| |||||||||||||
Questions that need answeringQuestions that need answeringPosted Dec 6, 2006 16:53 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083)Parent article: Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Speaking of hypocrisy...
In 2004, OSRM identified 27 Microsoft-held patents that are possibly infringed by Linux. The Director of Research at the time was Groklaw editor Pamela "PJ" Jones.
Q. Why hasn't that list of patents ever been published now that Jones has gone on-record saying that Linux doesn't infringe on Microsoft patents, if those 27 patents are not valid?
OSRM offers policies to potential customers in which they are protected from the costs of fighting a Linux IP-related lawsuit initiated by any company. Some Linux vendors such as RedHat also offer similar services to their customers.
Q. With Novell offering potential customers protection from patent-related lawsuits initiated by Microsoft, how can OSRM and RedHat be in the clear, but not Novell?
Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen have gone on the record saying that GPL3 will "fix" the MS/Novell deal, but refuse to comment on whether or not the GPL2 has been infringed. Close allies such as Jones have advocated that it's cheaper to strengthen the GPL3 than to enforce the GPL2.
Q. If the FSF baulk at the thought of enforcing the GPL2 due to the size of the company that is infringing it, doesn't this give the largest companies a green light to infringe *any* version of the GPL without fear of prosecution?
Q2. If the FSF refuse to enforce the GPL2, then why should anyone trust them when it comes to enforcing the GPL3?
Q3. If the FSF refuse to enforce the GPL, then what is the point of them, what is the point of transferring copyrights to them, and why is it acceptable for them to break the trust placed in them by the coders of their projects?
The FSF appear to be acting in their own interests these days, rather than their members.
Nigel Kneale.
(Log in to post comments)
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 17:15 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Publishing that list of patents would be very unwise: should anyone stumble across that list, they'd be liable for triple damages for wilful infringement in the US should they use those algorithms again. (This is the same reason why it is generally a bad idea to look at software patents at all --- well, that and that their turgidity is liable to dissolve your brain).
As far as I know, the FSF *doesn't* baulk at the thought of enforcing the GPL: it just starts out quietly, sending polite letters that tend to get the problem solved. (Some *very* large companies have backed down at this, so it's not a size-of-company thing at all.)
I find it really rather surprising that you don't already know this: both these facts have been widely publicised. Perhaps you're just a troll.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:17 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] If those 27 patents are invalid, then all the criticism (especially levelled by Groklaw) directed towards Novell recently will have been validated. Also, there's no possible danger resulting from reading invalid patents. Of course, that would put Pamela Jones in a tight spot as it would show that OSRM was blowing smoke and spreading FUD whilst she was working for them.
If all or some of those patents are valid, then Pamela Jones especially has some explaining to do.
That OSRM data has become very important to our understanding of this issue. It's time to publish that data.
But, of course, no one could accuse Jones of hypocrisy. No wonder Jones is trying to use scare tactics to convince people it would be a bad idea (or even just a "very unwise" one) to publish that data.
So, let's sort this out once and for all, and publish the numbers of those 27 Microsoft patents.
As for the FSF - it's very easy to attribute all sorts of deeds to them when no one else can verify it. I'd like to see some proof of dealings with Novell and Microsoft rather than them publically acting as if the GPL2 never existed and that GPL3 would fix the world's problems. Until then, I think these questions should be asked, and asked frequently.
Nigel Kneale.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:33 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] > If those 27 patents are invalid, then all the criticism (especially levelled by Groklaw) directed towards Novell recently will have been validated. Also, there's no possible danger resulting from reading invalid patents. Of course, that would put Pamela Jones in a tight spot as it would show that OSRM was blowing smoke and spreading FUD whilst she was working for them.
The only way those patents will become "invalid" is if they are challenged; either in court or through the administrative reveiw process. Either way, it takes a fair amount of time and money.
> So, let's sort this out once and for all, and publish the numbers of those 27 Microsoft patents.
This means that *every* user and distributer of Linux will be potentially liable for treble damages immediately, whether or not the patent is "valid." It is this very reason that corporate lawyers everywhere tell their R&D departments to not do patent searches, as if they're later found to be infringing, it's enough for it to be considered "willful" and kick in said treble damages.
