Software Freedom Law Center Launches Trademark War Against Software Freedom Conservancy (sfconservancy.org)

Long-time Slashdot reader Bruce Perens writes: The Software Freedom Law Center, a Linux-Foundation supported organization, has asked USPTO to cancel the trademark of the name of the Software Freedom Conservancy, an organization that assists and represents Free Software / Open Source developers.

What makes this bizzare is that SFLC started SFC, SFLC was SFC's law firm and filed for the very same trademark on their behalf, and both organizations were funded by Linux Foundation at the start.

There are a few other wild things that have happened related to this. Eben Moglen, president of SFLC and for decades the General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation, is no longer associated with FSF. Linux Foundation has on its executive board a company that is being sued in Germany for violating the GPL, with the case presently under appeal, and the lawsuit is funded by SFC. And remember when Linux Foundation removed the community representative from its executive board, when Karen Sandler, executive director of SFC, said she'd run?

If you need a clue, the SFC are the good guys in this. There's a lot to look into.

Comments

Names

[Anonymous Coward]

'Judean People's Front'. We're the People's Front of Judea!

Re:Names

[thinkwaitfast]

Came here for this comment. Glad to see it's #1.

Re:Names

[mykepredko]

Splitters!

Re:Names

[MrL0G1C]

Fork off.

Re:Always happens

[arth1]

The saying is "Like Saturn, Revolution devours its children".

Another law that's pertinent is that legal pursuits will always cause exactly as much harm as good.

If only Microsoft could pay more eloquent trolls

[ffkom]

- then people would not have to read such poor, failed attempts on pro-Microsoft propaganda from anonymous cowards.

These are the projects SFC represents

[Bruce Perens]

These are the member projects of SFC. An attack on SFC is an attack on these members as well. This is a catalog of 46 of the most respectable Free Software / Open Source projects. In contrast, I hear that SFLC represents one project.

ArgoUML

ArgoUML is the leading open source UML modeling tool and includes support for all standard UML 1.4 diagrams. It runs on any Java platform and is available in ten languages. See the feature list for more details.

Bongo

The Bongo Project is creating fun and simple mail, calendaring and contacts software: on top of a standards-based server stack; we're innovating fresh and interesting web user interfaces for managing personal communications. Bongo is providing an entirely free software solution which is less concerned with the corporate mail scenario and much more focused on how people want to organize their lives.

Boost

Boost provides free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries.

Boost emphasizes libraries that work well with the C++ Standard Library. Boost libraries are intended to be widely useful, and usable across a broad spectrum of applications. The Boost license encourages both commercial and non-commercial use.

Boost aims to establish “existing practice” and provide reference implementations so that Boost libraries are suitable for eventual standardization. Ten Boost libraries are already included in the C++ Standards Committee's Library Technical Report (TR1) as a step toward becoming part of a future C++ Standard. More Boost libraries are proposed for the upcoming TR2.

Bro Network Security Monitor

Bro provides a comprehensive platform for network traffic analysis, with a particular focus on semantic security monitoring at scale. While often compared to classic intrusion detection/prevention systems, Bro takes a quite different approach by providing users with a flexible framework that facilitates customized, in-depth monitoring far beyond the capabilities of traditional systems. With initial versions in operational deployment during the mid '90s already, Bro finds itself grounded in more than 20 years of research.

Buildbot

Buildbot is a freely-licensed framework which enables software developers to automate software build, test, and release processes for their software projects. First released in 2003, Buildbot is used by leading software projects around the world to automate all aspects of their software development cycle.

BusyBox

BusyBox combines tiny versions of many common UNIX utilities into a single small executable. It provides replacements for most of the utilities you usually find in GNU fileutils, shellutils, etc. The utilities in BusyBox generally have fewer options than their full-featured GNU cousins; however, the options that are included provide the expected functionality and behave very much like their GNU counterparts. BusyBox provides a fairly complete environment for any small or embedded system.

BusyBox has been written with size-optimization and limited resources in mind. It is also extremely modular so you can easily include or exclude commands (or features) at compile time. This makes it easy to customize your embedded systems. To create a working system, just add some device nodes in /dev, a few configuration files in /etc, and a Linux kernel.

