Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
OSDL Launches Linux Kernel Awareness Initiative
The Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) has issued a
press release announcing a new initiative to raise awareness about how
the Linux kernel is developed. Hopefully this campaign will help
counteract FUD with facts.
(Log in to post comments)
OSDL Launches Linux Kernel Awareness Initiative Posted Nov 26, 2003 20:14 UTC (Wed) by jre (subscriber, #2807) [Link] The graphic showing the kernel development process and referred to in the press release is kinda cute. There's not an overwhelming amount of information there, but I like it for just that reason -- someone is trying to counter some amazingly simplistic FUD with an accurate "executive summary." Good OSDL! Make more good strong PR!
OSDL Launches Linux Kernel Awareness Initiative Posted Nov 27, 2003 7:37 UTC (Thu) by tyhik (subscriber, #14747) [Link] This is a nice graphic, but somewhat inconsistent. While most of the "nodes"on the code path are people (assuming that marketplace = end users), the big penguins should be called as maintainers of the corresponding trees. I would have drawn the developers as mini-penguins :)
ODSL awareness campaign misguided? Posted Nov 27, 2003 0:31 UTC (Thu) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] The problem is: the odsl is trying to say: "see we're careful about how we allow code in the kernel." That's all well and good. But:1) Obviously, no matter how careful they are something can always get through. Everybody knows that. 2) It misses the more important point: even if something does get through, Linux end users need to understand that *they* can not be sued. Forget the ibm v scox case - that is a case between ibm and scox - nothing more. The idea that scox can sue linux end users is completely absurd - even if ibm did break some contract, even if there is illegal code in linux. Companies and individuals that buy linux in good faith, have done nothing wrong. They have not violated any copyright - and certainly they have not violated any patent, trademark, or trade secret. Therefore, scox has absolutely no grounds to sue linux end users. I don't care if ibm broke one hundred contracts with scox. That is the message that the needs to get to the linux end users.
ODSL awareness campaign misguided? Posted Nov 27, 2003 1:35 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] The idea that scox can sue linux end users is completely absurd - even if ibm did break some contract, even if there is illegal code in linux. I agree that that idea is absurd. However, it's not obvious to me that it is impossible in the US legal system. There seem to be a number of things in civil law which are absurd. I frankly don't understand civil law, and seeing lawyers like those at SCO claim that it does such absurd things makes me deeply afraid of it. -Rob
ODSL awareness campaign misguided? Posted Nov 27, 2003 4:42 UTC (Thu) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] >>I frankly don't understand civil law, and seeing lawyers like those at SCO claim that it does such absurd things makes me deeply afraid of it. <<Oddly enough, that's my point. ODSL needs to assure end users that they can't be sued. For ODSL to argue that the code probably isn't illegal, is not very reassuring. You can be absolutely 100% certain, that if it were possible for scox to sue linux end users, scox would have done so already. I have personally called scox and challenged them to sue me - I gave my real name, address, phone, and so on.
ODSL awareness campaign misguided? Posted Nov 27, 2003 8:41 UTC (Thu) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] Oddly enough, that's my point. ODSL needs to assure end users that they can't be sued. For ODSL to argue that the code probably isn't illegal, is not very reassuring.But OSDL is already doing precisely this, by hosting the Q&A by Lawrence Rosen (http://www.osdl.org/docs/qa_re_sco_vs_ibm_html.html ) and the paper by Eben Moglen (http://www.osdl.org/newsroom/articles/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.html ) Of course the problem is these are more than page-long, well-reasoned texts, whereas SCO's claims make nice headlines. Maybe OSDL should also make a pointy-haired... er, executive summary short enough to be printed on a paper napkin.
ODSL awareness campaign misguided? Posted Nov 27, 2003 5:09 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] What people don't seem to get is that the free software world is actually more careful about this kind of thing than proprietary software companies are. In my career in proprietary software development, I have repeatedly found that some developer grabbed some code out of a book or off the net and incorporated it into a product, naively thinking that anything he or she could find source code for was "public domain". When such things have been discovered, we worked to remove the code, or in at least one case investigated negotiating a license to use the code legitimately, but I fear that some companies are less ethical than those I've worked for, and ask the question "will we be caught?". You'd be surprised how many programmers think that the code in books like "Numerical Recipes in C" is fair game to use. In most cases, it's all proprietary code and almost any use needs to be paid for. OSDL would be better off turning the question around and asking what the process is for proprietary software companies in assuring that they own all the code they claim to own. In many cases the process seems to be "no one can see our source code so we won't get caught". Example: SCO recently demonstrated that they are in violation of the BSD license with respect to the Berkeley packet filter code.
