Free software? You can't just give it away

Times Online ^ | February 21, 2006 | Times Online

[N3WBI3]

Who could be upset by a scheme that allows free use of software? Well, Gervase Markham has found one Trading Standards officer who is

Who could possibly be upset with the Mozilla Foundation for giving away its Firefox browser?

One of my roles at the Mozilla Foundation relates to copyright licensing. I'm responsible for making sure that the software we distribute respects the conditions of the free software licences of the underlying code. I'm also the first point of contact for licensing questions.

Most of the time, this job involves helping people who want to use our code in their own products understand the terms, or advising project members who want to integrate code from another project into our codebase. Occasionally, however, something a little more unusual comes along.

A little while ago, I received an e-mail from a lady in the Trading Standards department of a large northern town. They had encountered businesses which were selling copies of Firefox, and wanted to confirm that this was in violation of our licence agreements before taking action against them. * Click here to find out more!

I wrote back, politely explaining the principles of copyleft – that the software was free, both as in speech and as in price, and that people copying and redistributing it was a feature, not a bug. I said that selling verbatim copies of Firefox on physical media was absolutely fine with us, and we would like her to return any confiscated CDs and allow us to continue with our plan for world domination (or words to that effect).

Unfortunately, this was not well received. Her reply was incredulous:

"I can't believe that your company would allow people to make money from something that you allow people to have free access to. Is this really the case?" she asked.

"If Mozilla permit the sale of copied versions of its software, it makes it virtually impossible for us, from a practical point of view, to enforce UK anti-piracy legislation, as it is difficult for us to give general advice to businesses over what is/is not permitted."

I felt somewhat unnerved at being held responsible for the disintegration of the UK anti-piracy system. Who would have thought giving away software could cause such difficulties?

However, given that the free software movement is unlikely collectively to decide to go proprietary in order to make her life easier, I had another go, using examples like Linux and the OpenOffice office suite to show that it's not just Firefox which is throwing a spanner in the works.

She then asked me to identify myself, so that she could confirm that I was authorised to speak for the Mozilla Foundation on this matter. I wondered if she was imagining nefarious copyright-infringing street traders taking a few moments off from shouting about the price of bananas to pop into an internet cafe, crack a router and intercept her e-mail.

However, the more I thought about it, providing a sensible reply to that question is somewhat difficult. How could I prove I was authorised to speak for the Foundation? We're a virtual organisation – we have three employees, one in Vancouver, one in Virginia and one in leafy North London, with no office or registered trading address in the UK. As far as the Mozilla part of my life goes, my entire existence is electronic.

In the end, I just had to say that the fact that I am capable of receiving and replying to e-mail addressed to licensing@mozilla.org would have to be sufficient. She would just have to take it on trust that I was not a router-cracking banana merchant. She must have done so, as I never heard from her again.

While the identity verification aspect of this incident is amusing, what is more serious is the set of assumptions her e-mails implied. It demonstrates how the free software model disrupts the old proprietary way of doing things, where copying was theft and you were guilty until proven innocent.

In a world where both types of software exist, greater discernment is required on the part of the enforcers. I hope this is the beginning of the end of any automatic assumption that sharing software with your neighbour must be a crime.

Gervase Markham says that he works for the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting choice and innovation on the internet. Of course, he may just be a banana seller. His blog is Hacking For Christ

[stainlessbanner]

Multiple Sclerosis?

[zeugma]

Really? Took long enough. Some trolls are super-slow to learn. Makes them easy to out though. i'll be interested in seeing if all the 'other topical" posts are non-political.

[js1138]

It seldom happens, for obvious reasons, and when it does it usually doesn't last long. But if I want to open a store and give away cheese I have every capitalistic right to do so.

As a consumer I am aware that everything eventually has a price.

In the case of free broadcast entertainment, I note that I am the product, not the customer. My viewing of commercials is what is being sold.

This is true of websites such as google. They are good at making it umobtrusive, but commercial sites pay to have their links come up first.

