Posted on 06/03/2008 12:15:33 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
Two recent events should give for-profit companies new reasons to re-evaluate the ways in which they use open source software as well as the extent to which they use it. These events are: (1) the release of a new version of the widely used license that covers such software, i.e., the General Public License version 3, and (2) a round of lawsuits filed by the Software Freedom Law Center against for-profit companies using the software for commercial gain. Four companies to date, the largest of which is Verizon Communications Inc., have been sued for violation of the GPL.
Although the lawsuits are not about changed provisions in the GPL, both events are muscle-flexing by the free software community and, taken together, may foreshadow new risks in the irreconcilable conflict between open source software and its widespread use by for-profit companies. With the filing of court documents, a philosophical debate about the proper place for software in society has become a business dispute with the risk of substantial consequences. For-profit companies using open source software should take notice and understand the risks.
(Excerpt) Read more at law.com ...
>> The next legal fight could be an attempt to force release of proprietary server code due to some part of the output of the server constituting a “work” generated by open source components on the server.
That’s an asinine over-reach that will drive those who deploy open-source web services right back to proprietary server technology.
Not a lot of people yet realize these “GPL” licenses are created by green party leftist Richard Stallman, but word’s finally getting out as he gets more greedy with his code confiscation clauses.
I downloaded and installed Lotus Symphony, and it is great. No need to buy Office. OpenOffice is also very good.
I don't know where you get that from. Just about every open source software uses the GPL license. WHere do you get that he gets "more greedy"? No one person controls the GPL license as it's just a license agreement for anyone that produces open source software. You act like the GPL agreement contributes to leftist causes which is just flat out wrong.
The terms of the open source licenses are crystal clear, and they even publish a FAQ to help explain the finer points. If you don't like the terms, don't redistribute the software.
What's not acceptable is to violate the license. That will get you in trouble with any vendor, not just the open source developers.
According to Stallman’s stated “ultimate goal” on his website, it’s quote “to make proprietary software obsolete” and once that happens have a government “software tax” on everyone to pay software programmers. His licenses are how he currently helps bring his vision to life, as anyone who tries to sell or distribute their own custom developed GPL code must also be willing to give the rights to freely duplicate the code infinitely away to the recipient. Stallman’s legal groups regularly go to court to force companies to follow this requirement, with well known compamies such as Linksys being victims of Stallman’s GPL trap.
And with each new version of the GPL, he makes it harder and harder for companies to operate profitably using GPL software, such as GPL 3 which specifically targeted Tivo’s use in personal video recorders.
As the law.com article above states, Stallman’s next license could very well require developers to hand over ALL personally developed software improvements, whether the company intended to keep them private, or not. This would be targetted at businesses like Google, who internally modify but don’t distribute GPL code, and are therefore currently free from his confiscation attempts, but would not be if Stallman ultimately gets his way and is able to pluck their software from them in his mission of making all software free.
Stallman’s software is like a trojan horse in a way, he claims his software is quote “free”, but the license actually has many gotchas in it that continue to grow with every release. Many places including where I work, policies are in place that prevent developers from using any GPL code in their products whatsoever, so they don’t accidentally find themselves suffering a lawsuit from Stallman and having to give the rights to infinitely duplicate internally developed software to corporate competitors.
That seems to be the point of the law.com article, Stallman getting more greedy with his license gotchas, which will have a ripple effect through the industry.
The GPL is not a “trap” or “trojan horse.” You have no right to copy somebody else’s work without complying with their terms. The terms of use are spelled out in plain English.
If you fail to comply with those terms, it is because you were negligent. You don’t just copy source code from the internet, Microsoft, or anybody else without understanding the conditions. You can get away with it as a hobbyist (maybe) but professionals should know better.
Linksys and other companies believed that they did not need to respect copyright law, and they paid the price.
That said... Stallman does advance a far-left agenda in what he does. But let’s be honest about what the conditions really are. The market is already rejecting GPLv3 for some applications, and many companies are taking a good hard look at whether they really want to deal with the new license. His revolution will never come to pass at this rate.
