Re: gpl licensing
Did you chek it with RMS, mini-RMS? Microsoft is developing its software for the benefit of someone else (who is willing to pay) as well. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
rjack wrote: [...] Kunze Letter http://www.nccusl.org/nccusl/meetings/UCITA_Materials/kunze-ucita.pdf Oh that's great. Eben should send another similar letter to the DISTRICT COURT OF FRANKFURT AM MAIN, I suppose. DISTRICT COURT OF FRANKFURT AM MAIN On behalf of the people JUDGMENT The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor Since the conditions of the license granted by the GPL are easily available on the Internet, they were without a doubt incorporated into the contractual relationship between the authors and Defendant (Section 305, Subsection 2, No.2 of the German Civil Code (BGB)). invalidity of this part of the GPL would also jeopardize the further development of the software and therefore affect the basic principle of open source, which is incorporated into the contract by virtue of the preamble of the GPL (cf. Annex K11). Plaintiff would also be entitled to plead invalidity of the entire contract Plaintiff, or the licensors from whom Plaintiff derives his right, have not violated any contractual obligations themselves. Rather, Defendant, who violated contractual obligations, relies on rights granted by contract. Plaintiff would not be not barred from claiming invalidity of the entire contract. And another similar letter to SCO. Summary judgment is appropriate on IBMs Sixth Counterclaim, unless IBM demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of a breach of the GPL. See Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of Am., Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1378 (10th Cir. 1988). In its Seventh Counterclaim, IBM alleges that it relied on SCOs promise not to breach the GPL. Accordingly, in order to survive summary judgment on this counterclaim, IBM must demonstrate an issue of fact as to the existence of a breach of the GPL. See Tolboe Constr. Co. v. Staker Paving Const. Co., 682 P.2d 843, 845-46 (Utah 1984) (addressing elements of a promissory estoppel claim under Utah state law). Restatement of Contracts § 90 (allowing remedy for breach of promise as justice requires).1 The copyright cases expressly discussing the issue have rejected the notion of retroactive breach, termination and infringement. In MCA Television, Ltd. v. Public Interest Corp., 171 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1999), for example, the court explained: The notion that MCA had the power retroactively to rescind the contract makes a mockery of that contractual agreement and would put any contracting party in PICs position in terror of upsetting the licensor in any way for fear of being declared in breach, having the contracted- for licenses retroactively revoked, and being sued both for breach of contract and in copyright for statutory damages that can far outweigh contractually negotiated licensing fees. Id. at 1274 n.8; see also Jacob Maxwell, Inc. v. Veeck, 110 F.3d 749, 753 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that one partys breach does not automatically rescind a contract simply because that breach might give the other party the right to rescind); 3 Melvin B. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 10.15[A] at 10-120 (2004) ([T]he license is terminated and the copyright proprietor may hold his former grantee liable as an infringer for subsequent use of the work. Failing such rescission . . . the grant continues in place . . . until such time as the copyright owner exercises his entitlement to rescind.). It is a well settled principle that where a contract is susceptible of two interpretations, preference will be given to the interpretation which does not violate the law. Bd. of Dirs. And Officers, Forbes Fed. Credit Union v. Natl Credit Union Admin., 477 F.2d 777, 784 (10th Cir. 1973); accord NLRB v. Local 32B-32J Serv. Employees Intl Union, 353 F.3d 197, 202 (2d Cir. 2003); Guthart v. White, 263 F.3d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the Court should not construe the GPL as IBM suggests. And another similar letter to IBM. SCO has taken source code made available by IBM under the GPL, included that code in SCO's Linux products, and distributed significant portions of those products under the GPL. By so doing, SCO accepted the terms of the GPL (pursuant to GPL § 5), both with respect to source code made available by IBM under the GPL and with respect to SCO's own Linux distributions. [...] As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers and users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to suffer damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial and to an injunction prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL. [...] SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is well settled that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Kronos, Inc. v.
Re: gpl licensing
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] If you want analogies, Intellectual Property is to Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks and Trade Secrets what All Living Beings Have Lungs is to amoebas, cattle and afids. A false expression, disguised of sensible generalisation. As we read the Framers' instruction, the Copyright Clause empowers Congress to determine the intellectual property regimes that, overall, in that body's judgment, will serve the ends of the Clause. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003). Intellectual property is a term for various legally protected rights in ideas and their expression. It includes copyrights, patents (in US, both stem from US Constitution's Copyright Clause), trademarks (US Constitution's Commerce Clause), trade secrets (evolved from the common law), among other rights. Countries around the world recognize intellectual property rights, although laws vary. Intellectual property is a form of property which, like physical property, can be bought or sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise transferred, wholly or in part. Accordingly, some or all of the rights may subsequently belong to someone other than the first owner and may be shared. Intellectual property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her consent. Second, intellectual property has attributes that distinguish it from personal property and real property -- that is why we have a different word for it. For example, the enforcement of an owner's exclusive right to use physical property may be accomplished more easily, as a practical matter, than enforcement of an exclusive intellectual property right. Prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook who Wallace Williams and told Williams that copyright and patent laws give authors *a right* to charge more... [to promote innovation]. regards, alexander. -- So now they're going to try the hard work of cracking 'Freedom'. Free, well that means stuff you don't pay for -- Eben Moglen (Moglen: How we'll kill the Microsoft Novell deal) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- GPL v3 takes shape in Sydney
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1950825836;fp;2;fpid;1 - In opening the seminar, the Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre's executive director, David Vaile, said the purpose of the event was not to reach a consensus but to ventilate issues surrounding GPL3, in particular its suitability for non-US legal systems. It is estimated between 70 and 80 percent of all free and open source software is licensed under the GPL, including prolific software like Linux, Samba, and more recently Java. UNSW professor of law Graham Greenleaf said the GPL is an outstanding attempt to create an internationalized one-size-fits-all open source licence. We encourage submissions as to what improvements can be made even at this late stage, Greenleaf said. In both a pre-recorded video and live telephone call, Eben Moglen communicated the purpose of the GPL and how updating it will preserve the FSF's philosophy of protecting developers, and users, rights. Moglen said the next draft of GPL3 is due in four weeks with the final version to be published on March 15, 2007. GPL3 is an attempt to make a licence that would work identically across the world's legal jurisdictions and we believe we have come close to this, Moglen said, adding that the licence includes measures to provide a usable patent defence. IT and consumer electronics companies have strong patent portfolios and we believe the last draft will show how the community can defend itself against patent infringement processes. Also on the GPL3 radar are digital rights management, which Moglen said is an imperative problem the licence must address, not undoing any business needs of vendors, and addressing compatibility with other free software licences. Moglen said GPL2 pushed free software from a niche concept into mainstream technology and stressed knowledge is best produced when it is free to share. GPL3 will be inherently incompatible with the version it replaces, but according to Tridge that is less of a concern than having a static licence which is rendered obsolete by changing laws. GPL3 delighted me and I hope more people choose it for the right reasons, not the wrong reasons, Tridge said, adding open source projects are in danger if they are complacent and stay with old licences because laws governing their validity continue to change. Tridge said the GPL is aimed at ensuring the chain of software rights from developer to user is not diluted because it allows direct contact with the work's author. DRM can be used as an impediment to rights and patents may prevent distribution, he said. While conceding the GPL is not for everyone, Tridge said the fact that more people are thinking about the licence they use and software vendors can still run proprietary applications on GPL-licensed operating systems. Some projects, include the Linux kernel, intend to stay with GPL2 in the immediate term, but Tridge is confident most projects will convert to version three over time. The Samba project intends to move to GPLv3 quickly after it is released, he said. We've been following the development of GPLv3 closely, and think that it suits us very well. A panel session was then held at the event, with nine members of the open source and legal communities discussing how GPL3 can be enhanced. One popular idea was to make GPL3 clearer to understand and an abridged or summarized version which would be good for the community. Not adding to the complexity of the document was also suggested because the licence is lengthy and nobody has discovered a way to reduce it yet. Moglen praised the efforts of all international contributors to GPL3 but did say the licence represents the FSF's own mission and its development is not a process of consensus legislation. - regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Seg, 2006-12-04 Ã s 09:16 +0100, Alexander Terekhov escreveu: Intellectual property is a form of property which, like physical property, can be bought or sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise transferred, wholly or in part. Accordingly, some or all of the rights may subsequently belong to someone other than the first owner and may be shared. Intellectual property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her consent. Says who? Uh moron. Property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her consent. Intellectual property is property. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
Richard Tobin wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh moron. Property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her consent. Intellectual property is property. And property is theft. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon It was Proudhon's book What is Property? that convinced the young Karl Marx that private property should be abolished. In one of his first works, The Holy Family, Marx said, Not only does Proudhon write in the interest of the proletarians, he is himself a proletarian, an ouvrier. His work is a scientific manifesto of the French proletariat. Marx, however, disagreed with Proudhon's anarchism and later published vicious criticisms of Proudhon. Marx wrote The Poverty of Philosophy as a refutation of Proudhon's The Philosophy of Poverty. In his socialism, Proudhon was followed by Mikhail Bakunin. After Bakunin's death, his libertarian socialism diverged into anarchist communism and collectivist anarchism, with notable proponents such as Peter Kropotkin and Joseph Déjacque. Now go visit http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Stallman/index.shtml (Prince Kropotkin of Software (Richard Stallman and the War of Software Clones)) regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
John Hasler wrote: Alexander Terekhov writes: Intellectual property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her consent. Then you agree that trade secrets are not property. Eh? To the extent that appellee has an interest in its health, safety, and environmental data cognizable as a trade-secret property right under Missouri law, that property right is protected by the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Despite their intangible nature, trade secrets have many of the characteristics of more traditional forms of property. Moreover, this Court has found other kinds of intangible interests to be property for purposes of the Clause. Pp. 1000-1004. -- SCOTUS regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] Property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her consent. Entierly true. Intellectual property is property. No, since a) intellectual property has no meaning and b) you cannot own something that does not exist in a physical manifestation, like intellectuality, ideas, or any other intangible concept. Uh moron. You can own it because intellectual property laws make information not free. They make information into a form of property. Do you have a bank account? Money is also intangible. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
Richard Tobin wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her consent. Intellectual property is property. So why are you so concerned to find a legal basis to prevent people who write software from licensing it as they wish? http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise15.html to begin with. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] Well, this is about theft of *Trade*Secrets* not of intellectual property. My my, what a perfect example of a misnomer ip really is. Trade secrets are a form of intellectual property, stupid. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Open Source Development Labs - Open Source Legal Labs?
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6140514.html --- Linux lab cuts staff, focuses on legal issues By Stephen Shankland, CNET News.com Published on ZDNet News: December 4, 2006, 10:27 AM PT * ZDNet Tags: Legal, * Open source, * Linux, * Layoffs, * Intl Business Machines Corp * Intel Corp * Hewlett-packard Open Source Development Labs, an industry-funded consortium, has cut a third of its staff, lost its chief executive and scaled back some technical work. CEO Stuart Cohen resigned to pursue opportunities with higher-level open-source software, and nine employees in technical and administrative roles lost their jobs, said Mike Temple, OSDL's chief operating officer and its new leader. That leaves a staff of 19, including Tom Hanrahan in charge of engineering, Diane Peters in charge of legal work, and top Linux programmers Linus Torvalds and Andrew Morton. The lab's board concluded that a modified mission was appropriate because Linux is now mainstream, and companies have become adept on their own at some of the collaborative work OSDL was founded to oversee, Temple said Monday. The group is funded by IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Novell, Intel and several other computing companies. OSDL's middleman role--connecting customer requirements, computing-company resources and developers--remains unchanged, Temple said. We will be a catalyst among those three, to bring them together, solve problems and create the code, Temple said. Funding freed up through the layoffs is set to go toward legal work, which the group's members have found valuable, Temple added. The group either will contract with legal professionals or hire a staff attorney, he said. In technical matters, the organization will stop focusing on projects defining broad categories of Linux--earlier examples including efforts for high-end servers, telecommunications gear, mobile phones and desktop computers. Instead, engineering work will emphasize narrower efforts to find areas where new software needs to be written. Cohen's resignation as CEO was coincidental and independent of the other changes at OSDL, Temple said. Cohen is looking at opportunities in encouraging collaboration among companies to produce higher-level open-source software. He said he's had discussions with companies in financial services, insurance and health care. Companies can work together to form a community, to work together to develop the application software at a much lower cost, Cohen said. --- regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- GPLv3 would prevent MS/Novell
http://www.builderau.com.au/blogs/betaliving/viewblogpost.htm?p=339270743 - GPLv3 would prevent MS/Novell By Chris Duckett | 2006-12-04 14:07:36 Print this | E-mail this | Leave a comment According to the Free Software Foundation's general counsel, Eben Moglen, GPL version 3 would prevent the type of deal made by Microsoft and Novell from happening. Moglen told delegates at a GPL V3 symposium held at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) that the deal would not happen again is due to an addition of a clause that would force anybody making provisions to a set of users have to extend that provision to all users. Translated that means that the patent deal Microsoft has made to Novell would have to be extended to all Linux users. Moglen told the audience he hoped that the new GPL would make Microsoft retract their new patent deal. Reinforcing Moglen's comments was Samba founder, Andrew Tridge Tridgell. Tridge said the GPL allowed developers to respond to a changing legal environment otherwise bit-rot would set in and the direction of the licence would be determined by the courts. With a new licence, developers could remain on the front foot and respond to the new threats from patents, the DCMA and DRM. According to Moglen and Tridge internationalisation is among the new initiatives contained inside the new GPL. References to the US legal system and statues have been replaced with their international equivalents and this version of the licence can work within all major legal systems. Although parts of the new licence may appear tautologous, Moglen explained that that was to combat the different legal systems. For instance Section 3 of the new licence has language that addresses both the EU legal system and the DCMA. Flexibility has been added for local warranty provisions which can now be made by the expansion of Section 7b. Of particular interest to Australian developers will be how the Trade Practices Act and how the latest Copyright Law changes will affect the interpretation. To give an Australian angle on the changes, the Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre will be putting in a submission to the Free Software Foundation. According to the Free Software Foundation simplification between the GPL and LGPL will occur in version 3 with the LGPL simply being the GPL with some permissions added. As a thought exercise, Moglen said that he had made equivalents to the Apache and Eclipse licences as Section 7a additions to the GPL. The GPL is said to be launched on March 15th 2007 with a last call draft to be published in 3 to 4 weeks time. - Tridge might really want to wiki a bit at http://www.wikipatents.com/5218697.html regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Linus on drugs [was: Open Source Development Labs - Open Source Legal Labs?]
