Another reason could be that Linus is an a-political OSS writer, while the FS Award seems to be oriented at ideology. Last year's winner, IIRC, was Lawrence Lessig. I've never used a line of software he's written, but he's going all the way for FS ideology.
I'd say that Theo is much further from the FSF's ideology than Linus is. Linus at least likes the GPL.
Looking at past winners, no doubt they all deserve it.. but what about Linus Torvalds? Is there a reason he didnt get this award?
I don't know whether this is still the policy, but from memory they originally aimed for this award to go to people who hadn't already received other awards for their work on free software. Linus has so wouldn't be eligible.
I should add that I'm not saying that this necessarily is blackmail. That would depend on whether the demand was unwarranted which in turn would depend on whether "he has reasonable grounds for making the demand" and whether "the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand". I suspect TT would claim to satisfy both of these conditions. However, blackmail at least in the UK is not limited to a "threat to expose embarrasing information unless paid off".
Blackmail is a threat to expose embarassing information unless paid off.
In the UK, at least, "A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or asnother or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes unwarranted demand with menaces..." (Theft Act 1968 Section 21 - based on age old common law).
There are two positions that you have adopted. One of these over the course of many years is that 'open source' means the same as 'free software' and your organisation has actively encouraged people to use the term open source to mean free software.
The other position, which is specifically at issue in this thread, is the idea that whether software is 'open source' or not depends on whether it or its license has been certified by the OSI.
Do you assert that the OSI certifying or not certifying a license changes whether or not it is an open souce license? That is what you said above.
Do you assert that 'open source' means the same as 'free software'?
Is it your position that whether something is 'free software' depends on whether it's certified by the OSI?
Well, actually, it does, but who am I to say that?
Apparently someone who persuaded others to use the term open source by convincing them it meant the same as 'free software' and is now trying to convice them that he can change the words to mean something else now that they're using them. You don't control the words in my mouth.
Corporations have the right to enter into contracts as people. They like to pretend to have other rights, such as freedom of speech.
Corporations can only act through human agents, so the question of whether the "corporation" has a right to freedom of speech is meaningless. You can't prevent an employee of the corporation from expressing the corporation's message without interfering with the employee's freedom of speech.
Fink is joined by John Swainson, chief executive at Computer Associates, who believes that there is a need for just three open-source licenses: the General Public license (GPL); the Lesser General Public license; and a version that has more restrictions for applications in commercial environments.
As far as I can tell that "version that has more restrictions for applications in a commercial environment" would actually mean "license that has less restrictions against incorporating into proprietary code". i.e. BSD or equivalent. I could be wrong though, it's confusingly written.
Fink is joined by John Swainson, chief executive at Computer Associates, who believes that there is a need for just three open-source licenses: the General Public license (GPL); the Lesser General Public license; and a version that has more restrictions for applications in commercial environments.
So it sounds like the list under discussion includes LGPL.
If OSI completely change their policy on license recognition then I suspect that Source Forge will change their policy on only accepting OSI licenses. I could be wrong though, we'll have to see.
What they are doing is branding the term "Open Source" and this will not change the meaning of "open source" (note small "o" and small "s").
I don't have a problem with them recommending a narrow range of licenses. I probably agree with them on their choices, I do with respect to GPL and BSD, don't know what the other one is. I see what they're trying to achieve. However, pretending that the other licenses aren't 'Open Source' any more or, worse, pretending that I need their permission on which letters to capitalize is only going to get them laughed at.
If they get a court order against me in my jurisdiction then I'll consider listening to them on what letters I can capitalize in open source. Until then, dream on.
You're free to write whatever license you want; they are free to refuse to certify it.
That's fine, and I can refuse to certify theirs back. That doesn't change whether my license, or theirs, is open source.
I'm entirely happy with them saying 'we at OSDL/OSI recommend the following licenses: GPL, BSD and [whatever]'. If that's all they mean then fine. Don't try telling me that they've thereby 'cut back on the number of open source licenses'.