>> It’s nothing but FUD.
Maybe so, but help me out here.
Who, then, is behind raising the spectre of fear, uncertainty, and doubt?
Who is the target?
And what is the reason? What is the agenda?
Thx
What I don't find acceptable is that the GPL3 makes an attempt to control hardware though the anti-TiVO clause. Sorry, a software license has no business telling you how to design the hardware it's being run on, especially not a supposedly free software license. Stallman got his head so full of his philosophy of free that he lost sight of reality.
Thus my favorite open source license remains the Mozilla Public License.
Many of those that had their personally created software taken away from them, against their wishes, may not agree with you.
Linksys and other companies believed that they did not need to respect copyright law
Source?
That said... Stallman does advance a far-left agenda in what he does.
Which is the main reason I oppose his license. He even refers to it as "copyleft" vs. normal "copyright".
The market is already rejecting GPLv3 for some applications, and many companies are taking a good hard look at whether they really want to deal with the new license. His revolution will never come to pass at this rate.
Let's hope so. The law.com article is helping raise awareness in that regard, but truth is many poeple simply don't understand the full intricacies and implications of the tricky GPL license outside GPL proponents, this very article is actually poorly written and much less specific than our current discussion. Not to mention the software is marketed as "free", and when people find out that's not the case and question the marketing, they're told "we meant free as in freedom", which is equally bogus.
Here we go again. When it's the GPL being enforced, it's confiscation. When it's any proprietary license being enforced, it's protection of "intellectual property" rights. No principles. We agree that it would be wrong for Stallman to change the license to go after Google, but then you do that.
so they don’t accidentally find themselves suffering a lawsuit from Stallman and having to give the rights to infinitely duplicate internally developed software to corporate competitors.
For the nth time, they don't have to give anything. The company can cease distribution of the infringed code, recall any infringing code, pay damages to the copyright holder, and replace the infringed code with non-infringing code. They have the same options as with any proprietary software copyright infringement case, plus the option of continuing use of the infringed code by paying with code instead of cash.
The reason most companies have chosen to GPL their code is simple: This usually happens using Linux illegally to run hardware, of which millions of units have been sold. Giving up a little code is usually a LOT cheaper than having an injunction slapped on your fast-selling product and recalling millions of already-sold units. But Cisco and others had that option.
I wonder what it would have cost Cisco had they used Windows CE to run those routers sold without getting a license from Microsoft. Even being nice and demanding only $50 per infringed copy it would have cost Cisco over $100 million just for the units shipped up to 2002.
Part of the deal is that in exchange for being able to reuse their code, you need to preserve the ability to tinker with it.
Originally that was done by simply requiring people to release their changes to the source code. But now that tamper-resistant hardware is common, the license was changed to make it clear that this is not consistent with the authors’ wishes.
This is hindering adoption of GPLv3 code in many embedded devices, and causing other vendors to look for ways around it (partitioning, virtualization, etc.).
Several quick reasons off the top of my head. First, GPL is marketed as "free", until a gotcha jumps out of the box. If a proprietary software product marketed itself as "free" but then a gotcha jumped out of the box later, I would consider it a dishonest product and oppose the enforcement of their rights. Second, GPL is known as "copyleft", an extension of "copyright". I do support conventional copyright, but I do not support the copyleft extension, which still hasn't been specifically tested in US court. Third, copyleft is put forward by a radical leftist to advance his socialist views. I oppose that as well, and encourage others to oppose socialists and their agendas themselves.
For the nth time, they don't have to give anything. The company can cease distribution of the infringed code, recall any infringing code, pay damages to the copyright holder, and replace the infringed code with non-infringing code.
This is an impractical option for software that may have already been distributed to thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of others. What you are suggesting is typically a much more serious penalty, therefore moot.
Giving up a little code is usually a LOT cheaper than having an injunction slapped on your fast-selling product and recalling millions of already-sold units. But Cisco and others had that option.
Exactly what I just said, why did you even bring this up in the first place if not as an intended distration?