--- Name: Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 12/3/06 Chung Leong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 12/3/06 wrote: That's a strange way to argue it. You're speaking as though there's a normal market in which new drugs without patent protection would be developed. Let say we remove this market distortion. Can you explain how the economics of developing a drug that could be immediately copied by others? That's a rather idiotic argument. It's sadly a very common one. How do you think most drugs got invented historically? Do you think penicillin was invented because Alexander Fleming or St Mary's Hospital (where he was working) was looking to make a huge profit? What kind of sad and dark world do you live in, that you believe that people only do things because they want to help big pharma make billions and billions of dollars? In other words, your whole argument is not only totally stupid and scary, it's also provably irrelevant. Most of the drugs people use today are actually not even protected by patents, and were invented totally without any of those protections. In fact, even a lot of the patented stuff was invented not because of patents, but despite them. Btw, penicillin is again a great example: not only was it discovered without any patent push what-so-ever, but: - what pushed it to be developed was actually World War II. Arguably, wars are a hell of a lot better at pushing medical technology than any IP protection racket has ever been. That doesn't make people think that wars are good, though. But why do you blindly believe that very strong IP protection is good, if you don't believe wars are good? The facts and reality do not agree with you. - The problem with penicillin was production, not the drug itself. That's arguably an area where patents have been more successful, and a lot of people who do not like patents on software, business methods, or on drugs and biological elements are much more likely to support patents on things like factory methods. - But even there, in the production part, where patents were actually used, there is soem argument that the patents actually made penicilling production less effective. It wasn't actually a drug company, but the USDA (yes, the government agency) that actually came up with the best way to big production. In other words, one of the most important drugs of modern times totally lays to waste your idiotic and unrealistic argument. It's sad how people seem to believe - despite all evidence to the contrary - that somehow patents are required to make people even want to develop drugs. So. Try to back up your opinions with facts instead of trying to make the inane (and unsupportable) argument that patent protection rackets are the only way to make progress. Money doesn't actually make the world go round. It revolves around the sun quite well even without us having to pay it to do so, and the same is true for technical innovation. There is basically zero support for the notion that technical advances (in any area) depend on strong IP laws, and there are lots of examples where the biggest advances were done in the absense of strong IP rules. Yet people continue to blindly blather about how you have to have patents. With zero actual fact to back it up. And somehow it's gotten such a common belief that you don't even get questioned most of the time. It's called a myth. Being widely believed does not make it true. Linus Name: Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 12/3/06 Dean Kent ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 12/3/06 wrote: What you are now getting into is something we might call 'scalability', and we might even look to what we call a 'pyramid club'. How long can the current process continue to work? There are already signs that it cannot hold up, so to continue to defend it by using past results may not be very smart. Good point. One large reason you can't really compare data from different points in time is that the technology itself tends to change how things are done. Extrapolating that doesn't work very well, and what worked a hundred years ago may not work that well today or a hundred years from today. As a trivial example - not that long ago an average product could basically be designed by a single person and wouldn't step on many patents not just because there weren't many patents, but also because things just were fundamentally simpler. In that situation, maybe the whole notion of patents seemed like a better idea, and just worked better too. Btw, I don't think IP is a bad thing per se. The bad thing about IP laws these days are not that there are IP laws (including patent laws), but the fact that they don't work, and that people have forgotten why they exist. A lot of people seem to think that patents exists to make money for people who somehow earned it for coming up with the patent (never mind that they may not be the people who actually did the work, and that it's often very
[debunked] Linus on drugs
Name: Anil Maliyekkel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 12/3/06 Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 12/3/06 wrote: --- Do you think penicillin was invented because Alexander Fleming or St Mary's Hospital (where he was working) was looking to make a huge profit? ... Btw, penicillin is again a great example: not only was it discovered without any patent push what-so-ever, but: This is a poor argument. If we relied on accidental discoveries to advance medicine, we wouldn't have very many antibiotics today to treat the multitude of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that have popped up since the advent of penicillin (and other naturally produced antibiotics). If you can't rely on nature to do all the hard work, you are going to have to spend lots of money. And even when nature has done the hard work, finding the results either depends on luck or spending lots of money. The question is where does that money come from. Name: Chung Leong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 12/3/06 Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 12/3/06 wrote: --- That's a rather idiotic argument. It's sadly a very common one. Since your position is that the system is distorted, it's only fair to ask to what an undistorted system is and how it'd function. How do you think most drugs got invented historically? I think most drugs used today were at some point under patent protection. Can't find a survey that confirms this, but a cursory search at the USPTO indicates that most drugs are covered by multiple patents. What kind of sad and dark world do you live in, that you believe that people only do things because they want to help big pharma make billions and billions of dollars? It live in a world where researchers expect to make a salary, where facility and equirpment cost money, where drug test volunteers are cared for, and where consumers demand compensation if a drug turns out to be unsafe. Even if an organization does not seek to make a profit, clearly it has to avoid losses in order to continue operation. In other words, one of the most important drugs of modern times totally lays to waste your idiotic and unrealistic argument. Why don't you bring up the paper, removeable-type, gun-powder, and compass too. Those are important inventions. Better yet, lay waste to my argument with the wheel. So. Try to back up your opinions with facts instead of trying to make the inane (and unsupportable) argument that patent protection rackets are the only way to make progress. Let me just randomly picked a few drugs: Cipro was patented. Ibuprofen was patented. Asprinin was patented. AZT was patened. Prozac was patented. Ecstasy was patented. Cortisone was patented. There is basically zero support for the notion that technical advances (in any area) depend on strong IP laws, and there are lots of examples where the biggest advances were done in the absense of strong IP rules. IP protection channels resources to those making technical advances, who can then perform more research to beget more advances. The logic is simple enough. Corporations aren't the only ones benefitting. The Bayh-Dole act has been a huge boon to American universities. And the results show. The Shanghai education ranking (which emphasizes research) is dominated by American schools. This year's Nobel science prizes were swept by Americans. Meanwhile, Europe is fretting about a brain-drain. Name: Anil Maliyekkel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 12/4/06 Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 12/3/06 wrote: --- I've got news for that person: a lot of human advances are accidents. The interesting thing is how those accidents just keep on happening to people who are interested in how things work, and they start looking at what the reason for the accident was. At that point, it's not an accident at all any more: it's how science gets done. Being accidental in no way changes that basic fact. Yes accidents happen, but they don't happen at a fast enough pace. And we can't rely on nature to provide us with all the solutions. The multitude of beta-lactam drugs designed from knowledge gained from studying penicillin and the few other naturally occuring drugs in the same family and from studying the resistance bacterial mechanisms to those drugs were obviously not accidental creations. They were mostly created by researchers working for companies or academic institutions interested in product development or building IP portfolios. Btw, of the drugs you mention, at least a couple weren't done by commercial companies at all, which totally moots your point. At least AZT was from a University with US government funding, for example. IOW, even when patented, important drugs were not discovered because of any patent, but because of very simple and direct needs: people paying for it because of basic science and health reasons. So I don't think you have a very strong case to say that patents drive the industry. Linus AZT was synthesized in
Novell-MS Pact: PJ-groklaw goes amok... Anonymous visitors says It really hurts GL's credibility
In comments to: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061204130954610 (Novell Forking OpenOffice.org) Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 10:40 AM EST one stupid comment per person per article is enough. Careful there PJ: being arrogant on top of being ignorant is a deadly sin in technical environments. It's OK for you to not know what a fork is but it's not OK for you to insult the people who try to explain why you're wrong. It really hurts GL's credibility. Please stop this FUD campaign and make the necessary corrections. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Novell-MS Pact: We worked hard, were victorious, and now are denied the reward says PJ-groklaw
LOL. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061203015212989 (Why the Novell Deal is Bad SCO's Memo in Support of Motion for SJ: We Did Not Breach the GPL) We have read IBM's scathing Memorandum in Opposition to this SCO motion already, but here's SCO's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on IBM's Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Counterclaims [PDF] as text. IBM's Memo provides a point by point answer and then some. Of all the motions in this world, this one is the least deserving to succeed. SCO is asking the court to kill IBM's copyright infringement counterclaims, the ones based on the GPL violations, on the grounds that it never violated the GPL. SCO was the first to try to get cute with the GPL on a grand scale, and as you will see, they do it with panache, with cases and arcane arguments, even some truly silly ones, like their antitrust allegations which another judge has already laughed out of court in a companion lawsuit. Sadly, SCO's attempt to wiggle around the GPL turned out not to be the last. The Novell-Microsoft agreement also, as Richard Stallman put it, cunningly tries to sidestep GPLv2. So we have an attack from within. A serious one, because everything SCO and its backers wanted from this litigation, but failed to achieve, Novell just handed to Microsoft on a silver platter by signing that patent agreement. Let me explain why I see it that way. There's a reason why corporate interests are not enamored of the GPL. It's also the reason why it it matters: it has proven effective in forcing the greedy and unscrupulous to play fair with code they didn't write but would love to get illegitimate money from somehow anyway. (It's fine to make money from GPL code. IBM and Red Hat and many others do. But you have to respect the license, which has as its goal freedom for the code, so you are allowed to use GPL code as long as you let its authors (and everyone else) freely and without restrictions outside the four corners of the GPL itself use/study/modify your code that you write based on that code.) However, there is a concerted effort, in my opinion, to destroy the GPLv2, death by a thousand cuts and compromises. I think they'd like to do to Linux what they did to Unix. The GPL stands in their proprietary way, so they are doing all they can dream up to overthrow it or get around it with cleverness. That is one reason we need GPLv3, obviously. Here is one extreme example, SCO's contribution to the effort. It's important to remember, as you watch SCO try to persuade the court that it didn't do what it did, or that the GPL doesn't mean what it says and what its authors say it means, that this was one of the prime goals of this litigation: 1. to try to prove that the GPL is not legally binding and so can be violated in order to make some money, honey. 2. Another goal was to cast a legal cloud over Linux, so in the enterprise, PHBs would be afraid to employ it for fear of legal consequences of possibly violating SCO's IP. 3. And also there was the apparent goal of forcing Linux to cost something, by adding on top of it the SCOsource license at $699 a pop. Groklaw has written about all of this and more since mid-May of 2003, daily, with only two or three days off in all that time. This is Groklaw's 2,838th article. We now have 10,549 members, who have worked very hard to disprove SCO's scurrilous claims, and we did. We succeeded, beyond my hopes when we started. But here's the sad part. As victory is in sight, Novell signs a patent agreement with Microsoft that does the following: 1. Novell agrees to violate the clear intent and spirit of the GPL in an attempt to comply literally with the words but not with the actual known purpose of the license to make money off of code Novell didn't write and doesn't own. So instead of trying to prove the GPL isn't binding, they just kick it to the curb and step over it and dare the community to do something about it? 2. puts a FUD legal cloud over Linux (this time a patent cloud) or in any case an IP cloud, as per Steve Ballmer's vague wording -- and was Darl McBride's less vague?; 3. makes Novell's Linux cost more, because it has agreed to pay Microsoft royalties, whereas SCO asked for money for its license; What is the cotton pickin' difference? Other than being worse? Novell, I'd like you to answer that question. From Microsoft's point of view, I see no difference. What SCO could not win, Novell has handed Microsoft without a fight. The community didn't fight this hard and this long for such a result. So there you have it, as I see it: two companies claiming to be Linux companies that turned on the GPL and the rest of the community for money, and the beneficiary is Microsoft. What a coincidence. Does it matter that one did it maliciously and the other was merely a dope? I don't know for sure which is which or even if either is properly described since I can't read hearts, but my answer to the
Re: gpl licensing
I mostly agree with troll Steven. Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:59:12 + Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ter, 2006-12-05 às 18:49 -0600, John Hasler escreveu: Rui Miguel Silva wrote: When you buy a piece of land, does it say your contract that it becomes public property after 20 years (as in patents)? I can buy a lease on a piece of land that expires after 20 years. Nonetheless, the law recognizes that lease as property. The lease, not the land. Of course, that would then only prove that intangibles, like the lease, can be owned, and hence are property. I believe that the crux of the matter is that more and more of our economic activity has become intangible. We've become very efficient at producing food - barely a few percent of the population in Europe and the USA. Even if you take the services to the farming community into consideration (producing tractors and other farming implements, veterinary services etc.) the fact remains that we have to find gainful employment for 90% of the population. Add to that the increase in productivity of all manufacturing processes, and it's not difficult to see that we need a lot of new things to keep people gainfully employed. Some of these things are material objects, such as cell 'phones, but even more of them are services. Almost all of them are in the category nice to have - people can survive quite well without texting, or emailing, or GPS devices. The challenge for a society is to maintain a social structure that motivates people. Once you've put the food production of millions of people in the hands of a few tens of thousand, you need to make sure that they find value and motivation in what society offers them. Whether that is culture or cars, fancy clothes or holidays on tropical isles - society has to motivate enough people to produce what it needs to survive, or face extinction. This means that somehow intangible values (such as sitting in meetings or playing a gig) have to be valued as much as a loaf of bread, or a steak. That way, we can all happily work at things we're good at, whilst acquiring tokens (money) that allow us buy food, clothes, lodging and all the objects and services that motivate us. Software, recorded music, books, movies etc. all can be reproduced cheaply and easily, but are expensive to produce (have you ever considered how many people are involved in making a movie?). If you make it impossible for people to recoup the costs of producing the movie, because it's easy and cheap to copy a DVD, and the DVD is still there after you've copied it, how are you going to motivate people to pony up the money to pay wages to a film crew, set creators, costume designers, caterers etc? This is why intangibles have to be property of sorts - because ultimately you will have to exchange them for food or clothes. The alternative is that only land will have real value. Welcome to the middle ages. Of course the system is no longer well adapted to the current technological and social circumstances. Patents, for example, are still quite effective when the players are of equal size. The knowledge they contain becomes public and cross-license deals are signed. What they do not allow is smaller players to challenge the big ones. But don't forget that there were no really large (by today's standards) companies when the patent system was designed. So to a degree it still works as designed, and it's hard to fault a system for not catering for situations and technologies its designers could not even dream of. So let's work at designing a better system - better adapted to our needs and technologies. But make sure that system supports the large majority of people who create nothing but intangibles, or you'd better buy yourself a nice, large, fertile plot, and lots of weapons to defend your property, because those of us who are left will be back to farming and fighting. Take care, regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
rjack wrote: [...] I suppose you call Richard Stallman and the Free Sofware Foundation a democracy? The free in free software is euphemistic and semantic gobbledegook. RMS is an absolute dictator -- a mini Stalin -- concerning supposedly free software. Of hypocrisy and the FSF Submitted by dylanknightrogers on Sun, 2006-12-03 19:38. debian free software fsf gnu linux rms The Free Software Foundation acts as the benevolent force guiding the computer industry. It protects the users of software from the baddies, the list of which very often includes the names Microsoft, Apple, and TiVo. But what happens when the benevolent force transforms into something of a hypocrit? The Free Software Foundation has an official list of Free GNU/Linux distributions. That is, distros that dont include any non-free software in the mainline distribution image or package repositories. With that in mind, the said list is quite selective. The names of the distributions are as follows: - gNewSense - Ututo - Blag - Dynebolic - GNUStep - Musix Something that I found peculiar was that the distributions Debian and Gentoo both have a social contract that ensures the freedom of the distribution. Debian explicitly states on numerous occasions that the system will never require the use of a component that is non-free. Now, for the interesting part. By performing a simple Netcraft check, we can see the FSF servers running what GNU/Linux distro? Debian, of course! If the concept hasnt violated your cortex just yet, I must remind you of this double standard of distribution selection. While Debian remains a free distro in its default substance, the official package repositories include a section with a raft of non-free software in it. I spoke with Richard Stallman about this. He didnt seem to be nearly as disappointed as I was: We did not install any of that non-free software, so it is ok for us to run Debian. But we cannot recommend its servers to the public. Other people might install the non-free software from the site. That sentence seems to be missing something. While Stallman has a good reason to not recommend the Debian servers or condone their actions, he fails to recognize that I can get non-free software anywhere. Just because a piece of non-free software is in my distributions package repository does not mean I am going to install and use it. I could very well go somewhere else and get the non-free software. In fact, requiring a free distribution to exclude proprietary software from their repositores may actually increase the prevalence of the users ability to go somewhere else and grab the non-free software they wish to use. There are many free GNU/Linux distributions out there that need to be recognized, but cannot becuase of their distribution of non-free components in their repositories. This is an interesting debate, and Id like to hear some feedback. In my eyes, Debian remains a free GNU/Linux system. Further Hypocrisies Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2006-12-06 04:15. Further hypocrisies: The FSF just officially sanctioned GNU Sense as their official distro. It is based on the commercial distro Ubuntu, which has its roots in Debian. I thought I would try GNU Sense after hearing RMS on a talk show, where he was castigating anyone who would use flash in their browser. The first thing I tried was to see how well gnash was working now. And, since this was an official FSF sanctioned distro, surely installing GNASH would be no problem. Guess again! Firefox tried to install flash! Not only that, but I couldn't find gnash anywhere in the GNU Sense repositories. I have communicated with RMS on quite a few occasions. He requires that you run the gauntlet of semantical minutia, and will pounce on any references made that aren't just so. So, is my mention of the fact that the FSF is officially supporting a commercial Debian variant, and even it doesn't offer any alternative to flash, in any way nitpicking? Not when you're playing by RMS's rules it isn't!! Even Further Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2006-12-06 15:01. Stallman insists that all Linux distributions be called GNU/Linux. However, most distributions have elements that are not GPL and GNU compatible. I would think that he should instead insist that only distributions that meet the full criteria of GNU and GPL compatibility be called GNU/Linux. By including non-free software in his definition this creates a contradiction. It also puts him on shaky legal grounds if someone uses that term GPL and GNU for something that is not free and FSF has not enforced the proper use of their name. Joe Kaplenk Links: http://www.libervis.com/of_hypocrisy_and_the_fsf http://www.libervis.com/of_hypocrisy_and_the_fsf#comment-7657 http://www.libervis.com/of_hypocrisy_and_the_fsf#comment-7666 regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eban Moglen is our general now says astrashe
rjack wrote: [...] Having invented a new copyright license that is not a contract, arch legal beagle Professor Moglen now is busyily inventing a new copyright license that is not only effective retroactively but assumes control of non GPL distribitors' patent rights. Rumors say that in the new license will be included terms to retroactively seize the wife, the kids and all non-GPl'd family pets. When Professor Moglen declares world domination and down with the bourgeoisie he means it! When you're on a roll you're on a roll. Don't mess with the FSF!!! Eban Moglen is our general now - Slashdot post on msft/novl deal by astrashe (7452) Alter Relationship on Wednesday December 06, @12:10AM (#17124840) (Last Journal: Friday March 26, @04:22PM) My inclination has always been to think of the freedom guys as a little strident, and a little too extreme. The things Linus says about licensing have always made the most sense to me intuitively, and the other guys have always come across as a little controlling, and a little crusading. The one thing I've taken away from the Novell/MS deal, though, is that this stuff is really complicated, and it's really dangerous. I'll be honest -- I don't understand all of the implications of the deal, or why each of the two parties decided to do it. But I feel like something's going on -- like I'm playing 3 card monte on the street or something. I don't think that non-specialists (ie., geeks who don't think much about law) are in a good position to know what's best. Novell, and the guys that came to Novell when they bought Ximian and SUSE, have done an incredible amount of good for our community. We are, to a certain extent, depending on Novell's patents to protect us in this coming fight. I think they're good guys, doing what they feel they have to do in order to survive. But even if this isn't nefarious, it's made us realize that we'd be open to something similar that was nefarious. Those crazy freedom guys weren't so crazy after all. So I think we have to trust the people who understand these treacherous waters the best -- I think that's Eban Moglen. He says that GPL3 is necessary to counter this threat, and he says it will be effective, even if the kernel remains under GPL2. The toolchain will be enough to do what we need. I don't want to demonize Novell, because they've given me a lot of great code, and because there are people there who are real heroes to our community. I think they're mistaken, and I think Linus is mistaken to stick with GPL2. It just ain't viral enough to keep us safe. But instead of attacking people, or getting hysterical, I think the thing to do is to listen to our best legal minds, and back GPL3. So my feeling is that Linus's honor is beyond question, he's obviously a lot smarter than I am, and he might even be smarter than Eban Moglen. But when it comes to law, I'm going to listen to Moglen. And I would say that the Ximian guys' honor is beyond question, and that they're a lot smarter than I am as well. But I'm still going to listen to Moglen about the law. Again, my feeling is that we shouldn't let this break down cooperation, we shouldn't let it affect the civility of our community, and we shouldn't attribute bad motives to anyone. But we should play it safe, and innoculate with GPL3. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157) wrote: [...] The word commercial is thrown in by this person solely for the purpose of bloating his argument. There is nothing in the GPL that states that software cannot be sold commercially, So now they're going to try the hard work of cracking 'Freedom'. Free, well that means stuff you don't pay for -- Eben Moglen (Moglen: How we'll kill the Microsoft Novell deal) regards, alexander. -- http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139911511108 (Law.com - Meet the DotCommunist) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157) wrote: On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:19, Alexander Terekhov stood up and addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...: Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157) wrote: [...] The word commercial is thrown in by this person solely for the purpose of bloating his argument. There is nothing in the GPL that states that software cannot be sold commercially, So now they're going to try the hard work of cracking 'Freedom'. Free, well that means stuff you don't pay for -- Eben Moglen (Moglen: How we'll kill the Microsoft Novell deal) Freedom doesn't mean that it has to be free of charge, although generally Free Software does indeed come free of charge. Equating free to free of charge is a colloquialism. It's not the FSF's fault that people tend to take rumors and misinterpretations for truths. IBM: 65. Among the further restrictions that the GPL and LGPL do not permit are royalties or licensing fees (Ex.27 ¶¶ 2, 3; Ex. 26 ¶¶ 2, 4) (although fees can be collected for the physical act of transferring a copy of the code or for warranty protection). (Ex. 27 ¶ 1; Ex. 26 ¶ 1.) If modified works or machine-readable versions of GPL- or LGPL- licensed software are distributed, they must be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. (Ex. 27 ¶ 2 (emphasis added); Ex. 26 ¶ 2; see also Ex. 27 ¶ 3; Ex. 26 ¶ 4.) REDACTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IBM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT in SCO v. IBM (see Groklaw). And drunken trio team of judges lead by prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook went even further: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbrshofile=06-2454_008.pdf --- Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and EVANS, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Does the provision of copyrighted software under the GNU General Public License (GPL) violate the federal antitrust laws? Authors who distribute their works under this license, devised by the Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not only copying but also the creation of derivative worksand the license prohibits charging for the derivative work. People may make and distribute derivative works if and only if they come under the same license terms as the original work. Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. Copyright law, usually the basis of limiting reproduction in order to collect a fee, ensures that open- source software remains free: any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted the GPL. The Free Software Foundation calls the result copyleft. [...] The GPL covers only the software; people are free to charge for the physical media on which it comes and for assistance in making it work. Paper manuals, and the time of knowledgeable people who service and support an installation, thus are the most expensive part of using Linux. So concluded prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, and added that: Copyright and patent laws give authors *a right* to charge more [than zero], so that they can recover their fixed costs [and thus promote innovation], but they do *not require* authors to charge more. This [and the fact that the Supreme Court has permitted producers to initiate predatory-pricing litigation] does not assist Williams, however, because his legal theory is faulty substantively. You hear that, Williams? (Does Easterbrook mean Wallace or Gates?) You are not required to charge more once a piece of your intellectual property exists. And so it is perfectly okay for copyleft (free as in freedom) to suppress *a right* given by copyright law and *require* to charge zero to cover costs of creating a piece of intellectual property to exist. Impeccable logic. Right, Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157)? regards, alexander. -- http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139911511108 (Law.com - Meet the DotCommunist) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl as applied to ideas
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] Ideas are not covered by any law, having them covered would be quite bad. http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=196601593 - IBM sues maker of Intel-based mainframe clones Paul McDougall InformationWeek (12/05/2006 9:00 AM EST) In its second major patent enforcement action in as many months, IBM is quietly suing an Intel-backed maker of computers that uses a version of IBM's high-end mainframe operating system reconfigured to run atop Intel's industry standard processors, InformationWeek has learned. In a lawsuit, IBM alleges that the mainframe emulator systems offered by Platform Solutions Inc. violate IBM patents on its z/OS operating system as well as patents relating to its previous mainframe operating system, known as OS/390. On its Web site, Platform Solutions claims that it offers a new generation of compatible mainframe computers designed to meet the rapidly changing business needs of today's enterprise. The company says its Intel 64-bit Itanium-based systems are fully compatible with z/OS and OS/390. IBM typically offers those operating systems for sale only with IBM mainframes running more expensive dedicated processors of its own manufacture. PSI has developed and is now implementing a business model that seeks to usurp the value of IBM's investment in mainframe computer systems, IBM alleges in the suit, which was filed last week in U.S District Court in New York. Platform Solutions' emulator translates IBM's copyrighted software into a set of instructions that can be executed by a processor that is not capable of executing the original IBM instructions, IBM claims. IBM's decision to sue Platform Solutions is another indication that the company is becoming more aggressive about defending its intellectual property in an effort to extract more revenue from its extensive patent trove. In late October, the company sued Amazon.com, claiming that Amazon's online sales technology violates a number of IBM e-commerce patents. At the time, David Kappos, IBM's top attorney for intellectual property, told InformationWeek that the suit didn't mark the beginning of an IBM campaign to hunt down patent violators, even though the company publicly announced the decision to sue Amazon through a press release. IBM hasn't made any public disclosures, other than the court filing, about the Platform Solutions lawsuit. In that filing, IBM says it had little choice to sue Platform Solutions because the vendor's clone systems put IBM's reputation in jeopardy. IBM claims Platform Solutions' technology won't run its mainframe operating systems properly, and the result could be customer disappointment that might wash over to IBM. IBM has a strong interest in ensuring that z/OS is not used on computer systems with which z/OS is not fully compatible or used in ways that have the potential to undermine either the reputation of z/OS for accuracy, data integrity, and reliability of z/OS for mission critical applications, IBM says in its lawsuit. Platform Solutions was founded in 1999 by a team of engineers that formerly worked at mainframe maker Amdahl. The privately held company bills itself as The New Choice In Mainframe Computers and has received funding from Goldman Sachs, Fujitsu, and Itanium manufacturer Intel, among others. In August, Platform Solutions demonstrated its mainframe clones at a conference in Baltimore held by SHARE, an IBM user group. IBM says Platform Solutions is making a number of false claims to potential customers, including that IBM will license its operating systems for use on PSI's systems in a 'business as usual' manner. IBM also claims that Platform Solutions ignored its requests to examine a clone system and negotiate possible cases of infringement. The computing giant says Platform Solutions' response was to threaten it with antitrust litigation. IBM is asking the U.S. District Court to declare pre-emptively that its mainframe business doesn't violate any antitrust laws. It's also suing Platform Solutions for breach of contract. IBM is seeking an injunction that would prevent Platform Solutions from selling its systems and is asking for unspecified financial damages. Executives from Platform Solutions weren't immediately available for comment. - Pundits whispered that's only the first step to counter Microsoft's Linux crunching efforts thru possible lawsuits. regards, alexander. -- http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139911511108 (Law.com - Meet the DotCommunist) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl as applied to ideas
Joseph S. wrote: [...] In effect, GPLed software is more inaccessible for study and inspection than shareware? By fear of contamination. Yup. The GPL family is highly toxic (according to GPL experts like RMS, Eben Moglen, and FSF's GPL Compliance Lab): cyanide - LGPL - GPLv2 - polonium 210 - GPLv3 (GA March 2007). Avoid it. regards, alexander. -- http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139911511108 (Law.com - Meet the DotCommunist) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Opinion: GPL Written By A Monkey -- GNU GPL (a.k.a. Please rape me!)
