Slashdot Mirror
Interviews: Ask Free Software Legal Giant Eben Moglen
At this summer's HOPE, Eben Moglen was one of the most incisive and entertaining speakers. But since only a small fraction of the Earth's population can fit into an aging hotel meeting room, you can watch his HOPE presentation via Archive.org on making the first law of robotics apply to cell phones. Besides being a professor at Columbia Law, former clerk in U.S. federal court as well as to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, and a prolific writer, Moglen is founding director of the Software Freedom Law Center as well as the creator of the FreedomBox Foundation, and was for many years general counsel of the Free Software Foundation. Moglen has strong opinions, and a lot to say, about software licensing and freedom, copyright, patents, and (as you can see from the video linked above) about the privacy implications of always-on, always-on-us technology. Next week, I'll be meeting up with Moglen for a short interview. If you have a question for Eben, please post it below; I can't guarantee how many reader questions I'll have a chance to ask him, but the more, the merrier.
How do you feal about app stores? with there lock in and censorship issues?
Also do you think that it may end in court some day?
I thought I'd take a law degree. I was doing well, but I quit after a year.
To put it bluntly, the US system of law is bullshit. A lawyer's job is not to make a purposive argument, as in Europe, but to get his client off on a technicality of wording. In criminal law, the impartiality of the jury is corrupted by a non-random final selection process. Regardless, law is as far as possible from something the common man is able to understand and defend himself with - though that is surely the purpose of rule of law over rule of man.
In short, by studying the law I was giving myself an advantage which every citizen should already have.
Hasn't the law just become a lawyer's game, today?
It is often asserted (ie by the FSF) that exposed C/C++/Python APIs for GPL software can't be used by non GPLed code unless a specific exception has been added to the license.
However, a non GPLed binary compatible API could be done that the plugin, etc. can be compiled against. Given that it seems like the GPL could not be enforced against driver compiled against a binary compatible API. Ie Alan Coxes recent assertion that Nvidia wasn't allowed to use a certain internal feature of the kernel should be readily made technically irrelevant, since Nvidia could create a stub binary compatible equivalent to the API to compile against, and then the user can install the driver and use it with the GPLed kernel without violating the GPL.
Is there a flaw in this reasoning or do programmers have a way to readily use GPLed APIs as closed source without violating the GPL?
On a similar topic; what about when the code bypasses the API altogether, and writes code changes directly to memory? Things such as kernel hot patches come to mind, and more specifically, ksplice. A modification to the code on a GPLv2 program is made, but no linking or APIs are used. How bound by the GPL, if at all, would this program be?
If you were to stand next to Software Titan Bill Gates, would you both seem normal-sized?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Not legal advice, but some thoughts:
I'm qualified as a lawyer (and employed as one, but I'm not your lawyer, this is not legal advice etc.) and it's a subject close to my heart. Were I in your position — I wish I were as talented to be able to write a video game — I would ask myself what I was hoping to achieve with the EULA. Is it because other games flash something up in front of a user that you feel you should have one too?
I'd ask myself what is it that I was looking to achieve with it? Some sort of financial / legal protection? Wording to prevent people from copying / distributing my game (not worth the (digital) ink it's written on; those who want to share it will)? Attempting to legitimise sending people marketing email?
Once I'd worked out what I wanted, I'd just try writing it in plain English — if a lawyer writes it, there's a high chance it's going to suck from a readability point of view and, unless it's a game designed for lawyers, if you are hoping *anyone* will read it, being in normal English would be helpful.
If I were to still think I needed something, I'd see if there was a better way of achieving the end than flashing up text which just destroys the user experience — for example, if I wanted to ask people's permission to market to them, could I do this actually in the UI, in a transparent and friendly way?
If it's limitation of liability and such like, then talking to a lawyer may be a plan — but I would want to ask upfront how much everything would cost, what my exposure was, and what the likelihood of whatever the lawyer did reducing that exposure, so I could make a realistic risk assessment before spending my money. And I'd ask for a fixed price, rather than an hourly rate.
Anyway — just my thoughts :)
Having worked with Thurgood Marshall and teaching at an Ivy League Law School you witness and can contribute to many causes I'm sure you find more than worthy of your attention. I'm sure people in many areas would love the benefit of your skills, knowledge, etc. Yet your long-term dedication to software freedom (not sure if that term encompasses everything you work on, but I hope it suffices) seems focused. I bet many of us are curious where your motivation and focus comes from, especially those looking to find areas and causes to contribute to. I'm sure your inner-geek plays a big role, loving what we do like all of us do.
My main question: How do you describe the importance of software freedom, both to Slashdot readers and to those who would never read Slashdot, in the context of so many other causes out there?
Personally, I contribute to software freedom partly because the geeky aspects appeal to me, but also because I consider it one of the most important issues of our time. I've never tried to justify how important I consider it to others, but I bet people would challenge me if I did. I suspect you've found ways to express these things. I think most non-geeks consider software licenses unimportant, whereas I think of them on the forefront of protecting the First Amendment in the U.S. and values of freedom of expression worldwide.
A related question: What other areas or causes do you consider comparably important, if any?