX and Linux machines, however, and fund development on a number of Free Software projects (Xen, for example).

IBM: Despite the SCO fiasco, they still maintain both AIX and Linux offerings, and have not clearly indicated which way they will go. Also, they are behind TCPA, TPM chips and DRM as well. They employ a number of developers to work full time on Linux, Xen, and recently OpenOffice.org, as well as a few other projects. But, I suppose, since they still sell a proprietary UNIX as well, they are evil.

Novell : Need I say more? They provoked a version upgrade to the GPL2 by their sleazy dealings and destroyed a decent distro, namely SuSE. After kindly enacting a suicide of their own Novell Netware. Bought SuSE and open sourced YaST, employ a few kernel devs, a lot of GNOME devs, and are the second largest contributor to OpenOffice.org. Definitely evil.

Re:Against the spirit...

[flydpnkrtn]

Put succinctly: Thank you for shining the light of common sense and truth onto the darkness of zealotry.

Re:Against the spirit...

[jkrise]

Perhaps the idiot who modded the parent troll would care to explain his views? As an AC if he wants to preserve his mod points? When we hear Linux, we think of RedHat, Mandrivia, the LAMP stack etc. Not HP, not Novell, not Google. These companies would do their utmost to ensure Linux and PCs remained non-free. I was not trolling.

Re:Against the spirit...

[Enderandrew]

You're honestly suggesting that Google, HP, IBM and Novell don't contribute code?

Re:Against the spirit...

[weicco]

Never ever bring facts to conversation! It's against the rules here.

Re:Against the spirit...

[HonIsCool]

The spirit of the GPL is that it's ethically wrong to write and/or distribute software that does not adhere to the definition of 'free software' as specified by the FSF. The GPL is a tool in the struggle to eradicate non-free software, by ensuring that derivative works cannot be non-free.

Re:Against the spirit...

[Aladrin]

If that were the case, I'd say 'Fuck the GPL!' then. Any time 1 entity has sole ability to declare something 'free', something is seriously fucked up.

Luckily, it's not the case.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesFreeSoftwareMeanUsingTheGPL

Re:Against the spirit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Compaq had UNIX offerings? HP have made a lot of mistakes in recent years (killing the Alpha, marginalising VMS, etc). Perhaps you are thinking of Digital; they pretty much killed of Tru64. They still offer HP-UX and Linux machines, however, and fund development on a number of Free Software projects (Xen, for example). Actually to set the record straight, Digital was aquired by compaq who greatly improved their UNIX offerings with the 5.1 version of Tru64. It was HP who killed Tru64 in favor of their own HPUX

Re:Against the spirit...

[bentcd]

Google : Has made full use of the community built code and made proprietary extensions; without contributing a single bit; since they aren't distributing it. This is not against the spirit of the GPL. It is when that code is de facto offered to the public as software for them to use. The point of the GPL is that the user of a piece of software shall always be free to modify that software as he sees fit so that he can maximize its usefulness to him. If Google offers, say, a spreadsheet application that is largely server-based and uses the server-side loophole to avoid distributing the source, then they violate this principle since the user obviously cannot change the way that it works. The same is true for a search engine, of course, but this case seems a little more muddled.

Re:Against the spirit...

[Dersaidin]

If Windows could use code from linux then it would have got better with Vista instead of worse.

And that may have hurt Linux a lot.

Re:Against the spirit...

[Anonymous Coward]

"tool in the struggle" nope, no zealotry here.

Re:Against the spirit...

[Vexorian]

MS making a 'better' Linux that is not free would be enough harm to Linux, and thus the GPL proves its worth, unless you have never heard of extend, embrace extinguish ...

Re:Against the spirit...

[kdemetter]

HonIsCool , you never read a GPL license , did you ?

There is no way FSF can 'eradicate' non-free software . Using GPL only prevents non-free software from 'eradicating' free software . The only reason to use it , is to make sure nobody can take your work , change one line of code , and then release it under a propiertary lincense and make money of your hard work .

No one is forcing you to use license all your programs under GPL . You can/should use the license you prefer , acording to what you need .