http://spl.haxial.net/gnu-gpl/ Richard Stallman has the license-writing skills of a monkey. I discovered this when I tried to write an accurate and concise summary of his license. Following I tear the GPL to shreds, and then explain why each shred is poorly written for a license agreement. Portions which I had no comment on are omitted. You might think I am being a bit too fussy with some of my comments, but remember this is a LEGAL AGREEMENT, not general writing, and so the standard is expected to be higher. GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. Here he denies you permission to change the document (changing it is not allowed), yet in the very next paragraph he advocates freedom to change (the [GPL] is intended to guarantee your freedom to [...] change free software). Hypocrite! Double standard! Preamble The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. This contradicts section 5 where he says, nothing [other than this License] grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program. Therefore, how can the licenses for most software be taking away your freedom when you did not have that freedom/permission in the first place? By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. It only guarantees your freedom if you do it according to the terms and conditions of this license, which places restrictions on how you share and change it, so therefore it is not absolute freedom. It would be more accurate to say, the GPL is intended to guarantee your freedom according to the GNU definition of freedom. Also, this sort of statement is vague/ambiguous propaganda and has no place in a professional license agreement. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too. Again not really appropriate for a professional license agreement. This would be better located in accompanying documentation. When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. If freedom is what he means, then he should say that (software freedom) instead of using a word which he knows is ambiguous. Or better, say GPL software. He probably just likes saying free because it is a marketing buzzword and people become all excited if they think they are getting something for free. If you call within the next 5 picoseconds, we'll throw in this set of steak knives absolutely FREE of charge! (Which actually means the knives are included in the price, not free at all.) And again this statement is not appropriate for inclusion in a license agreement. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), Unclear whether this means compiled software, source code, or both, and whether this means you can charge any price you wish for either of those. Professional license agreements should not force the reader to make assumptions. that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, Unclear. For free or for a price or any price? that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; Is free programs supposed to mean the same as the free software terminology that was given a special meaning earlier? Forcing the reader to make assumptions again. This is supposed to be a license agreement -- the standard and clarity of writing is supposed to be higher than usual. To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. This is shockingly vague -- the restrictions and certain responsibilities are mentioned as concepts rather than definitions. Such a statement has no place in a license agreement. Perhaps in accompanying documentation. For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, Inconsistent use of terminology. Alternating between free software, free programs, the software, a program, the Program. whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. For starters, this should say, ...all the legal rights that you
Re: 'It's just a f*cking kernel...'
David Kastrup wrote: [...] If you don't remember: the postings about it here were really amusing regarding Terekhov's grip on reality: he paraded the verdict here I remember that you took exception to my characterization of the German phrase In Übrigen wird die Klage abgewiesen (http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf) as the rest of the case was dismissed. Well, well, well, dear dak, here is jbb's own translation: http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf Further claims are dismissed. I remember that you also took exception to the fact that the GPL is a contract. I recall you saying That's a consequence of the GPL being a license, not a contract and all that bullshit. Are you still in denial, dear GNUtian dak? regards, alexander. -- What is Linux? Linux is a clone of the operating system Unix, written from scratch by Linus Torvalds with assistance from a loosely-knit team of hackers across the Net. -- http://www.kernel.org/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: EASTERBROOK's quick look on the GPL and Wallace's claim
Ben Pfaff wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 06-2454 DANIEL WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION; RED HAT, INC.; and NOVELL, INC., Defendants-Appellees. The short version can be summed up by this sentence from the opinion: This does not assist Williams, however, because his legal theory is faulty substantively. The opinion only mentions Williams in that sentence. Is this a typo for Wallace? http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbrshofile=06-2454_010.pdf --- Order The slip opinion of this court issued on Novermer 9, 2006, is amended as follows: Page 2, first full paragraph, line 4, change Unix® to UNIX®; Page 3, first full paragraph, line 7, change Williams to Wallace. --- But EASTERBROOK's quick look on the GPL and Wallace's claim stands. regards, alexander. -- http://www.linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Using a script licensed under GPL in an application licensedunder a license that's not compatible with GPL
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] The OP said that they add features that are not provided if the GPLed scripts are used. Features like freedom. Man, run to doctor, ams. regards, alexander. -- Don't Buy Harry Potter Books -- http://www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Strawmen and Urban Legends
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: An informative read is The Dangers of Software Patents: http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html There are also certain software developers for whom getting a patent licence is extremely hard. We Free Software developers. You see Free Software has been so successful because we have shown we can develop software without any money. Volunteers do it. We don't need to have money to develop powerful large programs. But we certainly need to have money if we're going to buy patent licences. Says it all. regards, alexander. -- Don't Buy Harry Potter Books -- http://www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Strawmen and Urban Legends
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: An informative read is The Dangers of Software Patents: http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html The advocates of software idea patents ask you to take for granted that no matter what harm or trouble or nuisance these patents may cause, they must be promoting progress and surely that justifies whatever, whatever trouble they may impose on you. But this is not so. You can look at the economic modelling to show it's not so. In www.researchoninnovation.org/patents.pdf, I warn you, it's rather ^^^ mathematical, but it shows how, in a field with incremental innovation, a patent system can retard progress. The assumption that they want us to take for granted is false. Now, http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/comp/replies/eicta_en.pdf --- We trust that the Commission fully understands that, despite statements to the contrary in some quarters, there is no consensus among economists that patents inhibit innovation in the software sector. The study most often cited by proponents of this argument (Sequential Innovation, Patents and Imitation; J. Bessen/E. Maskin, 1997/1999) is inconclusive at best and flawed in many respects. It relies largely on data from the 1970s and 1980s. In this dynamic and rapidly changing industry, public policy for the 21st century should not be based on inconclusive results drawn from data from an earlier era of information and communications technologies. The authors claim that standard arguments would predict that RD intensity and productivity should have increased among patenting firms during the period studied and that this increase did not occur, consistent with their model, for several samples of software-related industries and firms after 1986. They conclude that this is an effect of an extension of patent protection to many software ideas by a series of court decisions in the early 1980s, although there is no causal link demonstrated in thepaper. Moreover, RD intensity is defined in the paper as RD spending relative to sales (page 18, para 3). As one can easily understand, the proposition that RD intensity should increase among patenting firms may be valid for one firm or a sample of firms only within narrow limits. At some stage, a steady state of RD spending relative to sales will necessarily be reached. A constant increase of RD spending relative to sales would result in losses and finally in bankruptcy of one firm or of all firms in a sample when the RD intensity continues to rise, finally eating up any profits. Responsible management, therefore, must ensure that the RD intensity is kept relatively constant after a starting phase. To increase profits the management should further tend to increase the RD efficiency, that is the RD output relative to RD spending, with the aim to decrease RD intensity. This principle applies whether there are patents or not. Therefore, the effects shown in Figures 5 to 8 of the Bessen/Maskin study seem to be explainable by the activities of responsible management in firms regardless of the existence of patents for software related inventions. --- Care to comment, GNUtian ciaran? BTW, are you working/lobbying for free at Brussel? Are you an unpaid volunteer? regards, alexander. -- Don't Buy Harry Potter Books -- http://www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Strawmen and Urban Legends
Any idea what makes arch legal GNU beagle Eben one of the world's leading experts on copyright law as applied to software, rjack? regards, alexander. -- Don't Buy Harry Potter Books -- http://www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC: a penumbra
Alexander Terekhov wrote: rjack wrote: [...] One must be careful to define Component[] in context. http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2006/2pet/6invit/2005-1056.pet.ami.inv.html Although the court of appeals correctly held that software can be a component of a patented invention, it erred in holding that the creation of copies of software overseas, based on a master version provided from the United States, constitutes the supply of those software copies from the United States. So I gather that accoording to USDOJ, supply by means of http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ would NOT constitute supply for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 271(f) either. Teleporters will undo 35 U.S.C. 271(f)! USDOJ should better inform the Congress know about that!!! Amazon proposes Chinese and French molecul test: -- I. COMMON SENSE SHOWS THAT A FOREIGN MACHINE PART IS STILL FOREIGN EVEN IF ITS COMPUTER-READABLE DESIGN IS FROM THE U.S. As noted, if a machine is assembled abroad entirely from parts made abroad, then no one would say that a component of the machine was made in the U.S., even if one of the parts was designed in the U.S. This is as true for computers as for other machines. An optical disc made in China from molecules supplied from China, is a Chinese optical disc, even if its pits and lands are arranged in a computer-readable pattern that encodes (stores) a software program, CAD/CAM codes, song, or other information supplied from the United States. This common sense answer is illustrated with the following two-part hypothetical assembly of a French key and lock. Part I: A French key has a unique pattern designed to fit a matching pattern in a French locks mechanism. Both the key and lock are made in France, entirely from materials made in France. Not a single molecule of the key or lock is traceable to the U.S. (See Figure 2). No one would argue that this key component of the key-lock assembly was supplied from the U.S., or that Section 271(f) applies. Part II: Now consider a new fact: the unique pattern of the French key was supplied from the U.S. This pattern (an example of engineering design information) was conveyed from the U.S. in one of a variety of manners. For example: (1) a U.S.-made master key is exported to France where its unique pattern is decoded and duplicated automatically by an electronic key duplication machine to make the French key (see Figure 3), or (2) CAD/CAM computer codes are e-mailed from the U.S. to France where they are used to program a machine to manufacture the key to the unique design specified by the U.S. engineer. No matter how the U.S. pattern is supplied, all of the molecules (matter) of the replicated French key are still supplied entirely from France. Only the design information was supplied from the U.S. and since information is not a physical object, Section 271(f) plainly does not apply. As this hypothetical illustrates, the above-proposed Molecule Test provides a bright line test for anyone concerned about possible liability under Section 271(f): if the foreign assembly does not include a single molecule exported from the U.S. by the potential defendant, then Section 271(f) does not apply. There rarely, if ever, will be uncertainty on this point. [...] Second, on the question of what Microsoft contributed to the foreign computer assemblies, the district court used the terms code and software to refer at times to information and at other times to matter. For example, the district court noted the undisputed fact that the object code is originally manufactured in the United States ATT, 2004 WL 406640, at *7. Its use of the term manufactured suggests that the district court had in mind physical discs, as products, not information, are manufactured. But its reference to the object code elsewhere may be directed to software information (e.g., a sequence of binary numbers), see ATT, 2004 WL 406640, at *4 (software or object code contained on the golden master disks). The Federal Circuit made the same mistake. It failed to carefully distinguish between things and the design of those things. Thus, it mistakenly analogized software information to liquids and gases. ATT Corp., 414 F.3d at 1370-71. Software information is not akin to liquids and gases because it has no mass and no molecules. Its information content is transferred from disc to disc without a single molecule being transferredjust as the information in this Brief is transferred to a photocopy without a single molecule being transferred. -- regards, alexander. -- Please do not buy from Amazon -- Richard Stallman ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC: a penumbra
rjack wrote: [...] Its information content is transferred from disc to disc without a single molecule being transferredâjust as the information in this Brief is transferred to a photocopy without a single molecule being transferred. RMS Sorry if it was not clear, but that Chinese molecule test snippet is from Amazon's amicus curiae brief. RMS merely urged to not buy anything from Amazon (in addition to RMS' boycotts of Caterpillar, Exxon-Mobil, Coca Cola Company, Chinese products, and Harry Potter books). http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Vandenberg.pdf (Amicus curiae Amazon.com, Inc., is an e-commerce technology leader whose engineers develop innovative designs for the operation of Web stores, and specify those designs using digital software codes. From the United States, Amazon.com transmits some of its engineers designs, in the form of digital software codes, for use by foreign Web store computers.) Amazon simply want to limit the liability for all those allegedly infringed IBM's patents. ;-) regards, alexander. -- Please do not buy from Amazon -- Richard Stallman ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC: a penumbra
I find it rather interesing that this recent instance of a penumbra blah-blah filed by the SFLC is basically copy and paste from Eben's SFLC underling Dan of PubPat brief in LabCorp v. Metabolite. http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/AmicusBriefs/PUBPAT_LabCorp_SCt_Brief.pdf The Supreme Court dismissed LabCorp's petition for certiorari as improvidently granted in a one-line per curium decision. As explained in the dissent, the technical procedural reason for the dismissal related to an alleged failure by petitioner LabCorp to litigate §101 issue in the proceedings below. In this case neither petitioner Microsoft nor respondent ATT had and has any problems with §101 whosoever. So what is Eben hoping for? regards, alexander. -- So now they're going to try the hard work of cracking 'Freedom'. Free, well that means stuff you don't pay for -- Eben Moglen (Moglen: How we'll kill the Microsoft Novell deal) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC: a penumbra
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Vandenberg.pdf http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Shell.pdf Simply put, software is not a process ... but merely represents a processs, says Shell. What Shell wants is this: quote Based on an inapplicable general definition of component, the United States argues that the software copy that is actually loaded onto computer is a part, element, or ingredient of the patented invention. U.S. Brief, at 8. However, that too is overbroad and reflects inexact terminology. If the patented invention in question is a claimed product of system, the specific copy of the software that is loaded on the computer may be a component of the patented invention. However, for the reasons stated, if the patented invention at issue is a process or method, the software even as loaded on a computer structure is still not part of the patented process, but merely a material or apparatus for use in practicing the process and hence not a component at all. ... If software can be a component but only when it is represented in tangible form, then such component cannot be divorced from the particular physical media on which it is embodied. In that case, the only components supplied by Microsoft in or from the United States are its golden master disks which are never combined with anything outside the United States in a manner that would infringed Respondent's asserted product or system claims. /quote U.S. Brief: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.DOJ.pdf regards, alexander. -- Boycott Exxon-Mobil -- www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC: a penumbra
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Vandenberg.pdf http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Shell.pdf Simply put, software is not a process ... but merely represents a processs, says Shell. regards, alexander. -- Boycott Exxon-Mobil -- www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC: a penumbra
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Vandenberg.pdf http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Shell.pdf Simply put, software is not a process ... but merely represents a processs, says Shell. What Shell wants is this: quote Based on an inapplicable general definition of component, the United States argues that the software copy that is actually loaded onto computer is a part, element, or ingredient of the patented invention. U.S. Brief, at 8. However, that too is overbroad and reflects inexact terminology. If the patented invention in question is a claimed product of system, the specific copy of the software that is loaded on the computer may be a component of the patented invention. However, for the reasons stated, if the patented invention at issue is a process or method, the software even as loaded on a computer structure is still not part of the patented process, but merely a material or apparatus for use in practicing the process and hence not a component at all. ... If software can be a component but only when it is represented in tangible form, then such component cannot be divorced from the particular physical media on which it is embodied. In that case, the only components supplied by Microsoft in or from the United States are its golden master disks which are never combined with anything outside the United States in a manner that would infringed Respondent's asserted product or system claims. /quote U.S. Brief: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.DOJ.pdf Intel is profoundly concerned with subsequent generations. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Intel.pdf quote The plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) is limited to the suppl[y] from this country of components where such components themselves are intended to be incorporated abroad into a combination claimed in a U.S. patent. As the Federal Circuit and ATT have recognized, Section 271(f) does not cover the exportation of design tools or design information such as templates, masks, molds and prototypes, and it does not impose liability merely for facilitating foreign combinations. Exportation of master versions of program code cannot infringe because master versions are designed to be templates for making additional copies, and only subsequent generation copies are incorporated into computer system combinations that could practice ATT's invention. The Federal Circuit's overbroad construction flowed from its mistake in construing component and supplied sequentially and in isolation, rather than in tandem and in conjunction with the requirement of a combination. The only components that matter are those supplied from this country that become part of a combination, and the only supply that matters is of items that themselves become components of the patented combination. Regardless of whether other forms of software may qualify as a component of a patented invention, the master versions at issue here cannot violate Section 271(f) because they themselves are not and are not intended to be combined into computer systems that practice ATT's patent. The Federal Circuit extended liability to foreignmade copies by reasoning that copying is subsumed in the act of supplying the master versions. That assumption runs counter to two fundamental principles of intellectual property law. First, designs and concepts are distinct from their physical embodiments. Microsoft's product designs for its Windows® operating system are thus distinct from the disks or files that embody them. Second, original works are distinct from later copies, which in turn are distinct from other copies of the same work. The master files cannot be conflated with foreign-made copies. /quote Man, it's real fun to be a lawyer, I gather. regards, alexander. -- Boycott Exxon-Mobil -- www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC: a penumbra