I wonder what it would have cost Cisco had they used Windows CE to run those routers sold without getting a license from Microsoft. Even being nice and demanding only $50 per infringed copy
Cisco has their own O/S, or they could have used a much more capitalistic license with BSD and not been subject to Stallman's demands. CE was only $3 per unit by 2003 anyway.
I believe they are referring to the Affero license.
The basic idea is this:
If you take a GNU program, improve it, and then distribute/sell the modified version, everybody gets to benefit from your changes.
If you take a GNU program that works as a web service, improve it, then use it to run a web site, nobody else gets to benefit from your changes because you’re not actually distributing it.
So, an Affero-licensed program could include a facility that lets remote users ask the program to print its own source code, so that they can see your improvements. And you’re not allowed to disable this facility.
Again, this is not a “trap.” It is stated in plain English in the license, and they make it abundantly clear what the intent is.
I will not speculate as to what the author’s agenda was. Maybe he is just confused.
The licenses are easy to read and easy to understand. They tell you exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Extremely small operations (like one guy writing shareware from his dorm room) are capable of understanding and complying with these licenses.
There is no excuse for a multibillion dollar company like Cisco/Linksys to screw this up.
Your reasons have everything to do with Stallman's ideology, but have nothing to do with copyright law. Either you support copyright law, or you don't. As you noticed in the other thread, I supported a film I absolutely disagree with on copyright law, because the law and the principles behind copyright do not change based on the ideology of the parties. Your situational ethics and lack of principle are disturbing.
This is an impractical option for software that may have already been distributed to thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of others.
Such are the problems of violating copyright. They still have a choice. Nobody can be forced to give up code as you say they can. When Microsoft finds infringers it often offers a long-term software assurance program as a cheaper way out. Do you say Microsoft forced the infringer into SA, or do you say the infringer chose the less expensive restitution for its illegal action?
Exactly what I just said, why did you even bring this up in the first place
Because it shows the infringer has a choice driven by the less expensive option.
Cisco has their own O/S, or they could have used a much more capitalistic license with BSD and not been subject to Stallman's demands.
Cisco didn't design the routers. BSD is far less capitalistic than the GPL because it doesn't require something of value in exchange for the license. It is completely free.
CE was only $3 per unit by 2003 anyway.
Then that means $6.9 million in actual damages as of 2002. The Cisco-owned code used in the router most likely cost far less than that to develop (basically just a very small web site to alter the settings for the included GPL code, and probably a device driver or two). Anyway, I said $50 as actual plus moderate punitive damages given that the routers sold for somewhere around $100-$200.
This is the exact type of scenario that Stallman and his surrogates are targeting in future versions of the GPL, which the law.com article infers at the end as part of its warning about GPL. For reference see articles such as this:
Google, Other Linux Developers "Must Share Code"
Software Freedom Law Center Chairman Outlines View
http://wireless.sys-con.com/read/380011.htm
If you build your business on Linux, then you should share your code, according to Eben Moglen, chairman of the Software Freedom Law Center. This view was expressed in a presentation given by Moglen at the Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco. Moglen's remarks come in the context of the final weeks of completion of Version 3 of the GNU General Public License, for which Moglen is providing legal counsel to GPL creator Richard Stallman.
Google spokespeople have pointed out that the company committed to doing no evil has contributed to open source projects (including Linux), but Moglen makes it clear that his view is that the community comes first. "(Google has) ethical and community responsibilities to return at least those modifications that are not critical to their business and that are of general value to the community," Moglen said. "We will see over time whether there are additional measures necessary in order to secure cooperation in the community."
Your continued support of leftists and their agenda despite my very valid reasoning is much more disturbing.
BSD is far less capitalistic than the GPL because it doesn't require something of value in exchange for the license. It is completely free.
LOL is all I can say to that. BSD is very well known to be a much more capitilistic-friendly license because it doesn't require its users to share their unique features immediately with competitors. Stallman's theory's are well known to be anti-capitalistic including his call for replacing proprietary software with a software tax, you're way out on a creaky limb trying to claim GPL is more capitalistic, but not unusual for you.
