Microsoft Corp, the world's largest software company...
Unlike ignorant reporters and editors, you should know that Microsoft is not the largest software company. IBM is. Microsoft is the largest in just the PC software market. What can we do drill this point home?
Have you checked out Screen It!? I find it the best movie review site on the net. The reviews are incredibly objective (considering how difficult that is). The guy brings with him years of experience as a movie reviewer. It is neither overly critical nor tainted with personal taste. What is more, the guy gives a complete overview of the film (don't panic: without giving the plot/suspense away) by breaking it down into categories like violence, music, sex, topics to talk about, etc. In fact, it is the only movie review site that I visit these days. And I visit it often, both before a movie (to have an idea of whether the movie is worth the money) and after (to see how much I agree with the site).
Implicit in this is that I must insure that the person I'm passing the code to must uphold (or at least legally agree to uphold) the GPL
Dude, there is no such implicit statement in the GPL. If you want to distribute GPL'd software (say, to Joe), then the GPL says that you must distribute it under the GPL. It does not say that it is your responsibility to make sure that the GPL is honoured by Joe.
Let me say that again: You have to abide by the GPL. It is not your responsibility to see whether or not others do. If Joe does not uphold the GPL, then it is none of your business. It is upto the copyright holder to sue Joe (if you hold copyright on parts you modified, then yeah, you may want to sue Joe too). If Joe is a minor, and thus by definition, is not legally bound to abide by the GPL, then yeah, maybe he can't be sued. But that doesn't make you liable. As someone pointed out, if the minor is not liable, then the liability falls on the minor's parents. Not you.
Someone pointed out that, just because Joe (a minor) is not bound to obey the license, he cannot modify and redistribute at will. If Joe does not abide by the GPL, then he doesn't have any rights at all. All the rights are reserved (by default) by the copyright holder, and the GPL is the only thing that gives you the right to modify/distribute. There is no danger that a minor can make a proprietary version of GPL'd software.
Someone else wrote:
Corel could refuse to sell their software to anyone other than Tibetan monks between the ages of 65 and 70.
Partly true. The GPL says explicitly that you agree to provide source code to any third party who asks. Some say "third party" here refers to anyone and everyone in general. But others say it refers to whoever you distributed the binaries to. In any case, if Corel sold Joe a copy of GPL'd software, then Corel must give Joe the source if he asks. Of course, Corel can refuse to sell the software altogether to Joe, but they cannot give only the binaries and withhold the source. The GPL doesn't force you to distribute to anyone. You can choose who to give/sell the software. But if you do give/sell it, then the source must be part of it.
I have always wondered about Chess players patenting some of their moves. To me, it appears that they could satisfy all the requirements for patentability.
(1) Occasionally, a brilliant GM might discover a move that has never been documented before - qualifies as having no prior art.
(2) The move might be sophisticated enough that it is not obvious to a lot of good Chess players, let alone the commoners - qualifies as being non-obvious.
(3) The move is after all a process, a design - qualifies for a "method" patent.
So, what happens then? You can't ever play that move unless you license it? Whoa.
I was thinking about that supposedly remarkable move that Deep Blue played against Kasparov in Game Four of their rematch - which even Kasparov admitted showed signs of the machine's "intelligence". Would IBM have been able to patent it (if they had applied for one before someone documented the game)?
"The Justice Department and the 19 states involved in the case then will determine what legal remedies Jackson should enact."
CNN (or the Govt, by what is reported) is presumptuous enough to think that this finding of fact is a verdict! Have they forgotten how IBM was found to be not in anti-trust even after they were adjudged a monopoly?
We all know Microsoft is a monopoly (just look at the percentages). No surprise in Jackson acknowledging this fact. The deeper question is, to be considered in anti-trust, has Microsoft leveraged this monopoly in markets other than the OS?
Yeah, they are likely to be found guilty as charged, but it is not over till the fat lady sings.
This is an excellent point. Bruce Schneier (the crypto pundit) talks about this in the September edition of his Crypto-Gram Newsletter (the sixth paragraph in the News section). He also points to a New York Times article (free registration required) which talks about voter coercion too.
