It is sensible to take a dispute to the court system when other methods of resolving it have failed. In this particular case, taking the matter to the courts at this point in time seems grotesquely premature. The principle of preserving liberty via the law is key to the GPL and other licenses, but that general principle by no means implies the courts are the only, or even preferred method for doing so. An individual who looks for opportunities to create disputes and then leverages their position by dragging the matter into court as soon as possible hardly seems to me to be a true friend of liberty.
I have been following this controversy as it has snowballed over the past several weeks, and one thing is supremely clear: almost nobody understands the legal facts of the situation. In fact, because there are very few court-established precedents involving the overlap of multiple free software licenses, and the dispute involves code written in several different nations, hosted on servers in others, etc, even a lawyer who is knowledgeable about software licensing might say "we won't know the answer to that until it is ruled on by a court of law or new laws are passed by a legislature". The fundamental subject matter under discussion, the Atheros wireless drivers, is composed of chunks of code of which some are under BSD, and some are dual BSD/GPL licensed, from multiple authors, and with numerous small changes and emendations.
The issues and complexities involve do need to be clarified and I think in the long-run this controversy will have a great deal of positive benefit. Unfortunately, in the short-term, the viciously combative and aggressive personality of Theo de Raadt (as well as a few other individuals in both the BSD and Linux camps) is making the process of working out the issues much harder. Basically, Theo assumed bad faith from the outset, pouncing on a mislicensed patch with barely suppressed glee. It's obvious he was spoiling for a fight and has tried to throw as much mud as possible.
It's very bizarre to see someone who advocates the BSD license as the 'most free' try to find grounds for a lawsuit(!) on the basis of a licensing confusion of this nature. Considering that the GPL and BSD licenses are really just a slightly different vision on the best way to achieve a common goal -- freely available open code for all -- its almost tragic to see a community leader try so hard to disrupt and fragment the community. There are LEGITIMATE issues at stake here, and there ARE ethical and legal issues involved in how BSD-developed code is used in the Linux kernel. There probably are 'gpl zealots' who want as much code gpl-ed as possible, and may have been mistaken about what was permissible. Considering the publicness of Linux kernel development, problems are easy to find and fix, and there is no need for wild accusations and politicization of the process.
The quantum computer referenced in the summary managed the immense feat of finding the factors of the number 15. While it is true that factoring numbers of the magnitude used in cryptography is now a "matter of engineering", there are profound difficulties involved in scaling quantum computing. The fundamental problem is called "decoherence" and describes the tendency of quantum systems to become entangled with their environment, and the consequent loss of pure quantum states. The issues involved in quantum computation connect to deep issues of thermodynamics and entropy, and research on quantum computation has potentially great significance for fundamental physics. Cryptography may have to develop and implement new, extended standards as computational techniques evolve, but the encryption sky is not yet falling.
Do you think 'uniqueness' has any validity as a criterion for evaluating a theory in the absence of experimental evidence? Some writers seem to think the fact that inflationary expansion has been modeled in a multitude of ways via more than one mechanism is an indication it might not be valid, because it requires too much fine-tuning. The same has been said of the incredible variety of different approaches to string theory, for instance the inability to choose a preferred calabi-yau geometry for the extra dimensions. I've heard that one of the reasons that electroweak unification was accepted quickly was that it seemed to be the only renormalizable theory of its type.
Should we be looking for a cosmological model that produces a unique prediction of the universe with the characteristics we observe, or should we rely on the antropic principle to put is in the 'right' universe out of a huge variety of theoretically possible cosmological evolutions (which I understand to be a popular perspective in the 'continuous inflation' camp.)
I believe fair use rights should be greatly expanded, and defended against incursion from DRM technologies and bad laws like the DMCA. Unfortunately, this study is a good example of using meaningless statistics to prove a point. The statistics are based on studying what are referred to as "Fair Use Industries" such as education and software, but there is no meaningful way to quantify (for instance) exactly how much the relatively lax enforcement of copyright law against educational photocopies really contributes to the economic value of the education industry. I believe that this study does demonstrate just how important the free flow of information is to many important industries, but the leap from that well-supported assertion to a statement claiming a particular dollar amount benefit from fair use rights is not justified.