I don't believe that there is an official "diplomatic" language of the EU, but if you could provide cites to back that up then I would be interested in reading them.
Amazing! So they pretty much said "Yeah, we lie to people. We're lying to people about this. But don't worry, we wouldn't lie to YOU. You're special to us!"
Yes, exactly. It is not right or moral or ethical to threaten to sack people in order to gain leverage over others. It doesn't matter whether the person you're trying to pressure is the parent or the child or the government of the person you're threatening to fire, this is clearly wrong. If he doesn't like their work, fine, but if he just wants to use them as targets for pressuring others then that is vindictive, petty and WRONG.
Navision historically has sold its wares in europe. So patent/copyright laws in europe are very much relevant in europe.
To their continuing to produce this at all? Possibly, yes, you'd have to wonder why they bought the company in the first place if they couldn't compete in a market without software patents but fair enough I guess everyone makes mistakes. However, he's not saying he'd close the operation down completely, he's saying he'd sack all the Danish workers and hire US ones instead. And he's pretending that that's based on having more protection if the workers are in the US, which is a fabrication. Where the software is developed has no impact on its patentability in different markets.
Also, the denmark office was an aquisition which afaik is a separate company, Microsoft Business Solutions, that may be incorporated separately in Denmark for historical reasons.
Again, the location of the developers is irrelevant to the patents issue. I've got nothing against them closing that office if it makes sense to move all their interests closer to home. That's just a completely different subject.
let's be clear - I definitely think gates is saying something along the lines of "if you're not going to make an effort to protect software, i wont make an effort to continue investing in your economy". That seems like a reasonable thing to say, doesn't it ?
No, I don't think it's a reasonable thing to say. Having a monopoly on particular functionality in addition to having copyrights over the particular program isn't a REASONABLE expectation at all. However, if that was what he had said then I'd agree that it would be an HONEST thing to say, compared to what he actually came out with.
The only way this could be construed as immoral or objectionable activity...
Rubbish. I'll decide what I do and don't find objectionable, thank you. I find threatening people's livelihoods in order to bully their governments into enacting the legislation you want to be very highly objectionable.
Describing natural consequences of legislation is acceptable. That isn't what they are doing here. The place in which software is developed has no impact on whether it is patentable in any given market. This is a threat, pure and simple, it's a threat against innocent employees as a way of pressuring others, and it should be resisted.
Whatever it is, it's ludicrously transparent. According to the FFII's translation of the original Danish story, included in their statement on this, Bill said:
"If I'm to keep my development center in Denmark, then it's a requirement that the question of rights becomes resolved. Otherwise, I will move it to the USA where I can protect my rights"
In fact, the location that development takes place has nothing to do with patent validity. Software developed in Denmark can be patented in the USA regardless of Danish or EU laws. Software developed in the USA cannot be patented in countries that don't recognise software patents, ragardless of US laws.
There's no way that Billis misinformed enough to think otherwise. If he showed occasional signs of honesty or integrity then he might get more respect.
To fight unfair laws, you must first understand them.
And do you?
Architecture was not allowed to be copyrighted before 1990. It's not retroactive, so if the Prude was built before 1990, they're SOL.
Nope. They merely have to have made some alteration since 1990, or to do so now. It doesn't have to be anything extensive. Replace a window, that should do it. The new work consisting of the old uncopyrighted building and the new window create one glorious new copyrightable building.
Yes, copyright terms in general seem excessive and that's especially apparent in relation to software, but the general principal of copyrights still seems to be a good one.
Basically, if free software takes off and provides all the software everyone needs then there would be no need to revoke copyright laws since they wouldn't be doing any harm. If free software doesn't provide everything but leaves gaps for proprietary systems to fill then we still need an incentive mechanism to ensure that those gaps are filled. Either way, there is no good argument for abolishing copyright protection completely. Reforming it in some ways, most notably in duration, would make sense.
If you have a copy of the Theft Act 1968 handy, I'll walk you through it.
Section 1 defines theft. Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 define terms that are used in Section 1. Section 7 tells us that theft is illegal.