Clojars

Clojars is a community-maintained repository for free and open source libraries written in the Clojure programming language. Clojars emphasizes ease of use, publishing library packages that are simple to use with build automation tools.

coreboot

coreboot is an extended firmware platform that delivers light

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. I'm Anonymous Coward, and I want to be part of this discussion. However, I can't think of anything intelligent to add, so I throw random insults at people for no rational reason.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Bruce Perens]

I think you're not in their target audience. I would in general write in C++ rather than C when I have a reason to not do things in Ruby, simply because C++ offers an upgrade over C structures and their management. I try to stay away from STL templates, and haven't used Boost for similar reasons. But I know that Boost has a lot of use at companies, and on some larger projects in the Open Source world.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Megol]

Attack? Now I know that you like exaggerating and spinning things but isn't this over the top ? And how is it relevant to list who you (as you seem to be the SFC spokesperson) "represent"? How would that be relevant for instance if the reason for this conflict is that you (ridiculous example) misrepresent yourself as talking for SFLW without permission?

It's one thing to present ones perspective of something and another to begin listing irrelevant things, even if they are facts. So how about actually presenting your view instead?

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Bruce Perens]

I'm still working on a blog post. SFC has never represented me and I've never been a member. I do think they're good guys, though, and the Linux Foundation (which is behind this) has devolved to being like loggers who claim to speak for the trees.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

Try learning go Bruce (golang.org). It's C done *right*. If I had to write Samba again from scratch, I'd do it in go.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly dont understand modern c++. With that template you get an optimized CRC implementation for a length specified at compile time. The only thing you need to be able to use is to understand following code // This is "123456789" in ASCII
unsigned char const data[] = { 0x31, 0x32, 0x33, 0x34, 0x35, 0x36, 0x37,0x38, 0x39 };
std::size_t const data_len = sizeof( data ) / sizeof( data[0] ); // The expected CRC for the given data
boost::uint16_t const expected = 0x29B1; // Simulate CRC-CCITT
boost::crc_basic crc_ccitt1( 0x1021, 0xFFFF, 0, false, false );
crc_ccitt1.process_bytes( data, data_len );
assert( crc_ccitt1.checksum() == expected ); // Repeat with the optimal version (assuming a 16-bit type exists)
boost::crc_optimal crc_ccitt2;
crc_ccitt2 = std::for_each( data, data + data_len, crc_ccitt2 );
assert( crc_ccitt2() == expected );

Seems quite simple to me

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[arth1]

These are the member projects of SFC. An attack on SFC is an attack on these members as well.

No, it isn't. That's binary thinking, Bruce.
Members can, and often do disagree to greater or lesser extent with the organizations they are members of, and the organizations do not automatically speak for them.

I can only presume that your strong feelings about the subject clouded your objectivity for a bit here. You can be righteous or you can be right, and most of the time you're right. This time, however, my perception is that you paint this a bit more black and white, us and them, than it really is.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Bruce Perens]

I think you are missing the extent of the relationship between SFC and the Open Source projects. The projects are not simply members of a club. The projects signed over any copyrights that the project owned in their Open Source software and any other assets to SFC to manage as a 501(c)3 for them, and SFC is thus the legal entity for those projects. SFC literally is the project under the law.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[UnknownSoldier]

> You clearly don't understand modern c++.

Having worked on a professional C++ compiler you clearly don't understand what I know.

> With that template you get an optimized CRC implementation for a length specified at compile time.

And the _last_ time you had actually had to modify CRC was _when_ exactly? That's right, fucking NEVER.

I would rather take 25 CLEAN lines of code compared to 1,000+ of Crap++. Less LOC code == less bugs.

Not to mention compile times are extremely when you leave out all the Boost shit.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

Well network programming is what I do all day, so... :-)

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[_merlin]

And SFLC represents MAME and Kodi. As a MAME developer, that makes me somewhat sympathetic to SFLC.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[TemporalBeing]

Golang has a lot to learn still. It has some nice things to it; but stability with dependencies you don't control is not one of them. It's a dependency management and stability hell as a result.

