I agree with you to a certain extent that the LGPL is more appropriate than the GPL, but only in terms of the runtime components of Java (particularly the libraries). The GPL is definitely the best choice for the compiler and all the other tools.
As long as the runtime libraries are LGPL'd, it would still be possible to develop non-GPL Java applications.
... check out the Open Automaton Project. This project includes electronic circuit schematics, software and documentation you can use to build an intelligent PC-based mobile for home or office environments.
The prototype is also based on on the same VIA mainboard as the RoboteQ robot.
I would like to briefly respond to your open letter to the Open Source Community, dated today. I consider myself to be a member of that community, having developed Open Source software myself, although I do not claim to be any kind of "leader", or to represent the views of other members of the community.
Firstly, I would like to join you in condemning the Denial of Service attacks that took place against your web servers. Using vandalism and illegal tactics is not an appropriate way for people to respond, however strongly they disagree with you or SCO's words or deeds. In your open letter, you quoted Eric Raymond's reaction to the DoS attack, but you seemed to suggest that he knows the identity of the perpetrator. I can't speak for Mr Raymond, but I believe that in the letter you quoted from, he actually said that he DID NOT know the perpetrator; it was an associate of the perpetrator who contacted him. Do you have any evidence to suggest that Mr Raymond is not co-operating with the authorities in helping them to bring the perpetrator to justice?
The memory allocation code you mentioned, does, at first blush, appear to have indeed been copied illegally by SGI, and perhaps SGI have some got some explaining to do. However, this is a very tiny part of Linux as a whole, and the notion that "one million lines of UNIX System V protected code have been contributed to Linux" is obviously based on an incredibly improbable reading of copyright law in terms of what you consider to be "derivative works" (one that if upheld, would turn copyright law on its head).
Contrary to what you suggest in your letter, in my experience, members of the Open Source community understand very well and fully respect copyright laws.
In fact, a very telling remark in you letter where you talk about "transferring copyrights in contributed code to Open Source", leads me to believe that we understand it better than you do Mr McBride. Open Source is NOT THE SAME as Public Domain. Open Source software relies on Copyright Law to protect the authors. There is no "transfer" to some nebulous Open Source status. When I write a piece of software, I as the author, hold the copyright on that work. When I choose to release it, I license it to my customers using the GNU General Public License, the BSD license, or some other Open Source license. My customers agree to the terms of the license. If they violate the terms of the license (for example, they attempt to sublicense my work), they are in breach of our agreement, and they are misappropriating my work.
In your letter, you refer to "problems that exist in the current Linux software development model". The Open Source development model, by its very nature, is transparent. Any intellectual property problems can be quickly identified and addressed because the code is out in the open. I contend that there is absolutely no way for SCO to tell whether a closed-source system such as Windows, AIX, etc has code copied within it. You are holding the Open Source community to a higher standard than the proprietary software community.
Finally, I'd like to address the 5 points in your summary.
"1. Fair use applies to educational, public service and related applications and does not justify commercial misappropriation."
I agree.
"2. Copyright attributions protect ownership and attribution rights--they cannot simply be changed or stripped away."
Absolutely agree. Perhaps SGI have some explaining to do here. But also, I'd like to hear your explanation of why the Regents of the University of California attribution is missing in the Berkley Packet Filter that showed up in your slides at the Las Vegas presentation?
"3. In copyright law, ownership cannot be transferred without express, written authority of a copyright holder. Some have claimed that, because SCO software code was present in software distributed under the GPL, SCO has forfeited its rights to this code. Not so - SCO
Perhaps this is obvious, but by merely sending out several large invoices, SCO are increasing their Accounts Receivable balance, and therefore their profit. It'll be interesting when SCO's next financial statements are released whether it shows an increase in profitability and a corresponding large increase in A/R.
In other words, if many companies simply ignore or discard their invoices, SCO still looks more profitable on paper.
It's good to see articles in the mainstream news finally appearing that show SCO for what they are. Here is an intersting one in InfoWorld from yesterday. Some more Fact and a little less FUD should help enlighten some of those poor, misguided stock-holders.
You say you've signed the NDA and seen the code in question. I am assuming since you seem to think that SCO will win their case case, that you've seen identical code in Linux and in System V.
Have you seen this
eWeek
article? Here's a quote from the article:
A source close to SCO, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told eWEEK that parts of the Linux kernel code were copied into the Unix System V source tree by former or current SCO employees.
Unless and until SCO publicly identify the allegedly infringing code so that the pedigree of the code can be verified by the community, I don't think you, or anyone else who's signed SCO's NDA and seen their "evidence" can say with any certainty whether the identical code sections were copied from Unix System V to Linux or vice versa. The Linux source code is all public; there are no secrets in there, so there's no good reason for SCO not to publicly identify exactly which parts of the Linux source code they claim infringes their copyrights.
It's precisely because of the GPL that GNU/Linux is such a first class operating system today - it could never have got there without it, and GNU/Linux will continue to get better and better because of the GPL in the furure.
So, why on earth would IBM want to "move away from the GPL" (and I'd be interested to know exactly how SCO think IBM even can "move away from the GPL")?
And how is making billions of dollars by leveraging free software "a flawed business model"?
To SCO: If you're serious about addressing the "real problems with Linux", you should tell us exactly what code infringes on your System V copyrights, so that the community can validate your claims, and diligently rectify any wrongdoing. All of the Linux source code is public; there are no secrets in there. JUST SHOW US THE CODE!