Coercion is a problem that is shared by most remote authentication techniques. It is impossible (almost!) to coerce a voter when he/she is required to show up at the poll booth as opposed to letting him/her vote remotely. Similarly, it is difficult to coerce someone to withdraw huge sums of money at a bank as opposed to the ease with which you can hold someone at gunpoint at an automated teller machine.
Now, don't argue that ATMs have security cameras and such. You wouldn't want those cameras installed in the privacy of your home (where you will be voting remotely from), would you? But note that I said "most" remote authentication techniques suffer from this problem, not all. I suppose authentication that is based on biometrics that vary depending on stress levels could work remotely. If it can be argued that a person's voice pattern differs noticeably when he/she is being threatened, and if such a threatening situation can be identified and recorded, then it would work. But using biometrics has risks too.
So, before jumping onto the online voting bandwagon, politicians and states need to consider the possibility of voter coercion adequately.
Roblimo, could you please hyperlink the URLs so that we don't have to cut-and-paste every link? This is a fantastic interview and I don't want to get distracted by such mundane tasks.
... Gateway Inc (GTW) is building a line with no Microsoft software whatsoever...
Wow! Although I am quite sure that none of these companies are going to abandon Microsoft altogether anywhere in the near future (read: most of their money will still be made from Windows PCs), this has got to be fantastic news!
Like most people, I too have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand, I can't stand cybersquatters, who do abolutely nothing with the domain, but just wait for a catch. How many times have you been to a website that says "still under contruction" or "this domain has been parked"? It is also painful to see time/money wasted in courts to straighten out these people.
But, on the other hand, laws like these only make the situation more precarious. Trademark holders are certainly going to abuse the power, bringing more innocent people to their knees. Has "slashdot" been trademarked? If not, what prevents an organization from registering the trademark (even much later), and then bringing charges against Rob Malda? I know the Cyberpiracy Act is supposed to be aimed at cybersquatters, but I fear the power is going to be abused anyway. The Act is not going to reduce litigation by drawing clear lines. It is going to reduce litigation by letting Big Companies intimidate weaker ones.
What is the solution? The simplest thing (and IMHO the best) is to dissociate trademarks from domain names. You say, "Hey, that isn't fair! Apple Inc. should have every right to hold apple.com. It shouldn't be arbitrary!". I say, I don't know about you, but, what I do is this: if I want to find a company/product on the web, I type in a few keywords into a search engine, and then follow links from there. I couldn't care less what URL hosted the website. If I find the site interesting and worth returning to, I bookmark the site. More often than not, I never have to remember the URL or have to type it into a browser. If this is how most people work, then whether or not Apple Inc. holds apple.com is moot. Isn't this how we behave with telephone numbers anyway? I don't bother remembering telephone numbers most of the time. I just check the yellow pages as necessary. All that matters is the search engine/directory.
The GNU website reports that the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that, if passed, is guaranteed to make us go through more of these nonsense lawsuits.
Why don't people realize that domain names were never intended to be identified with any sort of trademark? To refresh your memories, the domain name system was introduced so that we wouldn't have to remember awkward IP addresses. But it looks like this reason has been totally forgotten/ignored in the mad rush to "appropriate" a piece of the web.
I, for one, hate this attitude of rushing to register every damned domain that you can lay your hands on. Lots of these companies/trademark holders go on a wild spree, not only registering their trademark in all the TLDs (top level domains), but also registering all sorts of variations of their trademarks, including typographical errors, misspellings, etc. Most registrars actually encourage this! I am appalled. The.com domain has become totally corrupted with all sorts of websites that can hardly be described commercial. Same goes for the other TLDs.
This is so typical of companies which are being harassed by Microsoft's dominance. We have seen Netscape's NPL, Apple's APSL, Sun's SCSL, and so on. Why do all of these licenses purport to be free software/open source licenses and then fall short of The Community's expectations?
Because these companies are only interested, after all, in becoming the next Microsoft. The next monopoly. Such ambitions will necessarily conflict with The Community's interests. It is impossible to craft a license that will serve our interests as well as their aims of World Domination. They are trying to leverage a community's selflessness to achieve selfish goals. It just can't happen.
Open Source was meant to help businesses grok the concept of free software. But it is sad that companies still Don't Get It. They still think that, somehow, open source is a way to "get around" free software ala GPL. It is not.
