Yes, I'm actually hoping this gets to court. No one believes for a second that SCO was damaged by anything other than their own bumbling in the market place!
This case is important because it is the test of the GPL. It has the potential to answer the question, "Is the GPL a legally enforcable software license?" It also has the potential to establish the parameters around the GPL. The Open Source community seems to be afraid of having these questions answered.
Why though are they afraid? Perhaps, its because of the GPL is an attempt to use the protections of copyright law, to subvert the intent of copyright law. This is no idle matter. It is a valid subject to bring up and debate.
They are afraid because they believe 1) the protections of copyright law are legitimate, 2)the GPL is a subversion of it, and 3)making the GPL illegal will damage or destroy the open source community.
The first premise is that copyrights and patents are legitimate legal constructions which accomplish their stated purposes. The purpose, for example, of patents is to create an artificial monopoly to allow the inventor of the patented invention to bring his product to market WITHOUT COMPETITION for a period of time. The alleged protection is from the "Big Bully" on the block who would immediately offer his new product without allowing the creator just recompense for his efforts. The fear is that innovation would cease or slow if patents weren't granted as there would be less incentive to create these innovations.
The argument with copyrights is that without copyrights authors wouldn't create books, musicians wouldn't create music, and software developers wouldn't create software. But we know from experience that this is not true! The copyright is not for the creator, but for the distributer. Few developers, authors, or musicians achieve any great financial success from copyrights. The distribution companies do however.
In the software industry experience shows that neither patents or copyrights are necessary to create new and innovative software. The Apache Group, sourceforge, Linux, PHP, Perl, Python, etc. are all software projects which have succeeded with what could be considered subversive copyrights - Copyrights which allow copying and distribution without payment to the holder of the copyright. They have been created because they do the job!
Copyrights and patents are what this lawsuit is about, and with any luck it will go to trial. Either way the court case is decided is a benefit to the consumer. If SCO wins, the ridiculous of the nature of copyrights and patents will become more obvious and apply more pressure on consumers, thus causing more pressure on politicians. If however SCO loses, it will validate the nature of the GPL.
The GPL at heart is an attempt to reinvigorate the Commons, with a little bit of malice. Simply providing the source code into the public domain, would help the commons. However, the GPL attempts to subvert copyright laws and patent laws, by requiring code which comes into contact to be infected with the GPL. It operates on the assumption that the quality and quantity of content in the commons is more important than the artificially constructed monopolies of patents and copyrights! I happen to agree.
Copyrights and patents aren't used to protect the struggling inventor, the hungry artist, the mystery writer, the drug scientist, or the software developer. They are designed to provide the distributers of the copyrighted and patented products from competition. In practice we find that large corporations build up portfolios of intellectual property and use it to THWART THE COMPETITION OF THE SMALL BUSINESS OR INDIVIDUAL. With large pockets, legal threats and a vast arsenal of IP, a large company badgers a lesser competitor into selling or quitting.
In the SCO case we see the opposite. The little failed company is trying to eek out a little more value from its vaunted IP for the investors, before they go belly up. The fault isn't with SCO for doing it. It's a natural consequence of the desparateness of their position. The fault is with legally sanctioned monopolies on intellectual property WHICH CANNOT HELP BUT BE COPIED!
The parents aren't simply "wanting what's best for their children." As a parent the depth of my responsibility toward my child is greater. I have a responsibility to the society and to my child to assist him or her in becoming a useful,productive member of society. One ready and able to deal with life on life's terms.
As such I am responsible for the example I set and the "propoganda" I push either through my actions or my words. Conversely, I am also responsible to evaluate the affects of my information and example on him or her. If there are problems, I need to adjust the message or example I'm sending to my child, so that he has the information he needs to make good decisions.
I really do have a right to know. Because at 28 years my child will be a product that is in part a result of my actions.
When my child turns 18, I will no longer have any right to information he's not willing to give; therefore all of his decisions from that point forward will be up to him and will be his responsibility. And if he's not prepared at that time, I will feel that I've not done right by him.