So yeah - if you're FB and rolling things out quickly, hourly, etc...then yeah Golang *might* make sense. But if you need any kind of long term stability, multi-language integration, etc- then Golang (and even Rust) is certainly not what you want to be using.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[doctorvo]

These are the member projects of SFC. An attack on SFC is an attack on these members as well. This is a catalog of 46 of the most respectable Free Software / Open Source projects.

The whole point of open source licenses is that long term availability of the software shouldn't depend on the survival of individual organizations. If the continued existence of SFC is actually important to these software packages, then there is something seriously wrong with SFC.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Bruce Perens]

Do you avoid the standard library?

There's a lot to the standard library. If you mean do I avoid cin, cout, and cerr; yes I did in a library where I defined an abstract base class that required a user-provided subclass for all I/O.

But mostly I avoid containers.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Bruce Perens]

That's why we have more than one organization like SFC. But since all of those projects are aggregated in one 501(c)3 which is SFC, there is indeed a risk. If you would like to run an individual 501(c)3 for a single project, I assure you that's a lot of work if you can even get IRS to approve it, and it's expensive. So, having lots of organizations use a parent for their 501(c)3 is a compromise.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Bruce Perens]

So, I have a question for MAME and Kodi to consider. Having seen what SFLC just did to its prior client, do you think you can trust them any longer? If they wanted the name of MAME or Kodi just as they want the name of SFC now, what would you do?

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[_merlin]

Well SFLC doesn't own the MAME trademark - it's owned by a project member. If SFLC decides to mess us around, we'll do what we did when David R. Foley tried to tradmark the MAME name in bad faith: lawyer up defend ourselves.

At present we contract SFLC to provide legal representation. That doesn't give them ownership over any part of the project. We own the trademark, we don't assign copyright on code, we don't have a shell company consisting of SFLC employees.

I can understand why SFLC is seeking invalidation of SFC's trademark. The "SFLC" initialism was in use before the SFC was founded. The SFC operates in a similar space, and does seem to have intentionally chosen a confusingly similar initialism. If anything, I'd say SFLC were stupid not to object earlier.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[doctorvo]

That's why we have more than one organization like SFC. But since all of those projects are aggregated in one 501(c)3 which is SFC, there is indeed a risk.

The vast majority of open source projects have no 501(c)3; none of mine do. In fact, many open source projects exist primarily outside the US (imagine that!); are you saying they all need to set up US non-profit organizations and get IRS approval? Furthermore, open source projects that have some kind of associated non-profit need to be set up in a way in which the project can survive the death of the organization; that's the whole point of open source, in case you forgot.

But we aren't even talking about a threat to SFC as an organization, we are talking about a trademark. The SFC's primary function is GPL compliance enforcement. Now, even if you think that GPL compliance enforcement is really, really important, the name of the organization doing the enforcing is irrelevant: claiming that dozens of open source projects are "at risk" because "Software Freedom Conservancy" has to change its name to "Fat Daddy's GPL Litigations" is absurd.

So, your arguments make no sense and you're spreading FUD. Why you are doing that is anybody's guess, but you're not doing yourself or the SFC any favors.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Bruce Perens]

You hold your Open Source work as a personal asset. This is OK for small projects, usually, but has some problems. Your personal liability and the Open Source are mixed up together. You can lose your copyrights to a creditor in a lawsuit that has nothing to do with the Open Source. Said creditor can then bring copyright prosecutions outside of the community standards, and do other things inimical to the Open Source and its users and developers. And you bear some liability for the Open Source, and thus could lose your unrelated assets in a lawsuit about the Open Source, while a corporation could protect you from some of that risk.

SFC's function is a lot more than compliance enforcement. They are, again, the legal entity for their member projects, they are their general counsel, and they provide a 501(c)3 for tax-exempt donations.