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Vandenberg.pdf http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Shell.pdf Simply put, software is not a process ... but merely represents a processs, says Shell. What Shell wants is this: quote Based on an inapplicable general definition of component, the United States argues that the software copy that is actually loaded onto computer is a part, element, or ingredient of the patented invention. U.S. Brief, at 8. However, that too is overbroad and reflects inexact terminology. If the patented invention in question is a claimed product of system, the specific copy of the software that is loaded on the computer may be a component of the patented invention. However, for the reasons stated, if the patented invention at issue is a process or method, the software even as loaded on a computer structure is still not part of the patented process, but merely a material or apparatus for use in practicing the process and hence not a component at all. ... If software can be a component but only when it is represented in tangible form, then such component cannot be divorced from the particular physical media on which it is embodied. In that case, the only components supplied by Microsoft in or from the United States are its golden master disks which are never combined with anything outside the United States in a manner that would infringed Respondent's asserted product or system claims. /quote U.S. Brief: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.DOJ.pdf Intel is profoundly concerned with subsequent generations. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Intel.pdf quote The plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) is limited to the suppl[y] from this country of components where such components themselves are intended to be incorporated abroad into a combination claimed in a U.S. patent. As the Federal Circuit and ATT have recognized, Section 271(f) does not cover the exportation of design tools or design information such as templates, masks, molds and prototypes, and it does not impose liability merely for facilitating foreign combinations. Exportation of master versions of program code cannot infringe because master versions are designed to be templates for making additional copies, and only subsequent generation copies are incorporated into computer system combinations that could practice ATT's invention. The Federal Circuit's overbroad construction flowed from its mistake in construing component and supplied sequentially and in isolation, rather than in tandem and in conjunction with the requirement of a combination. The only components that matter are those supplied from this country that become part of a combination, and the only supply that matters is of items that themselves become components of the patented combination. Regardless of whether other forms of software may qualify as a component of a patented invention, the master versions at issue here cannot violate Section 271(f) because they themselves are not and are not intended to be combined into computer systems that practice ATT's patent. The Federal Circuit extended liability to foreignmade copies by reasoning that copying is subsumed in the act of supplying the master versions. That assumption runs counter to two fundamental principles of intellectual property law. First, designs and concepts are distinct from their physical embodiments. Microsoft's product designs for its Windows® operating system are thus distinct from the disks or files that embody them. Second, original works are distinct from later copies, which in turn are distinct from other copies of the same work. The master files cannot be conflated with foreign-made copies. /quote Autodesk contends that it is the intangible instructions from the golden master that produce the disk that is ultimately combined outside the United States. Matrix Reloaded. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Autodesk.pdf quote The Federal Circuit majority here brushed Pellegrini aside by noting that it involved export of instructions for making a component, but not the component itself. ATT, 414 F.3d at 1370. But because of the majoritys non-discriminating view of software, it failed to recognize that it is the intangible instructions from the golden master that produce the disk that is ultimately combined outside the United States, and not the tangible golden master itself. In short, the court's distinction over Pellegrini was wholly circular and was tied to its misuse of the term software. /quote Respect to BSA
Re: An explanation of tivoisation
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: This isn't a ground-breaking article, but there didn't seem to be any articles that described tivoisation in moderate detail, so I wrote one: Tivoisation explained - implementation and harms http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/tivoisation_explained_implementation_and_harms Tivoisation is a technique that manufacturers use to produce a computer, to sell to you, whose software they can update but you can't. That's exactly how my BMW works! Hey, and apart from a more known brand, it's whole one character less: BMWisation!! regards, alexander. -- Join the boycott of Chinese products -- www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC: a penumbra
[http://www.softwarefreedom.org/publications/msvatt.pdf] Toward the end, arch legal GNU beagle Eben eloquently states: Thus, this Court's precedent repeatedly sets out that software, which is nothing more than a set of instructions -- an algorithm -- to be performed by a computer in order to solve some mathematical problem, is ... According to the US Copyright Office, Copyright protection is not available for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, ... So... copyright protection is not available for software as defined by arch legal GNU beagle Eben. GPL? Who is GPL? regards, alexander. -- Join the boycott of Chinese products -- www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Free Software Law Center and the FSF repudiated the GPL
Just a subject change. Unpaid GNUtian volunteers without money*** might want to notice and comment. TIA. Alexander Terekhov wrote: [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/publications/msvatt.pdf] Toward the end, arch legal GNU beagle Eben eloquently states: Thus, this Court's precedent repeatedly sets out that software, which is nothing more than a set of instructions -- an algorithm -- to be performed by a computer in order to solve some mathematical problem, is ... According to the US Copyright Office, Copyright protection is not available for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, ... So... copyright protection is not available for software as defined by arch legal GNU beagle Eben. GPL? Who is GPL? regards, alexander. ***) http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html (courtesy of GNUtian ciaran: http://google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/0ca99d760cb6903e) There are also certain software developers for whom getting a patent licence is extremely hard. We Free Software developers. You see Free Software has been so successful because we have shown we can develop software without any money. Volunteers do it. We don't need to have money to develop powerful large programs. But we certainly need to have money if we're going to buy patent licences. -- Join the boycott of Chinese products -- www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Free Software Law Center and the FSF repudiated the GPL
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: oops, one more thread to the kill list. .-. | | \ \ .--.. \ () ' (_) .__ _ () (___) _ _ _.- regards, alexander. -- Join the boycott of Chinese products -- www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jurisdiction Penumbra
rjack wrote: [...] The CAFC should be reversed. Maybe. Well, but taking ideas from Switzerland (-based international and non-political association of approximately 4,000 industrial property attorneys from over eighty countries (including the United States)) and Shell, either the SCOTUS should outlaw 271(f) altogether or affirm CAFC ruling, process or method claiming notwithstanding. I think. regards, alexander. -- Join the boycott of Chinese products -- www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL version 3 comments
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: I.e. you could modify the GPL into being a non-free license, and still call it the GPL. That does not follow. Yes, it does, if and only if you are permited to modify the GPL. But the GPL is licensed under the following terms: | Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this | license document, but changing it is not allowed. So you cannot modify it, and thus you cannot make a non-free variant of the GPL. How about more freeier or even freeiest (gah!) variant of GNU? GNU lives only in variants. No? LOL. regards, alexander. -- Join the boycott of Chinese products -- www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL version 3 comments
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: A operating system can exist perfectly fine without a kernel, ... Only a GNU operating system? LOL. regards, alexander. Join the boycott of Chinese products -- www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Strawmen and Urban Legends
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [... TRIPS ...] It doesn't say shall be protected as you please. Nor does it say shall ONLY be protected. Why do you think it does? Because the meaning of shall implies the *ONLY*. Only in the GNU Republic, district governed by mini-RMS. regards, alexander. -- Join the boycott of Chinese products -- www.stallman.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Business Review Ltd: MySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3
http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2007/01/mysql_changes_l.html -- Open Source WeblogMySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3 January 04, 2007 Heres an announcement that almost got drowned out by festive cheer: MySQL has changed the license it uses for its open source database management system to avoid being forced to move to the forthcoming GPL v3. Kaj Arno, MySQL VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog, on December 22, noting that the license for MySQL 5.0 and 5.1 had changed from GPLv2 or later to GPLv2 only. As he explained, this was in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3. MySQL owns the copyright to its database code so can change the license any time it likes (and indeed offer the software under dual licenses). While the company is not ruling out a change to GPL v3 once it is completed, it is hedging its bets in case it does not like the results. According to Kaj: MySQL has been part of the GPLv3 Committee B advising FSF since the GPLv3 draft was announced in January 2006. For GPLv3, we have seen fantastic improvements and hope for GPLv3 to spread MySQL AB continues to work with the FSF for GPLv3 to be the new, widespread license under which Free Software is licensed. However, now, until we get clear and strong indications for the general acceptance of GPLv3 over GPLv2, we feel comfortable with a specific GPLv2 reference in our license. Regular readers will recall that Linux creator Linus Torvalds has taken advantage of Linuxs GPLv2 only license to declare that the Linux kernel will not be moving to GPL v3. Torvalds does not like the way the FSF is attempting to use the GPL v3 to deal with issues such as digital rights management, but has also explained his love for the GPL v2, particularly the way it encourages reciprocation, rather than forcing opinion. While Kaj did not explain precisely what problems MySQL has with GPL v3 at this stage of its draft process he did also express the companys admiration for version 2: Six years ago in the summer of 2000, when MySQL AB licensed its software under the GPL, our founders David Axmark and Michael Widenius made this choice because the GPL was a license followed and respected by everyone. We have kept to it, because the GPL is the most palatable license, and poses the least friction for our user base. He also noted that he has had a response from FSF general counsel, Eben Moglen, to the decision to move to a GPL v2-only license: I appreciate MySQLs thoughtful contribution to the GPLv3 drafting process, showing how a business model and an entire company can be built around Free Software. Looking at recent developments and announcements, I believe MySQL will soon be in a position to see the GPLv3 being adopted over GPLv2 by various Free Software projects. » Blogs that link here » View my profile -- regards, alexander. -- I never buy DVDs ... I prefer to boycott DVDs -- Richard Stallman ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Transcript of RMS's general free software speech
Hey Ciaran, do you really take that bullshit lunacy seriously? I'm just curious. (Perhaps you're just a full-time lobbyist on payroll and that's just your job, nothing more... no?) regards, alexander. -- Please do not buy from Amazon -- Richard Stallman ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Transcript of RMS's general free software speech
Jay Belanger wrote: Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... No one asked me to make that, but I knew people would find it useful, so I made it - and a lot of people have said thanks. There are many more here: http://ciaran.compsoc.com/texts/ Let me add my thanks, too. +1 :-) regards, alexander. -- We currently have 185 open tickets (i.e. reported GPL violations) at gpl-violations.org -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The Pirate Bay plans to buy island
Freedom and all that... great new home for Eben and the entire GNU gang. http://www.sealandgov.org/index.html -- About Sealand Sealand was founded as a sovereign Principality in 1967 in international waters, six miles off the eastern shores of Britain. In late June of 2006, the island suffered a devastating fire which destroyed much of the country's administrative centre and the main power generation facility which serves its population and industries. Fortunately, back-up systems exist which permit its activities to continue but the disaster has compromised significantly the quality of life of its inhabitants and the continued development of the island's economic and social growth. The history of Sealand is a story of a struggle for liberty. Sealand was founded on the principle that any group of people dissatisfied with the oppressive laws and restrictions of existing nation states may declare independence in any place not claimed to be under the jurisdiction of another sovereign entity. The location chosen was Roughs Tower, an island fortress created in World War II by Britain and subsequently abandoned to the jurisdiction of the High Seas. The independence of Sealand was upheld in a 1968 British court decision where the judge held that Roughs Tower stood in international waters and did not fall under the legal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. This gave birth to Sealand's national motto of E Mare Libertas, or From the Sea, Freedom. The official language of Sealand is English and the Sealand Dollar has a fixed exchange rate of one U.S. dollar. Passports and stamps have been in circulation since 1969 and the latter decade of the 20th century saw an impressive expansion in its activity both socially and industrially as it began to develop a growing economic base which underscored its long-standing membership of the international community of States. -- http://www.sealandgov.org/history.html -- History Of Sealand During World War II, the United Kingdom decided to establish a number of military bases, the purpose of which was to defend England against German air raids. These sea forts housed enough troops to man and maintain artillery designed to shoot down German aircraft and missiles. They were situated along the east coast of England on the edge of the English territorial waters. One of these bases, consisting of concrete and steel construction, was the famous royal fort Roughs Tower situated slightly north of the estuary region of the Thames River. In contrast to the original plan to locate the tower within the sovereign territory of England, this fortress was situated at a distance of approximately 7 nautical miles from the coast, which is more than double the then applicable 3 mile range of territorial waters; to put it briefly, this island was situated in the international waters of the North Sea. After WWII ended, the troops were withdrawn from all bases by the British Admiralty. None of them was ever used by the United Kingdom again, leaving the forts deserted and abandoned. Except for the aforementioned fortress, the bases were subsequently pulled down. This resulted in the portentous uniqueness of the fortress. Fort Roughs Tower, situated at the high seas, had been deserted and abandoned, res derelicta and terra nullius. From a legal point of view, it therefore constituted extra-national territory. The Birth of Sealand This paved the way for occupation. On 2 September 1967, former English major Paddy Roy Bates formally occupied the island and settled there with his family. After intensive discussions with skillful English lawyers, Roy Bates proclaimed the island his own state. Claiming jus gentium, he bestowed upon himself the title of Prince and the title of Princess to his wife and subsequently made the state the Principality of Sealand. Roy Bates, henceforth Roy of Sealand, exerted state authority on the island and thus was an absolute sovereign. The royal family and other persons that have declared loyalty to Sealand have occupied Sealand ever since. Initial Challenge to Sealand's Sovereignty By late 1968, the British navy had become aware of the new situation off the coast of England. They were interested in terminating the state of affairs brought about by an error committed by the most senior military authorities without causing too much uproar. Units of the navy entered the territorial waters claimed by Roy of Sealand. As he was aware of his sovereignty, Roy of Sealand threatened the navy by undertaking defensive activity. Shots were fired from Sealand in warning. Since Roy of Sealand was still an English citizen, he was thus accused of extensive crimes in Britain and was summoned to an English court. The result of this lawsuit in Chelmsford, Essex was a spectacular success for Sealand's claim to sovereignty. In its judgment of 25 November 1968, the court declared that it was not competent in Roy of Sealand's case as it could not exert any
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- GPL Draft Has Microsoft/Novell Deal in Mind
--- Developer News February 16, 2007 GPL Draft Has Microsoft/Novell Deal in Mind By Sean Michael Kerner NEW YORK -- When the the third draft of the General Public License (define) comes out, look for language that addresses the recent Microsoft-Novell patent deal. Members of the Free Software Foundation, which oversees the draft change process for the GPL, said a new patent clause is being inserted in the draft that could effectively thwart future patent pacts similar to Microsoft's deal with Novell. The November agreement between Microsoft and Novell provides Novell users with a promise from Microsoft not to sue Novell's Linux customers for alleged Linux patent infringements. Experts at the LinuxWorld OpenSolutions summit here said the latest draft of proposed changes to the dominant open source license would include an indirect patent license provision that will prevent GPL version 3 users from striking deals similar to Novell's agreement with Microsoft; Novell is not directly providing patent protection but rather is receiving it indirectly via Microsoft. During a panel discussion yesterday, Richard Fontana, legal counsel at the Free Software Foundation's Software Freedom Law Center, argued that it is not clear whether Novell's deal with Microsoft is in violation of GPL version 2, which is why the new clauses in version 3 are necessary. Microsoft is taking its first step in a new strategy to attack free and open source software by driving a wedge between commercial vendors and the community, Fontana said, during a lively and sometimes raucous panel discussion. We feel it to be the beginnings of a very dangerous attack by Microsoft to attack free software and that's why we want to address it in version 3. GPL version 2 is the premier open source license in use today and is currently undergoing discussion and draft revision. After two drafts in 2006 , a third and final draft is expected early this year. Among the key changes in the new license are new terms regarding patents and digital rights management. Though the third draft of the GPL is not yet publicly available, Mark Radcliffe, a partner in legal firm DLA Piper, offered some clues about what it would include. He mentioned defined terms and a move away from copyright terminology that is more U.S. centric. The new agreement will be broader and will have global applicability, and will apply to both documentation and hardware. A key new addition will also be a new termination provision. The GPL version 2 only provides for immediate license termination if a user is found to be in violation. New terms in the third draft of GPL version 3 will provide for both notice and cure such that immediate termination is not the only remedy for license violations. Radcliffe, who runs one of the four committees tasked with discussing the GPL version 3, is also learning a thing or two about the process of updating the license contract as well. I've been practicing law for 25 years and this is the most unique way of drafting a contract I've ever seen. Developer News Archives --- regards, alexander. -- A Decision from FSF in 2 Weeks on Novell-MS Deal -- When you want to know more but don't know where to look. (Saturday, February 03 2007 @ 01:50 PM EST GROKLAW) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
Uncle Hasler, uncle Hasler, John Hasler wrote: me writes: i've not changed any code in foo, i simply want to use the binary. can i distribute the original unmodified binary foo with my proprietary software and not become obligated to GPL my software? Yes. Note, however, that you will be distributing foo and will have to comply with the terms of its license. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ^^^ Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3) [17 USC 106(3)], the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord regards, alexander. -- http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/01/02/munich_buys_windows_2000/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3) [17 USC 106(3)], the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord can you please translate that into english? are you saying sure, it's okay to include the binary? Sure. The binary is lawfully made and hence its distribution falls under limitation on exclusive distribution right [17 USC 106(3)] codified in 17 USC 109. In GNU speak it is called mere aggregation, BTW. See also http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
John Hasler wrote: [...] US law says that if you own a lawfully made copy of a work you can sell it or otherwise dispose of it without permission of the copyright owner. Note that a copy is a _tangible object_ such as a book, a CD, a floppy, or a hard drive. However, this bit of law has no bearing on your case. It does not give you permission to _make_ copies as you would, for example, by uploading the work. Yeah, and teleportation is totally illegal in the GNU Republic. http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ Beside that, it is just impossible to have a binary copy of publicly available GPL'd work NOT lawfully made (ouside the GNU Republic, that is). 17 USC 109 says nothing about makers of copies. And as for contract claim (recall that the FSF has been constantly telling the entire world for years that the GPL is not a contract), it falls under mere aggregation clause anyway. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] you can totally blow off the GPL and treat it like LGPL?? -- [...] sections of the LGPL are an impenetrable maze of technological babble. They should not be in a general-purpose software license. [...] The LGPL concedes that the GPL is a better, more appropriate license, and it allows any licensees to convert to the GPL at their option: You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License [...] The LGPL, therefore, is an anomaly -- http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf See the light now? regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU shirt
-John Sullivan Hey FSFer, shirts aside, any chance to see your 2006 forms pretty soon? http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/8557.htm I'm really interested in your 2006 expenses... especially related to (apparently never ending) GPLv3 saga. ;-) regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU shirt
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [using his a-la RMS totally moronic tool in reply to FSFer wjsullivan] You might want try and check https://www.fsf.org/order/ FSF doesn't have that particular shirt anymore, but there are some other good ones. Yeah, such as the GNU GPL vaporware related stuff: http://www.gnu.org/gear/gplv3-tshirt.html http://www.gnu.org/gear/gplv3-hoodie.html But how about most recent 990 forms, FSFer wjsullivan? The URL is actually http://order.fsf.org. No, it isn't. http://order.fsf.org redirects to https://www.fsf.org/order. May I suggest http://www.gnu.org/gear/, dear ueber GNUtian ams? regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