I agree that a hawklike presence over my child's life would be detrimental. It is good to let a child make mistakes and learn from them. BUT IT'S THE PARENTS JOB TO KNOW WHEN TO STEER HIS CHILD AWAY FROM MISTAKES WHICH HAVE CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE MORE THAN HIS CHILD CAN HANDLE. That's my responsibility. My child's life must be an open book to me. Because until he's 18 the damage he causes to himself or other's are MY RESPONSIBILITY, NOT HIS.
Now parent's on the otherhand aren't at all perfect. Thus some children really are oppressed, over-protected, and some even left to fend for themselves. Other times they're wrong and the feelings of oppression are actually guilt or shame for being held accountable.
The misuse by a parent of this service, is truly a problem. But I would bet you that if a child feels the need to hide his grades from his parent, and the parent feels the need to be all-intrusive in his child's life, then the problems in that relationship aren't caused by a website like this. Getting rid of tools that show the parent how his child is doing, won't fix that relationship.
So if you make the statement, "a parent may end up being intrusive, therefore don't do it", I would argue that it this statement is false. In cases where this is true, the parent is already being intrusive and the problems in that relationship are not caused by this service.
if ( I.amIgnorantAboutJava()) { if ( I.amIgnorantAboutOO()) { I.buyAndRead(new Book("Thinking in Java")); } I.browseAndUse("http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tut orial"); } I.buyAndRead("Effective Java"); I.buyAndRead("Refactoring by Martin Fowler");
if (I.amInterestedInWebServices()) { get("JBoss","http://www.jboss.org"); get("Tomcat","http://jakarta.apache.org"); }
Relax,
This guy just isn't programming at a level where patterns matter to him... He's not creating Archituecture and Frameworks. He's down in the details of putting data in and out of forms. When he's been programming longer he'll get it...
my 2 cents.
I'm not an expert on scheme, so feel free to expand and rip my comparison, but I know a little and I believe that there is a corrolation.
In fact I would like to draw a comparison between Java and Scheme.
There are many implementations of Scheme and most use garbage collections, bytecode, and virtual machines... However, Java is popular and Scheme is not. There are several reasons, but two I would focus on are:
1. Organized Advocacy
2. Complexity of Fundamental Language.
Java is advocated by Sun Microsystems. They are focused and put a lot of marketing into it, got a lot of industry support. Scheme is... not really pushed by anyone.
2.The other contrast would be in the language itself. Java has been referred to as C++--, C++ without the C and multiple inheritance. Scheme though it does draw from an ancestor for form, i.e. Lisp, it contains language features which are both extremely powerful, and not easily grasped for entry level programmers, or for that matter self-taught programmers like myself with 5 years of programming in C/C++/Java and Perl. Scheme teaches continuations, tail recursion and hygenic macros. Those features are extremely powerful, and very different from what most programmers (c/c++/Java/Perl/Python) are used to with while loops, function calls, return values, etc. I believe from what I do understand about Scheme that it is a superset of Java/C++/C not a lesser language. It is more fundamental. Continuations, tail recursion, and hygenic macros can be used to build Object functionality, interface definitions, template behavior, multiple inheritance. The reverse is not true, C cannot be used (easily) to implement tail recursion, continuations, and hygenic macros. If I'm not mistaken, Scheme, which intends to be a useful implementation of Lambda Calculus, brings programs (as data) to the Mathematics realm, to be manipulated and calculated:)
So take these to Linux vs. Windows:
1. We should probably have a focused advocacy.
A non-profit organization could be useful here. IBM is advertising, but their base interest is IBM's viability not Linux's long term health. Neither are the other business (for-profit) organizations. How about a Super "LUG".
2. We've made vast strides in usability and in support services. But we absolutely must continue to pay attention to criticism about the product we deliver.
Amen,
I'm not an artist, but I feel for the artists, the stuff I've seen and read convince me that real artists (as marginal) as you may think they are, are getting f***ed by the Recording industry. Unless your a megastar you only get money from your shows...
Bottom line without exposure you don't get sales, or concert attendance to grow... The RIAA is trying to force a tighter stranglehold onto the marginal artists by forcing all music to come through them, but they're going to create (if they haven't already) a large underground music scene, where the quality (non-commercial) artists will go.