In current usage String Theory == M Theory. Ever since Witten and friends showed the mathematical equivalence of the various approaches to string theory, "M theory" is usually interpreted as referring to "string theory, once it is more complete and testable than currently". On the subject of grain of salt, actually reading TFA shows that this report doesn't really mean much. The fact that inflation was hard model using the particular tools chosen by these researchers can't be extrapolated to string/M theory as a whole...because as of yet all our string theories are highly approximated. In fact, an exact mathematical characerization of inflation hasn't been done successfully within ANY fully developed framework. It's almost a chicken-and-the-egg problem: explaining inflation is a key test of a correct quantum gravity theory, but without a quantum theory of gravity and cosmology we can't even be sure inflation really happened!
I must say Microsoft + Novell's strategy is absolutely brilliant. Microsoft's announcement that Silverlight would be fully supported on Linux because of their partnership with Novell reminds me of a classic Chess gambit, offering a small sacrifice of material to gain a superior strategic position. Of course 'fully supported' comes with the small print that you have to lock into a distribution system that still feeds Microsoft revenue, and enables them to gradually gain control over a competing platform. Fighting Adobe and GNU/Linux at the same time, with one integrated product/patent package! The architects of this strategy must be Ballmer's favorite employees.
The countless apologists and pragmatists will have the standard laundry list of reasons why its no-big-deal and how the biggest barrier to Free Software is an antagonistic attitude, etc, etc, but the actions of Microsoft and its partners are transparently designed with "control and capture" as their goal, not "collaborate". A hypothetical next step: MS provides proprietary tools for SLED to allow it to read and write OOXML documents, available "free" to all SLED users who are also hold Windows/Office licenses. The model of using patent protected proprietary components distributed under special-purpose licenses to dance around the GPL is being implemented and extended.
Q: What happened? A: A contributor of a patch to the linux kernel didn't notice that it contained both dual-licensed and BSD-only code, and posted a diff that GPL'ed the whole thing.
Q: What happened then? A: Several things. 1) The mistaken (and clearly incorrect) change of license on BSD-only code was rectified. 2) Theo de Raadt leaped upon this golden opportunity to accuse the linux kernel developers of stealing code and eating babies 3) Separate issues of the legal and ethical obligations related to license changes, dual-licensing, proprietary software, and the price of peanuts in Perth were immediately injected in the discussion and a classic internet blizzard of bullshit blanketed the land of free software.
Q: Latest news? A: Several developers involved have attempted to help the situation by saying they want collaboration and harmony and dual-licensing their code, but these positive efforts have gone mostly unnoticed as everyone on all sides proceeds to get angry and confused. Apparently high intensity behind the scenes consultations with Eben Moglen have resulted in a daring mission to dual license an OS/2 + Novell Netware application stack under GPL 3 as translated into Babylonian Cuneiform, thus simplifying the situation for everyone.
Q: What's the moral of the story? A: Sometimes, cooperation is harder to achieve than competition, or "the greedy fox gets stuck debugging the rotten oysters".
Theo de Raadt wrote:
"Well, the lesson they have really taught us is that they consider the GPL their best tool to take from us!"
This kind of statement doesn't seem like its going to change Theo's "difficult" reputation. The sad (almost tragic) animosities and controversies that swirl around free software licensing require a lot more cooperative spirit than Mr. de Raadt ever seems to manifest. Freedom isn't an easy word to define, nor is fostering freedom easy to practice in a world where control and coercion are the norm. I sympathize with those who find the BSD license "more free" -- but as a user, I find the GPL does a better job protecting MY freedom.
I do agree with Mr. de Raadt's statement that dual-licensing should be maintained on code blocks that are substantially collaborative between the communities, because this benefits everyone. I think it's more important to make sure to NOT lock BSD out of improvements to their drivers than it is to keep the code from being repurposed by proprietary vendors out.
