Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Joins Group Working To 'Cure' Open-Source Licensing Issues (zdnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the stranger-things dept.

Microsoft is joining Red Hat, Facebook, Google and IBM in committing to extending right to "cure" open source licensing noncompliance before taking legal measures. From a report: On March 19, officials from Microsoft -- along with CA Technologies, Cisco, HPE, SAP and SUSE -- said they'd work with open together with the already-committed vendors to provide more "predictability" for users of open source software. "The large ecosystems of projects using the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.x licenses will benefit from adoption of this more balanced approach to termination derived from GPLv3," explained Red Hat in a press release announcing the new license-compliance partners. The companies which have agreed to adopt the "Common Cure Rights Commitment" said before they file or continue to prosecute those accused of violating covered licenses, they will allow for users to cure and reinstate their licenses.

68 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. BSD is the cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    just use that license, np

    1. Re: BSD is the cure by orlanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The GPL and LGPL aren't exactly hard to understand. I think the issue in most cases is that people don't read the license that allows them to use the software they use. In which case they just make random assumptions and move on.

      Such irresponsibility would lead to BSD violations too.

    2. Re:BSD is the cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Agreed. I was once an open source nut during my college years, but attempting to coerce someone to give away the changes they make to an openly available source code base is nuts.

    3. Re: BSD is the cure by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      they just make random assumptions and move on.

      People do this with proprietary software as well. They don't read the EULA and they copy from friends. Why should they only get impunity for copyright violations of the GPL? Why doesn't Microsoft support a "first time free" policy for their own software?

    4. Re:BSD is the cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Came in here to say just that. Copyfree licenses, such as BSD, are what you should use if you want your code to be free and used for any purpose. GPL is what you want to use if you want to prevent commercial use of your code inside of another program. Or if you want to be an ass and make other copyfree things GPL/non commercial. It's the libertarianism vs communism of licensing.

      (Yes, you can throw the argument of commercial GPL software out there. It exists, I know. And now you have cloud services as a result. Software as an internet service... thanks GNU!)

    5. Re: BSD is the cure by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is if you are trying push it to its limits, trying to mix non-GPL with GPL technologies. Using GPL technology as part of a larger service... Real life stuff, where it isn't as black and white as RMS sees it. And the GPL while may be written clearly, does have interesting loopholes. Such as the Anti-Tivoization rule, that makes the exception for IBM to do it on their mainframes. Cloud and SaaS usages havn't been completely defined.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:BSD is the cure by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      I too was an Open Source nut in college. However giving away changes to a an Open Source Application isn't nuts, it is probably the responsible thing to do. However if your changes do something significant to change the application, the GPL is a ball and chain.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re: BSD is the cure by stooo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >> It is if you are trying push it to its limits, trying to mix non-GPL with GPL technologies
      No problem here.
      You can do pretty much everything with a GPL program, except statically link or mix in code with a non GPL compatible licence.
      BSD is GPL compatible.
      No problem here.

      --
      aaaaaaa
    8. Re: BSD is the cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They don't want to support it. They feel like they have to. They make a lot of money from fees due to proprietary license violations. They would not give that up. They cannot make money from fees from GPL violations, so they might as well support what everyone else is doing to look good.

    9. Re:BSD is the cure by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I was once an open source nut during my college years, but attempting to coerce someone to give away the changes they make to an openly available source code base is nuts.

      That's Free Software, not Open Source. Open Source only means that you can get the source code, it means nothing whatsoever about distribution rights. The OSI likes to claim that they invented the term in 1998, but I have diehard proof that the phrase was already in use in the sense in which I have described by 1995. I knew this of course, because I was one of the persons so using it, but the leading lights of the OSI would like us to believe differently because the lie makes them more influential.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:BSD is the cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      You don't necessarily have to give away the changes either.

      Two options:

      You distribute a modified binary and a matching modified source code.

      You don't distribute either. --- this is perfectly acceptable (!).

    11. Re:BSD is the cure by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      but attempting to coerce someone to give away the changes they make to an openly available source code base is nuts.

