Someone did some weird editing to this story, making the links completely wrong. The first link is to a very old story published by the Register not at all related to this situation, but to an old Swedish situation regarding chat forums (not blogs). I think this link should actually be removed from the story.
What has happened in this case is that a preliminary investigation has been initiated. It is not a formal prosecution. This investigation is carried out by a prosecutor. I am afraid the editing makes this less clear.
When it comes to linking my original links was to the Swedish media reports on this case, which would clarify things further. It appears from Swedish media reports that Mr Bildt and his staff are constantly monitoring this blog for hateful comments, but that they missed this specific comment, even though a blogger claims to have pointed out this comment to Mr Bildt and his staff on several occassions. Personally, I do not know the circumstances well enough to tell what is facts and what is not in that respect, but it might affect whether Mr Bildt will be prosecuted or not. Perhaps some Swedish lawyer versed in the field could give a short brief of the current legal situation in this field.
You are confusing Mr Ian Clarke with Mr John Gilmore. I guess you need to read Greplaw more frequently.-)
The Gilmore flight stunt has been extensively debated. Mr John Gilmore and Professor Lawrence Lessig have issued replies to the debate on Mr John Gilmore's flight-stunt. Mr John Gilmore was rejected from a flight because Mr Gilmore wore a badge saying "Suspected Terrorist". Should the flight captain have ejected Mr Gilmore because of the button or not? The discussion has been heated, not least since Mr Seth Finkelstein suggested that Mr Gilmore's behaviour was 'a millionaire's version of trolling.' Mr Gilmore counter-trolled Mr Finkelstein and got an endorsement from Professor Lessig.
Actually it said "blawgs" in my original submission and referred to law blogs, that is online journals dedicated to law and policy, rather than the daily life of your favorite pet. This is also the issue that Ernie Miller addresses in the interview.
"For the sake of argument, I'll assume that your account here and on Greplaw are the same person."
Paranoid are we?
There is only one of us and that's me. Your point is null and void since one can not plagiarize oneself. I could be in breach of contract should I have promised to Greplaw to not submit the intro to any other website (which I have not), but one can never plagiarize oneself.
Since you have falsely accused me of plagiarism I have a hard time taking lessons from you on 'courtesy', but I will be a good sport and I will try to rephrase my future submissions to Slashdot if others agree with your position.
I have written a small piece on software patents in the EU for Greplaw. Richard Stallman has already complained about me not being Wittgenstein enough in my language (I am talking about intellectual property for instance), but maybe you will get something out of reading Software Patents Stink. My main concern is a lack of public debate of the issue. The IT industry needs to join in before it is too late.
That is a good observation I should have made myself during the interview. However, I never posed a question in this respect - my mistake. Reading only from the transcript you may not reach the conclusion you suggest. Mr Zimmermann spoke of both DRM and encryption as problems for the future access to archives. If he hosts double-standards the way you suggests regarding DRM and enryption, I can not tell.
I do not think Mr Zimmermann is corporate-hostile in general, though, since he makes his living selling his knowledge to companies striving to protect their data.
We try to interview interesting people who one way or another affect and form Internet law and policy. Feel free to suggest people we should interview.
Levies are not good, but what should music companies aim to do? I just wrote a short piece on a related matter in light of the Verizon decision. Some of you might find it interesting.
"Greplaw's editors, although we are reporting indepently of each other, often tend to criticise the RIAA's efforts to stop illegal music trading online. One may still wonder what a proper action might be."
(---)
"The Internet is a new kid on the music industry's block. From the right holders' perspective the digital domain is often presented as a problem and not an opportunity. In this column, I have identified five possible ways for the music industry to treat this new kid on the block."
Over at Yale's Lawmeme, editor Paul Szynol gives his opinion on violence in computer games. Szynol wants an effective ranking mechanism but conclude that computer games may exert a negative influence on kids. Excuse me, but who used the time machine? Computer games are art and should be dealt with accordingly, without any references to the prohibition tactics of the 1980:ies.