Non-free code in books... Posted Nov 27, 2003 17:41 UTC (Thu) by dps (subscriber, #5725) [Link] It always wise to read the bits of books about the licence for any code in them. Numerical Recipies in C (and other languages) looks nice but the licence is too drastic---most people in numerical analysis do *not* have a copy so anything they produce could not have been copied from there. At least one person has been sued for simply transfering his code, containing stuff from numerical recipies, to a supercomputer. This made the code avaialable to someone else, contrary to the numerical recipies licence. Other bits of proprietry software are just as bad, albeit in different ways. Prohibition of "unahtorised" benchamrks and using your their program to check the results of yours is not unknown. The people behind one such effort are known to sue people at will. I will not name any names, lest their lawyers read LWN. This sorts of thing makes me appreciate free software a whole lot more... Could be the makings of FUD about using commercial software here?
Numerical Recipes Posted Nov 27, 2003 20:30 UTC (Thu) by andrel (guest, #5166) [Link] Not only the license to <it>Numerical Recipes in C</it> is horrible. The code itself stinks. It is ugly, inefficient, and doesn't handle corner cases well. Existing free libraries (e.g. ATLAS, LAPACK, FFTW, GSL) do a much better job.
ODSL awareness campaign misguided? Posted Nov 28, 2003 23:29 UTC (Fri) by yokem_55 (guest, #10498) [Link] Therefore, scox has absolutely no grounds to sue linux end users.Unfortunately the reality of our legal system is that anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone for damn near any reason, regardless of its validity or worthyness. Just because we can claim that the grounds for any suit against linux users by sco are non-existant doesn't mean that companies using linux can't get dragged into court to deal with a frivolous suit.
Important part of the process missed Posted Nov 27, 2003 0:59 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Where is the "steal some System V code" part of the process? I reckon OSDL should review their press release ;-)
would like to see Posted Nov 27, 2003 14:36 UTC (Thu) by ccyoung (subscriber, #16340) [Link] would like to see them publish agreements that corporations sign before being allowed to submit code, as well as a list of corporate contributors.
would like to see Posted Nov 27, 2003 23:44 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] define what you mean by corporate contributer. is it anyone who sends an e-mail from a work account? (and if so how do you tell it's a work account not a personal account), only people who work for three letter companies? something else?also this paper you want them to sign, who would store it, who would be responsible for tracking it, storing it, etc. this could be a huge amount of overhead, and what's the real benifit of it? nobody is claiming that an employee of any *nix company secretly copied things from work and put them in the kernel so there is nothing that has happened that would have been prevented by this overhead you are proposing. remember that the vast majority of contributions come from individual programmers, not from some corporate 'code release' process
would like to see Posted Dec 1, 2003 2:54 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] The FSF requires employer disclaimers or explicit employer copyright transfers for all contributions to FSF-owned programs such as GCC, the GNU C library, GDB, the binutils (the assembler and linker), etc. This places those projects on somewhat safer legal ground than the Linux kernel is on, though the main advantage is that it enables the FSF to aggressively (though quietly) pursue infringers.
OSDL Launches Linux Kernel Awareness Initiative Posted Nov 29, 2003 22:45 UTC (Sat) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] >>Unfortunately the reality of our legal system is that anyone can file alawsuit against anyone for damn near any reason, regardless of its validity or worthyness. Just because we can claim that the grounds for any suit against linux users by sco are non-existant doesn't mean that companies using linux can't get dragged into court to deal with a frivolous suit. << This seems like the perfect scox target. So easily intimidated by scox. This is exactly how msft/scox is working to scare users away from linux. Months ago, I called scox and dared them to sue me. I gave them all my information. Guess what? No lawsuit, not even an invoice. If scox filed a lawsuit against me, I would go to court and say: "okay scox, *you* filed the suit, now *prove* I have done something wrong, prove I owe you some damages." If that ever happend, scox could do nothing but prove they have no case. What a precedent that would set. Oh yea, I would also call novl/suse to let them know that scox was suing me for the suse 9.0 I legally bought. I would also contact Utah and Colordo state attorny generals. RedHat and IBM might be interested as well. Maybe a small mention on groklaw? Who else might be interested in scox trying to enforce their little extortion scam? SEC, DOJ, FTC? Scox is scared to death of suing me, and I don't even have a lawyer. Any company would have to have idiots for a legal dept to be scared of scox.
|
|||||||||||