David Kastrup wrote: [...] You'll find that judges are no mechanical idiots. Let's take a look at US appelate court's (panel of three judges) interetation of the GPL: quote Authors who distribute their works under this license, devised by the Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not only copying but also the creation of derivative worksand the license prohibits charging for the derivative work. People may make and distribute derivative works if and only if they come under the same license terms as the original work. Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. Copyright law, usually the basis of limiting reproduction in order to collect a fee, ensures that open-source software remains free: any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted the GPL. The Free Software Foundation calls the result copyleft. /quote http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbrshofile=06-2454_008.pdf What do you find, dak? regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can we all please stop talking in parables and references to topics we may not all share the detailed background knowledge of? I'd like a straight answer with the entire answer within the text. is the GPL basically not enforceable assuming you work around it technically by the aforementioned method? Am i strange in thinking that this is strange? What I glean is, yes i can, from the user's perspective, include a GPL'd software within my own proprietary software, and NOT be forced to release my source code? (see previous for what i mean by include) http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf quote Under the U.S. Copyright Act, a combination of a computer program with other software results in the preparation of a derivative work only if the combination (a) is sufficiently permanent, (b) contains significant and creative portions of the other software, (c) is creative in its own right, and (d) involves significant and creative internal changes to the other software. Most software combinations fail to meet one or more of these requirements and constitute either compilations, collective works, or noncopyrightable aggregations, and neither affect copyright owners adaptation rights under Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Software combinations involving dynamic links usually lack permanency, combination creativity and internal changes. Even software combinations through static links do not necessarily affect adaptation rights, because such linking often results in the creation of a compilation or non-creative aggregation of programs or sub-programs. Nevertheless, under the U.S. Copyright Act, software developers typically have to obtain a license before they may combine programs through static linking because this affects the duplication rights of the linked programs copyright owner. Also, adaptation rights may be affected where software combinations (regardless of the code linking method) result in significant and creative changes to original screen output (e.g., in the context of computer games). Under common commercial licensing conditions, end users typically receive an express or implied license to execute proprietary software in combination with other software, regardless of whether the combination would qualify as a derivative work. Under the GPL, end users are free to combine GPLed code with any other code. Developers and distributors do not have to be concerned about contributory liability, so long as they distribute add-on software separately and the end-users are not legally restricted in combining the intended programs with the add-on software. Anybody who wants to distribute programs in combination and alongside with GPLed code, however, will have to closely examine the reach and consequences of the various conditions and restrictions in the GPL. The term derived work in the GPL should be interpreted to mean derivative works as defined by copyright law, and as a consequence, most programs could be distributed in combination with dynamically linked GPLed code without the necessity of subjecting the linking programs to the GPL. It seems possible, however, that courts may interpret the GPL in a broader way, which would increase concerns regarding the validity of the GPL under copyright misuse doctrines, competition laws and unfair contract term laws; such concerns can be greater or smaller depending on the circumstances of the licensing parties and jurisdictions involved. If such broad interpretations were to prevailbut the resulting validity concerns were notthe software industry might move more generally to GLP-like restrictive licensing practices that permit and prohibit certain software combinations. This would potentially have a serious impact on interoperability. Then, software combinations could become dangerous liaisons. /quote regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- In Search Of GPL Version 3: The Long Road To Nowhere
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/03/in_search_of_gp.html Topics: Consumer/Personal Tech In Search Of GPL Version 3: The Long Road To Nowhere By Charles Babcock, 10:37 PM ET, Mar 15, 2007 A month ago, I started down a path that I hoped would lead me to a great prize: an explanation from the authors of how the General Public License Version 3.0 was shaping up. Little did I know that this journey would contain more curves than San Francisco's Lombard Street. GPLv3 has been through two drafts, each of which stirred up its own hornet's nest of criticism. Now we're approaching draft 3, the much anticipated finale. Many criticisms have been heeded and remedies included by authors Richard Stallman and attorney Eben Moglen. So its supporters are curious: how will the GPL's third draft deal with a ban on digital rights management? How will it bar patent work-arounds like the Microsoft/Novell deal? What about the little known Affero provision? You don't fully understand Affero? Well, neither do we. I started with the Software Freedom Law Center, but Jim Garrison, its spokesman, said Eben Moglen was out of the country and besides, Eben was acting as an advisor to the Free Software Foundation. Ask them. I did and got a somewhat formal response from Brett Smith, licensing compliance engineer there. I should point out here that we at the Free Software Foundation and the Gnu project aren't part of the Open Source movement, but the free software movement. This movement has been campaigning for computer users' freedom since 1984. We discuss the ethical issues surrounding and so on. I actually wanted to contact someone who would dig into the text of the next draft and point out where it was going. With time running out, I decided Brett wasn't that person, as helpful as he was. There was only one thing left to do and that was send an appeal direct to Richard Stallman, the head of the Free Software Foundation, and ask him what he thought. In the meantime, Linux kernel author, Linus Torvalds, weighed in with a thoughtful critique of GPLv3 versus GPLv2, some of which is recounted here. The Web master of a sister publication had been forced to remove an earlier Torvalds commentary on GPLv3, he says, because it was laced with so many swear words that it violated the site's posting policy. But I didnt find anything blue in Torvald's email. Rather, I saw a crystal clear statement of support for the merits of GPLv2 rather than an attack on GPLv3, and a wariness of losing those merits in the move of GPLv3. I summarized some of those comments as an example of a knowledgeable critique of GPLv3 and forwarded them with my questions to Stallman. Is this story focusing on GPLv3 or on Torvalds' reaction to it? he asked in an email response. The former, I assured him. He proceeded to pick up almost where Brett Smith had left off: It's a common error, he wrote, to label me, Gnu, Gnu/Linux or the Gnu GPL with the term, open source. That is the slogan adopted in 1998 by people who reject the philosophy of the Free Software Movement. They have the right to promote their views, but we would like to be associated with our views, not theirs. I was with him on that one and perhaps needed another lecture on it. But then came the ringer. I'll answer your questions if you will first promise me that the story will avoid a couple of frequent errors. One common error is calling the whole operating system 'Linux.' The system is basically Gnu; Linux is actually the kernel, one program in the system. I am familiar with this debate. I've been familiar with it for many years. I have never wanted to take sides in it. But last year, when called on to write about The World's Greatest Software, I adopted the position that Gnu tools and the Gnu system had contributed to Linux and deserved some of the credit for its creation. How much credit I didn't wish to resolve. From my point of view, the Gnu project had produced a system that lacked a kernel that would allow the system to function as a whole. Linus Torvalds produced a kernel that allowed a Unix-like operating system to function the way it should. How to apportion credit isn't my problem. I merely recognize when a program runs and when it doesn't and give an edge to the program that runs. Stallman went on: When people call the whole system 'Linux,' they give the system's principal developer none of the credit. Would you please agree to distinguish consistently in your article between Linux, the kernel, and Gnu/Linux, the entire system? Even when I give the Gnu project some credit for Linux, I have never wanted to describe it as the system's principal developer. If the Gnu project was the system's principal developer, why wasn't the Gnu system running at the time Torvalds developed Linux? And if it was running, who was using it? I've never heard of someone using the Gnu operating system. These and other doubts assailed me as I tried to respond to
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- In Search Of GPL Version 3: The Long Road To Nowhere
Alan Curry wrote: [... rms ... rms ... rms ...] Hey Alan, would you please comment on the following opinion from Humberto Fontova (feel free to comment on related side node below as well): sidenote source=http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=27342commentID=824270 Date: 3/14/2007 1:09:42 PM Name: DarrenR114 Subject: Richard Stallman is a hypocrite Comment: Take a look at his big contribution to Free Software, the General Public License, or GPL for short. At the very top it has a copyright statement. If he was so anti-copyright, then he would have assigned the license text to the public domain. Mr. Stallman is only in favor of software freedom when he is the one controlling the software. But please, don't connect Stallman with Open Source Software. He won't even discuss the merits of Open Source Software because it's not the same thing as Free Software (note the capitalisation.) Free Software != free software. The FSF and Stallman put too many restrictions on Free Software for it to be considered free. Stallman is just a freeloader trying to hijack the free software movement that was started in 1961 by re-writing history in his own image of Free Software, portraying himself as some sort of father of free software. /sidenote http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27342 quote Castro Loves Hippie Software By Humberto Fontova FrontPageMagazine.com | March 13, 2007 Take in equal parts: lyrics from John Lennon's Imagine, Steve Miller's Fly Like An Eagle and simmer. Then add a pinch from Age of Aquarius. Now you have the Manifesto of The Free SoftWare Foundation, founded by software guru Richard Stallman, famous foe of commercial avarice and stalwart friend of freedom. Copyright laws violate basic morality, writes the shaggy MIT graduate. People should be free to use software in ways that are socially useful. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives. The issue is freedom, stresses Stallman. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether that person be a programmer or not. Free Software--Free Society--Free as in Freedom. Stallman himself looks like a cross between Arlo Guthrie (circa Woodstock) and Wavy Gravy. Mr Stallman was the recent guest of honor of Cuba's Stalinist regime. This years International Conference on Communications and Technology was held in Havana on February 14th, and attended by 1,300 delegates from 58 nations. Stallman was a keynote speaker. An intrepid bunch, these delegates. Much like those 2.4 million tourists who visit Cuba annualy, these delegates also somehow foiled the the fiendish Yankee Blockade of Cuba! The official host of this Conference was Ramiro Valdez, Cubas spanking new Minister of Information and Technology. Everyone familiar with Cuban history (this naturally excludes all the MSM Cuba experts) know Ramiro Valdez as the Cuban regime's Lavrenti Beria, with a dash of Heinrich Himmler, a position he inherited when his chum Ernesto Che Guevara was promoted from Cuba's chief executioner to Minister of the Economy where he murdered the Cuban economy as efficiently as he had murdered hundreds of defenseless Cuban men (and boys.) You will search the hundreds of mainstream media stories on Valdez appointment, and on his hosting of the Conference, in utter vain for any mention of this gentlemans background. Imagine the Nazis signing a peace accord with Britain in 1941 and the regime surviving. Imagine Heinrich Himmler then promoted to Germanys information minister-and nary a mention of his background in the London Times or the New York Times. Heck, imagine J. Edgar Hoover appointed by Nixon as U.S. press secretay and his background ignored in all media pronouncements of the event. Alas, regarding Cuba news in the mainstream media weve come to expect different standards. The standards Alice found behind her Wonderlands Looking Glass seem rational in comparison. Keynote speaker Richard Stallman was obviously tickled that a Stalinist regime had adopted his Open Source Software and worked the multinational audience of hipsters and geeks into a froth. As usual, the mainstream media, the writers for John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, David Letterman, Bill Maher, etc. found no material worthy of their bosses smirky irony in the scene. Heres a man adamant about people having the freedom to control every part of their lives as guest of honor for a regime that mandates what its subjects, read, say, earn, eat (both substance and amount), where they live, travel or work. Heres a hippie-dippy spokesman for peace, love and total freedom who regards copyright laws as intolerably oppressive smiling gratefully--- while being introduced onto the podium by a Secret Police Chief for a KGB and STASI- trained force who jailed and tortured more political prisoners as a percentage of population than Stalins police under Lavrenti Beria and who executed at a higher
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- In Search Of GPL Version 3: The Long Road To Nowhere
Alan Curry wrote: [...] It appears to be mostly about the Cuban government. It says nothing about GNU and barely anything about rms (it mentions that he gave a speech there, but from what you reposted I can't even determine what he spoke about). Try google, Alan. From what I gather it was a cocktail of Copyright versus Community and Free Software speeches that he has been giving for decades. Nothing new. regards, alexander. -- http://www.linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: NYC LOCAL: Wednesday Afternoon 21 March 2007 Richard Stallman will speak at NYU
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] The talk is entitled Free Software and Freedom: Free Software in Ethics and in Practice. I thought he is supposed to be busy with the GPLv3. -- A Decision from FSF in 2 Weeks on Novell-MS Deal -- When you want to know more but don't know where to look. (Saturday, February 03 2007 @ 01:50 PM EST GROKLAW) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: NYC LOCAL: Monday 19 March 2007 NYU InfoLaw: Eben Moglen on the Empire and the iPhone and the Commons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] The Empire the iPhone: 'Technology Platforms,' the Commons, and the Way We Live Now. I thought he is supposed to be busy with the GPLv3. -- A Decision from FSF in 2 Weeks on Novell-MS Deal -- When you want to know more but don't know where to look. (Saturday, February 03 2007 @ 01:50 PM EST GROKLAW) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- InformationWeek: The Controversy Over GPL 3
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198001444 quote The next version of the open source license is dividing the community, and it isn't even out yet [...] Bare facts: What's the difference betweekn free and open? Ask Richard Stallman, who wrote the first GPL. [...] Eben Moglen, who is helping craft GPLv3, wrote a treatise on intellectual property in 2003 called The dotCommunist Manifest [...] Having deliberately missed the March deadline, there's no firm date yet for the completed version of GPLv3. But most users aren't in a hurry. Rather than squabble over GPLv3 later, the Christian Science Monitor's Barbounist says, it's in the best interest of the community to work these issues out now. /quote And in the meantime... Eben The Grandiose' planned speech for his OSBC keynote this May 22, 2007: quote Copyleft Business Models: Why It's Good Not To Be Your Competitor's Free Lunch Abstract: Now that the GPL wars are over, and we have two good GPLs to choose from, it is time to re-ask some fundamental questions about business models and software licenses. In this talk, I explain why smaller software-focused businesses will soon be deserting Apache- and BSD-style permissive licenses for GPL[2 3] and their successors. /quote LOL. regards, alexander. -- Either the second or third discussion draft will be designated the ``last call'' draft. This draft will begin a final period of public comment lasting at least 45 days, ending no later than January 15th, 2007. The second discussion draft may be designated the last call draft without further process if there are no major unresolved issues after full discussion of the initial draft. -- gplv3.fsf.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Novell-MS Pact: Perens sets up a gloomy world
LOL. http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/archives/070319-110231.html -- « BrainShare: The Heart of Novell March 19, 2007 BrianShare: Mountains Out of Molehills? Thus far, I have not seen Novell spare a lot of expense on the glitz for this show. Massive catered meals, audio-visual extravaganzas, a concert by the Goo Goo Dolls. They certainly want to treat their customers and vendors right. The proof is in the pudding, and the substance of the pudding was rolled out for the crowd of about 5,000 faithful on Monday morning, when the keynotes were presented in all their visio-technical glory. Basically, the thrust of Novell's plan for the future is to focus on two areas: Linux in the enterprise and their enterprise management services. The first part is fairly straightforward: Novell wants Linux (theirs) in as many different machines as possible. The second prong, highlighted by CEO Ron Hovsepian in his keynote, is where the whole interoperability plan with Microsoft falls. And while Hovsepian was pretty soft-spoken during his entire keynote, you could hear a little steel in his voice when he emphasized that the entire reason for the partnership with Microsoft was entirely done for the customers. The fact that it also kicked open a lot of big-name customer doors? That was like friends with benefits. Novell's executives are all pretty much staying on message about their business plan, and they made a modicum of product announcements to demonstrate their sincerity. But the press corp wanted to focus on the elephant in the room, Microsoft. It didn't help that several of the demos in the General Session emphasized interoperability with Microsoft products. So when the Novell press conference went to QA, I thought I would approach the elephant, and asked Hovespian and CTO Jeff Jaffe what they thought about the impending GPL3 and the public comments from the Free Software Foundation about how the license would intentionally be crafted to put a stop to such patent agreements. Both execs gave the standard legally framed answer, which you would expect: the GPL3 isn't done yet, and they have no way of answering any questions about it, yet. Fair enough. After I got that reply, I ran over across the street to the Shioh Inn, where Bruce Perens was holding a catered press conference intended to tear down the agreement between Microsoft and Novell and expose it for the protection racket that it was (his term, not mine). Basically, Perens' problem with the arrangement is purely on the legal side. In fact, he said to the gathering, that if it were just a technical agreement, then he would be up on stage in the keynote with Jaffe and Microsoft Chief Research and Strategy Officer Craig Mundie touting the partnership too. Perens painted a very scary picture of what he feels would likely happen if the Novell-Microsoft deal were allowed to continue with the present patent pledge agreement in place. It was a world in which anyone who did not use Novell's Linux would end up getting sued by Microsoft and other proprietary vendors. In essense, Novell is running a protection racket with Big Mikey running around making threats. Perens is not alone in his views. Beyond the 3,000 petitioners that signed the statement disagreeing with the partnership, he also read a statement from someone who historically hasn't always seen eye-to-eye with Perens: Richard Stallman, Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation, and author of the GPL. Here's Richard's statement in full: Free software means software that respects users essential freedoms, including the freedom to change the software so it does what you wish, freedom to run it, and freedom to redistribute copies. The denial of these freedoms is what makes proprietary software unethical. To make these freedoms a reality, we set out 23 years ago to develop the GNU operating system, which is the basis of all today's quote Linux unquote distributions, including that of Novell. In 1983, a few free programs existed, and unscrupulous middleman eagerly took them and made non-free modified versions. It was clear that to deliver freedom to every user we would have to find a way to defend the users' freedom. The method we developed is the GNU General Public License. The purpose of the GNU GPL is to ensure that redistributors of the program respect the freedom of those further downstream. The GPL defends the freedom of all users by blocking the known methods of making free software proprietary. Novell and Microsoft have tried a new method: using Microsoft's patents to give an advantage to Novell customers only. If they get away with scaring users into paying Novell, they will deny users the most basic freedom, freedom zero: the freedom to run the program. Microsoft have been threatening free software with software patents for many years, but without a partner in our community, the only thing it could do was threaten to sue users and distributors. This had enough drawbacks that
Re: Novell-MS Pact: FSF Corrects Novell's Steinman and a Request to End the Mystery from PJ