The contents of games like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City should serve well as starting point in any discussion on the ethics of computer games. It appears Lawmeme's Paul Szynol is not alone in his views on violence in computer games. Washington Post columnist Mike Wilbon put it even more clearly than Szynol in the ESPN TV show "Pardon The Interruption" stating in respect of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City:
"The people who put it together should be stoned in the street."
I think Wilbon is on thin ice when he wants to punish the artist. Computer games are the result of a creative process not different than other objects of arts, such as paintings or music.
In the 1980:ies in Sweden we had a very intense debate on violence in computer games. The most outspoken opponent to violence in computer games was Margaretha Persson, then representative of the precedent to the Children's Ombudsman (Barnmiljoradet / Barnombudsmannen). Any Swede with good memory can recount the events when Persson made the game distributors remove a plastic shuriken (ninja star) from the game box before selling the Commodore 64 game Last Ninja 2. Persson also wanted a ban on other games. The debate looks very silly in the light of today, especially since Last Ninja 2 then was considered to be a photo-realistic game with animated movie qualities. The graphics were worse than the graphics provided in latest Ericsson cell phones. The individuals beating people up in the streets of Stockholm in the 1980:ies most likely had others and more severe personal issues to deal with than playing Last Ninja 2.
I do agree with Paul Szynol that computer games should be rated. That is already done, as observed by Szynol. Rockstar's game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was rated by Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and there is no active marketing for the game targeting players that are less than 17 years old.
Personally, as a constantly immoral and bad person, I would probably play games with three skulls rating, but that does not imply that I think kids should do it. Parents must have a chance to understand and grasp the difference between BMX Kidz and BMX XXX. Yes, the latter is a game for Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube sold today where you can run a BMX bike with a topless female biker. The former is a old Commodore 64 game that would hardly be detected on the rating radar.
I believe society and the individual are affected by culture. That does not mean that I believe that anyone would place his wife in the trunk after listening to Eminem's song Stan. In accordance with most modern psychologists I think the individual is affected both by his heritage and his environment. The importance of the environment, of which the culture is a vital part, is most probably more significant during the early years of an individual's upbringing. If the individual is exposed only to extremely violent games and movies the individual may maintain a different approach to life than an individual that gets a more varied cultural diet. In either way, the parents must have the possibility to choose whether the kid should be exposed to a varied or strict video game diet. in practice, that is not the case today. Most parents can not efficiently exercise their guardianship because they lack knowledge of the contents of the computer games. In respect of movies, parents rather easily can decide whether the kid shall be allowed to watch a certain movie or not. There are effective rating mechanisms and it is easy to actually control the content by watching the movie. When it comes to computer games it is hard and time-consuming for the parents to learn that you may actually have intercourse with prostitutes in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and subsequently kill your sex partner. This particular part of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was removed in Australia following a ban of the game in the land of the kangaroo.
To be fair, Paul Szynol did not crave a direct ban on certain computer games, but distribution control so that minors don't get access to inappropriate material. In my opinion, the computer game vendors should treat sensitive material in the same way video stores do - comedy in one corner, violence in another corner. A sticker on the box with an independent rating of the content would further add to improve the situation. Then it is up to the market - that is you and me - to decide whether we want to have the violent games or not. Voting with the wallet is often extremely efficient and would supersede any attempts of regulation.
There are opponents to rating as such. In my opinion there are good and bad ratings and good and bad computer games. How ratings as such would be bad I find hard to understand. The market would benefit from getting more information.
Would it not be great if a certain association of parents make a list over computer games it considers dangerous to kids? I am sure there are several such lists in the loop. Any parent or grown-up may choose whether to consider the recommendations made on such a list or just ignore it.
Someone may want to buy only computer games that are rated by the Church of Scientology, someone may settle for ratings from Nation of Islam and a third for ratings conducted by the Catholic church. I have no problem with that as long as we all, individually, are able to choose our own filters and prejudices. But the debate run a risk of returning to the prohibition propaganda of the 1980:ies where we tilt towards apprehending the Swedish Last Ninja 2 uproar and the recent experiences from Australia. It is indeed hard to defend certain parts of the contents of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Paul Szynol's call for distribution control and review of the rating system are less tasty dishes on the smorgasbord of the computer rating debate. Some of the arguments should be placed in the time machine and sent back to the appropriate decade.
