| Martin Hardie on Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:33:05 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: <nettime> Linux strikes back III |
The Linux article I posted yesterday (without endorsing it of course) is also subject of discussion at the commons-law list in India. I thought nettimers may be interested in their comments. Sorry but at the moment i haven't had a chance to try and say anything sensible about this ... just a mailman .. but the compliance lab practice interests me greatly Contents of commons-law digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Linux's Hit Men (Mahesh T. Pai) 2. Re: Linux's Hit Men (Sunil Abraham) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:36:54 +0530 From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <paivakil@yahoo.co.in> Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] Linux's Hit Men To: commons-law@sarai.net Message-ID: <20031015140654.GA4304@nandini> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sunil Abraham said on Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 06:30:04AM +0530,: I feel that this article is rather nasty to the FSF; misrepresents its activities; seeks to confuse people between 'open source' and 'free software'; I regard this as yet another FUD tactic and hope that the FSF will give a reply. > .. the foundation is demanding that Cisco and Broadcom either a) > rip out all the Linux code in the router and use some other > operating system, or b) make their code available to the entire > world. And if they balk? Kuhn raises the threat of legal action. This is what any copyright holder will do when s/he finds that his / her license is being violated. > rare peek into the dark side of the free software movement--a view > that contrasts with the movement's usual public image of happy > software proles linking arms and singing the "Internationale" while > freely sharing the fruits of their code-writing labor. I do not understand why this article is trying to paint a negative image about somebody asking that the terms of a license be complied with. The situation here is that CISCO & their suppliers have distributed software based on code provided to them on the explicit condition that they shall make available all modifications to the sources, if they distribute modified versions. If you fail to honour the terms under which the software is provided to you, you obviously have to face the consequences. Here CISCO is apparently distributing a modified version of the Linux kernel without providing the modified sources. According to the GNU GPL, the obligation to provide the source code is on the distributor, in this case, CISCO. The case of SCO V. IBM is entirely different. They were, even after filing the suit against IBM, distributing their version _and_ sources to the Linux Kernel. The plaintiff themselves were distributing what they claiming to be 'infringing' copies. > And sometimes it collects money from companies it has busted. What is the big deal? Seeking compensation from people who violate your rights is perfectly justified. > Instead, Progress uses an open source database program distributed > under the less onerous Berkeley Software Distribution license. Precisely. This is the difference between 'open source' and 'free software'. The BSD, unlike the GPL, is not a copyleft license. BSD permits 'stealing' of sources by people who release modified binaries, without disclosing the source code. When you use a BSD license, you are free to keep your modifications for yourself. All the same, you cannot prevent the people to whom you 'sell' a BSD licensed product from selling it to yet third parties. Therefore, not only does the BSD license allow people to create and sell derived works from your work, it also enables people to keep the modifications a secret. (hence the word 'stealing' above) The developers should therefore avoid the BSD license. > In some ways, these Free Software Foundation "enforcement actions" > can be more dangerous than a typical copyright spat, because > usually copyright holders seek money--say, royalties on the product > that infringing companies are selling. But the Free Software > Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your > house, or at the very least share it with cloners. Source code written by somebody else is not *your* house. What is *your* loss if you are made to stop profiteering from it? You cannot modify proprietary software anyway. The Free Software Foundation, stands for _users_ rights. They make no bones about it. They declare upfront that 'free software' is 'free as in freedom'; it is not 'free as in free masaladosa'. The user is free to view and study the source code. The user can use the software for any purpose. S/he is free to share the software. S/he is free to modify and distribute the modified software. The GPL is a practical implementation of these four freedoms; and imposes some obligations on the people who distribute 'free-as-in-freedom' software. The following links sum FSF's stand on the matter. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html Some 'open source' licenses, compel users to disclose their modifications, even if there is no distribution. The emphasis is on openness. The GPL however is user friendly in that it permits the users to keep the modifications to themselves, so long as they do not indulge in distribution. The compulsion to disclose the sources (upon distribution of modified versions) , is more developer friendly, since others cannot create parasitic incompatible implementations. Corporate houses who do not like these obligations can opt not to use 'free as in freedom' software. Which is what Nusphere appears to have decided to. > "We'd like people to stop selling proprietary software. It's bad > for the world," Kuhn says. What is bad is 'proprietary software' not 'selling' software. See:- www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html > This despite the fact that the foundation has $750,000 in the bank > and one lawyer who works for free, That is way less that annual income of the top CEOs in proprietary software business. Why are giant Goliaths afraid of this puny David? -- +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://in.geocities.com/paivakil +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: 20 Oct 2003 06:45:42 +0530 From: Sunil Abraham <sunil@mahiti.org> Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] Linux's Hit Men To: Commons Law <commons-law@sarai.net> Message-ID: <1066612568.746.12.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 19:36, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: >> software'; I regard this as yet another FUD tactic and hope that the >> FSF will give a reply. > > They already have. I got this from the summer source list. Thanks to Patrice Riemens for pointing it out. Sunil ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FSF's Kuhn Responds to Forbes Article Oct 14, 2003, 20 :00 UTC (8 Talkback[s]) (7724 reads) (Other stories by Bradley M. Kuhn) Linux Today asked the Free Software Foundation's Bradley Kuhn if he would like a chance to respond to today's piece at Forbes.com. He gave a brief statement and permission to post it here: "Like many articles in the mainstream media, it does not represent any of the sides all that well. "We have an ongoing productive and friendly conversation with CISCO and Broadcom regarding their violation. In no violation case have we ever filed a law suit, and rarely even get the point to threaten one, because most companies feel that it is better for them and their customers to come into compliance. "Companies make a conscious choice to join the GPL'ed world and build their products in freedom. They are required in return to respect the communities rights, and the characterizations in the article don't point out that it is a conscious quid pro quo for companies. Also, Free Software licensing terms give much more permissions than any proprietary equivalent that a company might base their product on." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Sunil Abraham, sunil@mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org MAHITI Infotech Pvt. Ltd.'Reducing the cost and complexity of ICTs' 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 4150580. Mobile: 98455 12611 "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ commons-law mailing list commons-law@sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law End of commons-law Digest, Vol 3, Issue 10 ****************************************** Ian Dickson wrote: >> >> But now there's a problem. The Linux software in the router is >> distributed >> under the GNU General Public License (GPL), which the Free Software >> Foundation created in 1991. >> >> Under the license, if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must >> also distribute the software's source code. And not just the GPL >> code, but >> also the code for any "derivative works" you've created--even if >> publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your >> product. >> >> > I'm in commercial private business, and to be honest, companies know > what the GPL licence says and if they don't like it they shouldn't use > Linux. > > Shed no tears for them. (And watch as "do you have Linux / Open Source > in your code" becomes a core due diligence question). > > As to this meaning that Linux won't take over the world, where is the > surprise in that? Only a few dreamers ever thought that it would. > > In essence the GPL means that it is mad for a commercial company to > build on Linux in any area where they want revenue, and can't afford > to commoditise it. > > But without the GPL most programmers who contribute to the Linux > effort wouldn't, (because they would be upset that their work is > captured, without pay, by "for profit" companies). > > You pays your money and you takes your choice... > > Cheers -- "the riddle which man must solve, he can only solve in being, in being what he is and not something else...." # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net