Re:Against the spirit...

[Afecks]

It is when that code is de facto offered to the public as software for them to use. The point of the GPL is that the user of a piece of software shall always be free to modify that software as he sees fit so that he can maximize its usefulness to him. If Google offers, say, a spreadsheet application that is largely server-based and uses the server-side loophole to avoid distributing the source, then they violate this principle since the user obviously cannot change the way that it works. The same is true for a search engine, of course, but this case seems a little more muddled. Said spreadsheet application is not being distributed, the results of the application are. The input/output scheme is no different than any other Web 2.0 site. User inputs data, server does something with data, server outputs data. It seems you want to get into some metaphysical debate about the fine line between executing, hosting and distributing software.

It's no different in principle than a website using Apache/mySQL to serve some HTML or using GNU/Linux to host any kind of service. It's not distributing. You get nothing. You lose. Good day sir.

Re:Against the spirit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for someone to get a new /. user account and try again ... but act smarter next time.

Re:Against the spirit...

[Anonymous Coward]

TheRaven64's post seemed to make it clear how you're talking a load of inflammatory bollocks.
It'd be better if you avoided the pathetic whinge about the moderation and provided some counter-arguements to TheRaven64's post.

Re:Against the spirit...

[Dan Berlin]

What the fuck are you talking about.
Google has given back almost every useful change they have to GPL'd software.
They just don't make press releases about it.

Re:Against the spirit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, doesn't HP (together with Symas) contribute code to OpenLDAP?

Re:Against the spirit...

[m50d]

may even have ended up with a better system than Linux, but absolutely no real harm would have come to Linux itself.

If you think that you've clearly never tried to get specs out of a hardware manufacturer.

Re:Against the spirit...

[mrsteveman1]

Yes that is what its all about for Novell, keeping PC's non-free....that makes little sense you idiot.

Re:Against the spirit...

[bentcd]

Said spreadsheet application is not being distributed, the results of the application are. The input/output scheme is no different than any other Web 2.0 site. User inputs data, server does something with data, server outputs data. It seems you want to get into some metaphysical debate about the fine line between executing, hosting and distributing software. Well, at least you have grasped what the loophole is. Part of the reason GPL3 became necessary is that this particular loophole is against the principles that were behind the GPL in the first place.

You lose. Good day sir. You might do yourself a favour by realising that discussions aren't competitions and you aren't actually being scored.

Re:Against the spirit...

[Anonymous Coward]

You will find that "You get nothing. You lose. Good day sir." is a quote from Willy Wonka from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory...

Re:Bullet and Ballot Box

[tolan-b]

All software 'tramples over intellectual property'. Half of the most basic interface features and algorithms used by *everyone* in the software industry are patented. It's pretty much impossible to write modern software (in countries that allow software patents) that doesn't infringe on multiple patents.

Here are some examples of patents granted (but not enforceable, it's a strange situation) in Europe. I suspect most of them have also been granted and *are* enforceable in the US.

http://eupat.ffii.org/patents/samples/index.en.html

Invite the Slashdot crowd

[Chapter80]

Open Source summits, great! I imagine that the most frequently heard phrase at the summits will be "IANAL,..."

Re:Invite the Slashdot crowd

[Nerdfest]

There will however, be lots of real lawyers there. I understand the logo for the summit features a penguin shaking hands with a weasel.

Re:Invite the Slashdot crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Your confusing this with a NAMBLA sponsored Asimov summit.

Re:Invite the Slashdot crowd

[crimperman]

I understand the logo for the summit features a penguin shaking hands with a weasel.

An iceweasel by any chance?

Re:Invite the Slashdot crowd

[Qubit]

Yeah, but the weasel has to be crossing his fingers behind his back...

Re:Invite the Slashdot crowd

[moderatorrater]

So it'll be "I am a lawyer but this is not legal advice"?

I'll help!

[mattgreen]

I can answer all kinds of legal questions about Linux on Slashdot, so why didn't they invite me?

Re:I'll help!

[Timothy Brownawell]

"I can answer any question you care to ask. Unfortunately for you, however, the answer will most often be 'I don't know.'."