Computer games are art and should be treated with the equal respect we treat Rembrandt's painting The Conspiracy of the Batavians under Claudius Civilis. The painting may bear witness of a coming extreme violence in the uprising lead by Julius Civilis, but I gather few today would demand on moral grounds that the painting should be removed from the National Museum in Stockholm. Why should we treat computer games any differently?
Well, I prefer business models depending on Hello Kitty to business models depending on Hello Pussy - any day!
Unfortunately, I think the latter will be the real killer application. Yes - once again - gampling and pornography will save a new technology. It is saddening that the human race can only get viable business models from decadency. But hey - the phones are cool!.-)
Why should they not just choose the best program out of a variety of parameters? It does not make sense to use the license as the only parameter. What about total cost of ownership? After all - this is tax money at work. What about the market? What effects will this initiative have on a wider scale?
A GNU GPL law may be interesting, but if introduced it should be a part of a much larger package, defining a new set of rules regulating the protection of computer programs, hence removing them from traditional copyright protection. See my article on lagom copyright, published by Newsforge.
Just changing the public procurement like this may prove to be fatal to cost and efficiency. I think proprietary code and open code should compete on the same terms. The license is not the only thing defining the efficiency of a certain solution. If openness is a valid demand from a democracy point of view, openness should be introduced in copyright law to make everyone on the market work on the same terms. I do not find it feasible from an efficiency point of view to mandate only one type of license in public procurement.
In order to fork the kernel you must be allowed to do so. In order to be allowed to fork the code you need a license.
From a legal perspective you have to check out whether Finnish or US law would apply. Then you would have to check whether the kernel was a part of the estate or not. Then you would check whether the license could be enforced or not. I guess the estate would have a fair shot at claiming ownership, while the kernel was distributed for free (which adds to the giver's rights).
However, this is most likely only a theoretical problem, while the Torvald relatives seem to be fairly well-aquainted with the concept of Linux.-)
Still, the safest thing for Linux developers would be for Linus Torvalds to put the kernel in a foundation, FSF or something else. Maybe this have been done already? Mr Perens?
My point was rather to mention a few European problems that may be interesting to consider, should the GNU GPL be revised. I think there is a European investigation going on, issued by FSF Europe, but I have not got the URL at hand.
I am not sure how US copyright and contract law works in this case, but in Sweden and most of the European countries you can not acquire intellectual property (yeah, I know about Stallman's Wittgenstein take on this term, but I use it anyway) through ignorance of previous rights. That is, should the licensee not be the rightful proprietor of the intellectual property, the licensor has no right to the intellectual property.
Ford and their cars are tangible property and can not be compared to computer programs. In this case we may develop a truck or an airplane of the intellectual property equivalent of a Ford car.
Author's rights are not only a right to attribution, it is also a right to have an impact on distribution. Please bear in mind, author's rights can not be waived.
Maybe I should add that I am a GNU GPL fan, but Stallman does not like me.-)
This is actually a real problem for companies being part of a larger development chain. What happens if someone higher in the chain discontinue operations or loose its right to development? What happens if Linus Torvalds dies and his estate withdraws the license for Linux?
Add to this that the GNU GPL is a very American license. It does not deal with author's rights in a European way which may pose a legal and commercial threat to any company relying on free software.
How did they assemble the information for the survey?
What kind of sales were included?
When it comes to Linux a lot of the sales do not derive from the sale of shrinkwrapped packages, but from consultancy services. Sometimes software is service, but these kind of surveys seldom acknowledge that. Sure, you do need help to install Microsoft Windows too, but in the Linux case the installment service might be the only cost associated with the installment, thus scewing the figures quit much.
Scandinavian Slashdotters may be interested in a discussion on the case over at Swedish Gnuheter. Some are thinking about arranging a protest in connection with the trial, but Scandinavian courts are very rarely impressed by such activities. Still, a manifestation of the kind might have other results than affecting the courts. The public is probably not aware of what is going on in the copyright wars and they need to be addressed through the media accordingly.