      Why? Maybe GPL in particular is not all that useful for some applications, but, e.g., in case of LGPL, the idea that if you manage to improve a component not related to the core of your product, you can pay for it by sharing these non-core-related features to be useful to others seems pretty neat. After all, you *did* use someone else's work to lessen your workload in that particular non-core area by using said component in the first place.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re: BSD is the cure by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Why should they only get impunity for copyright violations of the GPL? Why doesn't Microsoft support a "first time free" policy for their own software?

      This isn't "first time free", it's that you get impunity if you come into compliance.

    13. Re:BSD is the cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And that's you're right to support copyleft. However if I release FOSS software, I don't give two shits what someone does with it as long as it doesn't violate my life, liberty, or property. And guess what? As long as my code is copyfree it won't. If someone takes my work and turns it into copyrighted work. I don't care if they "abuse" their users. Because their users CHOOSE to be their users.

      Your idealism makes you sound more like a Faux Libertarian, if you are even one.

      That being said, I believe GPL and copyleft has a place. It is to prevent closed commercial products. No more, no less. Say I make a copyrighted video game. And I want people to mod the code. This is where GPL is great. Release the code as GPL, keep the artwork as copyrighted. Profit! This is a good use for copyleft. Any other arguments against copyfree is kumbaya stupidity and social engineering.

       

    14. Re:BSD is the cure by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Nope, you still have the exact same problem because BSD has very strict compliance requirements that not everybody is even willing to engage in.

      The weird part is that you seem to be claiming to have knowledge about different licenses, and yet even though you've been corrected about this point on this very website repeatedly, you still make the same idiotic claim about the BSD license. You spam the same words every time it comes up.

      So look, No. The only license that lets users stop caring about it is the Apache 2 license. It is the only one that everybody, GPL, BSD/MIT, proprietary, they can all just use it and not worry.

    15. Re:BSD is the cure by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Bullshit, BSD has restrictions that don't work for everybody, it is just a lie to represent it the way you do. It is your favorite, that's great. But it doesn't have the least restrictions, and it isn't for any purpose.

      There are more than 2 licenses in use, BTW. Look it up if you don't believe.

    16. Re:BSD is the cure by Trogre · · Score: 2

      I gather you've never heard of the Affero GPL.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    17. Re:BSD is the cure by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Nobody's asking people to do that. Copyleft licenses say that, if you publish, you need to share your changes. You can't just release the binaries.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. Yes, that sound you heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That sound you heard was that of several thousand lawyers sighing at what could have been billions in lost revenue

    1. Re:Yes, that sound you heard by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Nope, that was just a giant wooshing sound, not a flushing sound.

      These particular types of copyright violations don't result in cash payments, they result in the withdrawal of a free license. It doesn't result in billions of dollars in lost legal fees, because the non-monetary nature of the case substantially limits the legal work involved.

      Also, there is nothing to fight when you're out of compliance; you can't use tactics like attacking the contract, because you'd only lose your license that way too. So if you're really in violation, that is a very very small amount of legal work for your lawyers; mostly just them explaining to you that you have have to either give away the source, or risk an injunction that halts distribution of your product. If you really used the code, and you can't write new code fast enough to prevent an injunction, there isn't much you can do to fight.

      In the end under this system there will be about the same amount of work for the lawyers, as they still are in the loop managing the "cure." It could even end up being more work for them!

  3. Re:Ah, so.... by jordanjay29 · · Score: 1

    Only Anonymous Cowards.

  4. At the top... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You find yourself at the top of the slippery side of Mt. Software License.

    Companies tired of getting called out for violating your open source license are offering you an olive branch one step down the slippery side.

    Think hard before walking out to greet them...

    1. Re:At the top... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you'd stop standing on your head, you could probably see plainly that it is the authors of the software who are reported as having done something, not the users of the software. Whoopsie, you were only off by *-1

  5. Re:Ah, so.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And the issues regarding the license wasn't FUD after all.

    Funny, I see any article with M$ offering to help "cure" licensing issues as both bullshit, and they're looking for some way to game the system for their own uses.

    You know, "oh, this license doesn't work for us, but if we decree it's covered under a more favourable license it will be".

    Sorry, but the only people who see issues with open sourced licenses are people who make closed source software.