I don't see this as any different than an attempt to take the trademarked name of one of the member projects. Or one of their other assets, like a copyright.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[curcuru]

A key issue is that the SFLC directly helped to spin off and incorporate the Conservancy, and assisted the Conservancy in applying to register the SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY® trademark in the US. So it's kind of odd to see the SFLC now - after 6 years - directly appealing to the USPTO to cancel Conservancy's registration without even talking to them first.

To see why this is important, imagine that someone not related to your project, but that had a somewhat-similar trademark registration, suddenly filed to cancel your project's registration. Lawyering up is all fine and good, but it's expensive if the TTAB case actually goes anywhere, and if you lose... you lose your name. The TTAB doesn't work like normal federal courts.

For those interested in the factual history (with sources) behind the registration at question: https://communityovercode.com/2017/11/software-freedom-trademark-timeline/

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[curcuru]

Member projects of Conservancy don't have to sign over copyrights or other assets, but are welcome to. Many projects don't assign copyright, and that's fine. But as a 501C3, whatever assets a project does sign over to Conservancy will be managed by Conservancy in line with their charitable mission.

Details of services Conservancy offers to their projects are posted pretty clearly: https://sfconservancy.org/projects/apply/. Project governance and licensing are also mostly project decisions, as long as it's an OSI/FSF approved license.

This trademark cancellation petition does not affect member projects directly - however if (for some strange reason) the registration actually were cancelled, arguably the Conservancy might be forced to change the trademark it uses for itself in the US. Thankfully, Conservancy has a registration in the EU as well.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Bruce Perens]

Yes, projects aren't compelled to sign over copyrights, although there are definite disadvantages to holding on to them rather than accepting a corporate liability shield, and as far as I can see no advantages. And of course SFC acts in the project's interest.

But this is diverting from the issue. SFLC went after the organization that hosts all of those projects. The projects should stand together with SFC, as should the rest of us.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

doctorvo wrote:

"The SFC's primary function is GPL compliance enforcement."

That is simply not true (I'm a Conservancy Board member). The *overwhelming* majority of staff time is spent on maintaining projects (doing accountancy, running conferences, handling expense reports and contacting etc.). There is a negligible amount of time spent in enforcement.

Enforcement makes headlines, but isn't a tiny fraction of what Conservancy does.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

doctorvo wrote:

"Enforcment is the SFC's primary function"

Again, this is simply not true. Samba was one of the initial projects in the Conservancy, and we requested Conservancy have a copyright holding ability as it made it easier for us to accept corporate donations of code. Many corporations do not grant individual developers personal (C), but are fine with a charity holding the (C) on their behalf.

At the time we did not allow corporate ownership of code in Samba, as we didn't want corporations to have the ability to do enforcement actions on their own, without going through what are now called the "Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement" (they weren't written down so concisely back then).

https://sfconservancy.org/copy...

Believe it or not there were occasions when corporations used GPL enforcement to threaten each other over use of Open Source code, and we (Samba) needed to defuse that. I personally know of several examples of this being the case.

Now can, and clearly will, spin Conservancy's actions as being the most negative and devious of activities, but as someone with intimate knowledge of this I feel it necessary to set the record straight for any readers.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[doctorvo]

Now can, and clearly will, spin Conservancy's actions as being the most negative and devious of activities

I have no idea what the SFC has or hasn't done; I have not paid much attention to the organization before this story. I am going by what Bruce and you hare saying about the SFC and what it does, and the risks inherent in any copyright assignment to an organization like the SFC.

At the time we did not allow corporate ownership of code in Samba, as we didn't want corporations to have the ability to do enforcement actions on their own,

It's naive to think that setting up a non-profit prevents misuse of enforcement actions. The people in charge of non-profits all have their own interests, and they are going to use the non-profits they control to advance those interests, and those interests are not just ensuring that people comply with open source licenses: you have repeatedly confirmed this yourself.

I feel it necessary to set the record straight for any readers.

Well, and I feel it necessary to ask readers to reflect on whether Bruce's and your arguments for copyright assignment actually make any sense or just represent FUD and mission creep.