It is widely feared in the technology community that increased intellectual property protection, both in scope and time, may be a threat to innovation and creativity.
European copyright law enters the USA with moral rights and non-registration, while US patent law enters Europe with business model patents and software patents. This is done, without the former weaker protection (i.e. the patent system or copyright protection) is modified. The sum is a new framework for intellectual property protection where the current author or inventor is handed a shiny toolbox of protection, possibly making it harder for the future author or inventor to create new works or innovations without the consent or license from the current author or innovator.
How much intellectual property protection is just right (or "lagom" as we would say in Sweden) and how do you in your daily work weigh patentability against copyright to find a result where creativity is ensured and not stifled?
I am sorry, but how can you start a Linux timeline in 1991? I would have started much earlier on MIT's lab for artificial intelligence. Does anyone really believe that Linux would have been such a success story without its license?
'Gnu' is 'Gnu' in Swedish. 'Heter' is the latter part of 'nyheter', the Swedish word for 'news'. Hence, an English version of our name would be 'gnus' or maybe 'gnews'.
I want to break my own stories! Breaking things like this on a Friday night, when every decent Swede just wants to get drunk?.-)
Anyway, Gnuheter is up and running now and you may read the article. We can cope with a minor Slashdot effect, but the first 10 minutes are almost impossible with the memory capacity we can afford. Now both yours truly and Pawal will watch a rerun of V.
Slashdot Mirror
What has happened in this case is that a preliminary investigation has been initiated. It is not a formal prosecution. This investigation is carried out by a prosecutor. I am afraid the editing makes this less clear.
When it comes to linking my original links was to the Swedish media reports on this case, which would clarify things further. It appears from Swedish media reports that Mr Bildt and his staff are constantly monitoring this blog for hateful comments, but that they missed this specific comment, even though a blogger claims to have pointed out this comment to Mr Bildt and his staff on several occassions. Personally, I do not know the circumstances well enough to tell what is facts and what is not in that respect, but it might affect whether Mr Bildt will be prosecuted or not. Perhaps some Swedish lawyer versed in the field could give a short brief of the current legal situation in this field.
Let's just hope that the Brazilian government chooses the best computer program and IT solution at any given period of time, a choice not only depending on license issues.
You are confusing Mr Ian Clarke with Mr John Gilmore. I guess you need to read Greplaw more frequently .-)
The Gilmore flight stunt has been extensively debated. Mr John Gilmore and Professor Lawrence Lessig have issued replies to the debate on Mr John Gilmore's flight-stunt. Mr John Gilmore was rejected from a flight because Mr Gilmore wore a badge saying "Suspected Terrorist". Should the flight captain have ejected Mr Gilmore because of the button or not? The discussion has been heated, not least since Mr Seth Finkelstein suggested that Mr Gilmore's behaviour was 'a millionaire's version of trolling.' Mr Gilmore counter-trolled Mr Finkelstein and got an endorsement from Professor Lessig.
Read Mr John Gilmore's reply.
Read Professor Lessig's comment.
Read Mr Seth Finkelstein's comment on the comments above.
Best regards,
Mikael
Actually it said "blawgs" in my original submission and referred to law blogs, that is online journals dedicated to law and policy, rather than the daily life of your favorite pet. This is also the issue that Ernie Miller addresses in the interview.
"For the sake of argument, I'll assume that your account here and on Greplaw are the same person."
Paranoid are we?
There is only one of us and that's me. Your point is null and void since one can not plagiarize oneself. I could be in breach of contract should I have promised to Greplaw to not submit the intro to any other website (which I have not), but one can never plagiarize oneself.
Since you have falsely accused me of plagiarism I have a hard time taking lessons from you on 'courtesy', but I will be a good sport and I will try to rephrase my future submissions to Slashdot if others agree with your position.
Mikael
I think self-plagiarism is okay. After all, I am the author of both stories...