  6. Re:Ah, so.... by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, the GPL isn't as cut a dried and obvious as Slashdotters insist it is.

    And the issues regarding the license wasn't FUD after all.

    Color me surprised! I thought all Slashdotters were legal experts.

    The license is clear on what you are allowed to do (which is more than copyright law requires them to do) with the copyrighted material. These companies want to restrict copyright holders who use the GPL from using the legally allowed means of ENFORCING that copyright once it has been violated. Where do these companies get the right to dictate to the copyright holders how they will enforce it?

    I'll take these guys seriously once they make a legally binding commitment to handle violations of THEIR copyrights by the same rules that they want to impose on people using the GPL.

  7. Great ! That's exactly what we needed... by mohsel · · Score: 1

    Proprietary touch to the already complicated and overly verbal licenses.

    Just keep the damn thing simple. licenses don't need more than a couple of lines to describe what you can and cannot do with the product. until everybody KISS, there will be more and more violations, and corporate lawyers aren't gonna KISS for sure.

    1. Re:Great ! That's exactly what we needed... by DeBaas · · Score: 1

      Just keep the damn thing simple. licenses don't need more than a couple of lines to describe what you can and cannot do with the product. until everybody KISS, there will be more and more violations, and corporate lawyers aren't gonna KISS for sure.

      Well I for won't kiss a corporate lawyer either.....

      --
      ---
  8. What about the companies themselves? by temcat · · Score: 1

    Are they going to do the same about their proprietary licenses? Yeah, sure...

    1. Re:What about the companies themselves? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid you have to work on your understanding of licensing.

      All copyright holders can bring suit. Thus, if some company modifies your GPL software to which you own the copyright, you can still bring suit regarding the part you wrote.

      Also, the word "proprietary" in this context is referring to licenses that do not give the rights required in Open Source licenses.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    2. Re:What about the companies themselves? by temcat · · Score: 1

      I meant proprietary as in "not FOSS". For example, the licenses for Windows, Office etc.

    3. Re:What about the companies themselves? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Also, the word "proprietary" in this context is referring to licenses that do not give the rights required in Open Source licenses.

      Ahh, the OSI. Still trying to claim ownership of the term "Open Source" even though it becomes more and more clear that you have no right to do so.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:What about the companies themselves? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Hi Martin,

      I hope you're doing well. As we've previously discussed, the fact that someone else used the words "Open" and "Source" together simply doesn't matter. And nobody but you seems to care about this. Certainly it is your first amendment right to make as much noise as you wish about it, even though as far as I can tell nobody's really listening and your effort serves only to bring the heat death of the universe a millisecond closer.

      Other than this particular tilting at a windmill, you seem to be a nice person and have my best wishes.

      Thanks

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    5. Re:What about the companies themselves? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I hope you're doing well. As we've previously discussed, the fact that someone else used the words "Open" and "Source" together simply doesn't matter.

      It matters very much. It matters because you're attempting to redefine the phrase to mean something other than what it actually means, and what it meant before you ever even heard the term, let alone claim to have been present at its co-creation. If it didn't matter, then you frauds at the OSI would stop lying about its creation.

      Certainly it is your first amendment right to make as much noise as you wish about it, even though as far as I can tell nobody's really listening and your effort serves only to bring the heat death of the universe a millisecond closer.

      People are listening. And it will be relevant when the OSI inevitably attempts to copyright the term, which is clearly what these attempts at redefinition are about. Members of the OSI (including, as I recall, yourself) are on record as regretting not attempting to copyright it previously, at the height of your reputation — when the organization was new, and accomplishing things.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:What about the companies themselves? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Trademark, not copyright. I suspect that ship has sailed. Note also that there are trademark categories, one does not register the word for all possible uses.

      It also seems to me quite silly for you to rail about this because SCO, the organization that inanely tried to sink the ship of Linux, used the term once, not meaning the same thing, back when they were still called Caldera and were releasing the source for DR-DOS.

      Perhaps you should bother Intel about previous uses of their corporate name as a short form of "intelligence". Or Tesla, named after a scientist who might not even have approved of them.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    7. Re:What about the companies themselves? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I don't think he misunderstood proprietary, rather he was using a broader definition to make a funny statement that is true as he said it, but has the same words as a false thing that pedants might jump at. It is perhaps a disguised invitation to think more carefully about the meaning of the words used, instead of just glancing at them to figure out which team is Virtuous.

