Backstabbing (NOT) Perens (LinuxWorld) [LWN.net]

Backstabbing (NOT) Perens (LinuxWorld)

Posted Jan 28, 2003 21:58 UTC (Tue) by lm (guest, #6402)
In reply to: Backstabbing. Perens (LinuxWorld) by ncm
Parent article: Larry McVoy on BitKeeper, kernel development, Linus Torvalds and Bruce Perens (LinuxWorld)

Hey Ncm, I'm sorry you feel that way. The reason that clause is in there has nothing to do with the kernel guys, it has to do with sourceforge. The sourceforge team had integrated BK into sourceforge without working out a deal with us and given that they were headed down a path to compete with us we did not feel that it was prudent to allow them free access to our technology.

In general, I question your outrage. If you asked IBM for an eval license for any product, they asked you what you wanted it for, you tell them that you want to use it to learn how to copy it and release a free version, then do you believe that IBM should grant you that license? The BitKeeper free use license is a lot like an eval license where we don't have the chance to filter out the people who are trying to do material harm to our business. That means that the license itself has to spell it out.

Almost all products have licenses which say you may not reverse engineer, etc. No company stays in business if they license their products in a way which allows other entities to copy those products.

As a business, we are committed to doing whatever it takes to stay healthy. As the CEO of the business, I am committed to helping the kernel folks and the open source community. You may disagree with how we are going about it, in which case you are free to demonstrate a better path. Until you do, however, we'll take the path which we believe works for as many people as possible. The fact that the path doesn't include people who want to steal our technology is a problem for those people and those people only.

(Log in to post comments)

Backstabbing (NOT) Perens (LinuxWorld)

Posted Jan 30, 2003 12:36 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

No company stays in business if they license their products in a way which allows other entities to copy those products.

I hope you're wrong; otherwise, Free Software will return to the fringe of the hacker (meaning that you have to be very careful to find what hardware is supported, and forget data formats), as there will be no companies out there that can really produce it.

There are currently counter-examples (such as RedHat), and I hope that counter examples continue to exist indefinitely. Otherwise I will be sad.

-Rob

Backstabbing (NOT)Perens (LinuxWorld)

Posted Jan 31, 2003 18:51 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

You're saying that a re-implementation contravenes the use
provisions of the license. Isn't there something in the
Fair Use doctrine which allows reverse engineering for
the purposes of interoperability?

You're free to release your software under whatever licence
you like and you are entitled to the same legal enforcement
of that license as any other copyright holder -- but no more.
So long as the law allows reverse engineering (in some
jurisdiction), your license clause which says Thou Shalt Not
is unenforceable (in that jurisdiction).

I'm firmly in favour of Fair Use, as I think most people who
use or develop Free Software are. As for 'stealing technology',
it's an *idea*, man, kudos for you for coming up with it and
shame on anyone who uses it without acknowledging you. But
you don't *own* it!

Use-restricted licenses

Posted Feb 1, 2003 12:17 UTC (Sat) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link]

You're saying that a re-implementation contravenes the use provisions of the license. Isn't there something in the Fair Use doctrine which allows reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability?

You might think fair use would apply in a number of situations where it apparently doesn't. For example, if you buy a copy of Microsoft Windows NT Workstation, you might consider it fair use to install your copy on your computer and use it to run a high-volume web server. You paid for your copy, so you might think it would be fair use to install and use it on your computer - that's about all you can do with it, after all - and beyond that, it's none of Microsoft's business what you do with it (so long as you don't redistribute it, or make a derived work, either of which would go against copyright law).

Turns out the MS end-user license agreement says you can't do that. You were supposed to buy NT Server instead.

Or download the free personal version of JBuilder. Page through the license and read all about how Borland or whatever they are calling themselves today don't think you should have the right to use copyrighted material you legally downloaded for the purpose of building commercial projects.

The point is, arbitrary use restrictions in end-user licenses are nothing new. Larry didn't invent them. I personally think they are severely stretching enforceability under copyright law, but apparently Silicon Valley either disagrees or is willing to bluff it until a court weighs in. And so, this practice probably won't be challenged in court, or if it is, many courts would choose to avoid the perceived mayhem that would be caused by invalidating such use restrictions. Undeniably, this would be a large boat to rock.

(NOTE: even if such restrictions are held invalid under copyright law, there is no reason software couldn't be distributed on the basis of contracts ... except that getting customers to individually sign pieces of paper before allowing them to purchase or download software would be a major PITA for most vendors. Knowing this, vendors today try to claim that click-through license dialogs actually are contracts, but that is just part of the bluff. Vendors have no right to speak for me in saying that my "clicking" is intended as a legally binding signature or even a handshake.)