Then there's a load of other offences defined in subsequent sections.
Some of these other offences involve theft e.g. Robbery in section 8 only applies if someone "steals" which refers to theft (see section 1 again).
Other offences can involve theft but need not e.g. Burglary in section 9 can involve theft or attempted theft under section 9(1)(b) but doesn't have to under section 9(1)(a) applying the list of offences in section 9(2) - entering a building as a trespasser with intent to commit rape is burglary with no theft involved.
And other offences do not involve theft at all e.g. section 12 taking motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority (this is separately defined preceisley because it does not meet the definition of theft but parliament wished it to be illegal anyway - joyriders do not typically intend to permanently deprive the owner, they dump the car anyway).
Sections 15 and 16, covering obtaining property by deception and obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception respectively are amongst the offences that do not involve theft. Colloquially they would be called fraud.
Copyright infringement is not covered by the Theft Act at all of course.
NONE of that changes the fact that copyright infringement is illegal. None of it has any impact on the moral arguments. If you actually care about those aspects then it would be advisable to just say "yeah, it isn't theft, but so what? it's illegal and it's wrong" - or whatever you think are relevant issues.
You won't win on an argument that copyright is theft, because that is objectively wrong. And since the correct terminology is of little importance, why bother? It's like telling a man he shouldn't keep a dolphin in his bathtub because it's cruel to the fish then when he says "that's not a fish, it's a mammal" you decide to insist that it is so a fish. You're wrong about the terminology and it's a side issue anyway.
They are usually political appointees, failed politicians, industry bigwigs or civil servants who happen to be the Prime Minister's mate. In our case, it is Peter Mandelson, a Labour Party spin doctor and recipient of large interest-free loans amongst other dubious things.
You're thinking of the European Commission, not the Council of Ministers.
If the executive body can simply ignore the parliment, why does the parliment even exist?
The parliament does have some power. It can still vote this whole directive down, and there's at least a chance that it will if only out of anger at being ignored. I think it can dismiss the EU commission as well, though I doubt that's going to happen. It would be satsifying.
Slashdot Mirror
Another reason could be that Linus is an a-political OSS writer, while the FS Award seems to be oriented at ideology. Last year's winner, IIRC, was Lawrence Lessig. I've never used a line of software he's written, but he's going all the way for FS ideology.
I'd say that Theo is much further from the FSF's ideology than Linus is. Linus at least likes the GPL.
Looking at past winners, no doubt they all deserve it .. but what about Linus Torvalds?
Is there a reason he didnt get this award?
I don't know whether this is still the policy, but from memory they originally aimed for this award to go to people who hadn't already received other awards for their work on free software. Linus has so wouldn't be eligible.
I should add that I'm not saying that this necessarily is blackmail. That would depend on whether the demand was unwarranted which in turn would depend on whether "he has reasonable grounds for making the demand" and whether "the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand". I suspect TT would claim to satisfy both of these conditions. However, blackmail at least in the UK is not limited to a "threat to expose embarrasing information unless paid off".
Blackmail is a threat to expose embarassing information unless paid off.
In the UK, at least, "A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or asnother or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes unwarranted demand with menaces..." (Theft Act 1968 Section 21 - based on age old common law).
There are two positions that you have adopted. One of these over the course of many years is that 'open source' means the same as 'free software' and your organisation has actively encouraged people to use the term open source to mean free software.
The other position, which is specifically at issue in this thread, is the idea that whether software is 'open source' or not depends on whether it or its license has been certified by the OSI.
Do you assert that the OSI certifying or not certifying a license changes whether or not it is an open souce license? That is what you said above.
Do you assert that 'open source' means the same as 'free software'?
Is it your position that whether something is 'free software' depends on whether it's certified by the OSI?
Well, actually, it does, but who am I to say that?
Apparently someone who persuaded others to use the term open source by convincing them it meant the same as 'free software' and is now trying to convice them that he can change the words to mean something else now that they're using them. You don't control the words in my mouth.
Corporations have the right to enter into contracts as people. They like to pretend to have other rights, such as freedom of speech.