Re:Bullet and Ballot Box

[Enderandrew]

Yep, when Linus said that he didn't really want to get involved in license wars, and wouldn't carry the GPL torch, he clearly demonstrated that he is obnoxious in his desire to trample over people's rights.

When Linus said he didn't care about politics, only code, he was emulating the IRA without a doubt.

When Linus said he didn't intend to take a side with the Novell/Microsoft deal, but rather just focus on writing code, his clear intention to command legal authority and force his hegemony over all.

Re:Bullet and Ballot Box

[Anonymous Coward]

where is all the talk of linus only being a very tiny part of the overall picture? normally when someone detracts from linux in linus' name that's the first thing you fanbois scream.

oh well, just more linux fanboi hypocrisy. imagine that.

Re:Bullet and Ballot Box

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

It's the old bullet and ballot box scheme used by the likes of the IRA.

The IRA don't believe in the ballot box. Yes there are some left wing Irish nationalists in the group and in Sinn Fein. But the majority of IRA men are essentially Irish fascists. Eire uber alles and all that.

Re:Bullet and Ballot Box

[Anonymous Coward]

where is all the talk of linus only being a very tiny part of the overall picture? normally when someone detracts from linux in linus' name that's the first thing you fanbois scream.

Translated from trollese: "Oh snap! Someone produced a reasoned rebuttal to my hyperbolic comparison of Linus to a terrorist group, and I have no clue how to make a comeback because I was expecting some limp-wristed whining. Oh well, guess I'll make a limp-wristed whine."

Taking things seriously

[JeremyGNJ]

It's nice to see the Linux Foundation taking things seriously.

Despite what the board-posting-fanboy-home-users say on slashdot, the legal ramifications of Linux are a serious concern to businesses adopting it. If they aren't nailed down and addressed, then it will continue to be the preferred OS of Mom's basement.

In the end I think that the outcome will be playing nicer with closed-source and allowing a certain amount of concession. The question is: Is the community mature enough to handle that?

Re:Taking things seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the community mature enough to handle that? MOM! JEREMY CALLED ME IMMATURE!!!

*marches off to sulk*

Re:Taking things seriously

[einhverfr]

If they aren't nailed down and addressed, then it will continue to be the preferred OS of Mom's basement. This sentense has me completely confused. Are you saying that businesses aren't adopting Linux? My experience says otherwise.

Are you saying we should make sure that something other than Linux (maybe Windows) becomes the preffered OS of Mom's basement?

Re:Bullet and Ballot Box

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our kernel-hacking overlord.

If he can manage that many developers and still end up with a damned fine, working kernel, I'm sure he has better qualifications to rule than many of the idiots in power presently. :P

Re:Bullet and Ballot Box

[Anonymous Coward]

"But the majority of IRA men are essentially Irish fascists. Eire uber alles and all that."

And supported by American murderers. Don't forget that.

Finally...

[jumperboy]

...a group of lawyers will make everything crystal clear to us. Then another, larger group of lawyers will come in and polish that crystal. Hmmm, looks like we better find someone to count the crystal...

Linus is a Tyrant and Proud of It:

[fast turtle]

Remember folks, Linux himself stated that the kernel is HIS and as such, he excersises a tyrany over it. There is some debate about features and such but his decisions are final or in other words the buck stops there.

Re:Linus is a Tyrant and Proud of It:

[phantomlord]

So don't use Linux if you think Linus is so evil. I promise he won't have any tears in his corn flakes tomorrow morning over it.

Re:Bullet and Ballot Box

[Qubit]

...I don't care... Linux directly or indirectly tramples over intellectual proeprty [sic] ...It [is] an educational toy... It's [acting like] the IRA..."

Theo, is that you?

Re:Bullet and Ballot Box

[MadMidnightBomber]

Ah yes, who can forget the great 1 Microsoft Way truck-bombing of '97 ? Or when Linus sent Alan Cox round to kneecap Andy Tanenbaum?

Legal Issues???