I have written a small piece on software patents in the EU for Greplaw. Richard Stallman has already complained about me not being Wittgenstein enough in my language (I am talking about intellectual property for instance), but maybe you will get something out of reading Software Patents Stink. My main concern is a lack of public debate of the issue. The IT industry needs to join in before it is too late.
Best regards,
Mikael
I think that is a perfectly sensible idea (disregarding the "idiot" part of your submission) that I will pass on to the Greplaw editors.
Regards,
Mikael
That is a good observation I should have made myself during the interview. However, I never posed a question in this respect - my mistake. Reading only from the transcript you may not reach the conclusion you suggest. Mr Zimmermann spoke of both DRM and encryption as problems for the future access to archives. If he hosts double-standards the way you suggests regarding DRM and enryption, I can not tell.
I do not think Mr Zimmermann is corporate-hostile in general, though, since he makes his living selling his knowledge to companies striving to protect their data.
Regards,
Mikael
Here are links to more Greplaw interviews that you may find interesting:
Patrik Faltstrom on IESG, IETF etc.
Don Marti on free software, patents and the Internet.
Cyberlaw profiles: Jennifer Granick.
We try to interview interesting people who one way or another affect and form Internet law and policy. Feel free to suggest people we should interview.
Regards,
Mikael
Levies are not good, but what should music companies aim to do? I just wrote a short piece on a related matter in light of the Verizon decision. Some of you might find it interesting.
"Greplaw's editors, although we are reporting indepently of each other, often tend to criticise the RIAA's efforts to stop illegal music trading online. One may still wonder what a proper action might be."
(---)
"The Internet is a new kid on the music industry's block. From the right holders' perspective the digital domain is often presented as a problem and not an opportunity. In this column, I have identified five possible ways for the music industry to treat this new kid on the block."
Read the entire article.
Regards,
Mikael
Regulating Computer Games
Over at Yale's Lawmeme, editor Paul Szynol gives his opinion on violence in computer games. Szynol wants an effective ranking mechanism but conclude that computer games may exert a negative influence on kids. Excuse me, but who used the time machine? Computer games are art and should be dealt with accordingly, without any references to the prohibition tactics of the 1980:ies.
The contents of games like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City should serve well as starting point in any discussion on the ethics of computer games. It appears Lawmeme's Paul Szynol is not alone in his views on violence in computer games. Washington Post columnist Mike Wilbon put it even more clearly than Szynol in the ESPN TV show "Pardon The Interruption" stating in respect of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City:
"The people who put it together should be stoned in the street."
I think Wilbon is on thin ice when he wants to punish the artist. Computer games are the result of a creative process not different than other objects of arts, such as paintings or music.
In the 1980:ies in Sweden we had a very intense debate on violence in computer games. The most outspoken opponent to violence in computer games was Margaretha Persson, then representative of the precedent to the Children's Ombudsman (Barnmiljoradet / Barnombudsmannen). Any Swede with good memory can recount the events when Persson made the game distributors remove a plastic shuriken (ninja star) from the game box before selling the Commodore 64 game Last Ninja 2. Persson also wanted a ban on other games. The debate looks very silly in the light of today, especially since Last Ninja 2 then was considered to be a photo-realistic game with animated movie qualities. The graphics were worse than the graphics provided in latest Ericsson cell phones. The individuals beating people up in the streets of Stockholm in the 1980:ies most likely had others and more severe personal issues to deal with than playing Last Ninja 2.
I do agree with Paul Szynol that computer games should be rated. That is already done, as observed by Szynol. Rockstar's game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was rated by Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and there is no active marketing for the game targeting players that are less than 17 years old.
Personally, as a constantly immoral and bad person, I would probably play games with three skulls rating, but that does not imply that I think kids should do it. Parents must have a chance to understand and grasp the difference between BMX Kidz and BMX XXX. Yes, the latter is a game for Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube sold today where you can run a BMX bike with a topless female biker. The former is a old Commodore 64 game that would hardly be detected on the rating radar.