Let's all get real and attack the basis of this problem.
The companies, consortiums, and associations who support this technology have money, power and knowledge and are trying to eliminate fundamental threats to their sources of power and money.
The recording industry, movie industry, publisher's all have a vested interest in prohibitting open exchange of information. They have to have the underlying framework of the Digital Universe changed in order to maintain their control over authors, musicians, actors, editors, directors, etc.
And Microsoft and Intel are willing to do it, because their goals align. Microsoft and Intel are more than willing to incorporate those types of controls into they're software:
a. Microsoft will be able to sell and license security implementations in software, and
b. Intel will be able to do the same.
Money and power stay where they are.
Currently the Open Source movement is the solution to viruses and security threats, due to the open and rapid examination of bugs, holes in software. However, Microsoft and it appears Intel would like to do a better job by "certifying" "safe" software binaries/executables which will then be allowed to run. Again, I would prefer to trust the "Open Source" community, rather than a certifying organization. It becomes a single point of failure that becomes very painful to circumvent in the event of corruption.
While this "corruption" is possible/probable in any Open Source endeavor also, there is always (with the GPL/LGPL, at least) the ability of the "governed masses" to reclaim the code base and march off in a different direction. Not so with the Fritz chips/Palladium/Certifying Organizations...
What about the artists? How can we find a way to support the artists without paying the huge markups on the goods delivered which subsidize archaic, behemoth Distribution/Marketing organizations which are frankly obsolete and not adapting to the times.
(In fact, they appear to be attempting to adapt the world to them, instead!)
How do we serve the artist? We need to figure that out. Obviously, with musicians the support comes from live events or from television/webcast maybe even pay-per-view. They are forced to be fresh and new, and ever evolving, but still they will get the money more directly without as much of a middle man.
Actor's I find more difficult to determine the method of reimbursement. Live performances in this day and time are less common. Author's same thing, very difficult to earn from the written content. If it's instantly copyable... But I'm sure that we can find ways to rework our laws and police ourselves without resorting to big brother government/corporate babysitting...
Just some thoughts...
Mangr3n
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm actually hoping this gets to court. No one believes for a second that SCO was damaged by anything other than their own bumbling in the market place!
This case is important because it is the test of the GPL. It has the potential to answer the question, "Is the GPL a legally enforcable software license?" It also has the potential to establish the parameters around the GPL. The Open Source community seems to be afraid of having these questions answered.
Why though are they afraid? Perhaps, its because of the GPL is an attempt to use the protections of copyright law, to subvert the intent of copyright law. This is no idle matter. It is a valid subject to bring up and debate.
They are afraid because they believe 1) the protections of copyright law are legitimate, 2)the GPL is a subversion of it, and 3)making the GPL illegal will damage or destroy the open source community.
The first premise is that copyrights and patents are legitimate legal constructions which accomplish their stated purposes. The purpose, for example, of patents is to create an artificial monopoly to allow the inventor of the patented invention to bring his product to market WITHOUT COMPETITION for a period of time. The alleged protection is from the "Big Bully" on the block who would immediately offer his new product without allowing the creator just recompense for his efforts. The fear is that innovation would cease or slow if patents weren't granted as there would be less incentive to create these innovations.
The argument with copyrights is that without copyrights authors wouldn't create books, musicians wouldn't create music, and software developers wouldn't create software. But we know from experience that this is not true! The copyright is not for the creator, but for the distributer. Few developers, authors, or musicians achieve any great financial success from copyrights. The distribution companies do however.
In the software industry experience shows that neither patents or copyrights are necessary to create new and innovative software. The Apache Group, sourceforge, Linux, PHP, Perl, Python, etc. are all software projects which have succeeded with what could be considered subversive copyrights - Copyrights which allow copying and distribution without payment to the holder of the copyright. They have been created because they do the job!
Copyrights and patents are what this lawsuit is about, and with any luck it will go to trial. Either way the court case is decided is a benefit to the consumer. If SCO wins, the ridiculous of the nature of copyrights and patents will become more obvious and apply more pressure on consumers, thus causing more pressure on politicians. If however SCO loses, it will validate the nature of the GPL.