ROFL http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070317032834650 -- FSF Corrects Novell's Steinman and a Request to End the Mystery Monday, March 19 2007 @ 02:41 PM EDT I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this interview with Novell's Director of Marketing, Justin Steinman. He is quoted in IT Business Edge as saying the following: I do want to tell you that Novell is a significant financial contributor to the Free Software Foundation, as are all of the leading Linux distributors around the worldAs part of that, we are one of the vendors on Committee B of the GPL v3 development community. ... We have lawyers in the room contributing to the GPL v3 draft process, so we are in active discussions with Eben Moglen and other members of the FSF around what GPL v3 will look like. I want to make it extremely clear that Novell is committed to our Microsoft agreement, and we're committed to helping develop a version of the GPL that enables that agreement to continue. Well. He has achieved his goal of being extremely clear. But in doing so, I would have to say he has stooped to a new low of Not-Really-Part-of-the-FOSS-Community awful. It's not the only offensive statement in that interview, but it is the most serious. Perhaps he was misquoted. Let's give him the benefit of that one doubt. But, what matters is, is it true? Has Novell bought FSF into going along with the Novell-Microsoft patent agreement? I asked Peter Brown of FSF for a reaction and here is his statement: Novell last gave funds to the FSF in October 2005, when they donated $5K as part of FSF Corporate Patron program. Since their deal with Microsoft was announced we have not asked them to renew as a patron, nor would we. Novell is not a significant financial contributor to the Free Software Foundation, but what's a little exaggeration compared to their deal with Microsoft? We remain determined to make sure that GPLv3 does not permit deals of this kind. We are now studying how to achieve this without causing unintended trouble for other industry practices. You can verify it for yourself by going to the FSF's list of corporate patrons. Do you see Novell on the list on that page? No, you don't. Because they aren't a corporate patron currently. Here's what I know: even if Novell gave FSF $5 million, it couldn't get what it wants. Some people are not for sale. Marketing guys might not get that concept. But there you are. Now for my request... My Request: May I remind Novell that it has yet to make public the full terms of the patent agreement it entered into with Microsoft? Why is Novell continuing to keep the terms secret? Exactly what are all the exceptions, for example, referenced in the agreement but not listed or defined? After all, the fiction is that this is a patent agreement between Microsoft and Novell's paying SUSE customers, and Novell with Microsoft's customers, no? (From Novell's November 7, 2006 8K: Under the Patent Cooperation Agreement, Microsoft commits to a covenant not to assert its patents against Novell's end-user customers for their use of Novell products and services for which Novell receives revenue directly or indirectly from such customers, with certain exceptions, while Novell commits to a covenant not to assert its patents against Microsoft's end-user customers for their use of Microsoft products and services for which Microsoft receives revenue directly or indirectly from such customers, with certain exceptions.) Those are allegedly the parties to the agreement. My understanding is that there can be no contract without a meeting of the minds. So both sides have to know the exact terms of the contract prior to entering into it, or it's not valid. So, if I am thinking of buying SUSE, what are the terms? When do we get to know them fully? It seems to me that it isn't enough for Novell to know, if customers don't know, if they are allegedly parties to this agreement. For that matter, doesn't Novell have to file this information with the SEC at some point? All it would take is an 8K or a correction to the one it already filed back when the deal was announced. Don't shareholders have a right to understand this agreement? As another example, exactly what do customers receive when they get one of those vouchers from Microsoft? I've read a number of things, support, updates, but what is the truth? What do you get? What are the terms? If any of you have one or have seen one of the vouchers, please scan it in and send it to me or email me and tell me what you've read. Why should this all be so mysterious and secretive? How about it, Novell? When do we get to read it all, both the full patent agreements -- with the exceptions -- and the vouchers' terms? -- regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Novell-MS Pact: Perens blasts Microsoft/Novell protection racket
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9126255519.html Mar. 19, 2007 Salt Lake City -- In a small conference room across the street from the location of Novell's BrainShare conference, free-software advocate Bruce Perens attacked Novell's patent deal with Microsoft and said that Novell was enabling Microsoft to run a protection racket with the threat of its patents. Perens, a vocal opponent of the Microsoft/Novell patent deal, stated that while the arrangement was legal under the GPLv2, Novell's deal was made in bad faith with the open-source community and [was] not moral. More than that, though, Perens said, if the Novell-Microsoft patent deal is allowed to stand. It would take only as few as two or three intellectual property law-suits of open-source developers or small business at a cost of at least $5 million dollars a pop, to destroy open-source development. So, from where he sits, Novell is running a protection racket with Big Mikey as the enforcer. The activist opened his press conference by reading a note from the president and founder of the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman. In the statement, Stallman wrote: The GPL defends the freedom of all users by blocking the known methods of making free software proprietary. Novell and Microsoft have tried a new method: using Microsoft's patents to give an advantage to Novell customers only. If they get away with scaring users into paying Novell, they will deny users the most basic freedom, freedom zero: the freedom to run the program. Microsoft have been threatening free software with software patents for many years, but without a partner in our community, the only thing it could do was threaten to sue users and distributors. This had enough drawbacks that Microsoft has not yet tried it. Attacking in combination with a collaborator in our community was much more attractive. If nothing resists such deals, they will spread, and make a mockery of the freedom of free software. So we have decided to update the GNU General Public License not to allow such deals, for the future software releases covered by GPL version 3. Stallman made essentially the same statement last November. Crafting the language that would prevent another company from making such a deal has proven to be quite difficult. Months after the final version of the GPLv3 was due to appear, Peter Brown, the FSF's executive director admitted in mid-March that, We continue to work on the details of the GPLv3 as it relates to the situation presented by the Novell and Microsoft deal. We are researching issues related to potential unintended consequences of the language we plan to adopt. As soon as we are satisfied with the results of our research we plan to bring forward the next draft. Perens said that he believed that this next draft would be released at The Free Software Foundation's annual associate member and activist meeting at MIT in Cambridge, Mass. on March 24. When pressed, however, he admitted that he is no longer involved in working on open-source internal matters such as the GPL, and that he doesn't know if the next draft will appear then. Novell, however, according to Perens, could solve the problem for itself by keeping its technical agreement with Microsoft while repudiating its patent agreement. He doesn't think Novell will do this, though, because Novell's Linux business hasn't taken off, and won't anytime soon. Therefore, he's forced to think that this is the first part of an exit strategy. Perens then rhetorically asked, Will Novell become a Microsoft proxy? Will they be bought out by Microsoft? In particular, Perens continued, Novell will be forced to do this because as vital code for Linux goes under the GPLv3, such as the FSF's C libraries and programs, Novell's Linux will become forked and Novell will not be able to afford to maintain it. To Perens, Novell was once a supporter of open source but has now become a parasite. When asked about Perens' comments, Jeff Jaffe, Novell's executive VP and CTO, said When someone has gotten to the point of name calling they don't have any content. The serious question that people ask about this deal, Jaffe continued, is: 'will this agreement foster of hurt open source?' We believe that this agreement will foster the growth of Linux and open source big time. There are numerous examples of this. We're creating new open source assets in management and interoperability. Jaffe concluded, The attention we're putting on interoperability with Windows and Linux is helping Linux. Our customers moving to Linux [story] is great evidence of this support. In the meantime, People are rushing to judgment on our relationship with Microsoft. Time will tell that this partnership will work well for our Linux, our customers, and all of Linux and open source. -- Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- GPL advocates urged strikethroughtold/strikethrough to pay for love
A seminar to explain the nuances of GPLv3, alas, postponed. http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/02/22/gpl_seminar/ --- GPL advocates urged strikethroughtold/strikethrough to pay for love By Dan Goodin in San Francisco ? More by this author 22 Feb 2007 02:14 Freedom is just another word for $7,000 The folks looking after the general public license (GPL) are fond of portraying themselves as the humble shepherds of the free and open source software movement. Their job, among other things, is to provide an open and transparent means for protecting the freedom to review, copy, tinker with and redistribute code. So fervent is their love of freedom and all that is free they dubbed one of their organizations The Software Freedom Law Center and the other The Free Software Foundation. So it came as a surprise to learn that the SFLC - the enforcement arm of the GPL - plans to offer a private and pricey seminar designed to give a small group of handpicked legal eagles a head start in untangling the confusion that is sure to result from the first revision to the GPL in more than 15 years. The price for the two-day event: $7,000. An email advertising the invitation-only seminar promises it will provide a carefully-selected group of attorneys with exclusive insight into the final wording of GPLv3, its interpretation and the likely enforcement strategy of of the Free Software Foundation and other FOSS rights holders. Media representatives for the SFLC and the FSF declined to comment except to say that the event, originally scheduled for the end of this month, has been postponed to an as-yet undetermined date. (This means your reporter is relying on his informed readers for details about this and other covert activities of the FSF or SFLC. Send your email here [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/SFLC] - confidentiality assured, free of charge.) Like plenty of interests in the FOSS community, the FSF and the SFLC have encountered their share of critics over the years. True to form, the detractors wasted no time in mixing metaphors designed to show what's wrong with the groups' hosting of an event as costly and secretive as this one. If it were a political invitation-only event, I would say people are buying themselves into the Lincoln Bedroom, especially if they're trying to keep it hush-hush, said Michael Graham, an intellectual property attorney who has taken issue with some of the changes the FSF is proposing for version 3 of the GPL. Attendees are going to get from the horse's mouth what the horse is going to do to enforce this new code. Most other FOSS curmudgeons declined to grumble on the record, insisting that their comments would only increase the chances that their clients would be targeted by the FSF and SFLC. With the veil of anonymity, however, they suggested the $7,000 price tag - about five times the going rate of other legal seminars - amounted to little more than protection money. Large companies professing their love for open source in public will want to go ahead and send a few lawyers to this conference for educational, political and back-rubbing due diligence. Greg Aharonian, whose best work has always been exposing the more absurd extremes of intellectual property law, was the only other individual we found willing to have his name attached to his rant. Go rent Goodfellas and use some of that language to describe it, he said. To be fair, the aspirations of FSF and the SFLC far outstrip their means. Their combined revenue for the most recent years they filed tax returns was a little less than $2.5m, which isn't a lot when you're fighting for truth and justice in the world of FOSS. But even if the seminar merely amounts to an attempt by two worthy groups to fund their activities, there's another reason to question the fund raiser. The whole point of contract law is to draft documents with little or no ambiguity in them. Charging $7,000 to explain the finer points of a license you've spent years bringing to fruition isn't the best way to convince a skeptical public you are the most competent of stewards. Or the most freedom loving.® --- regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Next GPL3 Draft to be Released on Wednesday
http://technocrat.net/d/2007/3/24/16783/ Next GPL3 Draft to be Released on Wednesday Bruce Perens Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:52:51 PDT Open Source Software At the FSF general meeting today, Richard Stallman announced that the third discussion draft of GPL version 3 will be released on Wednesday and will be open for public comment. This will be moved briskly into a last-call version, and they hope to close in early June. This version has an additional paragraph that addresses anyone who tries to do what Microsoft is currently doing in the Novell-Microsoft agreement. The language to address anyone who tries to do what Novell is doing is still being constructed, Eben Moglen commented to me that Richard has rejected the latest and best proposal for Novell-role language and that they will formulate new language and try again. - Bruce Perens regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- FSF to tweak GPLv3 to bust up MS Novell deal
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/108831/fsf-to-tweak-gplv3-to-bust-up-ms-novell-deal.html FSF to tweak GPLv3 to bust up MS Novell deal 7:32AM, Tuesday 27th March 2007 The Free Software Foundation, non-profit group that owns rights to much of the Linux operating system, says it will seek to undermine a controversial deal between Microsoft and Novell through a new software licensing agreement to be unveiled on Wednesday. The two companies announced a business partnership in November that included a cross-patent protection agreement that some critics say implies Microsoft has legal rights to Linux, the cooperatively developed software that is gaining ground with corporate users. 'We need to make sure such deals don't make a mockery of the goals of free software,' Peter Brown, executive director of the Free Software Foundation, said in an interview with Reuters late on Monday. Free software, which is also known as open-source software, refers to computer programs that are available to the general public to be used, revised and shared. Products from companies like Microsoft are considered proprietary and their code generally cannot be revised and shared. While open-source software is free, it also has become big business. An industry of consultants and other services supports it, and corporations contribute heavily to open-source development. Linux runs on more than 20 per cent of global server computers, compared with well over 60 percent of such powerful machines running Windows, according to recent Gartner data. Microsoft and Novell say their deal lets powerful server computers running Windows and Linux systems communicate better. They announced the deal in November as part of a broad sales, marketing and development partnership that brought Novell $348 million in upfront payments. Members of the free software community attacked the patent deal, particularly an agreement by Microsoft not to sue Novell's Linux customers. They say its existence implies that Microsoft holds patents it could one day claim are being infringed upon by Linux users. The Free Software Foundation will seek to undermine the Microsoft-Novell patent deal by incorporating language that will accomplish that goal into the new license agreement that will cover rights to much of the code in Linux, Brown said. Brown declined to discuss details of the changes in advance of publication of a draft of the agreement on Wednesday, though he said the foundation was committed to preventing Microsoft from claiming rights to Linux. 'They found a way to effectively proprietize free software by offering patent promises to Novell,' Brown said. 'Whenever a new method comes along to effectively turn free software into proprietary software, we will adjust the license.' The foundation will seek public comments on the draft for 60 days before finalizing the new license agreement, which will go into effect from June 26. It will only apply to upgrades to Linux operating system code controlled by the foundation that are made from that date, Brown said. Novell will be able to continue to distribute its current Linux products without violating the new license. But financial analysts have said that it will need to upgrade that software to remain competitive with rivals such as Red Hat. Novell spokesman Bruce Lowry declined to comment on the foundation's plan, saying he hadn't seen its draft. Microsoft also declined to comment before seeing the draft. Linux is distributed under the terms of a license that was written in 1991, the General Public License version 2, or GPLv2. The new license will be known as GPLv3. Linus Torvalds, who heads up development on the Linux kernel, has already cast doubt as to whether he would move his software to version three of the licence, rendering the efforts of the FSF redundant. Novell and Red Hat make money selling Linux bundled with service contracts that include technical support along with regular maintenance and upgrades to their software. And while both seek ensure their products work well with those of Microsoft, Red Hat has always maintained that it is able to do so through its membership of the Microsoft led Vendor Interoperability Alliance, without having to make special arrangements with Microsoft. Reuters and Matt Whipp regards, alexander. -- FORM 990, PART II, LINE 25 - OFFICER COMPENSATION SCHEDULE === PROGRAM MANAGMENT OFFICER NAME AND TYPE OF COMPENSATION SERVICES AND GENERAL EBEN MOGLEN COMPENSATION:116,875. 38,959. -- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- LWN: A new GPLv3 timetable
http://lwn.net/Articles/227857/ A new GPLv3 timetable [Posted March 26, 2007 by corbet] From:Brett Smith brett-AT-fsf.org To: corbet-AT-lwn.net Subject: GPLv3 timetable update Date:Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:40:33 -0400 FYI: the information below is being sent to our info-gplv3 mailing list. If you have any questions about it, please feel free to contact me. The second discussion draft of GPLv3 was released eight months ago, in July 2006. We had never planned to let so much time pass between public releases of the license. We felt it was important to fully discuss a few specific issues, including the recent patent deal between Novell and Microsoft, before proceeding with the process. A new discussion draft will be released on March 28 at 10:00 AM US Eastern time; it represents the outcome of those discussions, and the rationale document that will accompany it explains how we arrived at these decisions. However, we remain absolutely committed to hearing input from as much of the free software community as possible before publishing a final version of the license. We are adjusting the drafting process to make sure that everyone interested has an opportunity to make their voice heard. The third discussion draft will be open for comment for sixty days. Based on the feedback we receive during this window, we may publish new language from time to time for additional review. For example, if someone points out a side effect of some term that we hadn't considered before, we may publish updated text for that section aimed at addressing the issue. These changes will be announced on the GPLv3 web site and mailing list. We will continue to take feedback from public comments and discussion committees as before. In addition, if there are common questions about the license, we will address those in blog posts on the GPLv3 web site. Our goal is not to preempt discussion or criticism of the draft, but rather to enhance that discussion by helping the community fully understand the text. We are also considering other ways to solicit input, which we will announce as they are planned. After this discussion period is over, we will publish a last call draft. That draft will be open for comment for thirty days, and the final license will be published shortly afterwards. We would like to thank everyone for their continued support during this process, and their assistance as we work to make the our licenses the best they can be. -- -- Brett Smith Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation -- A new GPLv3 timetable Posted Mar 26, 2007 22:47 UTC (Mon) by subscriber kwink81 Thank goodness. I was beginning to worry that the GPLv3 draft committe was bound and gagged in someone's basement. It will be fun to see what they came up with. -- A new GPLv3 timetable Posted Mar 27, 2007 0:06 UTC (Tue) by subscriber markcox Just in time for the next harry potter to be released under the gplv3. regards, alexander. -- FORM 990, PART II, LINE 25 - OFFICER COMPENSATION SCHEDULE === PROGRAM MANAGMENT OFFICER NAME AND TYPE OF COMPENSATION SERVICES AND GENERAL EBEN MOGLEN COMPENSATION:116,875. 38,959. -- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL: Does a conveyor's violation result in rights to users?
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: [snip bullshit] Yada, yada, yada. As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but everywhere. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL: Does a conveyor's violation result in rights to users?
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [snip bullshit] Yada, yada, yada. As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but everywhere. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL: Does a conveyor's violation result in rights to users?
Richard Tobin wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yada, yada, yada. As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but everywhere. That would only allow you to transfer your copy, not make more copies. The doctrine is commonly called first sale, but the actual parameters of the rule are specified in the statute and not some lay reading of first, sale, or even first sale. The heart of the provision is its first sentence: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3) [distribution], the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. But it goes on to state exceptions to this rule (primarily for the rental of phonorecords and software) and exceptions to these exceptions, not part of the original Copyright Act of 1976. But if one has permission to make lawful copies, one does not need any additional permission to distribute those copies to the public. http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a floppy disk, Zip disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 109. More quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-2|3.pdf: Red Hat, Inc.: Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109. The primary difference between digital and nondigital products with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded from the Internet without the printed documentation, without the box, and without the installation service. Many open source and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft. ... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would jeopardize the ability of open source and free software licensor to require [blah blah] Time Warner, Inc.: We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium. Library Associations: First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that provision must be construed in light of its basic purpose and should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion because of changing habits due to new inventions and discoveries. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property throughout society. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL: Does a conveyor's violation result in rights to users?