I believe society and the individual are affected by culture. That does not mean that I believe that anyone would place his wife in the trunk after listening to Eminem's song Stan. In accordance with most modern psychologists I think the individual is affected both by his heritage and his environment. The importance of the environment, of which the culture is a vital part, is most probably more significant during the early years of an individual's upbringing. If the individual is exposed only to extremely violent games and movies the individual may maintain a different approach to life than an individual that gets a more varied cultural diet. In either way, the parents must have the possibility to choose whether the kid should be exposed to a varied or strict video game diet. in practice, that is not the case today. Most parents can not efficiently exercise their guardianship because they lack knowledge of the contents of the computer games. In respect of movies, parents rather easily can decide whether the kid shall be allowed to watch a certain movie or not. There are effective rating mechanisms and it is easy to actually control the content by watching the movie. When it comes to computer games it is hard and time-consuming for the parents to learn that you may actually have intercourse with prostitutes in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and subsequently kill your sex partner. This particular part of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was removed in Australia following a ban of the game in the land of the kangaroo.
To be fair, Paul Szynol did not crave a direct ban on certain computer games, but distribution control so that minors don't get access to inappropriate material. In my opinion, the computer game vendors should treat sensitive material in the same way video stores do - comedy in one corner, violence in another corner. A sticker on the box with an independent rating of the content would further add to improve the situation. Then it is up to the market - that is you and me - to decide whether we want to have the violent games or not. Voting with the wallet is often extremely efficient and would supersede any attempts of regulation.
There are opponents to rating as such. In my opinion there are good and bad ratings and good and bad computer games. How ratings as such would be bad I find hard to understand. The market would benefit from getting more information.
Would it not be great if a certain association of parents make a list over computer games it considers dangerous to kids? I am sure there are several such lists in the loop. Any parent or grown-up may choose whether to consider the recommendations made on such a list or just ignore it.
Someone may want to buy only computer games that are rated by the Church of Scientology, someone may settle for ratings from Nation of Islam and a third for ratings conducted by the Catholic church. I have no problem with that as long as we all, individually, are able to choose our own filters and prejudices. But the debate run a risk of returning to the prohibition propaganda of the 1980:ies where we tilt towards apprehending the Swedish Last Ninja 2 uproar and the recent experiences from Australia. It is indeed hard to defend certain parts of the contents of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Paul Szynol's call for distribution control and review of the rating system are less tasty dishes on the smorgasbord of the computer rating debate. Some of the arguments should be placed in the time machine and sent back to the appropriate decade.
Computer games are art and should be treated with the equal respect we treat Rembrandt's painting The Conspiracy of the Batavians under Claudius Civilis. The painting may bear witness of a coming extreme violence in the uprising lead by Julius Civilis, but I gather few today would demand on moral grounds that the painting should be removed from the National Museum in Stockholm. Why should we treat computer games any differently?
Mikael Pawlo
Well, I prefer business models depending on Hello Kitty to business models depending on Hello Pussy - any day!
.-)
Unfortunately, I think the latter will be the real killer application. Yes - once again - gampling and pornography will save a new technology. It is saddening that the human race can only get viable business models from decadency. But hey - the phones are cool!
Why should they not just choose the best program out of a variety of parameters? It does not make sense to use the license as the only parameter. What about total cost of ownership? After all - this is tax money at work. What about the market? What effects will this initiative have on a wider scale?
A GNU GPL law may be interesting, but if introduced it should be a part of a much larger package, defining a new set of rules regulating the protection of computer programs, hence removing them from traditional copyright protection. See my article on lagom copyright, published by Newsforge.
Just changing the public procurement like this may prove to be fatal to cost and efficiency. I think proprietary code and open code should compete on the same terms. The license is not the only thing defining the efficiency of a certain solution. If openness is a valid demand from a democracy point of view, openness should be introduced in copyright law to make everyone on the market work on the same terms. I do not find it feasible from an efficiency point of view to mandate only one type of license in public procurement.
See also my article on open code in public procurement published by Newsforge.
Regards,
Mikael
In order to fork the kernel you must be allowed to do so. In order to be allowed to fork the code you need a license.