The GPL at heart is an attempt to reinvigorate the Commons, with a little bit of malice. Simply providing the source code into the public domain, would help the commons. However, the GPL attempts to subvert copyright laws and patent laws, by requiring code which comes into contact to be infected with the GPL. It operates on the assumption that the quality and quantity of content in the commons is more important than the artificially constructed monopolies of patents and copyrights! I happen to agree.
Copyrights and patents aren't used to protect the struggling inventor, the hungry artist, the mystery writer, the drug scientist, or the software developer. They are designed to provide the distributers of the copyrighted and patented products from competition. In practice we find that large corporations build up portfolios of intellectual property and use it to THWART THE COMPETITION OF THE SMALL BUSINESS OR INDIVIDUAL. With large pockets, legal threats and a vast arsenal of IP, a large company badgers a lesser competitor into selling or quitting.
In the SCO case we see the opposite. The little failed company is trying to eek out a little more value from its vaunted IP for the investors, before they go belly up. The fault isn't with SCO for doing it. It's a natural consequence of the desparateness of their position. The fault is with legally sanctioned monopolies on intellectual property WHICH CANNOT HELP BUT BE COPIED!
Thanks
David B.
The parents aren't simply "wanting what's best for their children." As a parent the depth of my responsibility toward my child is greater. I have a responsibility to the society and to my child to assist him or her in becoming a useful,productive member of society. One ready and able to deal with life on life's terms.
As such I am responsible for the example I set and the "propoganda" I push either through my actions or my words. Conversely, I am also responsible to evaluate the affects of my information and example on him or her. If there are problems, I need to adjust the message or example I'm sending to my child, so that he has the information he needs to make good decisions.
I really do have a right to know. Because at 28 years my child will be a product that is in part a result of my actions.
When my child turns 18, I will no longer have any right to information he's not willing to give; therefore all of his decisions from that point forward will be up to him and will be his responsibility. And if he's not prepared at that time, I will feel that I've not done right by him.
I agree that a hawklike presence over my child's life would be detrimental. It is good to let a child make mistakes and learn from them. BUT IT'S THE PARENTS JOB TO KNOW WHEN TO STEER HIS CHILD AWAY FROM MISTAKES WHICH HAVE CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE MORE THAN HIS CHILD CAN HANDLE. That's my responsibility. My child's life must be an open book to me. Because until he's 18 the damage he causes to himself or other's are MY RESPONSIBILITY, NOT HIS.
Now parent's on the otherhand aren't at all perfect. Thus some children really are oppressed, over-protected, and some even left to fend for themselves. Other times they're wrong and the feelings of oppression are actually guilt or shame for being held accountable.
The misuse by a parent of this service, is truly a problem. But I would bet you that if a child feels the need to hide his grades from his parent, and the parent feels the need to be all-intrusive in his child's life, then the problems in that relationship aren't caused by a website like this. Getting rid of tools that show the parent how his child is doing, won't fix that relationship.
So if you make the statement, "a parent may end up being intrusive, therefore don't do it", I would argue that it this statement is false. In cases where this is true, the parent is already being intrusive and the problems in that relationship are not caused by this service.
PS The security is an issue.
if ( I.amIgnorantAboutJava()) {t orial");
if ( I.amIgnorantAboutOO()) {
I.buyAndRead(new Book("Thinking in Java"));
}
I.browseAndUse("http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tu
}
I.buyAndRead("Effective Java");
I.buyAndRead("Refactoring by Martin Fowler");
if (I.amInterestedInWebServices()) {
get("JBoss","http://www.jboss.org");
get("Tomcat","http://jakarta.apache.org");
}
Relax, This guy just isn't programming at a level where patterns matter to him... He's not creating Archituecture and Frameworks. He's down in the details of putting data in and out of forms. When he's been programming longer he'll get it... my 2 cents.
I'm not an expert on scheme, so feel free to expand and rip my comparison, but I know a little and I believe that there is a corrolation. In fact I would like to draw a comparison between Java and Scheme. There are many implementations of Scheme and most use garbage collections, bytecode, and virtual machines... However, Java is popular and Scheme is not. There are several reasons, but two I would focus on are: 1. Organized Advocacy 2. Complexity of Fundamental Language. Java is advocated by Sun Microsystems. They are focused and put a lot of marketing into it, got a lot of industry support. Scheme is ... not really pushed by anyone.