Corporations can only act through human agents, so the question of whether the "corporation" has a right to freedom of speech is meaningless. You can't prevent an employee of the corporation from expressing the corporation's message without interfering with the employee's freedom of speech.
Sounds like Saint Ignucius got a promotion.
From one of the articles:
So it sounds like the list under discussion includes LGPL.
I'll admit, I'm not quite sure what the "Commercial GPL" is, but I really hope that LGPL isn't eliminated.
How could OSI possibly 'eliminate' the LGPL?
If OSI completely change their policy on license recognition then I suspect that Source Forge will change their policy on only accepting OSI licenses. I could be wrong though, we'll have to see.
What they are doing is branding the term "Open Source" and this will not change the meaning of "open source" (note small "o" and small "s").
I don't have a problem with them recommending a narrow range of licenses. I probably agree with them on their choices, I do with respect to GPL and BSD, don't know what the other one is. I see what they're trying to achieve. However, pretending that the other licenses aren't 'Open Source' any more or, worse, pretending that I need their permission on which letters to capitalize is only going to get them laughed at.
If they get a court order against me in my jurisdiction then I'll consider listening to them on what letters I can capitalize in open source. Until then, dream on.
You're free to write whatever license you want; they are free to refuse to certify it.
That's fine, and I can refuse to certify theirs back. That doesn't change whether my license, or theirs, is open source.
I'm entirely happy with them saying 'we at OSDL/OSI recommend the following licenses: GPL, BSD and [whatever]'. If that's all they mean then fine. Don't try telling me that they've thereby 'cut back on the number of open source licenses'.
Actually, the two 'official' languages in Europe are English and ... French (/proud ^^). French is the "diplomatic language"
There are 20 official languages of the European Union.
I don't believe that there is an official "diplomatic" language of the EU, but if you could provide cites to back that up then I would be interested in reading them.
Amazing! So they pretty much said "Yeah, we lie to people. We're lying to people about this. But don't worry, we wouldn't lie to YOU. You're special to us!"
You mean the ones Gates himself employs?
Yes, exactly. It is not right or moral or ethical to threaten to sack people in order to gain leverage over others. It doesn't matter whether the person you're trying to pressure is the parent or the child or the government of the person you're threatening to fire, this is clearly wrong. If he doesn't like their work, fine, but if he just wants to use them as targets for pressuring others then that is vindictive, petty and WRONG.
Navision historically has sold its wares in europe. So patent/copyright laws in europe are very much relevant in europe.
To their continuing to produce this at all? Possibly, yes, you'd have to wonder why they bought the company in the first place if they couldn't compete in a market without software patents but fair enough I guess everyone makes mistakes. However, he's not saying he'd close the operation down completely, he's saying he'd sack all the Danish workers and hire US ones instead. And he's pretending that that's based on having more protection if the workers are in the US, which is a fabrication. Where the software is developed has no impact on its patentability in different markets.
Also, the denmark office was an aquisition which afaik is a separate company, Microsoft Business Solutions, that may be incorporated separately in Denmark for historical reasons.
Again, the location of the developers is irrelevant to the patents issue. I've got nothing against them closing that office if it makes sense to move all their interests closer to home. That's just a completely different subject.
let's be clear - I definitely think gates is saying something along the lines of "if you're not going to make an effort to protect software, i wont make an effort to continue investing in your economy". That seems like a reasonable thing to say, doesn't it ?
No, I don't think it's a reasonable thing to say. Having a monopoly on particular functionality in addition to having copyrights over the particular program isn't a REASONABLE expectation at all. However, if that was what he had said then I'd agree that it would be an HONEST thing to say, compared to what he actually came out with.
The only way this could be construed as immoral or objectionable activity...
Rubbish. I'll decide what I do and don't find objectionable, thank you. I find threatening people's livelihoods in order to bully their governments into enacting the legislation you want to be very highly objectionable.