      But then he misunderstands "loophole," so that really ruins it for me. Both as word play, and as a valid point.

    8. Re:What about the companies themselves? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That isn't how words work.

      If a phrase is known to have a specific meaning beyond the meaning of the constituent words, that doesn't somehow preclude other meanings of that same combination of words. Just as a word having a meaning doesn't stop it from having a second meaning.

      All the known meanings of a phrase are correct, just as all the known meanings of a word are correct. The only time the meaning is incorrect is when it is not internally consistent, or when the speaker decides that they used the wrong word.

      Don't be a false pedant, learn that English is an open language and that complaints about what words are used should be focused on either internal consistency of the statement, or style. The vast majority of purported English language corrections are in fact merely false pedanticisms whose only real claim is an appeal to style.

      Compare to the French language, which has an official Authority to tell you what is correct or not.

    9. Re:What about the companies themselves? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Whee, my ISP went down literally in the middle of my writing this comment, but I saved it to notepad ahead of submission because I am used to them (Digital Path) failing miserably. They're not even going to send someone out to look at it for several days. What country is this? I thought I lived in California, not Afghanistan.

      Anyway, back to topic.

      Trademark, not copyright.

      Yes, of course, trademark. That was a foolish error, of which I am of course as capable as anyone. The point, however, stands.

      I suspect that ship has sailed.

      So why the ongoing bullshit claims about inventing the phrase? There's a new attempt to falsely claim its creation every year or so. Is it just about self-aggrandizement? You people feeling insecure?

      Note also that there are trademark categories, one does not register the word for all possible uses.

      While that is completely true, we're clearly talking about the same thing here.

      It also seems to me quite silly for you to rail about this because SCO, the organization that inanely tried to sink the ship of Linux, used the term once, not meaning the same thing, back when they were still called Caldera and were releasing the source for DR-DOS.

      It only sounds silly to people who don't know what I'm (before your last comment, I would have said "we're") talking about. For one thing, the company was not SCO at the time of the press release; it was Caldera. In addition, I know more than a handful of people who worked for the actual, original hot-tub-and-fizzbeer SCO way back in the way back, before Caldera was even founded by Ransom Love. At the time, SCO was just as much a champion of open standards as any other Unix vendor. I'm sure you have passionate feelings about The SCO Group, but that has little to nothing to do with the SCO of the day and you seem to be confused about the details. Finally, the fact that they used the term before you, but not meaning the same thing you mean, is precisely the point I've raised. Thanks for really hammering it home, though.

      Perhaps you should bother Intel about previous uses of their corporate name as a short form of "intelligence". Or Tesla, named after a scientist who might not even have approved of them.

      Intel and Tesla aren't bothering ME with their silly names. Intel isn't trying to redefine the term "intel" as used in the intelligence community. Tesla isn't trying to claim that Tesla invented their car. But the OSI is trying to claim that it invented the phrase "Open Source" as pertains to software, and that it gets to determine (at least partially on that basis) what is and what is not "Open Source Software" which was a phrase provably already in use years before recent claims to the contrary which — if true — would have strengthened the OSI's position in this regard. Since the claims are false, they do the opposite. Continually claiming to have been involved in the invention of a phrase which predates your claim by years makes you a liar. Why do you and your pals over there want so very much to be liars? Don't you think that's going to hurt your credibility in the long term? These facts aren't going to just go away. I found them out with google, and by doing a little old-fashioned reporting. Anyone else can do the same, though I've saved them the trouble. When the inevitable trademark claim (whatever you say about it, since you're not trustworthy anyway, should be ignored) goes to court, no leg work will have to be done, because I've done it already. I've identified all the key witnesses and the most relevant evidence to disprove such a claim. So why not just stop wasting your time telling lies?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:What about the companies themselves? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "All the known meanings of a phrase are correct,"

      No, that is abject bullshit. The OSI is attempting to invent am invalid meaning out of whole cloth, and support that invention with a deliberate falsehood, a total fairy tale. If it weren't relevant they wouldn't have to keep telling these lies. They keep lying about invention of the phrase specifically because it IS how words work. They can call a license OSI-approved, but they have no right whatsoever to decide what is or is not "open source", "open source software", or an "open source license".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:What about the companies themselves? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No, your claims of prescriptive linguistics are bovine exhaust. There is nothing invalid about the meaning OSI applies to the phrase "Open Source". It's common for people to take words or short phrases and add additional meanings.