Slashdot Mirror
It is sensible to take a dispute to the court system when other methods of resolving it have failed. In this particular case, taking the matter to the courts at this point in time seems grotesquely premature. The principle of preserving liberty via the law is key to the GPL and other licenses, but that general principle by no means implies the courts are the only, or even preferred method for doing so. An individual who looks for opportunities to create disputes and then leverages their position by dragging the matter into court as soon as possible hardly seems to me to be a true friend of liberty.
I have been following this controversy as it has snowballed over the past several weeks, and one thing is supremely clear: almost nobody understands the legal facts of the situation. In fact, because there are very few court-established precedents involving the overlap of multiple free software licenses, and the dispute involves code written in several different nations, hosted on servers in others, etc, even a lawyer who is knowledgeable about software licensing might say "we won't know the answer to that until it is ruled on by a court of law or new laws are passed by a legislature". The fundamental subject matter under discussion, the Atheros wireless drivers, is composed of chunks of code of which some are under BSD, and some are dual BSD/GPL licensed, from multiple authors, and with numerous small changes and emendations.
The issues and complexities involve do need to be clarified and I think in the long-run this controversy will have a great deal of positive benefit. Unfortunately, in the short-term, the viciously combative and aggressive personality of Theo de Raadt (as well as a few other individuals in both the BSD and Linux camps) is making the process of working out the issues much harder. Basically, Theo assumed bad faith from the outset, pouncing on a mislicensed patch with barely suppressed glee. It's obvious he was spoiling for a fight and has tried to throw as much mud as possible.
It's very bizarre to see someone who advocates the BSD license as the 'most free' try to find grounds for a lawsuit(!) on the basis of a licensing confusion of this nature. Considering that the GPL and BSD licenses are really just a slightly different vision on the best way to achieve a common goal -- freely available open code for all -- its almost tragic to see a community leader try so hard to disrupt and fragment the community. There are LEGITIMATE issues at stake here, and there ARE ethical and legal issues involved in how BSD-developed code is used in the Linux kernel. There probably are 'gpl zealots' who want as much code gpl-ed as possible, and may have been mistaken about what was permissible. Considering the publicness of Linux kernel development, problems are easy to find and fix, and there is no need for wild accusations and politicization of the process.
The quantum computer referenced in the summary managed the immense feat of finding the factors of the number 15. While it is true that factoring numbers of the magnitude used in cryptography is now a "matter of engineering", there are profound difficulties involved in scaling quantum computing. The fundamental problem is called "decoherence" and describes the tendency of quantum systems to become entangled with their environment, and the consequent loss of pure quantum states. The issues involved in quantum computation connect to deep issues of thermodynamics and entropy, and research on quantum computation has potentially great significance for fundamental physics. Cryptography may have to develop and implement new, extended standards as computational techniques evolve, but the encryption sky is not yet falling.
Do you think 'uniqueness' has any validity as a criterion for evaluating a theory in the absence of experimental evidence? Some writers seem to think the fact that inflationary expansion has been modeled in a multitude of ways via more than one mechanism is an indication it might not be valid, because it requires too much fine-tuning. The same has been said of the incredible variety of different approaches to string theory, for instance the inability to choose a preferred calabi-yau geometry for the extra dimensions. I've heard that one of the reasons that electroweak unification was accepted quickly was that it seemed to be the only renormalizable theory of its type.
Should we be looking for a cosmological model that produces a unique prediction of the universe with the characteristics we observe, or should we rely on the antropic principle to put is in the 'right' universe out of a huge variety of theoretically possible cosmological evolutions (which I understand to be a popular perspective in the 'continuous inflation' camp.)
I believe fair use rights should be greatly expanded, and defended against incursion from DRM technologies and bad laws like the DMCA. Unfortunately, this study is a good example of using meaningless statistics to prove a point. The statistics are based on studying what are referred to as "Fair Use Industries" such as education and software, but there is no meaningful way to quantify (for instance) exactly how much the relatively lax enforcement of copyright law against educational photocopies really contributes to the economic value of the education industry. I believe that this study does demonstrate just how important the free flow of information is to many important industries, but the leap from that well-supported assertion to a statement claiming a particular dollar amount benefit from fair use rights is not justified.