Free software is free except fot the media, the extra goodies and the support. Eventually these will be noticable costs to consumers, just as free websites and free TV eventually have noticable costs to consumers.

[dennisw]

yup

[rzeznikj at stout]

Yes and no--thus I have to disagree in part.

By the common definition, you're right. Copyright isn't about politics.

But the basic definition (the one I have to know for my major) says yes--politics is the competition, interplay, and/or conflicts that occur between varying groups, peoples, or ideas over the distribution of limited resources and/or power.

The debate of copyleft is politicking. Whether we like it or not is completely open to interpretation.

[zeugma]

N3WBI3,

It would appear that his trolling has been not really been supplemented by any meaningful posting on other topic. The following is a quick analysis of his last 273 posts back to Dec 13, 2005. The initial numb
er is the number of posts to the thread, followed by the threadname.

Note there are 2 threads that aren't obviously tech/open source related, and both concern China. I'm sure you've recognised GE's fixation on China a long time ago. So, a quick and dirty check of his posting history hasn't shown any change. She's still the biggest and most single-minded troll on FreeRepublic.

1 IBM Sends Open Source Architecture Tools to Russia 
10 Taking on the database Giants (Open source alert) 
1 Iran owns China, Russia UN votes - US senator 
1 DRM: Media companies' next flop? 
1 UK wants ⌠back door■ in Windows Vista Security 
8 KDE getting ready to go native on Windows 
5 Open Source Flash Player Revealed 
2 Linus says no to GPLv3 
1 Royal Bank of Scotland embraces open source 
5 Sun wants Linux on T1 
24 Google at work on desktop Linux? 
1 Vanity: See the future of web browsers IE7.COM 
2 Want an easy way to build a Linux system? 
18 Microsoft antitrust flap 'boosts Linux' in Far East 
1 Red Hat CTO: RHEL5 will drive virtualization costs down 
17 Linux 'easier to manage' than Windows 
1 Microsoft tastes sweet, sweet open source CRM (SugarCRM and Windows Server unite) 
3 FOSS for OS/2: Keeping the flame alive 
10 Free software? You can't just give it away 
1 Lockheed Martin Selects Concurrent's RedHawk Linux for THAAD Missile Defense Program 
32 Unpatched Firefox 1.5 exploit made public 
2 Answering Blake Stowell's Question 
2 Windows XP Home: obsolete sooner than you expect 
1 Intel Transition, MacBook Name, and Windows on Mac? 
7 Microsoft to Open Windows to Please EU 
25 What's Left of UNIX ? (Because of LINUX, UNIX faces prospect of a long, slow decline) 
12 OSS is an easier hack: Mitnick 
1 MS to omit anti-virus from Vista 
6 Patent spat forces businesses to upgrade Office 
1 New Orleans 'risks extinction' 
51 IBM Sends Open Source Architecture Tools to Russia 
11 US charges Taiwanese (spy) over China jet, missile deal 
8 IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP! 

[rzeznikj at stout]

Open Source doesn't put fiduciary benefit first. This isn't to say that OSS doesn't care about profit; IIRC, the GPL v.2 doesn't expressly forbid people from profiting off their programs--just that at the minimum, the source has to be freely available and somewhat open to change.

Second, you make a gross generalization when you say OSS is trying to level Gates. Some advocates (e.g. RMS and his disciples) may favor that approach, however, the majority of the OSS guys I know (and including myself), are perfectly content with the coexistence of MS and OSS.

[Restorer]

This is true of websites such as google. They are good at making it umobtrusive, but commercial sites pay to have their links come up first.

Not strictly accurate. Google claims, at least, that its search engine results are not affected by advertising revenue.

The contamination of their search engine results with advertising was one of the things that turned me off several years ago on Yahoo. Google, theoretically, leaves the search results unaffected and adds unobtrusive ads to the sides and top of the page. This doesn't bother me, since I don't even notice them most of the time.

[js1138]

Google has results above the line and results below the line. Above the line results are paid.

Aside from that, there are companies that can move your site higher in the rankings by manipulating the way google searches.