I understand and agree with the logic behind most of the theory of patents. As with most people, I agree that patents in general are okay, especially when applied to areas in manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, etc. I also agree that in practice the USPTO has botched things up a lot. I also agree that maybe software patents are a bane to society. But, these apart, I have not been able to understand one major thing about the patent system.
Now, the goal of the patent system is to expose innovation to the public, so that others may take advantage of it. In a competitive environment, innovators may be afraid to disclose their innovations, for fear that others may copy their hard work at will. Society has much to lose if inventions remain as trade-secrets. So the patent system gives people an incentive to disclose and to share.
But why on earth does the system allow these patent holders to have exclusive right to licensing? It allows them to say "no" to anyone and say "yes" to different parties on different terms. If I invent something truly remarkable, patent it, and don't license it at all to anyone, but instead just sue people who try to replicate my invention, how does society benefit?
It seems to me that instead, the patent system should allow everybody to license the invention, and not leave the decision in the hands of the patent holder. I know there will be issues about license fees and terms, but surely something can be worked out?
"There's nothing in GNU that says all proprietary software must be killed off."
"... same things Microsoft did with the Windows standard."
I don't want to nitpick, but I think it is important to remind you that GNU is against proprietary software. You probably meant commercial software (with which GNU doesn't have any problems per se). It is important because a lot of people get similarly confused which is a Bad Thing(tm).
The minute the Bezroukov article was mentioned here, I knew ESR would come up with a rebuttal like he did. And I guess we all knew what he would say - that he is right and the other guy is wrong.
ESR is just too predictable. Just like RMS. (Now if *this* sentence receives attention by either ESR or RMS, I know how vehemently each will deny it too).
All the reasons pointed out (complexity, testing and leeway) could contribute to the bugginess of software, but I don't think the root cause is any of them.
None of the three problems is peculiar to software. Both hardware and software can be terribly complex, suffer wide ranges of inputs/scenarios and/or don't have too much leeway. And we have seen such software/hardware that work and those that don't. Why then do we compare software against machines?
The answer to that is precisely the point of the Shift article - that we have made hardware manufacturers live up to some standards. And we have not exacted the same of software vendors. It is a fallacy to find excuses for the rampant bugginess of today's software - as though something inherent about software or software development were causing those bugs.
We just need to get tough.
Incredibly, there are many things about software (as compared to hardware) that should alleviate all the three problems mentioned above. If anything, even the most common day-to-day pieces of hardware are much more complex than similar software (I am measuring complexity here by the difficulty of getting one person to hold it all in his/her head). If you think MSIE is too big for one person to understand, then let me tell you about microelectronics.
The most telling argument in support of this is seen in why software patents are bad. Part of the argument goes: Hardware (drugs, machines, etc) is so difficult to research, design and test. These are real objects, prone to real influences - friction, environment, tolerances, noise, energy fluctuations, etc. To predict and account for all the real-world inputs/scenarios and to make the product/process robust is difficult. On the other hand software is a mathematical model. A line of code will work the same regardless of real-world stuff. Software should work as designed.
That today's software doesn't work as expected can only mean one of two things - that programmers are by and large incompetent as compared to other engineers or that customers are not tough enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Sreeram.
Toy Story 2 got a 9 out of 10 there. Hurrah!
Sreeram
Let me say that again: You have to abide by the GPL. It is not your responsibility to see whether or not others do. If Joe does not uphold the GPL, then it is none of your business. It is upto the copyright holder to sue Joe (if you hold copyright on parts you modified, then yeah, you may want to sue Joe too). If Joe is a minor, and thus by definition, is not legally bound to abide by the GPL, then yeah, maybe he can't be sued. But that doesn't make you liable. As someone pointed out, if the minor is not liable, then the liability falls on the minor's parents. Not you.
Someone pointed out that, just because Joe (a minor) is not bound to obey the license, he cannot modify and redistribute at will. If Joe does not abide by the GPL, then he doesn't have any rights at all. All the rights are reserved (by default) by the copyright holder, and the GPL is the only thing that gives you the right to modify/distribute. There is no danger that a minor can make a proprietary version of GPL'd software.