In current usage String Theory == M Theory. Ever since Witten and friends showed the mathematical equivalence of the various approaches to string theory, "M theory" is usually interpreted as referring to "string theory, once it is more complete and testable than currently". On the subject of grain of salt, actually reading TFA shows that this report doesn't really mean much. The fact that inflation was hard model using the particular tools chosen by these researchers can't be extrapolated to string/M theory as a whole...because as of yet all our string theories are highly approximated. In fact, an exact mathematical characerization of inflation hasn't been done successfully within ANY fully developed framework. It's almost a chicken-and-the-egg problem: explaining inflation is a key test of a correct quantum gravity theory, but without a quantum theory of gravity and cosmology we can't even be sure inflation really happened!
I must say Microsoft + Novell's strategy is absolutely brilliant. Microsoft's announcement that Silverlight would be fully supported on Linux because of their partnership with Novell reminds me of a classic Chess gambit, offering a small sacrifice of material to gain a superior strategic position. Of course 'fully supported' comes with the small print that you have to lock into a distribution system that still feeds Microsoft revenue, and enables them to gradually gain control over a competing platform. Fighting Adobe and GNU/Linux at the same time, with one integrated product/patent package! The architects of this strategy must be Ballmer's favorite employees.
The countless apologists and pragmatists will have the standard laundry list of reasons why its no-big-deal and how the biggest barrier to Free Software is an antagonistic attitude, etc, etc, but the actions of Microsoft and its partners are transparently designed with "control and capture" as their goal, not "collaborate". A hypothetical next step: MS provides proprietary tools for SLED to allow it to read and write OOXML documents, available "free" to all SLED users who are also hold Windows/Office licenses. The model of using patent protected proprietary components distributed under special-purpose licenses to dance around the GPL is being implemented and extended.
I for one welcome our new dual-jawed eel overlords.
Q: What happened?
A: A contributor of a patch to the linux kernel didn't notice that it contained both dual-licensed and BSD-only code, and posted a diff that GPL'ed the whole thing.
Q: What happened then?
A: Several things. 1) The mistaken (and clearly incorrect) change of license on BSD-only code was rectified. 2) Theo de Raadt leaped upon this golden opportunity to accuse the linux kernel developers of stealing code and eating babies 3) Separate issues of the legal and ethical obligations related to license changes, dual-licensing, proprietary software, and the price of peanuts in Perth were immediately injected in the discussion and a classic internet blizzard of bullshit blanketed the land of free software.
Q: Latest news?
A: Several developers involved have attempted to help the situation by saying they want collaboration and harmony and dual-licensing their code, but these positive efforts have gone mostly unnoticed as everyone on all sides proceeds to get angry and confused. Apparently high intensity behind the scenes consultations with Eben Moglen have resulted in a daring mission to dual license an OS/2 + Novell Netware application stack under GPL 3 as translated into Babylonian Cuneiform, thus simplifying the situation for everyone.
Q: What's the moral of the story?
A: Sometimes, cooperation is harder to achieve than competition, or "the greedy fox gets stuck debugging the rotten oysters".
Theo de Raadt wrote: "Well, the lesson they have really taught us is that they consider the GPL their best tool to take from us!" This kind of statement doesn't seem like its going to change Theo's "difficult" reputation. The sad (almost tragic) animosities and controversies that swirl around free software licensing require a lot more cooperative spirit than Mr. de Raadt ever seems to manifest. Freedom isn't an easy word to define, nor is fostering freedom easy to practice in a world where control and coercion are the norm. I sympathize with those who find the BSD license "more free" -- but as a user, I find the GPL does a better job protecting MY freedom. I do agree with Mr. de Raadt's statement that dual-licensing should be maintained on code blocks that are substantially collaborative between the communities, because this benefits everyone. I think it's more important to make sure to NOT lock BSD out of improvements to their drivers than it is to keep the code from being repurposed by proprietary vendors out.