.-)
Still, the safest thing for Linux developers would be for Linus Torvalds to put the kernel in a foundation, FSF or something else. Maybe this have been done already? Mr Perens?
From a legal perspective you have to check out whether Finnish or US law would apply. Then you would have to check whether the kernel was a part of the estate or not. Then you would check whether the license could be enforced or not. I guess the estate would have a fair shot at claiming ownership, while the kernel was distributed for free (which adds to the giver's rights).
However, this is most likely only a theoretical problem, while the Torvald relatives seem to be fairly well-aquainted with the concept of Linux
My point was rather to mention a few European problems that may be interesting to consider, should the GNU GPL be revised. I think there is a European investigation going on, issued by FSF Europe, but I have not got the URL at hand.
Mikael
I am not sure how US copyright and contract law works in this case, but in Sweden and most of the European countries you can not acquire intellectual property (yeah, I know about Stallman's Wittgenstein take on this term, but I use it anyway) through ignorance of previous rights. That is, should the licensee not be the rightful proprietor of the intellectual property, the licensor has no right to the intellectual property.
.-)
Ford and their cars are tangible property and can not be compared to computer programs. In this case we may develop a truck or an airplane of the intellectual property equivalent of a Ford car.
Author's rights are not only a right to attribution, it is also a right to have an impact on distribution. Please bear in mind, author's rights can not be waived.
Maybe I should add that I am a GNU GPL fan, but Stallman does not like me
Regards,
Mikael
This is actually a real problem for companies being part of a larger development chain. What happens if someone higher in the chain discontinue operations or loose its right to development? What happens if Linus Torvalds dies and his estate withdraws the license for Linux?
Add to this that the GNU GPL is a very American license. It does not deal with author's rights in a European way which may pose a legal and commercial threat to any company relying on free software.
Regards,
Mikael
How did they assemble the information for the survey?
What kind of sales were included?
When it comes to Linux a lot of the sales do not derive from the sale of shrinkwrapped packages, but from consultancy services. Sometimes software is service, but these kind of surveys seldom acknowledge that. Sure, you do need help to install Microsoft Windows too, but in the Linux case the installment service might be the only cost associated with the installment, thus scewing the figures quit much.
Regards,
Mikael
Scandinavian Slashdotters may be interested in a discussion on the case over at Swedish Gnuheter. Some are thinking about arranging a protest in connection with the trial, but Scandinavian courts are very rarely impressed by such activities. Still, a manifestation of the kind might have other results than affecting the courts. The public is probably not aware of what is going on in the copyright wars and they need to be addressed through the media accordingly.
Regards
Mikael
It is widely feared in the technology community that increased intellectual property protection, both in scope and time, may be a threat to innovation and creativity.
European copyright law enters the USA with moral rights and non-registration, while US patent law enters Europe with business model patents and software patents. This is done, without the former weaker protection (i.e. the patent system or copyright protection) is modified. The sum is a new framework for intellectual property protection where the current author or inventor is handed a shiny toolbox of protection, possibly making it harder for the future author or inventor to create new works or innovations without the consent or license from the current author or innovator.
How much intellectual property protection is just right (or "lagom" as we would say in Sweden) and how do you in your daily work weigh patentability against copyright to find a result where creativity is ensured and not stifled?
Regards
Mikael
I am sorry, but how can you start a Linux timeline in 1991? I would have started much earlier on MIT's lab for artificial intelligence. Does anyone really believe that Linux would have been such a success story without its license?
Regards
Mikael
'Gnu' is 'Gnu' in Swedish. 'Heter' is the latter part of 'nyheter', the Swedish word for 'news'. Hence, an English version of our name would be 'gnus' or maybe 'gnews'.
I want to break my own stories! Breaking things like this on a Friday night, when every decent Swede just wants to get drunk? .-)
Anyway, Gnuheter is up and running now and you may read the article. We can cope with a minor Slashdot effect, but the first 10 minutes are almost impossible with the memory capacity we can afford. Now both yours truly and Pawal will watch a rerun of V.
Best regards
Mikael
I actually submitted the story under a different topic. Lucky for me that RMS is not too keen on surfing.