Someone else wrote:
Partly true. The GPL says explicitly that you agree to provide source code to any third party who asks. Some say "third party" here refers to anyone and everyone in general. But others say it refers to whoever you distributed the binaries to. In any case, if Corel sold Joe a copy of GPL'd software, then Corel must give Joe the source if he asks. Of course, Corel can refuse to sell the software altogether to Joe, but they cannot give only the binaries and withhold the source. The GPL doesn't force you to distribute to anyone. You can choose who to give/sell the software. But if you do give/sell it, then the source must be part of it.Sreeram.
I have always wondered about Chess players patenting some of their moves. To me, it appears that they could satisfy all the requirements for patentability.
(1) Occasionally, a brilliant GM might discover a move that has never been documented before - qualifies as having no prior art.
(2) The move might be sophisticated enough that it is not obvious to a lot of good Chess players, let alone the commoners - qualifies as being non-obvious.
(3) The move is after all a process, a design - qualifies for a "method" patent.
So, what happens then? You can't ever play that move unless you license it? Whoa.
I was thinking about that supposedly remarkable move that Deep Blue played against Kasparov in Game Four of their rematch - which even Kasparov admitted showed signs of the machine's "intelligence". Would IBM have been able to patent it (if they had applied for one before someone documented the game)?
Sreeram.
We all know Microsoft is a monopoly (just look at the percentages). No surprise in Jackson acknowledging this fact. The deeper question is, to be considered in anti-trust, has Microsoft leveraged this monopoly in markets other than the OS?
Yeah, they are likely to be found guilty as charged, but it is not over till the fat lady sings.
Sreeram.
Coercion is a problem that is shared by most remote authentication techniques. It is impossible (almost!) to coerce a voter when he/she is required to show up at the poll booth as opposed to letting him/her vote remotely. Similarly, it is difficult to coerce someone to withdraw huge sums of money at a bank as opposed to the ease with which you can hold someone at gunpoint at an automated teller machine.
Now, don't argue that ATMs have security cameras and such. You wouldn't want those cameras installed in the privacy of your home (where you will be voting remotely from), would you? But note that I said "most" remote authentication techniques suffer from this problem, not all. I suppose authentication that is based on biometrics that vary depending on stress levels could work remotely. If it can be argued that a person's voice pattern differs noticeably when he/she is being threatened, and if such a threatening situation can be identified and recorded, then it would work. But using biometrics has risks too.
So, before jumping onto the online voting bandwagon, politicians and states need to consider the possibility of voter coercion adequately.
Sreeram.
Roblimo, could you please hyperlink the URLs so that we don't have to cut-and-paste every link? This is a fantastic interview and I don't want to get distracted by such mundane tasks.
Sreeram.
Wow! Although I am quite sure that none of these companies are going to abandon Microsoft altogether anywhere in the near future (read: most of their money will still be made from Windows PCs), this has got to be fantastic news!
Sreeram.
How do you say "Knuth, God, TeX, Open Source, Free Software, and GNU" in one breath?
:-)
Gnuth!!!
Sreeram.
On the one hand, I can't stand cybersquatters, who do abolutely nothing with the domain, but just wait for a catch. How many times have you been to a website that says "still under contruction" or "this domain has been parked"? It is also painful to see time/money wasted in courts to straighten out these people.
But, on the other hand, laws like these only make the situation more precarious. Trademark holders are certainly going to abuse the power, bringing more innocent people to their knees. Has "slashdot" been trademarked? If not, what prevents an organization from registering the trademark (even much later), and then bringing charges against Rob Malda? I know the Cyberpiracy Act is supposed to be aimed at cybersquatters, but I fear the power is going to be abused anyway. The Act is not going to reduce litigation by drawing clear lines. It is going to reduce litigation by letting Big Companies intimidate weaker ones.
What is the solution? The simplest thing (and IMHO the best) is to dissociate trademarks from domain names. You say, "Hey, that isn't fair! Apple Inc. should have every right to hold apple.com. It shouldn't be arbitrary!". I say, I don't know about you, but, what I do is this: if I want to find a company/product on the web, I type in a few keywords into a search engine, and then follow links from there. I couldn't care less what URL hosted the website. If I find the site interesting and worth returning to, I bookmark the site. More often than not, I never have to remember the URL or have to type it into a browser. If this is how most people work, then whether or not Apple Inc. holds apple.com is moot. Isn't this how we behave with telephone numbers anyway? I don't bother remembering telephone numbers most of the time. I just check the yellow pages as necessary. All that matters is the search engine/directory.