You are demonstrating a distinct lack of knowledge in how the Patent system really works; you are confusing "moral" and "legal".
You are also letting your dislike of Pamela Jones cloud your judgement.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 19:04 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] With the FSF actively trying to reshape the FLOSS community in their own image (to the point of saying that "open software" is dead), and with Groklaw becoming an FSF mouthpiece (to the point of berating coders of high-profile projects because they don't share her beliefs - first it was the Linux kernel devs, now it's the OpenOffice devs [didn't you know Sun backs Novell's OOo efforts?], who knows who's going to be targeted next), I think the time has come to closely examine what the FSF and Groklaw's Jones have done and ask questions as to why they were done that way.
FLOSS is based on the many-eyeballs principle - let's point a few at the FSF and Groklaw. Having faith in them "doing the right thing" isn't going to be enough.
Nigel Kneale.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 19:27 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] And you are proposing to do this by exposing developers to treble damages and by spending a lot of money for useless quest ? Sorry - it's pretty bad approach IMNSHO... Yes, U.S. has totally screwed up laws as far as software patents are concerned - that does not mean you can ignore them in your quest to "closely examine" something... And if you don't understand these laws (and you showed that you don't understand them) then probably it's not a good idea for you to "closely examine" any body's legal work at all.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 20:38 UTC (Wed) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] The FSF hasn't changed its goals ever, as far as I know, it has always been about the four freedoms. Their approach to enforcement of copyright has proven to be sound. Software patents are a very ugly problem and patents in general have become a problem in other industries. The patent problem should be fixed at the administrative level, FSF doesn't have the authority to do that. However, the FSF is very vocal about the software patent problem. If you have a few million extra dollars you might be able to help out with one of the more clear cut and simple patent cases, if you have tens of millions you might be able to help out a little more but not much. Would you care to help?
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 21:21 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] I like your phrasing. `Targeted', oh yeah, because as everyone knows assoon as PJ criticises a project, all its developers and users desert it and it immediately collapses.
As happened with that ex-project, the Linux kernel (everyone switched en
(sheesh.)
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 20:39 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] Read a bit about how the patent system work, or just go back to playing with Dan Lyons on his blog.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 21:18 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] I don't see why anyone has `explaining' to do if it should turn out thatsome or all free software is covered by patents. It is widely known that *all* nontrivial software is covered by a myriad of overlapping patents, and that it's essentially impossible to license them all (many demand royalties: many demand *percentage of profits* royalties, which mean that you can't license more than a few of them). Most of these patents are of course covering extremely trivial stuff, or trivial combinations of nontrivial stuff, but *nobody* has the money to pay to get them all invalidated.
As for the FSF: yes, their current and previous staff *may* all be engaged
As for your anti-PJ stuff, I can't be bothered to engage in debate with
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 7, 2006 10:56 UTC (Thu) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link] Of course, this assumes that the patents are valid *AND* that Linux source code actually infringes them *AND* that such infringement is willful as evidenced by not immediately removing the infringing code upon it's identification.
It's probably time for some of the famous Groklaw community to research Microsoft's patents and deFUD this situation to the point where Ballmer starts throwing office *DESKS*!
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:04 UTC (Wed) by lonely_bear (subscriber, #2726) [Link] Please make clear that GPLed a program doesn't mean FSF will become the holder of the program.
The FSF has no right to enforce GPL2 on Linux kernel. They don't own the copyright. Only official GNU projects, gcc, glibc, etc. which FSF is the copyright holder, that FSF could exercise its right.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:20 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] It was the GNU projects I was talking about. The programmers of the GNU projects give the FSF their copyrights partially on the understanding that the FSF will step up to the plate when someone infringes the GPL when using that code.
If the FSF doesn't act against Microsoft and Novell (redrafting the GPL3 doesn't count), then what good does giving them code copyrights do?