Describing natural consequences of legislation is acceptable. That isn't what they are doing here. The place in which software is developed has no impact on whether it is patentable in any given market. This is a threat, pure and simple, it's a threat against innocent employees as a way of pressuring others, and it should be resisted.
Whatever it is, it's ludicrously transparent. According to the FFII's translation of the original Danish story, included in their statement on this, Bill said:
"If I'm to keep my development center in Denmark, then it's a
requirement that the question of rights becomes resolved. Otherwise, I
will move it to the USA where I can protect my rights"
In fact, the location that development takes place has nothing to do with patent validity. Software developed in Denmark can be patented in the USA regardless of Danish or EU laws. Software developed in the USA cannot be patented in countries that don't recognise software patents, ragardless of US laws.
There's no way that Billis misinformed enough to think otherwise. If he showed occasional signs of honesty or integrity then he might get more respect.
To fight unfair laws, you must first understand them.
And do you?
Architecture was not allowed to be copyrighted before 1990. It's not retroactive, so if the Prude was built before 1990, they're SOL.
Nope. They merely have to have made some alteration since 1990, or to do so now. It doesn't have to be anything extensive. Replace a window, that should do it. The new work consisting of the old uncopyrighted building and the new window create one glorious new copyrightable building.
Yes, copyright terms in general seem excessive and that's especially apparent in relation to software, but the general principal of copyrights still seems to be a good one.
Basically, if free software takes off and provides all the software everyone needs then there would be no need to revoke copyright laws since they wouldn't be doing any harm. If free software doesn't provide everything but leaves gaps for proprietary systems to fill then we still need an incentive mechanism to ensure that those gaps are filled. Either way, there is no good argument for abolishing copyright protection completely. Reforming it in some ways, most notably in duration, would make sense.
As a sibling post notes, you are wrong.
If you have a copy of the Theft Act 1968 handy, I'll walk you through it.
Section 1 defines theft. Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 define terms that are used in Section 1. Section 7 tells us that theft is illegal.
Then there's a load of other offences defined in subsequent sections.
Some of these other offences involve theft e.g. Robbery in section 8 only applies if someone "steals" which refers to theft (see section 1 again).
Other offences can involve theft but need not e.g. Burglary in section 9 can involve theft or attempted theft under section 9(1)(b) but doesn't have to under section 9(1)(a) applying the list of offences in section 9(2) - entering a building as a trespasser with intent to commit rape is burglary with no theft involved.
And other offences do not involve theft at all e.g. section 12 taking motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority (this is separately defined preceisley because it does not meet the definition of theft but parliament wished it to be illegal anyway - joyriders do not typically intend to permanently deprive the owner, they dump the car anyway).
Sections 15 and 16, covering obtaining property by deception and obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception respectively are amongst the offences that do not involve theft. Colloquially they would be called fraud.
Copyright infringement is not covered by the Theft Act at all of course.
NONE of that changes the fact that copyright infringement is illegal. None of it has any impact on the moral arguments. If you actually care about those aspects then it would be advisable to just say "yeah, it isn't theft, but so what? it's illegal and it's wrong" - or whatever you think are relevant issues.
You won't win on an argument that copyright is theft, because that is objectively wrong. And since the correct terminology is of little importance, why bother? It's like telling a man he shouldn't keep a dolphin in his bathtub because it's cruel to the fish then when he says "that's not a fish, it's a mammal" you decide to insist that it is so a fish. You're wrong about the terminology and it's a side issue anyway.
They are usually political appointees, failed politicians, industry bigwigs or civil servants who happen to be the Prime Minister's mate. In our case, it is Peter Mandelson, a Labour Party spin doctor and recipient of large interest-free loans amongst other dubious things.
You're thinking of the European Commission, not the Council of Ministers.
If the executive body can simply ignore the parliment, why does the parliment even exist?
The parliament does have some power. It can still vote this whole directive down, and there's at least a chance that it will if only out of anger at being ignored. I think it can dismiss the EU commission as well, though I doubt that's going to happen. It would be satsifying.
Who exactly are the ministers accountable to?
Their own national legislatures and electorates.