Sreeram.
The GNU website reports that the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that, if passed, is guaranteed to make us go through more of these nonsense lawsuits.
Why don't people realize that domain names were never intended to be identified with any sort of trademark? To refresh your memories, the domain name system was introduced so that we wouldn't have to remember awkward IP addresses. But it looks like this reason has been totally forgotten/ignored in the mad rush to "appropriate" a piece of the web.
I, for one, hate this attitude of rushing to register every damned domain that you can lay your hands on. Lots of these companies/trademark holders go on a wild spree, not only registering their trademark in all the TLDs (top level domains), but also registering all sorts of variations of their trademarks, including typographical errors, misspellings, etc. Most registrars actually encourage this! I am appalled. The .com domain has become totally corrupted with all sorts of websites that can hardly be described commercial. Same goes for the other TLDs.
Stop the trademark-domain crap already!
Sreeram.
This is so typical of companies which are being harassed by Microsoft's dominance. We have seen Netscape's NPL, Apple's APSL, Sun's SCSL, and so on. Why do all of these licenses purport to be free software/open source licenses and then fall short of The Community's expectations?
Because these companies are only interested, after all, in becoming the next Microsoft. The next monopoly. Such ambitions will necessarily conflict with The Community's interests. It is impossible to craft a license that will serve our interests as well as their aims of World Domination. They are trying to leverage a community's selflessness to achieve selfish goals. It just can't happen.
Open Source was meant to help businesses grok the concept of free software. But it is sad that companies still Don't Get It. They still think that, somehow, open source is a way to "get around" free software ala GPL. It is not.
sreeram.
Now, the goal of the patent system is to expose innovation to the public, so that others may take advantage of it. In a competitive environment, innovators may be afraid to disclose their innovations, for fear that others may copy their hard work at will. Society has much to lose if inventions remain as trade-secrets. So the patent system gives people an incentive to disclose and to share.
But why on earth does the system allow these patent holders to have exclusive right to licensing? It allows them to say "no" to anyone and say "yes" to different parties on different terms. If I invent something truly remarkable, patent it, and don't license it at all to anyone, but instead just sue people who try to replicate my invention, how does society benefit?
It seems to me that instead, the patent system should allow everybody to license the invention, and not leave the decision in the hands of the patent holder. I know there will be issues about license fees and terms, but surely something can be worked out?
sreeram.
And WTF is "Windows standard" anyway?
Sreeram.
The minute the Bezroukov article was mentioned here, I knew ESR would come up with a rebuttal like he did. And I guess we all knew what he would say - that he is right and the other guy is wrong.
ESR is just too predictable. Just like RMS. (Now if *this* sentence receives attention by either ESR or RMS, I know how vehemently each will deny it too).
Sreeram.
None of the three problems is peculiar to software. Both hardware and software can be terribly complex, suffer wide ranges of inputs/scenarios and/or don't have too much leeway. And we have seen such software/hardware that work and those that don't. Why then do we compare software against machines?
The answer to that is precisely the point of the Shift article - that we have made hardware manufacturers live up to some standards. And we have not exacted the same of software vendors. It is a fallacy to find excuses for the rampant bugginess of today's software - as though something inherent about software or software development were causing those bugs.
We just need to get tough.
Incredibly, there are many things about software (as compared to hardware) that should alleviate all the three problems mentioned above. If anything, even the most common day-to-day pieces of hardware are much more complex than similar software (I am measuring complexity here by the difficulty of getting one person to hold it all in his/her head). If you think MSIE is too big for one person to understand, then let me tell you about microelectronics.
The most telling argument in support of this is seen in why software patents are bad. Part of the argument goes: Hardware (drugs, machines, etc) is so difficult to research, design and test. These are real objects, prone to real influences - friction, environment, tolerances, noise, energy fluctuations, etc. To predict and account for all the real-world inputs/scenarios and to make the product/process robust is difficult. On the other hand software is a mathematical model. A line of code will work the same regardless of real-world stuff. Software should work as designed.
That today's software doesn't work as expected can only mean one of two things - that programmers are by and large incompetent as compared to other engineers or that customers are not tough enough.
Sreeram.