So why doesn't Apple switch their code to a GPL license? You really think it would help their business if perfect duplicates of their operating system were released every time Apple released a new version of their O/S? LOL, you probably do.
It does get a bit complex on the nuances of what "derivative" is. Different authors see things differently, so if you're linking libraries or writing drivers you have to know the intent of the author before doing something.
You can still tinker with TiVO's Linux and run it on your home-built DVR. The software is still free. You just can't run your tinkered version on a TiVO. The anti-TiVO clause is trying to tell TiVO how they can design their hardware, and I think that's wrong. I'm sure Stallman complains about over-reaching terms of proprietary licenses, and here he did it himself.
And yet right in this very thread I am attacking Stallman over his GPL3 terms and the ambiguity of the GPL2. Yeah, I'm supporting leftists.
Oops, probably shouldn't have written that last sentence. You'll take "I'm supporting leftists" and post it without the surrounding text that shows it is absolute sarcasm as "evidence" that I support leftists.
Oops, shouldn't have written "I support leftists" above because you'll likely use that out of context too.
Oops. .... this is just getting recursive.
LOL is all I can say to that. BSD is very well known to be a much more capitilistic-friendly license
The license is more friendly to capitalist companies that want to use it. But the license itself is closer to communism than the GPL. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs, no capitalistic payback required as with the GPL.
including his call for replacing proprietary software with a software tax
I wouldn't agree with a specific software tax. However, if the government is going to commission software to be written, and it is not sensitive, that software should be released as open source or put in the public domain since we the taxpayers paid for it.
Until recently, entities could just take open source software and use it in a proprietary manner as they wished. It was “free stuff”. Now it seems that if you want to use GPL protected code for profit, you have to release your source code. So there comes a business trade off. Use free code and release your value-added source, or pay for code and keep your value-added source.
Stallman is clearly a socialist, and therefore he is not to be trusted. The whole thing seems like a plot on his part - let everyone use open source software as they see fit. When corporate products are dependent upon it, start the legal action. Sort of like a drug dealer giving free samples until you're hooked.
Does anyone have a link which outlines the economics of open source software?
LOL here you are talking in circles again. You just said GPL was more capitalistic, but now you say BSD is more friendly to capitalist companies.
But the license itself is closer to communism than the GPL. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs, no capitalistic payback required as with the GPL.
Your confusion knows no bounds, so I'm not planning on responding to your nonsense again after this. "From each according to his ability" is clearly a closer reference to GPL. With BSD, you only have to give back if you want. Funniest of all, you refer to the forced handover of unique features a company would like to keep private, that GPL requires, as "capitalistic". Good luck getting Apple to switch from BSD to GPL based on your laughable advice, but be sure and let us know how it goes LOL.
It doesn't make much sense in comparison, as the "open source software business model" says you should throw out the traditional "sales + service" business model, and replace it with "service only". Of course this assumes your product is so unstable people will have to pay you yearly subscription fees for their "free" software! There's a good article out there somewhere that asks "Where are the open source billionaires?" They don't exist, and there are no prospects for one anytime soon.
Stallman is clearly a socialist, and therefore he is not to be trusted. The whole thing seems like a plot on his part
Ditto.
This thread, along with some research, sure has crystallized my views on open source - it is a loose Marxist plot. Look up Stallman’s beliefs - the man is clearly a Marxist. Look at the key tenants of Marxism - the destruction of private property and the class struggle of the laborers. Open source embodies both of these concepts.
In reply to the idea of “if you don’t like the GPL, don’t use it”, look beyond the law. The trick here is not a legal trick, it is a behavioral trick. Even though the GPL has been in place, the encourageed behavior has been to use what you want and leave what you want. And after everyone feels comfortable with the behavior, the lawyers swoop down. Lenin had a term for the folks who look at the law and ignore human behavior - “useful idiots”.
No, this is not the case at all. The FSF has been aggressively enforcing their IP rights for years.