Nigel Kneale.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 19:19 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The programmers of the GNU projects give the FSF their copyrights partially on the understanding that the FSF will step up to the plate when someone infringes the GPL when using that code. True - and so far results were pretty satisfactory. FSF enforced GPL a lot of time. They don't use public performances for this - it's their choice. It's often not a good idea to use this approach - instead of compliance and future friends you'll generate bunch of sore losers. If the FSF doesn't act against Microsoft and Novell (redrafting the GPL3 doesn't count), then what good does giving them code copyrights do? They are not blowing their months off - but how do you know they are not acting ? AFAIK right now they can not sue Novell, but may be they can sue Novell customers. It depends on exact details of Microsoft/Novell agreement. There are remote possibility that it's not really possible at all. Copyright (granted to FSF) is potent veapon but absolute it's not.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 20:32 UTC (Wed) by HenrikH (guest, #31152) [Link] >If the FSF doesn't act against Microsoft and NovellThere is nothing in the Microsoft/Novell deal that is prohibited by the GPLv2 so exactly how do you plan the FSF should act against them?
If on the other hand Microsoft starts to collect on their patents and Novell plays their "safe card", then there will be breakage of GPLv2, but not before.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 21:26 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] True. They'll (almost certainly[1]) hang legal fire until somethingdefinitely wrong has taken place.
[1] Nothing is certain. RMS and Eben Moglen *could* go insane tomorrow and
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 21:24 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] What makes you think they aren't planning to do exactly that?
But note that when moving against something the size of MS, or something
I expect the FSF will do here what they always do with legal matters: act
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 23:52 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Eben Moglin and RMS both have stated that the Novell-Microsoft agreement is perfectly legal and is not a violation of the GPL license.
And Eben has looked closely at the details of the arrangement. I am willing to beleive them.
In other words Novell-Microsoft is NOT IN VIOLATION of the GPLv2 license.
There is nothing that FSF or GNU or anybody else can do about it, legal-wise. The goal is to close this paticular loophole with the GPLv3 license.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 7, 2006 20:47 UTC (Thu) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] I don't believe either of them have said that, actually. Link?
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 8, 2006 0:08 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] You come off as pretty brusque. In general, on this site, I find that you can accept people at their word. It saves a lot of time and unpleasantness.
Here is the link.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 22:35 UTC (Wed) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] A1: learn a bit about the patent system, Nigel. Knowing what patents might be treaded on increases ones liablility. That's why these patents where not disclosed. Enormous hypocrisy, isn't it.
A2: Novell stroke a deal with Microsoft. Microsoft promises not to sue Movell customers. Microsft can retract agreement at will. OSRM, RedHat offer indemnification against legal attackers. Very different. Microsoft is no friend of OSS, in fact Microsoft is no friend of competitors. 3Com, Netscape, client side Java, Google. Halloween documents, funneling money into baseless SCO group FUDsuit. Suspicion is that Microsft is out to hurt OSS.
A3: Please provide evidence in support of your claim that "he FSF baulk at the thought of enforcing the GPL2 due to the size of the company that is infringing it". The situation appears to be that the agreement does not vioalte the letter of the GPLv2 but the therein explicitly stated intent of it. Hence the idea of explicitly making these kind of deals useles by wording to that affect in GPLv3.
A32. Please provide evidence in support of your presumptiom that the FSF refuses to enforce the GPL.
A33. Dito.
Thank you Nigel, for spotting this Grand Conspiracy for us. Thank you.
It strikes me that your post is lacking in the fact and logic department. The logical style of it is similar to that of 9/11 "Truth Scholars": not arguing a position by means of observed and known facts and logic but by casting doubt, asking rhetorical and loaded questions and other logical fallacies. Trying to hold a desparate postion makes it a neccassity.
Questions that need answering Posted Jan 19, 2007 23:20 UTC (Fri) by olecom (guest, #42886) [Link] > It strikes me that your post is lacking in the fact and logic department.> The logical style of it is similar to that of 9/11 "Truth Scholars": not > arguing a position by means of observed and known facts and logic but by > casting doubt, asking rhetorical and loaded questions and other logical > fallacies. Trying to hold a desparate postion makes it a neccassity.
Please do not mix this here. Or i will ask you about Gallileo's Law,
|
|||||||||||||