Eben Moglen's LibrePlanet 2010 Keynote (Groklaw)
Posted Aug 8, 2010 17:37 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller
In reply to: Eben Moglen's LibrePlanet 2010 Keynote (Groklaw)
Parent article: Eben Moglen's LibrePlanet 2010 Keynote (Groklaw)
I'd like to at least see what Moglen's argument is before judging
He published his written submission to the EC on the Web. I call the business model stuff wild and baseless because MySQL AB was founded in 2001 and sold in early 2008 for $1 billion, and it had one of the most successful venture capital funds in history (Benchmark, which also invested in Red Hat and other open source businesses) on board. The assumption that they all got the business model wrong and failed to see an economically more attractive route (while Eben Moglen with apparently zero business expertise believes he knows better) is really unbelievable.
more to the point, this sounds *much* more like the sort of argument you'd expect from a strong FOSS advocate than from a corporate patsy?
I'd call it an argument that a true FOSS advocate might make, but so might a corporate patsy trying to preserve a reputation and masquerading as a FOSS advocate...
The footnote doesn't say that he didn't cite a single court decision; it says that he didn't cite any court decisions that had ruled on the *particular issue under discussion*
Yes, that related just to the particular issue, although his paper as a whole didn't cite any court decision either.
I don't see a problem with a law professor, in the absence of relevant case law, making their best guess and expressing it in cautious terms, which seems to be what happened here.
There's enough patent litigation going on all the time, in the US and also in Europe, that there's no scarcity of applicable case law if one wants to find it; but presumably a scarcity of case law that would support the point he tried to make in order to help Oracle.
I don't know who's right here -- the EC has an interesting argument based on the exact wording of the GPLv2 --
I said purposeful because I can't imagine he doesn't know what the GPL says, and if he makes reference to it in a written submission to a regulatory agency, he could quote what's actually stated in there as opposed to talking about something that isn't in its text.
basically the same thing that's believed by everyone who has ever distributed GPL'ed code, and is clearly the intent of the license, modulo any subtle bugs in the wording. So he could be wrong, but if so then the GPLv2 is deeply broken and we have worse problems.
It's also always been my understanding that GPL'ing is an irrevocable decision for the code in question, although it doesn't constitute any obligation on the copyright holder to also GPL derived works.
But, what I'm getting from your comment is that you think we should go into that discussion expecting him to be wrong because he's at best clueless and at worst in the pocket of large corporations. And I just don't see how that follows from the evidence given.
I didn't say he'd always have to be expected to be wrong. What I said is that a great deal of skepticism is needed when business issues and business interests of large corporations are involved. I didn't say he's clueless or in the pocket of large corporations. I'm just very cautious when I hear him say those things.
This has been the case since the first time I met him (June 2004), when he tried to discourage MySQL AB from lobbying against software patents and instead suggested to support his patent busting efforts concerning the FAT patents (which never got anywhere). Fortunately, MySQL AB didn't adopt his advice.
to post comments)