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU speak) were nonexistent Well, I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not going to check with a lawyer right now, but if there was such a loophole in the GPL, wouldn't someone have exploited it by now? Oh dear, I hereby offer you a signed (by me) CD full of binary-only (no sources) GPL'd stuff (C) FSF under draconian contract imposing forbearance from exercising rights granted under GPL via a kind of shrink-wrap TC between you an me with contractual damages only twice the price. For only EURO 50. Deal? (If yes, pls pay-pal to terekhov at yahoo dot com and allow a week or so for delivery.) regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL: Does a conveyor's violation result in rights to users?
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU speak) were nonexistent Well, I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not going to check with a lawyer right now, but if there was such a loophole in the GPL, wouldn't someone have exploited it by now? Fire sale doesn't come into play, Terekhov is just trolling. Yeah, fire sale. Is this kind of deriviate of first sale, ueber GNUtian ams. LOL. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL: Does a conveyor's violation result in rights to users?
John Hasler wrote: [...] Note that only copyright owners have standing to sue. Sonny, uncle Hasler has spoken! True, since the Free Software Foundation (license drafter) persistently claims for decades to the entire world that the GPL is a license and not a contract, then it is really hard to argue that a third party is a third party beneficiary to a contract that doesn't exist. LOL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_beneficiary regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Installation Information
Installation Information In our earlier drafts we devoted much care to devising a detailed technical definition of the cryptographic information that would enable GPL licensees to install functioning modified versions, without affecting legitimate uses of encryption. The result was a provision that some found too complex and difficult to understand, while others continued to raise concerns about overinclusion. In fact, the complexity and its resultant problems were never necessary, since our underlying goal was quite simple. In Draft 3 we instead use a definition of Installation Information in section 6 that is as simple and clear as that goal. Installation Information is information that is required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work . . . from a modified version of its Corresponding Source, in the same User Product for which the covered work is conveyed. We provide guidance concerning how much information must be provided: it must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made. For example, the information provided would be insufficient if it enabled a modified version to run only in a disabled fashion, solely because of the fact of modification (regardless of the actual nature of the modification). The information need not consist of cryptographic keys; Installation Information may be any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information. -- regards, alexander. -- FORM 990, PART II, LINE 25 - OFFICER COMPENSATION SCHEDULE === PROGRAM MANAGMENT OFFICER NAME AND TYPE OF COMPENSATION SERVICES AND GENERAL EBEN MOGLEN COMPENSATION:116,875. 38,959. -- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Inherently Unmodifiable Copies
Inherently Unmodifiable Copies We do not object to the practice of conveying object code in a mode not practically susceptible to modification by any party, such as code burned in ROM or embedded in silicon. What we find ethically objectionable is the refusal to pass on to the downstream licensee the real right to modify, coupled with the retention of that right in the device manufacturer or some other party. Our text has never prohibited distribution in ROM, but we have decided to make the point explicitly, for claritys sake. Accordingly, our text states that the requirement to provide Installation Information does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product. -- regards, alexander. -- FORM 990, PART II, LINE 25 - OFFICER COMPENSATION SCHEDULE === PROGRAM MANAGMENT OFFICER NAME AND TYPE OF COMPENSATION SERVICES AND GENERAL EBEN MOGLEN COMPENSATION:116,875. 38,959. -- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Network Access and Other Limitations
Network Access and Other Limitations The definition of Installation Information states that the information provided must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made. We did not consider it necessary to define continued functioning further. However, we believed it would be appropriate to provide some additional guidance concerning the scope of GPLv3-compliant action or inaction that distributors of technically-restricted User Products can take with respect to a downstream recipient who replaces the conveyed object code with a modified version. We make clear that GPLv3 implies no obligation to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for such a work. Most technically-restricted User Products are designed to communicate across networks. It is important for both users and network providers to know when denial of network access to devices running modified versions becomes a GPL violation. We settled on a rule that permits denial of access in two cases: when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network, and when the modification itself violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network. The second case is deliberately drawn in general terms. We intend it to serve as a foundation for development of reasonable enforcement policies that respect recipients right to modify while recognizing the legitimate interests of network providers. -- regards, alexander. -- FORM 990, PART II, LINE 25 - OFFICER COMPENSATION SCHEDULE === PROGRAM MANAGMENT OFFICER NAME AND TYPE OF COMPENSATION SERVICES AND GENERAL EBEN MOGLEN COMPENSATION:116,875. 38,959. -- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- User Products
Standing ovations to Eben! :-) quote User Products In our earlier drafts, the requirement to provide encryption keys applied to all acts of conveying object code, as this requirement was part of the general definition of Corresponding Source. Section 6 of Draft 3 now limits the applicability of the technical restrictions provisions to object code conveyed in, with, or specifically for use in a defined class of User Products. In our discussions with companies and governments that use specialized or enterprise-level computer facilities, we found that sometimes these organizations actually want their systems not to be under their own control. Rather than agreeing to this as a concession, or bowing to pressure, they ask for this as a preference. It is not clear that we need to interfere, and the main problem lies elsewhere. While imposing technical barriers to modification is wrong regardless of circumstances, the areas where restricted devices are of the greatest practical concern today fall within the User Product definition. Most, if not all, technically-restricted devices running GPL-covered programs are consumer electronics devices, and we expect that to remain true in the near future. Moreover, the disparity in clout between the manufacturers and these users makes it difficult for the users to reject technical restrictions through their weak and unorganized market power. Even if limited to User Products, as defined in Draft 3, the provision still does the job that needs to be done. Therefore we have decided to limit the technical restrictions provisions to User Products in this draft. The core of the User Product definition is a subdefinition of consumer product taken verbatim from the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal consumer protection law in the United States: any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes. The United States has had three decades of experience of liberal judicial and administrative interpretation of this definition in a manner favorable to consumer rights. We mean for this body of interpretation to guide interpretation of the consumer product subdefinition in section 6, which will provide a degree of legal certainty advantageous to device manufacturers and downstream licensees alike. Our incorporation of such legal interpretation is in no way intended to work a general choice of United States law for GPLv3 as a whole. The paragraph in section 6 defining User Product and consumer product contains an explicit statement to this effect, bracketed for discussion. We will decide whether to retain this statement in the license text after gathering comment on it. One well-established interpretive principle under Magnuson-Moss is that ambiguities are resolved in favor of coverage. That is, in cases where it is not clear whether a product falls under the definition of consumer product, the product will be treated as a consumer product. Moreover, for a given product, normally used is understood to refer to the typical use of that type of product, rather than a particular use by a particular buyer. Products that are commonly used for personal as well as commercial purposes are consumer products, even if the person invoking rights is a commercial entity intending to use the product for commercial purposes. Even a small amount of normal personal use is enough to cause an entire product line to be treated as a consumer product under Magnuson-Moss. We do not rely solely on the definition of consumer product, however, because in the area of components of dwellings we consider the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss underinclusive. Depending on how such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may not be considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products. Therefore, we define User Products as a superset of consumer products that also includes anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. Although the User Products rule of Draft 3 reflects a special concern for individual purchasers of devices, we wrote the rule to cover a category of products, rather than categorizing users. Discrimination against organizational users has no place in a free software license. Moreover, a rule that applied to individual use, rather than to use of products normally used by individuals, would have too narrow an effect. Because of its incorporation of the liberal Magnuson-Moss interpretation of consumer product, the User Products rule benefits not only individual purchasers of User Products but also all organizational purchasers of those same kinds of products, regardless of their intended use of the products. We considered including medical devices for implantation in the human body in the User Product definition. We decided against this, however, because there may be legitimate health and safety regulations concerning inexpert and reckless
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Paracopyright
Paracopyright What was the second paragraph of section 3 in Draft 2, concerning so- called anticircumvention law, has been broken up into two paragraphs. In the first paragraph we have replaced the reference to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a United States statute, with a corresponding international legal reference to anticircumvention laws enacted pursuant to the 1996 WIPO treaty and any similar laws. Lawyers outside the United States have worried that a United States statutory reference could be read as indicating a choice for application of United States law to the license as a whole, which of course was not our intention. Further research has caused us to doubt the view that only one or the other paragraph of section 3 will typically be effective in a country that has enacted an anticircumvention law. Moreover, we believe that several national anticircumvention laws have been or will be structured more similarly to the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act than to the counterpart provisions of the European Union Copyright Directive. In the second paragraph of section 3, we now state more precisely that a conveying party waives the power to forbid circumvention of technological measures only to the extent that such circumvention is accomplished through the exercise of GPL rights in the conveyed work. We have made two changes in the disclaimer of intention regarding limitations on the design and use of the work. First, we make clear that the referenced legal rights are specifically rights arising under anticircumvention law. Second, we now refer to the conveying partys rights in addition to third party rights, as in some cases the conveying party will also be the party legally empowered to enforce or invoke rights arising under anticircumvention law. -- regards, alexander. -- FORM 990, PART II, LINE 25 - OFFICER COMPENSATION SCHEDULE === PROGRAM MANAGMENT OFFICER NAME AND TYPE OF COMPENSATION SERVICES AND GENERAL EBEN MOGLEN COMPENSATION:116,875. 38,959. -- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Ephemeral Propagation
Ephemeral Propagation Some have expressed concern that our technical restrictions provisions would extend to such cases as the ordinary use of a walkup Internet kiosk. We do not believe ephemeral propagation of this sort should amount to conveying anywhere, and are confident that it is not conveying under United States copyright law. Nevertheless, we have sought in Draft 3 to satisfy such concerns by making clear that the requirement to provide Installation Information applies only in the case of conveying of object code that occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use . . . is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term. The particular characterization of the transaction is immaterial; the requirements cover, for example, outright sales, long-term leases, and installment purchases of User Products. -- regards, alexander. -- FORM 990, PART II, LINE 25 - OFFICER COMPENSATION SCHEDULE === PROGRAM MANAGMENT OFFICER NAME AND TYPE OF COMPENSATION SERVICES AND GENERAL EBEN MOGLEN COMPENSATION:116,875. 38,959. -- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Patents
Patents Software patenting is a harmful and unjust policy, and should be abolished; recent experience makes this all the more evident. Since many countries grant patents that can apply to and prohibit software packages, in various guises and to varying degrees, we seek to protect the users of GPL-covered programs from those patents, while at the same time making it feasible for patent holders to contribute to and distribute GPL-covered programs as long as they do not attack the users of those programs. Therefore, we have designed GPLv3 to reduce the patent risks that distort and threaten the activities of users who make, run, modify and share free software. At the same time, we have given due consideration to practical goals such as certainty and administrability for patent holders that participate in distribution and development of GPL-covered software. Our policy requires each such patent holder to provide appropriate levels of patent assurance to users, according to the nature of the patent holders relationship to the program. Draft 3 features several significant changes concerning patents. We have made improvements to earlier wording, clarified when patent assertion becomes a prohibited restriction on GPL rights, and replaced a distribution-triggered non-assertion covenant with a contribution- based patent license grant. We have also added provisions to block collusion by patent holders with software distributors that would extend patent licenses in a discriminatory way. Draft 3 introduces the terms contributor and contribution, which are used in the third paragraph of section 10 and the first paragraph of section 11, discussed successively in the following two subsections. Section 0 defines a contributor as a party who licenses under this License a work on which the Program is based. That work is the contribution of that contributor. In other words, each received GPLv3-covered work is associated with one or more contributors, making up the finite set of upstream GPLv3 licensors for that work. Viewed from the perspective of a recipient of the Program, contributors include all the copyright holders for the Program, other than copyright holders of material originally licensed under non-GPL terms and later incorporated into a GPL-covered work. The contributors are therefore the initial GPLv3 licensors of the Program and all subsequent upstream licensors who convey, under the terms of section 5, modified works on which the Program is based. For a contributor whose contribution is a modified work conveyed under section 5, the contribution is the entire work, as a whole which the contributor is required to license under GPLv3. The contribution therefore includes not just the material added or altered by the contributor, but also the pre-existing material the contributor copied from the upstream version and retained in the modified version. Our usage of contributor and contribution should not be confused with the various other ways in which those terms are used in certain other free software licenses. [snip Eben's impenetrable pseudo-techno-poetry regarding litigation] Our previous drafts featured a patent license grant triggered by all acts of distribution of GPLv3-covered works.11 Many patent-holding companies objected to this policy. They have made two objections: (1) the far-reaching impact of the patent license grant on the patent holder is disproportionate to the act of merely distributing code without modification or transformation, and (2) it is unreasonable to expect an owner of vast patent assets to exercise requisite diligence in reviewing all the GPL-covered software that it provides to others. Some expressed particular concern about the consequences of inadvertent distribution. The argument that the impact of the patent license grant would be disproportionate, that is to say unfair, is not valid. Since software patents are weapons that no one should have, and using them for aggression against free software developers is an egregious act, preventing that act cannot be unfair. However, the second argument seems valid in a practical sense. A typical GNU/Linux distribution includes thousands of programs. It would be quite difficult for a redistributor with a large patent portfolio to review all those programs against that portfolio every time it receives and passes on a new version of the distribution. Moreover, this question raises a strategic issue. If the GPLv3 patent license requirements convince patent- holding companies to remain outside the distribution path of all GPL- covered software, then these requirements, no matter how strong, will cover few patents. We concluded it would be more effective to make a partial concession which would lead these companies to feel secure in doing the distribution themselves, so that the conditions of section 10 would apply to assertion of their patents. We therefore made the
Re: GPL: Does a conveyor's violation result in rights to users?
Elvey wrote: FYI, their (Adaptec Support's) latest response: Send GNU legal beagle Eben on them, Elvey. They will capitulate immediately. :-) regards, alexander. -- Its odd that PJ would duck a subpoena because she says shes a paralegal and has a high respect for the legal system. -- floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/osdl-payments-to-pamela-jones ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL: Does a conveyor's violation result in rights to users?