[3seas]

Maybe on Linux the kernel, but I doubt a few can position themselves of authority on anything regarding open source software legal matters (The GPL v2 is clear enough to not need....). I did I miss some decision or all open source devs?

GPL::Carter, BSD::Reagan, M$S::Bush ... Analogy

[OldHawk777]

GPL: Carter, good for Humanity. Philanthropy: Expression of altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons, by endowment of institutions of learning and hospitals, and by generosity to other socially/publicly useful purposes. Allows more low-TEK cultures, countries, communities to participate in theirs and global economic development. Focused protected IPR/GPL investment with many paths developing for returns on value. [help most/all]

BSD: Reagan, good for Business. Capitalism: An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of IPR wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations. Allows some low-TEK cultures, countries, communities to marginally participate in theirs and global economic development within legal strictures of controlled and limited access private (IPR) property. [help some/many]

M$S: GWBush, good for Nepotism. Nepotism: Favoritism, granted to a select few people of ignoble virtue, providing petite-tyrants a social system/institution for exploiting public segments of the society/culture and supporting a tyrant economy. Monopolistic nepotism policy is for uniting/securing separate segments/sectors of an economy for certain corporatist-welfare purposes for single corporate state expansionism. Nepotism promotes extending the rule or authority of very few plutocrats over an entire serf-population. Allows corporations to exploit and control low-TEK cultures, countries, communities participation in global economics. Development is controlled and limited to private access (IPR) property. [help none/few].

GPL generates far greater global economic competition and dynamics, which provide greater ROI too developing and industrial nations, and has no adverse impact on global economics and human performance/success.

BSD is good for US, EU, others corporations and individual sharing and controlling property, but the ROI is very limited, and benefits the capitalist developed nations far more than global economics and humanity.

M$S (current IPR/copyrights) provides slim global ROI, mediocre private ROI, eliminates competition and/or suppresses innovation. The global economic value to humanity is very limited, almost worthless on a stagnate global scale economy.

Don't clump BSD products with any M$S/proprietary corporatist-welfare state.

Exactly

[Santana]

You both have illustrated perfectly the difference between GPL and BSD.

GPL guys want all software to be free. BSD guys want all software to be better.

That's why we can't understand each other. The parent states that Microsoft would have a better product, and that's great from a BSD point of view. And you see a threat if Microsoft has a better product which is not free.

Re:Exactly

[geschild]

To you and the GP I answer: if that would be your goal, you wouldn't use a license that allows those 'using' your code to pervert it for their own purposes making it defacto abuse!

In other words: even if you give all your world class super-duper code, there will be companies that won't use that code to make their own code better but only to create a 'look-a-like', then extend the code with their own incompatible and all too oft bad additions, then release it as if it were superior to the original and locking the market in or polluting the brand of the original.

No need to hand your enemy the bullets for your own execution, and all that.

Does the scenario sound familiar...?

A wise man once said: "Trust everyone, but cut the cards."

Oops forgot one...

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's only recently that Linux has moved ahead in leaps and bounds. Red Hat has been a commercial vendor pushing Linux ahead for a while, as was Caldera (now SCO). It's the same story with GCC - it can actually compete with commercial compilers now, but it couldn't before version 3.3, because that was when it got major commercial support - IBM, Apple and Sun all needed it to be good enough to compete with commercial compilers. What's wrong with Red Hat? I don't compare them to IBM and Novell because they've been there practically from the start. They *are* Linux... Again you disprove your own argument, use of the GPL has no influence on business potential. Really what are you trying to say? That open source development can not compete with commercial development? That's the same old bullshit that's been disproven by the advancements of Linux way before IBM and Microsoft wanted a piece of the pie. Also, could it not be that the technological advancements were the cause of more company interest instead of the other way around.

There can't be pervertion

[Santana]

To you and the GP I answer: if that would be your goal, you wouldn't use a license that allows those 'using' your code to pervert it for their own purposes making it defacto abuse!

(emphasis mine)

BSD guys are fine if anybody uses their code for any purposes, ergo there can't be any pervertion or abuse.