The upshot is: I have never felt a need to assign copyrights to any organization like the SFC (and I have been approached about it), and what you and Bruce have said only strengthens my belief that that was the right decision.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

I'm guessing you're somewhat younger. I've been working on Free Software since the late 1980's and have seen many of the disasters that can befall projects that don't take care of the copyright and legal details. It's all sunshine and roses until *real* money gets involved. Then watch out !

The reason I'm a Conservancy supporter and board member is that, although the staff are also younger, they *care* about details like that. And they *care* about the projects. Details matter.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

It may have escaped your notice, but promoting Free Software *is* political activism. This is what Conservancy was founded to do.

If all you want is technical excellence, the Open Source Team is over there to the left.

And FOSS developers - please don't assign your copyrights to anyone unless you really have to. The above from doctorvo is spectacularly bad advice. I've always kept my own copyrights, and I encourage you to do so.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[doctorvo]

It may have escaped your notice, but promoting Free Software *is* political activism. This is what Conservancy was founded to do.

It didn't escape my notice at all. That is exactly why one should be careful about who one entrusts the power that comes from having developed successful free software projects. For one, I think an organization that has Google millionaires and employees as its board members cannot be trusted to be an advocate of free software.

The above from doctorvo is spectacularly bad advice. And FOSS developers - please don't assign your copyrights to anyone unless you really have to. I've always kept my own copyrights, and I encourage you to do so.

That, in fact, was my advice. Then Bruce and you became abusive and insulting. You, on the other hand, are talking out of both sides of your mouth, since the SFC very much seeks copyright assignment.

As I was saying, I hadn't paid much attention to the SFC before this story, but I'm convinced now that I don't want you people anywhere near my projects, in any way, shape, or form.

My advice to free software developers remains: you probably don't need to get in bed with an open source organization at all in order to have a successful free software or open source project; and if you're looking for an source organization, look carefully at their track record, their biases, and their potential conflicts of interest.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

Having money and being a Free Software advocate are not mutually exclusive. For the best example of this, look at John Gilmore who is a tech multi-millionaire and a strong proponent of Free Software (that's how he made his money).

> you became abusive and insulting

Please document where I have been abusive or insulting. I disagree with you, sure. But disagreement is not abuse or an insult.

> You, on the other hand, are talking out of both sides of your mouth, since the SFC very much seeks copyright assignment.

Offering a service is not "seeking copyright assignment". It is a *service*, which developers can use if they need to. I personally, like you, would recommend that they not do so. However, if you don't own your own copyrights (because your company does) but you wish to make sure such copyrights are only used to support Free Software, then advocating for your company to assign copyrights on code you wrote to Conservancy is an excellent idea.

> if you're looking for an source organization, look carefully at their track record, their biases, and their potential conflicts of interest.

On this, you and I fully agree. I'm confident in the track record, biases and potential conflicts of interest documented by Conservancy. I think Conservancy's transparency is the right thing to do here.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[doctorvo]

Having money and being a Free Software advocate are not mutually exclusive.

You're not merely wealthy, your wealth is intimately connected with a company with a definite agenda (and Google generally prefers open source software to free software), and that calls your judgment into question as a board member of a free software advocacy group. (Besides, anybody can be an advocate for anything; it says nothing about their motivations.)

For the best example of this, look at John Gilmore who is a tech multi-millionaire and a strong proponent of Free Software (that's how he made his money).

Well, which raises the question of whether his advocacy of specific licenses was motivated by his financial interests, rather than the good of the community. (BTW, Gilmore's career started with a company that turned BSD UNIX into proprietary SunOS, tried to replace standards like X11 with proprietary software, and mostly used GPL licensing as a poison pill to push people into proprietary licenses.)

I'm confident in the track record, biases and potential conflicts of interest documented by Conservancy. I think Conservancy's transparency is the right thing to do here.

I commend you for being as transparent as you are. But disclosure of potential conflicts of interests or biases doesn't immunize you against them. To the contrary, the point of transparency is so that people can make informed decisions. And what you disclose is ties to big corporations, significant self-interest, plus a lot of advocacy that has little to do with the core issue of software freedom.