      The way words work is that they have meanings, which can change over time, and phrases can mean something other than what their constituent words mean. A vacuum cleaner does not clean a vacuum. It doesn't create a vacuum, and won't even work in a vacuum. It really has nothing to do with vacuums, but the phrase has a widely understood meaning.

      Words and phrases have meanings if a reasonable number of people understand the words or phrases as having that meaning. Lots of people understand "Open Source" as "software with an OSI-approved license", so that's a valid meaning.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:What about the companies themselves? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      I thought I lived in California, not Afghanistan.

      No, I live in California. You live in the State of Jefferson, where there is "more freedom" (so that rich folks like your internet provider, their executives, and their venture capitalists don't have to concern themselves with poor folks like you), lower taxes (so that the folks who would have protected you all have to get jobs elsewhere), and less government (meaning they don't give a s**t what happens to you anyway). Might as well be Afghanistan.

      I was a little closer to the Caldera/SCO situation than you sound. Besides knowing many of the players, I had stock in the company before they got really bad. Ray Noorda was the real founder of Caldera. Ransom is a nice guy, but never functioned near that level and anyway they didn't ever let him run the company. He was just the spokesman. The way the Noorda family let Yarrow run off with SCO instead of continuing legal action against him is just insane, caused us unending grief, and appears to have resulted in their only daughter's suicide as well as that of Robert Penrose.

      I have no problem with saying that Caldera used the two words in sequence once. It's just completely irrelevant.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
  9. It's all fake by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The companies involved have never been known to bring suit regarding Open Source licenses. The promise to give a cure period is thus hollow.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  10. Fox fixing the hen-house by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft is as likely to cure OSS licensing problems as undertakers are to cure cancer.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Fox fixing the hen-house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be quite so cynical. The President of Microsoft is a lawyer, and out of my small group of friends, three are lawyers that work at Microsoft. I'm sure they would like to decrease their legal costs. I know their move to Git was held-up for months by their lawyers.

    2. Re:Fox fixing the hen-house by stooo · · Score: 2, Informative

      >> three are lawyers that work at Microsoft. I'm sure they would like to decrease their legal costs. I know their move to Git was held-up for months by their lawyers.
      Microsoft should hire programmers. Not lawyers.
      You should search some new friends :)

      --
      aaaaaaa
    3. Re:Fox fixing the hen-house by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      Not every company is Oracle with an army of lawyers on the offensive, deciding which hostages customers they're going to beat up today.

      No, but having spent a long time fighting Microsoft's lawyers when they were working to get royalty-bearing patents in Internet standards, which would have been bad for Open Source, I think they are guilty of the same sins as Oracle.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
  11. Re:Ah, so.... by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

    I'll take these guys seriously once they make a legally binding commitment to handle violations of THEIR copyrights by the same rules that they want to impose on people using the GPL.

    Reading comprehension fail. From TFS: "The companies which have agreed to adopt the 'Common Cure Rights Commitment' said before they file or continue to prosecute those accused of violating covered licenses, they will allow for users to cure and reinstate their licenses."

    They use the GPL. They are pledging to to this with their copyrighted material licensed under the GPL.

    Geesh...

  12. The Easiest Cure... by CRB9000 · · Score: 2

    Surgeon Microsoft has advised the patient, "Sometimes, the easiest cure is to kill the patient."

  13. Re: Ah, so.... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The companies which have just promised to give people time before they sue are not known for ever having sued regarding a GPL license. Thus, this is posturing.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  14. Re: Ah, so.... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

    Of course to us it's as if you don't exist as well.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  15. I'm confused... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

    ...Is this is "Extend" or "Extinguish" phase?

    It's surely one or the other.