The recent cases have mostly involved busybox, whose authors have nothing to do with Stallman or the other Marxists at the FSF. Note that these individuals are still using GPLv2 for their product, and have no apparent intentions of switching to GPLv3. This is not an ideological struggle for them.
Few if any authors are openly encouraging anybody to violate their licenses. It's just not happening. This isn't a trap; it is a case of a few individuals getting fed up when they see rampant violations of their copyright in more and more consumer devices. The lawsuits send a much-deserved message to the more prominent offenders.
The anti-TIVO clause does not affect any software or hardware that they are currently using. It doesn’t mean they have to change their hardware design.
All it’s saying is: “you can’t use the new (GPLv3) versions of my software if your hardware is designed to lock me out from making changes.”
Some people are just control freaks that way. Doesn’t hurt anyone.
The fact that Richard Stallman is just plain weird and the probably correct allegation he is Marxist with a capital M does not change history. Nor does it diminish his contribution.
Considering that the system of intellectual property the world is trying to impose upon us requires a police state to effectively enforce, and then examine article 1, section 8 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
What happens when there are no realistic limitations and the Gov't enforces rights indefinitely through criminal law? That is the situation developing today. Stallman correctly saw this would lead to a state of affairs in which no progress would be made and a programmer would have no right to work, or think, or speak. All rights would eventually be owned by some oligarchy. Everyone would have to pay some rent-seeking S.O.B just to write their own name, as even the alphabet would be someone's property.
Stallman envisioned the GPL as an intellectual trick which would leverage ever greater infringements upon rights to preserve rights. So in a sense, it is poisonous and viral, but only for vermin who can't stand the light. Said vermin promote the ridiculous nonsense I've read in this thread, hoping the ignorant and gullible will be swayed. Too bad ignorant and gullible folks usually don't make it in business.
You've been able to repeat it, but do you understand it? Capitalism doesn't give a free lunch, and neither does the GPL. BSD does though.
"From each according to his ability" is clearly a closer reference to GPL.
There's a second half to that communist quote that you neatly omit. BSD fulfills the second half, the GPL doesn't because it adds effective strings.
Funniest of all, you refer to the forced handover of unique features a company would like to keep private, that GPL requires, as "capitalistic"
In capitalism if the other side doesn't uphold its part of the transaction, you expect compensation to be forced by the courts. Again you show your ignorance by saying that giving up code can be forced, even after you showed a semblance of understanding in your previous post.
Good luck getting Apple to switch from BSD to GPL
Hate to break it to you, but there's already a ton of GPL code in OS X. I just played chess: GPL. I'm getting into XCode, GPL for the compiler. When I drop to shell grep and other utilities are GPL. As far as the MIT and BSD licenses making up the core of the OS, Apple can choose whatever license works best for them.
You keep forgetting that unlike you and Richard Stallman I do not ideologically choose software and don't criticize others for their choices along ideological lines like you both do.
The economics can go a few ways. One is selling support and services surrounding the software. Another is selling hardware but getting the software to run it for free -- your small amount of programming time costs less than licensing proprietary software or developing your own from scratch would. Another isn't cash economics, but still a benefit -- if you give away your code under the GPL you get back the improvements that you may not have had time or talent to do, you traded code for code. BSD can't give you that last return on investment.
But as a current programmer it's still not my cup of soup, as I didn't release my software under the GPL.
Back to basics: Free means free as in speech, not as in beer.
But given your logic, why would people pay money for software and then pay even more for yearly subscription or maintenance fees as is common with proprietary enterprise software? If you go open source you only have to pay the maintenance.
It means they have to change their hardware to allow untrusted code. It's a software license controlling hardware design, simply unacceptable. And if the hardware isn't changed then you cannot ship that software on it. That doesn't seem to be very free to me.
Some people are just control freaks that way. Doesn’t hurt anyone.
There are terms in proprietary licenses made by control freaks who will sue you if you don't get approval from them before publishing benchmarks or reviews of their products (of course negative ones will be rejected). They abused their grant of copyright, and IMHO Stallman any anyone who signs on to GPL3 are abusing theirs.