John Hasler wrote: [...] The reason there have not yet been many court tests of the GPL is that most infringers capitulate immediately upon being confronted. And in other news, RMS has bought a house and a nice big car (in addition to a whole bunch of genuine DVDs with latest Hollywood animation blockbusters for his newly adopted child). regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- ACT: Perens Invokes the Nuh Uh! Defense, Calls Us Names
http://blog.actonline.org/2007/04/perens_invokes_.html quote April 10, 2007 Perens Invokes the Nuh Uh! Defense, Calls Us Names Following up on a piece he wrote about my recent GPLv3 analyses, Peter Galli interviewed [http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2112267,00.asp] free software advocate Bruce Perens to get his response to the our 20 pages of legal analysis. His response can best be summed up as Nuh Uh! and Theyre ugly! (because they have Microsoft as a member) It is nice to know that there are a couple of dozen corporate attorneys on the GPLv3 committees are constantly evaluating legal risks. Perhaps Mr. Perens should forward my papers to them so that they can actually read them before commenting on the validity of the arguments. To be honest, Mr. Perens has raised very little I can respond to. He only dismisses the points I made in my paper as nothing more than words or bogus, but with little analysis. Perens's answers simply do not address the main risk posed by GPLv3, as stated in the paper; GPLv3 may be interpreted as FSF tortiously interfering with a legal contract between two parties concerning intellectual property issues between them. Mr. Perens cites to the case of Daniel Wallace which was based on a predatory pricing theory under another version of the GPL and not a group boycott theory as I was suggesting in respect of the GPLv3. Different facts, different law, different result. It is also strange that he would counter my arguments - at least in part - by referring to GPLv2. It was clearly my intent to address issues that arise under GPLv3. Hopefully, Mr. Perens can share my papers with the FSF legal team so that we can find ways to improve the language and avoid these issues. These are important issues that deserve a full analysis and airing. /quote regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: just another freeware blog (was: Re: Great Free Software Blog)
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: Koh Choon Lin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think the title is misleading: Paying for good software will lead others to think that free means free of charge. That blog does mean free of charge. It's a freeware blog, not a free software blog. C'mon, Guh-NÜ activist ciaran, http://www.voluntarytrade.org/newsite/modules/news/article.php?storyid=125 quote Easterbrook, Circuit Judge. Does the provision of copyrighted software under the GNU General Public License (GPL) violate the federal antitrust laws? Authors who distribute their works under this license, devised by the Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not only copying but also the creation of derivative worksand the license prohibits charging for the derivative work. People may make and distribute derivative works if and only if they come under the same license terms as the original work. Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. Copyright law, usually the basis of limiting reproduction in order to collect a fee, ensures that open-source software remains free: any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted the GPL. The Free Software Foundation calls the result copyleft. /quote regards, alexander. -- You see Free Software has been so successful because we have shown we can develop software without any money. Volunteers do it. We don't need to have money to develop powerful large programs. But we certainly need to have money if we're going to buy patent licences. -- Lunatic Richard Stallman ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- DeLong: TOP 10 REASONS WHY SOFTWARE ENGINEERS SHOULD BE WARY OF GPLv3
quote 1. The language of GPLv3 is difficult to understand. A license should clearly inform people what they can and cannot do. GPLv3 does neither. Lawyers assume that they could understand it if only they were software engineers, and engineers assume that the lawyers grasp it. Both are wrong. Since Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), who controls the process, is an engineer, and since an important function of the document should be to provide engineers with instructions on how to write code that can interact with code covered by the GPL, the difficulties it presents to engineers are particularly unsettling. 2. The uncertainties and ambiguities must be deliberate. Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) has been working with Stallman on the revision for over two years. When a lawyer with Moglen's credentials spends two years producing something so impenetrable, it is by intent, not ineptitude. Furthermore, the rationale document explaining the new license is devoid of examples. Lawyers who are trying to be clear instruct through illustration, and the failure to use this technique should be a red flag. The drafters want the document to be misunderstood, they want to force programmers to return to them for interpretations, which these can be favorable or not, depending on the closeness of petitioner's connection to the FSF and the SFLC. 3. The problem of linked programs is not resolved. Under GPLv2, there is a question concerning how closely an ancillary program must be linked to a GPL'ed program to trigger the GPL requirement that the code of the ancillary program also be made open. GPLv3 does not resolve this issue. Indeed, it makes the matter even more inscrutable than before. 4. Interoperability is inhibited. Customers are demanding that the offerings from different vendors interoperate. They care not whether software is proprietary or open source, and they do not want to be bothered by civil wars within the software community. The GPLv3 is designed to prevent such interoperability, through its provisions on patents, DRM, linking, and web services. Engineers cannot in good conscience advocate that their employers marginalize themselves with respect to the needs of the customers. These GPLv3 provisions will also discourage corporate participation in standard-setting activities by forcing companies that license IP necessary for standards to extend the terms to those who do not reciprocate or are unwilling to pay even reasonable royalties. 5. Dual licensing will become very difficult. As the OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) concluded in February 2007: There are significant downsides to dual licensing, including, but not limited to, license complexity, confusion and the possibility of long term bad press from any exception language that such a license would inevitably require. (CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6; Topic: Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDDL and GPLv3?) The latest version may be improved, but the problems remain. 6. The use of Digital Rights Management (DRM) in conjunction with code covered by GPLv3 may well be prohibited as a practical matter; this will condemn GPLed code to fringe status. The language of the license is not clear, but many public statements by its proponents are clear: they detest any form of DRM and would like to keep it from operating in conjunction with GPLv3 code. Whatever one's opinion of DRM, and many in the tech community oppose it, content creators and disseminators regard it as vital, and will not use any software that is incompatible with DRM. 7. The DRM provisions are morally objectionable By what right do programmers, in the name of programming freedom, dictate to other creators that these cannot impose controls designed to prevent people from free-riding on their creativity? That is not freedom; that is authoritarianism. Programmers who oppose DRM need to suggest business models that can satisfy other creators, not impose their own parochial views. 8. The application of the GPLv3 to web-based services is muddled. At the outset of the revision process, one of the issues concerned companies that take GPL'ed code, modify it, and then use the result to provide web-based services to consumers. Since these companies are not distributing their modifications, they are not subject to the requirement that they make these modifications available. Some members of the open source community regard web-based services as a loophole that should be closed. However, GPLv3 explicitly says, in one section, that this is not being done, that the rules remain unchanged. But another section allows contributors to GPL'ed programs to add to the provisions of the GPLv3 language from a different software license (the Affero license) that would require web-based service companies using that particular code to reveal the source code of any modifications. This requirement might (ambiguity, again)
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben's Life After GPLv3
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog/2007/04/index.html quote And Now ... Life After GPLv3 Not that it wasnt wonderful. I enjoyed almost every minute of it, and Im going to write about the ones that can be told, some day. But for me and for my colleague Richard Fontana, after months of living and breathing GPLv3, the weathers beginning to change. The release of Discussion Draft 3 has been greeted as warmly as I dared hope: all the recorded outrage has been emitted by Microsoft or its surrogates, which is at it should be. We had prepared Discussion Draft 3, after all, with the assumption that it was going to be the Last Call Draft, and I thought, and continue to think, that it would serve beautifully as the final GPLv3. I agree with RMS that it was very important to add another cycle of public discussion, and Im sure the Free Software Foundation will be making some changes based on that discussion, as it has in response to comments all along. But I think the big issues have been correctly addressed, and that the detail work-which as lawyers we have to take more seriously than everyone elseis ready for the pressure of reality. So its time I began to think about life after GPLv3. Making the license is just the first phase, to be sure: SFLC and its clients will be using the new license before long. Lots of people have speculated in the press about who isnt going to switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3. However, Ive seen much less speculation about developers who might choose to drop other licenses in order to put their projects or commercial products under GPLv3. In fact, in my travels around the GPL-revision process this year Ive met and talked to many such people. Their views were also taken into account in framing GPLv3, and Ill bet there will be some notice taken late this summer and early autumn, when interesting and high-profile projects or products change licenses to adopt GPLv3, or dual license under it. And a license once applied to software must be respected; our clients copyrights are used to protect freedom, and we will need to help all our GPL3-using clients to get the same respect for their intentions that other free software and open source projects receive. But this long drafting project, which has displaced most of the rest of my professional life (and, it sometimes seems, all of my personal life as well) is winding down at last. Which means its time to return to some of what Ive missed. Writing and teaching, for example. Time to reorganize time. As I return to teaching at Columbia I need to concentrate more of my remaining spare time and effort on the affairs of the Software Freedom Law Center, which is inevitably going to mean less involvement with the affairs of other organizations I care very much about. In particular, its time for me to leave the board of directors of the Free Software Foundation, where Ive been since 2000. FSF is in great shape under the continued leadership of Richard Stallman and his executive director, Peter Brown. Completing GPLv3 successfully underlines the credibility with which FSF combines the most uncompromising principle with the depth of knowledge and experience needed to build broad coalitions in our community. Leaving is always hard, but there couldnt be a more appropriate or less disruptive time. More than anything else, however, this is a moment to focus on the new. SFLC is a wonderful place to work, for me and I hope for all my colleagues. Great things are happening that havent had enough attention, because everyone has been watching GPLv3. The really innovative work is being done by the other lawyers here. They are refining organizational structures, innovating strategies for setting up project conservanciesa new type of shared container for multiple free software projects which gives those projects administrative and legal advantages with minimal overhead. They are counseling young projects making astonishing new free software thats going to be rocking businesss world three or four years from now. Were taking risk out of projects everybody is using or is going to want to use. Helping my colleagues do that work, supporting their growth as they support their clients, is the right thing for me to do right now. Hurrah for GPLv3, and hurrah it will soon be done. /quote LMAO! regards, alexander. -- http://www.linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Laurie: Moglen Celebrates the Increase in the Chocolate Ration
http://www.links.org/?p=221 - Moglen Celebrates the Increase in the Chocolate Ration Eben Moglen blogs about the GPLv3 [http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog/2007/04/index.html] and what a wonderful guy he is. But Im not going to get into a GPLv3 vs. GPLv2 vs. anything else debate, since Im a BSD/Apache guy and dont really care what the GPL crazies drug of the month is. However, I do object to this | The release of Discussion Draft 3 has been greeted as warmly as I | dared hope: all the recorded outrage has been emitted by Microsoft | or its surrogates, which is at it should be. So, it seems that the fact that at the 11th hour it has been decided, yet again, that the Apache Licence [http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html} is not compatible with the GPL [http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale], despite assurances [http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript.en.html#compatibility], to the obvious distaste of the Apache Software Foundation, is not on his radar - despite the fact that the ASF is a client of his company. Perhaps he thinks that | SFLC and its clients will be using the new license before long applies to the ASF. I think not. In fact, I think it will be a cold day in hell before the ASF has any truck with any likely variant of the GPL. - regards, alexander. -- http://www.linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GNU Philosophy: How practical is it?
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] Take a look at RedHat IPO scam money aside for a moment, let's see... 1997: net loss1318 (-) 1998: net loss3738 (-) 1999: net loss6388 (-) 2000: net loss 43053 (-) 2001: net loss 86773 (-) 2002: net loss 139949 (-) 2003: net loss6734 (-) 2004: net income 13732 (+) 2005: net income 45426 (+) 2006: net income 79685 (+) = -149110 (loss) [...] of the work that you do. Not even the big propietery companies survive on just charhing for copies. Eh? - SEATTLE (AP) -- Microsoft Corp.'s fiscal third-quarter profit jumped 65 percent, buoyed by sales of its new versions of Windows and Office and by upgrade coupons for the operating system issued over the holidays. Earnings for the quarter ended March 31 rose to $4.93 billion, or 50 cents per share, from $2.98 billion, or 29 cents per share in same period last year. Results included legal charges amounting to 1 cent per share, but tax benefits boosted profit by 2 cents per share. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial forecast a profit of 46 cents per share. Revenue for the quarter rose 32 percent to $14.4 billion. Wall Street was looking for $13.89 billion in sales. Microsoft started selling its newest operating system, Windows Vista, to consumers at the end of January. Its client division, responsible for Windows, brought in $5.27 billion in sales, 67 percent higher than a year ago. Microsoft said it deferred $1.2 billion in Windows Vista revenue to the third quarter, to account for upgrade coupons given to PC buyers during the holiday season before the consumer launch of the new operating system. Excluding this figure, client revenue totaled $4.1 billion, 30 higher than last year. Business division revenue, which includes sales of Office 2007, rose 34 percent to $4.83 billion. Microsoft Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell said the excellent quarter was due to better-than-expected sales of Vista and Office. Liddell said Vista beat internal forecasts by $300 million to $400 million, and Office 2007 sales were $200 million better than expected. The client division sales are surprisingly ahead of where we thought they would come in, said Sid Parakh, an analyst at McAdams Wright Ragen. They might indicate Vista is doing fine. - regards, alexander. -- Moglen also said that Microsoft's forthcoming Windows Vista operating system will fail in the market place and charged that Microsoft's Office software is ``dying.'' -- Copyright © vnunet.com ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GNU Philosophy: How practical is it?
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] Dunno why I bother, but... RedHat does far more software development than Adobe. ^ | Eh? | | Adobe's latest 10-Q:| | Research and development 137,129 --+ Sales and marketing. 214,678 General and administrative . 61,275 Amortization of purchased intangibles .. 17,725 Total operating expenses 430,807 (on 649,407 revenue) vs. Red Hat's latest 10-Q: Research and development 19,200 Sales and marketing. 37,575 General and administrative.. 18,024 Total operating expense. 74,799 (on 105,826 revenue) regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GNU Philosophy: How practical is it?
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Sex, 2007-04-27 Ã s 17:21 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu: Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] Dunno why I bother, but... RedHat does far more software development than Adobe. ^ | Eh? | | Adobe's latest 10-Q:| | Research and development 137,129 --+ ^ | Software Patents count here -+ Same as with Red Hat's RD numbers, I gather. Patents, and the patent system, are becoming increasingly important to the business. Deputy general counsel Webbink explains that when Red Hat decided to create the position that Avrunin filled, management received a lot of resumes from patent prosecutors. In contrast, Avrunin was a patent litigator at law firm Finnegan Henderson. We found that rather intriguing, says Webbink. His resume made the decision makers question: Do we want a good patent prosecutor? Or do we want someone who can keep us out of trouble? It appears that Avrunin wants to be both. He's been here for 20 years already in dog years, says Webbink. Avrunin has been busy, in other words. Before he arrived, Red Hat had around 30 patent applications pending at the USPTO. At the end of last quarter, we have nine issued patents out of 175 applications, says Avrunin. Cryptography, digital rights management and security are big focus areas for Red Hat's patents. -- Red Hat enters the patent ring - MIP March 2007 regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GNU Philosophy: How practical is it?
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Sex, 2007-04-27 Ã s 17:21 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu: Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] Dunno why I bother, but... RedHat does far more software development than Adobe. ^ | Eh? | | Adobe's latest 10-Q:| | Research and development 137,129 --+ ^ | Software Patents count here -+ Same as with Red Hat's RD numbers, I gather. Patents, and the patent system, are becoming increasingly important to the business. Deputy general counsel Webbink explains that when Red Hat decided to create the position that Avrunin filled, management received a lot of resumes from patent prosecutors. In contrast, Avrunin was a patent litigator at law firm Finnegan Henderson. We found that rather intriguing, says Webbink. His resume made the decision makers question: Do we want a good patent prosecutor? Or do we want someone who can keep us out of trouble? It appears that Avrunin wants to be both. He's been here for 20 years already in dog years, says Webbink. Avrunin has been busy, in other words. Before he arrived, Red Hat had around 30 patent applications pending at the USPTO. At the end of last quarter, we have nine issued Such as 7,107,314 Mail system synchronization using multiple message identifiers 7,082,424 Method and apparatus for atomic file look-up 7,024,499 Cache only queue option for cache controller 6,988,142 Method and apparatus for handling communication requests at a server without context switching 6,950,868 Method of and apparatus for remote monitoring 6,944,793 Method of remote monitoring 6,886,004 Method and apparatus for atomic file look-up 6,754,891 Debugger system using tracepoints for computer software patents out of 175 applications, Such as 20070089098 PASTE BY EXAMPLE 20070061492 ZERO-COPY NETWORK I/O FOR VIRTUAL HOSTS 20070016867 PRESENTATION MODE/FULL-SCREEN MODE INTERRUPTING ACTION PREVENTION 20070016585 METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ENABLING USERS SEARCHING FOR COMMON SUBJECT MATTER ON A COMPUTER NETWORK TO COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER 20070015118 TUTORIAL GENERATOR WITH AUTOMATIC CAPTURE OF SCREENSHOTS 20070006301 Strong password entry 20070006147 Using differential information entropy to detect bugs and security flaws in computer programs 20070005919 Computer system protection based on virtualization 20060248127 Conditional message delivery to holder of locks relating to a distributed locking manager 20060218487 System, method and medium for component based web user interface frameworks 20060200438 System and method for retrieving data from a relational database management system 20060184948 System, method and medium for providing asynchronous input and output with less system calls to and from an operating system 20060184942 System, method and medium for using and/or providing operating system information to acquire a hybrid user/operating system lock 20060184653 System and method for creating and managing virtual services 20060168130 Bytecode localization engine and instructions 20060112395 Replacing idle process when doing fast messaging 20060112374 System, method, and medium for efficiently obtaining the addresses of thread-local variables 20060080385 System, method, and medium for configuring client computers to operate disconnected from a server computer while using a master instance of the operating system 20060075059 Method and system for caching directory services 20060075030 Self-tuning statistical method and system for blocking spam 20060053139 Methods, systems, and computer program products for implementing single-node and cluster snapshots 20060015747 System and method for detecting computer virus 20060005256 Apparatus and method for managing digital rights with arbitration 20050138406 Rights management system 20050071371 Software and data file updating process 20050021637 Electronic mail control system 20040158717 Electronic document active content assurance 20040153483 Mail system synchronization 20040143776 Hot plug interfaces and failure handling 20040143687 Cache only queue option for cache controller etc. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GNU Philosophy: How practical is it?
Barry Margolin wrote: [...] Isn't that pattern pretty normal for high-tech startups? Ask those poor folks who lost the money in Linux and .com IPO scam. I've sold and shorted (Put-Optionsscheine) the techs in 99 and it was rather too earlier, but in the end it turned small profit, not loss. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jurisdiction Penumbra
Alexander Terekhov wrote: rjack wrote: [...] The CAFC should be reversed. Maybe. Well, but taking ideas from Switzerland (-based international and non-political association of approximately 4,000 industrial property attorneys from over eighty countries (including the United States)) and Shell, either the SCOTUS should outlaw 271(f) altogether or affirm CAFC ruling, process or method claiming notwithstanding. I think. Majority: -- Windows software does not infringe ATT's patent any more than a computer standing alone does; instead, the patent is infringed only when a computer is loaded with Windows and is thereby rendered capable of performing as the patented speech processor. The question before us: Does Microsoft's liability extend to computers made in another country when loaded with Windows software copied abroad from a master disk or electronic transmission dispatched by Microsoft from the United States? Our answer is No. The master disk or electronic transmission Microsoft sends from the United States is never installed on any of the foreign-made computers in question. Instead, copies made abroad are used for installation. Because Microsoft does not export from the United States the copies actually installed, it does not suppl[y] . . . from the United States components of the relevant computers, and therefore is not liable under §271(f) as currently written. Plausible arguments can be made for and against extending §271(f) to the conduct charged in this case as infringing ATT's patent. Recognizing that §271(f) is an exception to the general rule that our patent law does not apply extraterritorially, we resist giving the language in which Congress cast §271(f) an expansive interpretation. Our decision leaves to Congress' informed judgment any adjustment of §271(f) it deems necessary or proper. -- STEVENS: -- The relevant component in this case is not a physical item like a knife. Both Microsoft and the Court think that means it cannot be a component. See ante, at 10. But if a disk with software inscribed on it is a component, I find it difficult to understand why the most important ingredient of that component is not also a component. Indeed, the master disk is the functional equivalent of a warehouse of components -- components that Microsoft fully expects to be incorporated into foreign-manufactured computers. Put somewhat differently: On the Court's view, Microsoft could be liable under §271(f) only if it sends individual copies of its software directly from the United States with the intent that each copy would be incorporated into a separate infringing computer. But it seems to me that an indirect transmission via a master disk warehouse is likewise covered by §271(f). I disagree with the Court's suggestion that because software is analogous to an abstract set of instructions, it cannot be regarded as a component within the meaning of §271(f). See ante, at 9-10. Whether attached or detached from any medium, software plainly satisfies the dictionary definition of that word. See ante, at 9, n. 11 (observing that '[c]omponent' is commonly defined as 'a constituent part,' 'element,' or 'ingredient'). And unlike a blueprint that merely instructs a user how to do something, software actually causes infringing conduct to occur. It is more like a roller that causes a player piano to produce sound than sheet music that tells a pianist what to do. Moreover, it is surely not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use as that term is used in §271(f)(2). On the contrary, its sole intended use is an infringing use. I would therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. -- I agree with STEVENS, the logic of the majority sucks miserably. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Broersma: FSF cosies up to Apache
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=8808 - FSF cosies up to Apache By Matthew Broersma, Techworld The Free Software Foundation says it is on track to build Apache License compatibility into the upcoming GPL version 3, despite 11th-hour problems that scuppered the feature in the latest GPL 3 draft. The GPL is the most widely used open source licence, and the Apache License, besides covering the immensely popular Apache web server, is also a well-established licence. The incompatibility between the two has long caused headaches for developers, since it means code can't be shared between projects covered by one licence or the other. Apache License compatibility was one of the major features planned for the latest draft of the GPL 3, released in March, and its absence came as a surprise. But the FSF said on Tuesday that compatibility will make it into the final version of the GPL 3. I think a final change we'll see before the GPL 3 release will be that compatibility, said FSF executive director Peter Brown during a panel discussion at the JavaOne conference in San Francisco on Tuesday. Compatibility had been removed from the latest GPL 3 draft because of a last-minute legal problem, according to the FSF. Another problem has been that the issue has simply fallen through the cracks in the mammoth GPL 3 drafting process, according to the FSF and the Apache Foundation. Cliff Schmidt, vice president of legal affairs for the Apache Software Foundation, said during the panel discussion that the two organisations are now working together to make compatibility happen. In practice, compatibility is likely to be a one-way street, with the more tightly restricted GPL projects able to take code from Apache License projects, but not the other way around. In March the FSF released the next-to-last rough draft of the GPL 3, including alterations specifically designed to put a stop to future patent deals of the sort that Novell and Microsoft agreed to last year. The latest draft also softened up some other intellectual property provisions, to the point where some who had previously opposed the licence - such as Linus Torvalds - were now taking a more positive view. The final version of the licence is currently set to be finalised in August. - regards, alexander. -- http://www.linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright for the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non-trivial %90 of it. Can I still dual license the project? Your project is a compilation (this legal term includes collective works) under copyright law. The copyright in that compilation is separate and independent from copyrights in constituent works and you are the sole owner of that copyright. You can multi license it all you like. Individual works compromising the project remain under their own copyrights and (multi)licenses, if any. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
David Kastrup wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright for the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non-trivial %90 of it. Can I still dual license the project? You can't relicense the work of others under any license you like, period. Regardless how much or little you add to it. This begs a question, dear GNUtian dak. How come that Linux kernel as a whole (in GNU speak) isn't under the BSD (all other non-GPL'd works constituting Linux kernel project aside for a moment)? regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