    1. Re:I'm confused... by stooo · · Score: 1

      MS is confused also

      --
      aaaaaaa
  16. Re: Ah, so.... by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

    The companies which have just promised to give people time before they sue are not known for ever having sued regarding a GPL license. Thus, this is posturing.

    Or they have been practicing what they preach, and are now putting a public face on the policy in order to pressure others to do the same. Just because the FSF/SFLC works with those in breach to resolve the problem without litigation does not mean that there are not bad actors as well.

  17. Re: Ah, so.... by orlanz · · Score: 1

    I think the GP is referring to the MS & IBM membership in the BSA. Which they still are. The BSA, where you are guilty until you expend the resources to prove without a doubt, your innocence. Kind of the opposite of this where someone already finds you guilty and now you want to negotiate how to come into compliance and waive the punishment.

  18. Re: Ah, so.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Of course to us it's as if you don't exist as well.

    "Us"? Since when do you get to speak for Free Software, when the Open Source Initiative which you champion is diluting its message with your talk of what supposedly is and is not Open Source?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. Re: Ah, so.... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    "Us"? Since when do you get to speak for Free Software, when the Open Source Initiative which you champion is diluting its message with your talk of what supposedly is and is not Open Source?

    This is new. I've not seen you actually attempt to champion Free Software.

    Well, I'm a Free Software author, and in general apply FSF licenses like the GPL to my work. Thus, I apply words like we and us to myself and other people like me.

    Also, as is widely published and I'd hope you would have read it by now, my founding of the Open Source initiative was done to help to attract people to the concept of Free Software, and specifically FSF and Richard's philosophy, by introducing it to them in terms they would more readily understand and sympathize with. And as far as I am aware, this has been effective.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  20. Re: Ah, so.... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    There seems to be one "bad actor". Just one. But he's only a bad actor in terms of a completely voluntary community norm which nobody is compelled to follow, rather than the law.

    Also, these companies would be practicing what they preach if they extended cure periods to their proprietary licenses. Which I doubt they do. They are still BSA members, and BSA has been a model for copyright trolling which the bad actor in this case might have been inspired by.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  21. Taking the teeth out of GPL by Humbubba · · Score: 1
    Microsoft and the Party Pooper Proprietary just want a Mulligan: no court, no fine - just let them off, and they'll not get caught next time.

    If they really wanted "a more balanced approach", they would give a Mulligan to anyone caught using their code. And just to be fair and balanced, they would need to make all of their code available for everyone's perusal. Yeah, right. That's going to happen.

  22. Re:Ah, so.... by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Image people jumping to that conclusion just because of three decades of bad behaviour.

  23. Re: Ah, so.... by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

    There seems to be one "bad actor". Just one. But he's only a bad actor in terms of a completely voluntary community norm which nobody is compelled to follow, rather than the law.

    Minimize and excuse while attacking the "posturing" companies for following the community norm? Surely you're better than that, Bruce.

    Also, these companies would be practicing what they preach if they extended cure periods to their proprietary licenses. Which I doubt they do.

    Apple and oranges, Bruce. Their proprietary licenses do not "terminate" so that it becomes impossible to become licensed by purchasing the commercial product. The GPLv2 purports to do so. Having represented clients in BSA audits, I have firsthand knowledge that their "trolling" consists of demanding a small multiple of the retail price of the missing licenses. That is a far cry from McHardy's shenanigans

    Unless you can identify specific and deleterious differences between the RedHat approach and the Community Enforcement Statement, this is merely a cheap shot against corporate contributors to GPLed projects. 99% of individual contributors to projects never assert their copyright either. Am I to assume that you'll attack those that sign on to the Community Enforcement Statement for "posturing" as well?

  24. Re: Ah, so.... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    For values of "bad" that equal, "takes a position contrary to mine," sure.

    But that isn't what "bad actor" actually means in English. He's acting in exactly the way that was anticipated by the copyright strategy of the Linux kernel. If they decided at this point that they were wrong that that strategy was good, well that is them realizing that they were bad in the past, it doesn't make the one guy who agreed with their original position into a "bad actor."

    The accusation that he's a "bad actor" appears to be in "bad faith" as you actually do know what words mean, and what the history of this issue is.