I don't believe you are deliberately deceptive, and I'm sure you are genuinely convinced you are "the good guys", I just don't see you as an unbiased actor working in the best interest of the FOSS community. And since there is no need for anybody to sign up for anything with the SFC, I simply urge caution and reflection for anybody considering applying to be "an SFC project".

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

Good points all, and I don't disagree with most of them.

However, "I just don't see you as an unbiased actor working in the best interest of the FOSS community" IMHO is a little harsh :-). I think my reputation speaks for itself here. But that's your opinion and you're entitled to it :-).

> And since there is no need for anybody to sign up for anything
> with the SFC, I simply urge caution and reflection for anybody
> considering applying to be "an SFC project"

*Absolutely* correct. In fact, as I'm on the applications committee as well as on the Board I see a lot of projects apply for which the SFC is absolutely the wrong place. We try and gently dissuade them and get them to go elsewhere.

You'd be very surprised I think at some of the projects we've turned away, some with *significant* financial support attached to them, simply because they don't fit with the Conservancy philosophy of how Free Software projects should be run. You can see that by looking at the current project list for an idea of what we require.

Can't name any names unfortunately as applications are done privately, so you'll just have to trust me on this :-).

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[doctorvo]

However, "I just don't see you as an unbiased actor working in the best interest of the FOSS community" IMHO is a little harsh :-).

I don't think it's "harsh" at all, I think it's realistic: it's impossible for any organization to be unbiased or for it to advocate or work in the best interest of something as diverse as "the FOSS community". You just acknowledged that again by saying that you have rejected FOSS projects because they don't fit your philosophy. That's what I have been criticizing you for. It's also completely unnecessary for you to take such a dogmatic and intolerant approach. You have at least two simple choices.

Either, you can separate your advocacy from your services; that is SFC services can provide legal and infrastructure services to any project that satisfies basic FOSS criteria, without being rejected on philosophical grounds.

Or, you can explicitly acknowledge your biases and preferences. Call yourself the "[Something] Software Freedom Conservancy" and acknowledge your biases, ideology, and preferences, and don't pretend that you are a single, neutral representative of all FOSS users:

[Something] Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization incorporated in New York. Software Freedom Conservancy helps promote, improve, develop, and defend select Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects conforming to certain ideals we consider important, including _______________. Conservancy provides a non-profit home and infrastructure for select FLOSS projects that meet our criteria and agree with our philosophy. Our advocacy focuses on a ______ view of FLOSS.

And, looking from the outside, I can't help but wonder whether this issue isn't at the heart of your trademark dispute with the SFLC in the first place; that is, whether the SFLC didn't want the SFC to be more of a neutral service provider, as opposed to an advocacy group driven by a particular social and ideological agenda and closely linked to a few companies and interests.

Re:These are the projects SFC represents

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

> Either, you can separate your advocacy from your services; that is
> SFC services can provide legal and infrastructure services to any
>project that satisfies basic FOSS criteria, without being rejected on
> philosophical grounds.

Well the projects that were rejected were done so because they did not want to give up corporate control, despite satisfying basic FOSS criteria.

You are correct in that Conservancy philosophy is not to provide a home for corporate-controlled and wholly owned projects, only projects that act in the best interests of their developers and users. Such projects are better hosted in other organizations, and indeed we recommend such orgs to projects that we don't accept. There is a home for corporate-controlled and wholly owned projects, just not Conservancy.

That *is* an extra condition on top of basic FOSS criteria, as we don't just look at the license alone.

> I can't help but wonder whether this issue isn't at the heart of your
> trademark dispute with the SFLC in the first place

I don't know and won't speculate what is behind the SFLC reasoning. However you do bring up a very important point about Conservancy being selective. We should be clearer and more public about the criteria for acceptance.

> an advocacy group driven by a particular social and ideological agenda and closely linked to a few companies and interests

Conservancy does have a particular social and ideological agenda, but we are clear and transparent about that. We are not closely linked to "a few companies and interests", the funding is broad-based (check out the online accountancy forms for details).

Re:Linux is dying due to legal uncertainty

[boudie2]

"Linux is only free if your time has no value"

Kinda like slashdot.