2.The other contrast would be in the language itself. Java has been referred to as C++--, C++ without the C and multiple inheritance. Scheme though it does draw from an ancestor for form, i.e. Lisp, it contains language features which are both extremely powerful, and not easily grasped for entry level programmers, or for that matter self-taught programmers like myself with 5 years of programming in C/C++/Java and Perl. Scheme teaches continuations, tail recursion and hygenic macros. Those features are extremely powerful, and very different from what most programmers (c/c++/Java/Perl/Python) are used to with while loops, function calls, return values, etc. I believe from what I do understand about Scheme that it is a superset of Java/C++/C not a lesser language. It is more fundamental. Continuations, tail recursion, and hygenic macros can be used to build Object functionality, interface definitions, template behavior, multiple inheritance. The reverse is not true, C cannot be used (easily) to implement tail recursion, continuations, and hygenic macros. If I'm not mistaken, Scheme, which intends to be a useful implementation of Lambda Calculus, brings programs (as data) to the Mathematics realm, to be manipulated and calculated :)
So take these to Linux vs. Windows:
1. We should probably have a focused advocacy.
A non-profit organization could be useful here. IBM is advertising, but their base interest is IBM's viability not Linux's long term health. Neither are the other business (for-profit) organizations. How about a Super "LUG".
2. We've made vast strides in usability and in support services. But we absolutely must continue to pay attention to criticism about the product we deliver.
Amen, I'm not an artist, but I feel for the artists, the stuff I've seen and read convince me that real artists (as marginal) as you may think they are, are getting f***ed by the Recording industry. Unless your a megastar you only get money from your shows... Bottom line without exposure you don't get sales, or concert attendance to grow... The RIAA is trying to force a tighter stranglehold onto the marginal artists by forcing all music to come through them, but they're going to create (if they haven't already) a large underground music scene, where the quality (non-commercial) artists will go.
Let's all get real and attack the basis of this problem. The companies, consortiums, and associations who support this technology have money, power and knowledge and are trying to eliminate fundamental threats to their sources of power and money. The recording industry, movie industry, publisher's all have a vested interest in prohibitting open exchange of information. They have to have the underlying framework of the Digital Universe changed in order to maintain their control over authors, musicians, actors, editors, directors, etc. And Microsoft and Intel are willing to do it, because their goals align. Microsoft and Intel are more than willing to incorporate those types of controls into they're software: a. Microsoft will be able to sell and license security implementations in software, and b. Intel will be able to do the same. Money and power stay where they are. Currently the Open Source movement is the solution to viruses and security threats, due to the open and rapid examination of bugs, holes in software. However, Microsoft and it appears Intel would like to do a better job by "certifying" "safe" software binaries/executables which will then be allowed to run. Again, I would prefer to trust the "Open Source" community, rather than a certifying organization. It becomes a single point of failure that becomes very painful to circumvent in the event of corruption. While this "corruption" is possible/probable in any Open Source endeavor also, there is always (with the GPL/LGPL, at least) the ability of the "governed masses" to reclaim the code base and march off in a different direction. Not so with the Fritz chips/Palladium/Certifying Organizations... What about the artists? How can we find a way to support the artists without paying the huge markups on the goods delivered which subsidize archaic, behemoth Distribution/Marketing organizations which are frankly obsolete and not adapting to the times. (In fact, they appear to be attempting to adapt the world to them, instead!) How do we serve the artist? We need to figure that out. Obviously, with musicians the support comes from live events or from television/webcast maybe even pay-per-view. They are forced to be fresh and new, and ever evolving, but still they will get the money more directly without as much of a middle man. Actor's I find more difficult to determine the method of reimbursement. Live performances in this day and time are less common. Author's same thing, very difficult to earn from the written content. If it's instantly copyable... But I'm sure that we can find ways to rework our laws and police ourselves without resorting to big brother government/corporate babysitting... Just some thoughts... Mangr3n