    He's being made a scapegoat entirely because so many "open source" people don't want to admit that the Free Software Foundation was right about copyright assignments. They have to run around lying to each other because they can't admit that St. Ignucius was Right!

  25. Re: Ah, so.... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    While I normally am happy to join in complaining about people speaking for others, here he only declares that some "us" exists, and have a shared experience.

    As he has actually followers in real life on this very topic, it seems rather obvious that he can represent anything he says as being the opinion of "us" instead of himself.

    Notice you're the one saying his "us" would have to be all of Free Software, not him?

  26. Re: Ah, so.... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    The kernel developers have some chance of bringing suits, and all who would actually do so had already offered much longer periods for infringers to resolve their issues before this agreement. Companies that are involved in Open Source software have a strong business reason not to sue and scare customers away. So, there is a pretty big element of posturing IMO.

    And if the kernel team are now so enamored of GPL3's terms, why don't they adopt the license, which they so defamed when it came out?

    I am not convinced that McHardy is discovering new infringements. Thus, the parties he has gone after have probably been informed years ago, perhaps by another member of the kernel team or SFC. This doesn't mean I think McHardy's nice.

    The last time I had a legal argument with you, you spouted a lot of stuff that it turned out the court tossed aside in one sentence. So, I am dubious about your representations of your standing as an attorney or what you've done for your customers.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  27. Re: Ah, so.... by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

    The last time I had a legal argument with you, you spouted a lot of stuff that it turned out the court tossed aside in one sentence. So, I am dubious about your representations of your standing as an attorney or what you've done for your customers.

    I'm sorry, Bruce, but are you referring to that nonsense where you claimed that customers of a distributor who received GPLv2 software would be violating the GPLv2 if their distributor had violated the GPLv2 because they had not received a valid license?

    Do you care to provide a link to that opinion and to identify the "one sentence," because Open Source Security, Inc. and Bradley Spengler v. Bruce Perens did not rule on whether the statement was true or not - merely that Spengler could not stop you from publishing your (erroneous) analysis.

    I'm pretty sure that I never opined on whether their suit against you would succeed -- that was a fool's errand. Come back to me when someone successfully sues one of Open Source Security, Inc.'s customers for infringement.

  28. Re: Ah, so.... by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

    The last time I had a legal argument with you, you spouted a lot of stuff that it turned out the court tossed aside in one sentence. So, I am dubious about your representations of your standing as an attorney or what you've done for your customers.

    Perhaps that "one sentence" was within this gem:

    "Similarly, Mr. Perens -- who is not a lawyer -- voiced an opinion about whether the Grsecurity Access Agreement violated the General Public License. No court has addressed the legal issue. Thus, his 'opinion' is not a 'fact' that can be proven provably false and thus is not actionable as defamation."

    Case 3:17-cv-04002-LB Document 53, p. 14 ll. 23-26 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017).

    Well that certainly proves that your opinion is correct... /s.

  29. sure by sad_ · · Score: 1

    'fix' the license problem.
    and it's a problem for who, exactly?
    riiiiight...

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  30. Translation: by rcharbon · · Score: 1

    "When we get caught stealing, we get to make it go away instead of paying any penalties. It's the American way."

  31. Re: Ah, so.... GRSecurity is infringing by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

    Argue all you want. You are simply wrong.

    The GPLv2 does not impose any obligation to provide current, much less future support, to distributed code.

    The GRSecurity "separate writing" only terminates an obligation to provide future support (updates and source code to update) if the source code is disclosed.

    Ego, it is not an "additional restrictive term" under the GPL.

    It is you who is simply wrong.

  32. Re:HEY SHLUB. Who's case is going before the highe by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

    Hey, shlub, who's case is going before the 9th circuit and who's is not?

    Not yours. Potentially because you can't distinguish between a contraction (who's) and a possessive (whose).

    I think Bruce has superior lawyers than the likes of you.

    And I think that a monkey could have beaten that SLAPP suit, which did not rule on whether there actually was any GPLv2 violation or not.

    Hopefully they'll argue there about the root of this case, like Brad Spengler lawyer wants.

    9 months running says that it doesn't happen. Plus Bruce lacks standing to sue.