Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
ESR does Samizdat
For those of you who haven't had enough of this sort of thing, Eric Raymond
has posted his
critique of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute's attack on Linux.
"I began reading the excerpts skeptical of the widespread conspiracy
theory that this book is a paid hatchet job commissioned by Microsoft. Now
I find this theory much more credible. I can't imagine how anyone would
want their names on a disgrace like this unless they were getting paid
extremely well for undergoing the humiliation."
(Log in to post comments)
ESR does Samizdat Posted May 27, 2004 10:12 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] It is unfortunate that ESR used the term "strong IP rights". He should know better. In today's climate, "strong IP rights" means software patents, the DMCA, the broadcast flag, McDonalds claiming all use of all words beginning with "Mc", lawsuits over deep linking, and the like. Every hacker I know takes the "weak IP rights" stand on every one of those issues.
ESR does Samizdat Posted May 27, 2004 11:51 UTC (Thu) by csm1975 (subscriber, #15864) [Link] Uhm... I disagree... it's certainly possible to have strong ip rights without having to implement stupid protection schemes to protect the ip. We all have rights and those rights do not necessarily equate to a necessity to protect them with silly or stupid methods. Just because I have the *right* to say a thing does not mean I *should*. So... IMHO what ESR is referring to is not the same as what you are thinking. Strong rights is not the same thing as strong protection which may, deliberately, or inadvertently remove rights of others (fair use or some other right as the case may be).
ESR does Samizdat Posted May 27, 2004 12:19 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] But "IP" blurs together patents with copyright with trade secrets with other alleged rights, and also blurs the distinction between these forms of protections and the kind of ownership people have over physical objects. It's a bad term, and should not be used.
ESR does Samizdat Posted May 27, 2004 12:36 UTC (Thu) by csm1975 (subscriber, #15864) [Link] Unqualified use of the simple acronym yes. ESR's use of it as "strong ip rights" is not unqualified and is, on the contrary, quite well defined IMO.
ESR does Samizdat Posted May 27, 2004 13:55 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] At least the McDonalds example is not "strong IP rights"; it is one of the few examples of IP theft, in that McDonalds attempts to take away IP that belongs to others. Strong IP rights necessary favor the actual owners of the IP over others.
ESR does Samizdat Posted May 27, 2004 15:05 UTC (Thu) by rcbixler (guest, #11917) [Link] Is that what ESR means by "strong IP rights?" IP rights are forms of governmentinterference in a free market and as such should be rejected by libertarians. Barring that I'm a bit stunned to see a libertarian like ESR advocate "strong IP rights", your explanation seems like a reasonable one.
ESR does Samizdat Posted May 28, 2004 6:38 UTC (Fri) by rdn (guest, #4332) [Link] My understanding of libertarian philosophy is that ownership ofintellectual property, like physical property, is not a natural right. The sole justification or property rights (both physical and intellectual) is that they better enable a society that protects and values an individual's natural rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
ESR does Samizdat Posted Jun 3, 2004 3:48 UTC (Thu) by mjr (subscriber, #6979) [Link] Indeed, however, I find it ironic that someone calling himself libertarian would support legislation that basically allows somebody to own a piece of another's mind (like a song stuck in their heads) wihtout their explicit agreement. As I coined this on Groklaw, I'd call this propertarianism, as it seems to me to be willing to sacrifice liberty for property :) (No, I'm not libertarian, I'm a left-liberal.)
Microsoft "swiped their code from BSD"? Posted May 27, 2004 11:33 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] Microsoft is quite entitled to use BSD code: the BSD licence allows them to do so. To characterise it in the next paragraph as "stolen" is wrong and ESR knows this. A lot of other stuff is very crudely expressed (the Stallman and HURD bit) or just plain unnecessary ("Bezroukov is a crank and an idiot"). ESR should learn to focus on what is provably wrong and let the readers form their own opinions, rather than mix his good arguments with incoherent personal rants that would, if anything, destroy the reader's sympathy.
Microsoft "swiped their code from BSD"? Posted May 27, 2004 12:11 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Yes, but is "stolen" ever the right word for illegal reproduction ordistribution?
Microsoft "swiped their code from BSD"? Posted May 27, 2004 12:37 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] You could argue that it would have been stolen, since Microsoft would have violated the BSD license; at least, as far as I know it has never advertised the inclusion of BSD TCP/IP stack code in their products. However, according to this, Microsoft's TCP/IP stack was written by a Scottish company. Which leaves us with the notorious ftp.exe, that contains a (hidden) copyright notice of the Regents of the University of California.ESR's Microsoft TCP/IP stack example is weak, I think, because he doesn't explain how it relates to his earlier claim that it is next to impossible to steal a large body of code and incorporate it into your own. (Even though I can see that some chunks are easier to transplant than others.) (Now that I think about it, ESR probably meant: "incorporate and keep it sane". ;-)
Microsoft "swiped their code from BSD"? Posted May 28, 2004 0:45 UTC (Fri) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] You could argue that it would have been stolen, since Microsoft would have violated the BSD license;You're missing the point. Even if the above was true, it would not indicate that the code was stolen, if would imply that the code was illegally used, illegal because of copyrigth-law. It only serves to murky the waters to mix together two completely different crimes that has no common basis in law or elsewhere. Yes, unauthorised copying and theft are both illegal, but they are two different things. It's a bit as if I argued that your car is "stolen" because I've seen you speeding. Yes speeding and auto-theft are both illegal, that does not mean being guilty of one makes you guilty of the other.