I thought he did it because long ago all software shipped with source so you could tinker with it, until he got an HP printer with no source. He couldn't stand not being able to fix their drivers, so he came up with a license that reflected the general state of software that was in academia at the time.
They don't have to change a single thing unless they want to use the new GPLv3 version of the software package. The old GPLv2 versions are perfectly legal to run on secure hardware.
They abused their grant of copyright, and IMHO Stallman any anyone who signs on to GPL3 are abusing theirs.
Most likely, the people who signed onto GPLv3 felt that their rights were being abused by manufacturers who put their work on evil locked-down hardware.
It's all a matter of perspective...
(Side note: if you think GPLv3 is bad, check out these moonbats.)
This thread has been educational and useful. Many thanks to everyone for their thoughtful posts.
Glad to see that a few people see through this dangerous man's charade. The temptation of free stuff is just too hard to overcome for most folks. Some of the stuff posted on this thread sounds like it came straight from The Communist Manifesto. Just substitute "bourgeoisie" for "companies", "proletariat" for "programmers", and "capital" for "copyright".
Although I imagine most open FSF and GNU programmers have seen it, here is his website:
He considers "intellectual property" to be a propaganda term.
Unless that software has a subsequent license provision.
Most likely, the people who signed onto GPLv3 felt that their rights were being abused by manufacturers who put their work on evil locked-down hardware.
This is like an old leftist problem, where they think their "rights" extend over other people. Sort of like the right not to be offended or a right to not even be exposed to religion. Too many people fail to realize that their rights don't stretch that far, especially in a limited granted right such as copyright.
I've heard about those anti-military people. It's funny that they infringed on Stallman's copyright just in performing that stunt.
Has GPL actually been challenged in the courts? It seems like the whole system rests on pretty shaky ground; I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to redefine the boundaries of copyright, contract law, and public domain.
He's paranoid like many zealots on either side. The term just grew out of a desire to lump several things together in two convenient words. But there are two real problems with the term:
First, it's misleading. Nothing covered by it is actual property. Patent, trademark and copyright are all limited granted monopoly rights that can be leveraged for profit. Trade secrets are generally covered under equitable, not property law.
Second, it's confusing. Patent and copyright are authorized by the same clause in the Constitution and thus governed by its limitations, and they are covered by two different sets of law. Trademark is is basically consumer protection law designed to prevent marketplace confusion, and not covered by that clause. Trade secrets have punishment for disclosure or theft, but no protection once revealed to the world (patent protection is the incentive to reveal trade secrets), and are covered under state law.
They are all very different concepts covered by very different laws, so use of the term leads to confusion. A good percentage of the time I see the term "Intellectual Property" being used just on FR the poster is mixing up the concepts of those four things under it.
Thus I prefer to use copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret to keep things clear.
Yes, and it survived. The terms are a lot less over-reaching than most proprietary licenses out there, three of which I know have had terms deemed unenforceable by the courts (Autodesk and Network Solutions, and IIRC Adobe).
Never, never never use any code licensed under GPL.
I like the Apache License
I think you're right in the context of people making their money off of support and services for open source. OTOH, people have made billions using the benefits that open source provides.
You're using it right now. But if you meant inclusion of the code into your applications, I'd suggest ensuring you are comfortable with any license before doing so.
So--you're leaving FR, then?
Don’t fall for antiRepublic’s Stallman-like attacks against the term “intellectual property” or claims the GPL has been specifically validated in US courts. He’s their number one proponent on this board and as you can see will make outlandish claims and circle talk ad-infinium.
The Apache License is effectively like the BSD license, where code can be made non-free. I like the MPL because it retains the give-back feature, keeping the code free, but it is clear that only changes to the actual MPL code must be MPL (IOW, a direct derivative work). Static linking to MPL libraries, shipping it as the core of your proprietary application, etc., don’t necessarily require the release of one line of code. Thus it is very business-friendly while remaining free. Sun decided to write their CDDL after the MPL, likely for these reasons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.