Google ranks sites by the number of links to a site. If no other site links to yours, you are dead. It is easy and inexpensive to set up web rings that boost each others rankings. I'm sure there are other techniques used to boost google ranking.

[Golden Eagle]

LOL, once again you are the one blown completely out of the water, now caught attempting to deny that three quarters of all open source software is released under "Stallman's rabid anti-capitalistic license".

The General Public License (GPL) accounts for 73% of open source projects

Go find another source if you don't like that one, there's plenty others, as anyone constantly pushing this stuff on everyone should already know.

[N3WBI3]

You should know better than that, quoting something someone else said without an understanding of where it came from can be dangerous. The paper makes no mention of where it gets these numbers I know to you its ok to believe or not believe a source based on ideological content alone, I like to know the methodology they used..

[Golden Eagle]

Well if you boys could ever disprove the obvious ties between open source and communists/socialists you might finally win one of these arguments. But since they are so closely intertwined you never seem to come out ahead, and insist on personal attacks on me instead. You might as well give up since sites like communism.org and the "open source encyclopedia" wikipedia.org openly admit such ties. Then we have things like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x665385

http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/1736/531

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1617712,00.asp?kc=EWNKT0209KTX1K0100440

http://ianmurdock.com/?p=54

http://weblog.flora.org/article.php3?story_id=552

http://zgp.org/linux-elitists/p05210612bb7d87639a93@[192.168.1.101].html

http://www.linuxlinks.com/portal/news/article.php?story=20050624042207848&mode=print

http://www.linuxpipeline.com/42700029

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/5279

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7239

http://asia.cnet.com/news/software/printfriendly.htm?AT=39146335-39001094t-39000001c

http://slashdot.org/articles/99/11/10/1457205.shtml

http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/05/05/19/1213245.shtml?tid=106&tid=219

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/10/30/1435248.shtml

http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/2/3822

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-08-30-011-26-NW-LL-PB

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/05/01/1148227.shtml?tid=103&tid=99

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/print?TYPE=story&AT=2133230-39020381t-10000002c

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,104039,src,ov,00.asp

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-10-20-open-source-mass_x.htm

http://www.newsforge.com/business/04/02/27/2329240.shtml

Why can't you boys ever debate on the facts?

[N3WBI3]

as anyone constantly pushing this stuff on everyone should already know.

Yup open up for your OSS forced feeding! Thats right kids despite the fact I have said hundreds of times that Closed source and opensource compliment eachother nicely, and that some of the best products of their types are closed source Im 'pushing' this stuff..

LOL talk about a moonbat..

[Incorrigible]

Are you sure? I thought he was confined to a wheelchair due to an auto accident.

He was posting as late as Jan 26th with no indication that he'd be away. I sent him FReepmail but no response.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Why can't you boys ever debate on the facts?

Point #1: Practice what you preach...

Point #2: What have I told you about posting links?

[Golden Eagle]

LMAO, completely ridiculous, you obviously couldn't care less if not just ~75% but a full 100% of open source followed "Stallman's rabid anti-capitalistic license" since you go around pushing it on everyone constantly. BTW, the figures probably came from sourceforge, the primary open source repository since you're so clueless, at least I think that's where I first saw it. Go ahead and slam their credibility now, ROFL.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Correction--First line should read:

Why can't you boys ever debate on the facts?

[N3WBI3]

"Yup open up for your OSS forced feeding! Thats right kids despite the fact I have said hundreds of times that Closed source and opensource compliment eachother nicely, and that some of the best products of their types are closed source Im 'pushing' this stuff.."

[Golden Eagle]

Im 'pushing' this stuff..

Obviously. You have your own "open source ping list" you use practically every day but talk in circles just like you are know whenever Stallman comes up. You act concerned that 75% of all open source is GPL, all while knowing GPL is the primary open source license. Go ahead and admit it, you sell your snake oil on every corner, yet ignore, downplay or even fake concern over every possible danger.

[Golden Eagle]

What have I told you about posting links?

That your dad's computer couldn't follow them. At least that's what you claimed.