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you to a certain extent that the LGPL is more appropriate than the GPL, but only in terms of the runtime components of Java (particularly the libraries). The GPL is definitely the best choice for the compiler and all the other tools.
As long as the runtime libraries are LGPL'd, it would still be possible to develop non-GPL Java applications.
... check out the Open Automaton Project. This project includes electronic circuit schematics, software and documentation you can use to build an intelligent PC-based mobile for home or office environments.
The prototype is also based on on the same VIA mainboard as the RoboteQ robot.
September 9, 2003
Open Letter to Darl McBride,
I would like to briefly respond to your open letter to the Open Source Community, dated today. I consider myself to be a member of that community, having developed Open Source software myself, although I do not claim to be any kind of "leader", or to represent the views of other members of the community.
Firstly, I would like to join you in condemning the Denial of Service attacks that took place against your web servers. Using vandalism and illegal tactics is not an appropriate way for people to respond, however strongly they disagree with you or SCO's words or deeds. In your open letter, you quoted Eric Raymond's reaction to the DoS attack, but you seemed to suggest that he knows the identity of the perpetrator. I can't speak for Mr Raymond, but I believe that in the letter you quoted from, he actually said that he DID NOT know the perpetrator; it was an associate of the perpetrator who contacted him. Do you have any evidence to suggest that Mr Raymond is not co-operating with the authorities in helping them to bring the perpetrator to justice?
The memory allocation code you mentioned, does, at first blush, appear to have indeed been copied illegally by SGI, and perhaps SGI have some got some explaining to do. However, this is a very tiny part of Linux as a whole, and the notion that "one million lines of UNIX System V protected code have been contributed to Linux" is obviously based on an incredibly improbable reading of copyright law in terms of what you consider to be "derivative works" (one that if upheld, would turn copyright law on its head).
Contrary to what you suggest in your letter, in my experience, members of the Open Source community understand very well and fully respect copyright laws.
In fact, a very telling remark in you letter where you talk about "transferring copyrights in contributed code to Open Source", leads me to believe that we understand it better than you do Mr McBride. Open Source is NOT THE SAME as Public Domain. Open Source software relies on Copyright Law to protect the authors. There is no "transfer" to some nebulous Open Source status. When I write a piece of software, I as the author, hold the copyright on that work. When I choose to release it, I license it to my customers using the GNU General Public License, the BSD license, or some other Open Source license. My customers agree to the terms of the license. If they violate the terms of the license (for example, they attempt to sublicense my work), they are in breach of our agreement, and they are misappropriating my work.
In your letter, you refer to "problems that exist in the current Linux software development model". The Open Source development model, by its very nature, is transparent. Any intellectual property problems can be quickly identified and addressed because the code is out in the open. I contend that there is absolutely no way for SCO to tell whether a closed-source system such as Windows, AIX, etc has code copied within it. You are holding the Open Source community to a higher standard than the proprietary software community.
Finally, I'd like to address the 5 points in your summary.
"1. Fair use applies to educational, public service and related applications and does not justify commercial misappropriation."
I agree.
"2. Copyright attributions protect ownership and attribution rights--they cannot simply be changed or stripped away."
Absolutely agree. Perhaps SGI have some explaining to do here. But also, I'd like to hear your explanation of why the Regents of the University of California attribution is missing in the Berkley Packet Filter that showed up in your slides at the Las Vegas presentation?
"3. In copyright law, ownership cannot be transferred without express, written authority of a copyright holder. Some have claimed that, because SCO software code was present in software distributed under the GPL, SCO has forfeited its rights to this code. Not so - SCO
Perhaps this is obvious, but by merely sending out several large invoices, SCO are increasing their Accounts Receivable balance, and therefore their profit. It'll be interesting when SCO's next financial statements are released whether it shows an increase in profitability and a corresponding large increase in A/R.
In other words, if many companies simply ignore or discard their invoices, SCO still looks more profitable on paper.
It's good to see articles in the mainstream news finally appearing that show SCO for what they are. Here is an intersting one in InfoWorld from yesterday. Some more Fact and a little less FUD should help enlighten some of those poor, misguided stock-holders.
You say you've signed the NDA and seen the code in question. I am assuming since you seem to think that SCO will win their case case, that you've seen identical code in Linux and in System V.
Have you seen this eWeek article? Here's a quote from the article:
A source close to SCO, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told eWEEK that parts of the Linux kernel code were copied into the Unix System V source tree by former or current SCO employees.
Unless and until SCO publicly identify the allegedly infringing code so that the pedigree of the code can be verified by the community, I don't think you, or anyone else who's signed SCO's NDA and seen their "evidence" can say with any certainty whether the identical code sections were copied from Unix System V to Linux or vice versa. The Linux source code is all public; there are no secrets in there, so there's no good reason for SCO not to publicly identify exactly which parts of the Linux source code they claim infringes their copyrights.It's precisely because of the GPL that GNU/Linux is such a first class operating system today - it could never have got there without it, and GNU/Linux will continue to get better and better because of the GPL in the furure. So, why on earth would IBM want to "move away from the GPL" (and I'd be interested to know exactly how SCO think IBM even can "move away from the GPL")?
And how is making billions of dollars by leveraging free software "a flawed business model"?
To SCO: If you're serious about addressing the "real problems with Linux", you should tell us exactly what code infringes on your System V copyrights, so that the community can validate your claims, and diligently rectify any wrongdoing. All of the Linux source code is public; there are no secrets in there. JUST SHOW US THE CODE!