PoC+source/link or STFU.

[Anonymous Coward]

See title.

Lawyers doing lawyer things

[phantomfive]

When you invite enough lawyers to the party, they will start doing lawyery things.

Re:Lawyers doing lawyer things

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were the judge.....

Firstly both organisations are legal entities subject to the laws of the state of New York.
So we notice that the standards and values of the community will be different from what the law says.
I would rule that SFLC has the older rights to the name and thus fine SFC.
Since SFLC originally approved this situation, that would only be a small fine
Secondly, the names are indeed similar, so only one shall use the phrase 'Software Freedom' in its name.
Considering its standing in the community, Software Freedom Conservancy has earned their name, so SFLC should change theirs.

Re:If only Microsoft could pay more eloquent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

You speak as if everything else is perfect. At least we have a chance at fixing these issues rather than having to suffer the consequences of Microsoft of the ilk.

This story is lacking in particulars or motivation

[pots]

The only discussion of this case that I can find is the one on the SFC website, linked in the summary. The petition itself is a bland claim of likelihood of confusion.

By publicly protesting their victimhood the SFC is asking for us to support them, but there just isn't anything to go on here.

Now, they're making the claim that this is completely out of the blue, so maybe that's the point? Is the idea that they don't know anything about this either?

Could be just an unmotivated scream for attention

[ffkom]

from either side. I mean, this is lawyers versus lawyers, and who would need/pay them if there wasn't some law suit going on?

Re:Linux is dying due to legal uncertainty

[Aighearach]

Linux is only free if you know the difference between freedom and time. Not sure why "value" is in that statement. Oh, he misunderstood the word "free." lol

Re:Linux is dying due to legal uncertainty

[boudie2]

I appreciate the freedom linux gives me and the freedom slashdot gives me. And enjoy both. Sometimes it's fun to laugh with the naysayers and other times fun to laugh at the naysayers.

Moglen - Stallman split

[romiz]

Moglen, chairman for the SFLC, has resigned as a FSF councel last year. Perens has stated that he was in fact fired over conflict on regarding GPL enforcement. The source of the split seems to be this talk at a Linux Foundation event, where he criticised some of his own former compliance efforts, and aligned on the point of view of many members of the kernel community.

Re:Moglen - Stallman split

[pots]

Well. That was a surprisingly good talk. I'd hate to think that that seemingly reasonable position would have deteriorated into two camps, "We need to enforce the GPL." and "We need to make it clear to people that copyleft isn't something to be afraid of." as though those positions were mutually incompatible. Both of those things are important, obviously.

Hm. Something about that seems familiar... As though I've seen it before, many many times...

Re:Moglen - Stallman split

[Bruce Perens]

I think Eben's fundamental premise is wrong, though. The organizations he cited as rejecting GPL in granting research funding were not doing it because the GPL is scary. They are doing it because they are publicly funded, and the GPL is not necessarily the best license to grant maximal utility in a publicly funded project to all of the people, including the proprietary software manufacturers who presumably pay taxes like everyone else (acknowledging arguments that Microsoft hasn't had any Federal income tax bill in some years). The BSD license was created specifically for that purpose.

Second, why does it worry Eben now that the GPL is scary? Hasn't it been an uphill fight all of the way?

Re:Linux is dying due to legal uncertainty

[Desler]

No, people understand what “free” means. You aspies have tried to redefine the term to only mean what you think not what 99% of people mean when they use it.

who cares?

[doctorvo]

Bruce Perens ... The Software Freedom Law Center ... Linux-Foundation ... FSF ... Software Freedom Conservancy ... Eben Moglen ... sued in Germany for violating the GPL ... Karen Sandler

Sorry to break it to you, but while a lot of these were involved in the early days of open source, they just don't matter much anymore.

Re:More Clues Needed

[_merlin]

Biggest/perkiest e-boobs! No-one boasts about having a deep vagina - tight vagina maybe, but no-one really talks about depth much. Get your terminology right!