The only requirement is to give attribution, respecting the copyright. And that's where Jiry and Nick failed. Ok, they have already restored the license and copyright, but now they're putting their names as copyright holders when they haven't made any substantial changes to the original work.

In other words: even if you give all your world class super-duper code, there will be companies that won't use that code to make their own code better but only to create a 'look-a-like', then extend the code with their own incompatible and all too oft bad additions, then release it as if it were superior to the original and locking the market in or polluting the brand of the original.

In that scenario, the license is irrelevant. If those companies can't use your code because e.g. it is GPLed, they would write their own from scratch (if your software is that good that they are so eagger to replicate its functionality.) It's funny; that's what the FSF has been doing for a long time by the way.

Again, in that scenario, it would be better (from a BSD point of view) that these companies use that world class super-duper code, because this modified code, even if proprietary, extended, whatever, would be better than the code they would have written from scratch.

I know, it sounds naive at best (from a GPL point of view), that's why we can't understand each other.

Let's put it in a more "violent" way: if companies like Microsoft start selling high quality software for using high quality BSD code... Great! Good for them. That's the goal: make all software better.

I know, it's mind-boggling for an FSF/GNU supporter. I'm not pretending to change anybody's mind.

Re:There can't be pervertion

[geschild]

"I know, it sounds naive at best (from a GPL point of view), that's why we can't understand each other." Naive isn't what I was thinking in first instance. My main point, hidden in a defense against the argument that BSD allows anyone to build better code on the basis of BSD code, is that if that is truly the only reason BSD-type licenses are better, BSD-licensed code writers shouldn't have any problem with GPL co-opting of their code because the original code is still there under a BSD license for everyone to use, just as would be the case if the code was co-opted under a closed source license! In both cases, the BSD-licensed code doesn't benefit from any 'contributions' made under the new license.

The argument that in the case of a closed source license, the authors could release the code to the community afterwards, unlike the GPL case, is naive and if that's BSD authors whole argument against GPL co-opting versus closed source licensing co-opting, I think that is hypocritical.

If you truly believe anyone should be able to benefit from your BSD-licensed code there shouldn't be angry or even sad faces when that happens, under any license.

For the record: if you bring me different arguments I will reconsider my point of view but otherwise you're probably right and you won't change anyones mind, at least not mine.

Re:There can't be pervertion

[Santana]

I see your point and I agree with you. GPLed projects are not exception to "make all software better".

Yes, I do believe that companies make contributions back to BSD code, as you and anybody else can verify. And it's a fact that BSD code can't reuse already GPLed code.

There shouldn't be any angry or sad faces, certainly. I would need to brandish an ethical or moral argument for that, on which you may or may not agree:

Why a GPL project would relicense a BSD code, in the knowledge that BSD code would not be able to get modifications back, instead of contributing to the same BSD project, under the light that both, the GPL and BSD project (free software both), would benefit from it?

Yes, it's permitted, it's legal, it is allowed by the license and any BSD coder knows it in advance, before choosing the BSD license. But it is not understandable, being the GPL project a "brother" free software project, that their developers wouldn't want to cooperate on a mutual beneficial project, started by the BSD developers.

I have no other argument.

Re:There can't be pervertion

[geschild]

I honestly sit here in admiration for the coolheaded and factual reply that I've just read...

Perhaps that says more about /. than anything else, but still :D.

I see your point that these kinds of 'moves' pit communities against each other. I hope that it doesn't happen too often, for that reason alone. I do hope that people will learn that if you create a 'freeer' license and use it, you have to take all the consequences or create a license that doesn't have so much freedom and has less of the consequences you didn't want. These are the choices that have been made by the license authors. I think you can't morally argue on the one hand that you have a freeer license that is therefore better but on the other hand do not want to have those freedoms apply to people who think differently.

I have the distinct feeling BSD people are making more out of this than should be and I think that's a pity.

Time (for me) to move on.

Thanks again for the way you managed to make me think this through a lot deeper than I otherwise would have taken time for on this subject!

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

while stupid is legal, so will be linux. whats the dope. idiots are allowed to do stupid things, linux is one of them.