Microsoft "swiped their code from BSD"? Posted May 28, 2004 10:18 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] From the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:to steal (sth) (from sb/sth): take (another person's property) secretly without permission or legal right IANAL, maybe there is a legal distinction between unauthorized copying and theft, I don't know. Frankly, I don't care. Out of the courtroom I can still call things by their proper names, right? The careful reader will have noticed by the way, that my remark meant that one could argue that it is theft, if you take someone's code and incorporate it into your own, violating the license under which the code was released. If you don't agree, I am interested to hear your opinion. If I wasn't clear enough, it would have sufficed to say so. I am not interested in word games though, which might explain why I really don't get your accusation about the murky waters. ;-) As for your incomprehensible logic concerning speeding and car theft: well, at least it adds to the entropy pool.
Microsoft "swiped their code from BSD"? Posted Jun 3, 2004 3:01 UTC (Thu) by rjw (guest, #10415) [Link] The point is that "intellectual property" is not property. It is a disingenuous phrase used to describe several distinct types of government granted monopoly over certain intangibles (eg. patents, trademarks, copyright, trade secrets). You can violate someone elses government granted monopoly rights. You can't "steal" it.
Microsoft "swiped their code from BSD"? Posted Jun 5, 2004 19:08 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] The dictionary definition doesn't help at all. It simply substitutes the equally undefined word take. I believe what is in question is whether when I wrongly copy your code or use your ideas I am taking anything. Nothing has physically left your possession; you still have your copy of the code.In law, there are in fact lots of more specific words for stealing. The most basic form of theft is larceny which is the physical carrying away of something. But there are plenty of other kinds of stealing - conversion, fraud, vandalism, etc. There's probably also a question here of what is property. Again, in law there are more specific words. chattel is physical property, but there are other kinds. An option to buy some stock at certain price is property. One of the more vexingly abstract forms of property is simply the power to prevent someone else from doing something. That's what copyrights are. Getting back to the basic question of whether reproducing something can be properly called stealing: If I broke the law to avoid paying for the right to make my copy, that seems to have all the qualities that make shoplifting stealing.
semantics of stealing Posted May 28, 2004 7:22 UTC (Fri) by rdn (guest, #4332) [Link] Stealing something implies depriving the rightful owner of the benefits associated with ownership. In the absence of intellectual property law this is of course impossible for intellectual property because the only benefit is the owner's own personal use. However, in the presence of intellectual property law an owner might have a reasonable expectation of some form of compensation. When should illegal use be considered theft?
semantics of stealing Posted May 30, 2004 0:55 UTC (Sun) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] As theft is legally defined, it does not, in fact, extend to "depriving a holder of some rights to exploit for profit", no matter how much people who incorrectly conflate intellectual "property" with real property would like for it to.I'm on Lessig's side in the copyright battle, so I use "rights" in "rights to exploit" merely to avoid confusing people; they're not *rights*, they're privileges granted by the constitution for a *LIMITED TIME*. But theft? Naw. Course, who knows. Maybe it's just me. (Especially since IANAL)
Microsoft "swiped their code from BSD"? Posted May 27, 2004 14:04 UTC (Thu) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link] To be fair, he doesn't quite accuse Microsoft of stealing. The juxtaposition of the two sentences is unfortunate:
It is known from behavioral analysis of the Microsoft TCP/IP stack, for example, that they swiped their code from BSD. So there may well be be immense amounts of stolen IP in proprietary code, hidden by commercial secrecy. A more charitable and more plausible interpretation is "Microsoft (legally) took BSD code, and the only way we know about it is through behavioural analysis. So how do we know commercial outfits haven't taken code illegally?" Unfortunately, this relies on readers knowing that "swiping code from BSD" is acceptable, and that you can tell a lot about a TCP/IP stack from the outside.
James.
Microsoft "swiped their code from BSD"? Posted Jun 3, 2004 15:49 UTC (Thu) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] Microsoft is quite entitled to use BSD code: the BSD licence allows them to do so.At the time Microsoft started incorporating the BSD code into Windows, they were in violation of the BSD license, so it is not exaggeration to say that the code was stolen. Specifically, Microsoft violated the advertising clause. While this may sound fairly minor, the advertising clause is exactly what enabled the UC Regents to force USL to settle the lawsuit USL had brought against UC: AT&T and USL had incorporated large amounts of BSD code into System V Unix without proper attribution. Presumably USL's lawyers didn't realize this when the brought the suit; if the UC Regents had really wanted to play hardball, they could have revoked USL's permission to use any BSD code under any terms, and forced USL to recall *EVERY* copy of System V that contained BSD code. Eventually UC dropped the advertising clause from the BSD license, so Microsoft no longer has any problem with using the BSD code in Windows.
ESR does Samizdat Posted May 27, 2004 14:29 UTC (Thu) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link] For those of you who haven't had enough of this sort of thing ...Indeed. I've been as guilty as anyone of slipping into a froth of righteous rage over AdTI's mischief, but my normal waking consciousness is starting to return. I am even starting to wonder if AdTI is worth such outrage. By all available evidence, this is a small group of untalented cranks with a crude and obvious political agenda, a website, a grant from Microsoft and (don't forget) a distinguished-sounding name. Try this experiment: sample Ken Brown's writing style. Now contrast it with those of his critics. Then ask yourself: Are we using a howitzer to kill a mouse?"
ESR does Samizdat Posted Jun 14, 2004 13:56 UTC (Mon) by nobrowser (guest, #21196) [Link] Those who are SHOCKED! at ADTI screeds evidently don't know, or don'twant to know (and this applies especially to libertarians such as esr) the Dual Grand Moral Rules of the American right. | Profit -> Good Does it seem too crude to believe? Yes. There, now you know not only my Nov. vote, but also my favorite
|
|||||||||||