There's only the license and nothing but ;)

[internet-redstar]

In this fight between the two groups: 'strict GPL enforcers' versus 'amical towards offenders GPL enforcers'. What is left for us as Linux consultants to advise our customers? To adhere strictly to the GPL to avoid any and all problems. Something I don't really mind. One could argue that this means that the 'strict camp' wins, but in reality it's the GPL which wins. Stating that one should be very kind to offending customers isn't good advise, because proper advise to any customer has to deal with the faint possibility of a 'GPL enforcement troll'. So the proper advise needs to be that GPL isn't freeware, but that the requirements are easy to adhere too, and - for example - that to avoid possible future legal problems (in certain countries) all kernel development should be GPL. Which should not be an issue as all kernel development should not be 'lengthy' nor contain 'policy'. Proprietary code has its place in userspace. Adding the proper license statements and making the distributed GPL code accessible by their end customers isn't that big of a deal - especially if it's unambiguous that this is a requirement.

Re:There's only the license and nothing but ;)

[Bruce Perens]

You're right that compliance isn't that big a deal and the only reason GPL violations happen is that companies have a complete failure of due diligence. So, in general I advise that companies get their compliance stuff together, and I give them specific ways to combine proprietary and GPL software that do not violate the GPL.

If you have more questions about how to advise your customers, feel free to ask questions through my email bruce at perens dot com . No charge. If customers attorneys need help with compliance issues, I am happy to talk with them and sometimes work for them. One caveat to that - I only help people comply with the license of the Free Software / Open Source developer. If they want to beat the license and abuse that developer, they need to call someone else. I just do compliance and do not compete with your normal business.

Re: There's only the license and nothing but ;)

[JasperNuyens]

Great! Where I think I have a good understanding of the requirements, we do have a customer who is confused and could benefit from advise from someone with your authority. I'll propose it and come back to you by mail! Keep up the good work! Jasper

Re: There's only the license and nothing but ;)

[Bruce Perens]

You're welcome.

Re:Revisionist history

[OneSizeFitsNoone]

The Community Representative is just one seat out of 12, nothing the big players could be concerned of. And neither Karen Sanders nor the Free Software Conservancy could even remotely match the vote stuffing the Linux Foundation's corporate members (and big-money providers) can, so your point is moot.

Re:Always happens

[OneSizeFitsNoone]

Actually it's just that the the Linux Foundation that has abandoned the Free/Open Software Community pack to cater to the interests of the Corporate Big Player's club.

Re:Must be pure coincidence...

[OneSizeFitsNoone]

The Software Freedom Conservancy is not about technology, but freedom and law. They do not develop software, they counsel on the legal breaches of Free Software licenses.

Re:Open sores software sucks shit

[OneSizeFitsNoone]

Yeah, professionals like Google, Amazon, Ebay, PayPal, Facebook, the world's top 500 supercomputers and so on all running... Uh oh!

Re:Linux is dying due to legal uncertainty

[OneSizeFitsNoone]

Free as in freedom, not as in "free beer".

Re:Linux is dying due to legal uncertainty

[Aighearach]

You aspies

So, just curious, and you seem up on this type of stuff so I thought I'd ask you.

What is the psychological name for the condition where you run around telling people you think they're disabled, while also trying to bully people for being disabled?

I know what they call it when you do it to people's faces; "assault victim." But what is the word when you only have the courage to do it online?

Re:Didn't read

[Bruce Perens]

SFC has been much more active in the community than SFLC. SFLC recently decided that they want to do what SFC does, and the day after they published that decision they filed to challenge the name.

Re:Linux is dying due to legal uncertainty

[alexgieg]

No, people understand what “free” means. You aspies have tried to redefine the term to only mean what you think not what 99% of people mean when they use it.

Cool! It's the first time I found someone who thinks Newsspeak Dictionary's definition of "free" is the correct one! I guess it's finally time for Ingsoc to ascend to power! Kudos!

In-depth analysis of the SFLC claim now posted.

[kfogel]

FWIW, I wrote up a somewhat in-depth analysis of this SFLC / Conservancy dispute here: http://www.rants.org/2017/11/c...

TL;DR: Software Freedom Conservancy is behaving appropriately, and SFLC is not.