Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
Open source: Prepare for attack (ZDNet)
Bruce Perens tells the community to be ready for more legal attacks in this column on ZDNet. "What we need is a one-stop, collective defense entity for open source--one that is well-capitalized and vendor neutral; one with funding primarily from enterprise users, rather than vendors with their conflicted interests; and one involved with most of the existing open-source legal defense efforts, so that it can handle cases economically and with the greatest possible expertise."
(Log in to post comments)
Vendor vs. user funding, centralization Posted Jun 3, 2004 10:17 UTC (Thu) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link] User funding on any serious scale seems an extremely unlikely prospect here. It's a classic commons, since free riders benefit from the protection, and unlike vendors who gain name recognition and some degree of influence, there is no incentive for users to participate.Also, centralization is helpful, but is it necessary? Why not have seven different organizations backed by seven different constituencies filing seven different patent review suits (to invalidate them), and support (provide prior art etc.) and reference and amicus brief each other as appropriate? This is clearly an important issue, and some new readers may be reached by this piece. But its central recommendation is somewhat questionable and needs either further explanation or modification.
Vendor vs. user funding, centralization Posted Jun 3, 2004 12:47 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] The entire darn point of the editorial is that there is a company doing this, which CNET seems to have blown for me by not attributing that I am a director of said company. Since the company's press person sent them the editorial, I would have expected them to do so. I asked CNET to correct that.Bruce
Vendor vs. user funding, centralization Posted Jun 4, 2004 15:38 UTC (Fri) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link] Wow, a reply from Bruce Perens, I'm honored! :-)Okay, I think I see the vision, but I'm not getting something. So this company is going to be paid (by whom?) to invalidate patents? How noble and charitable. But why can't other companies then turn around and offer insurance based on that work, undercutting this company and free-riding since they're not paying to invalidate patents? Who pays this company? (Such a free rider would basically be saying, "For this smaller fee than Bruce's, we'll guarantee that the software doesn't infringe any patents, or if it does, Bruce's company will find prior art for us and you'll be safe.") I don't see this working unless the vendors are paying for the indemnification, but that's vendor support, not user support, which was my point... And again, why is there a need for centralization around this one company? Why can't the EFF go after some, the FSF others, etc.?
Advertorial Posted Jun 3, 2004 11:06 UTC (Thu) by andrel (guest, #5166) [Link] Isn't Bruce an investor in Open Source Risk Management? They bill themselves as precisely the sort of one-stop vendor-neutral collective defense entity he is calling for. He should have disclosed his affiliation with them.
Advertorial Posted Jun 3, 2004 12:38 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] OSRM's publicity person brought this to Charles Cooper at CNET, so I would have expected him to run my attribution as an OSRM director. I just sent him an email asking for this to be fixed ASAP.Thanks Bruce
Open source: Prepare for attack (ZDNet) Posted Jun 3, 2004 12:15 UTC (Thu) by verzonnen (guest, #9406) [Link] May I suggest not to fight it at all and just simply ignore those "attacks". If a developer is trheatend to pay a fine, donate money to a fund to pay of the fine and move the development elsewhere. What seems to be forgotten is that "open source" is a truly global effort and not just a US one! If the US government (or any government) wants their country to be left behind that is their perogative, we can only point out that it is in the interest of the nation that they amend legislation. Fighting it only means more work/money for the lawers who came up with the laws in the first place and this will just encourage them to create more of these kind of laws (like the DMC or "software patents")I am not saying that an IBM should not fight back, they have the sort of money that SCO is after and the recources to fight them. If an induvidual was being sued and the fight itself is going to cost more than they have in the bank, (regarless if they win the case and may be awared damages) than it should not be fought! While I am at it, I am amazed that while we live in the "information age" there seems to be this futile efford to restrict information. If even a "Cruise Missile can be made in someones back yard. What chance does any government and/or company think they have with preventing software from being written and/or used is beyond me. We can't even prevent illegal copying of software (or spam, viruses, etc.) For those interested, here is the link for the homegrown cruise-missile; http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/ For those developers writing the free software I use (and love) every day, a big thank you!
Open source: Prepare for attack (ZDNet) Posted Jun 3, 2004 12:42 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] It might be OK for you not to fight back. As an Open Source developer I am at risk of losing my home, my car, anything else I own as a result of the cost of defending myself from a specious suit. Or, of course, I could stop developing the software you like so much, or move to India and wait for them to pass software patenting laws as well. None of these prospects are attractive.Bruce
Open source: Prepare for attack (ZDNet) Posted Jun 3, 2004 15:39 UTC (Thu) by verzonnen (guest, #9406) [Link] Hi BruceI am indeed sugesting that you stop developing that particular bit of software that you are being sued over. Well at least in the country that you are being sued in And you can indeed choose to migrate (as even Linus has done) to a place that is more of your liking. You can also choose to stay and fight (that is if you like the fight) What I am sugesting is more like civil disobedience. It will be unprofitable (if not impossible) for companies to go after a disorganised (worldwide) group of people. The Free Software Foundation will be a much more actractive target. Not that I do not appreciate the work that you do... The (and may I say stupid) patent law that is in the US, should indeed be changed, well at least if the US wants to compete with the rest of the world. But lets face it the US legislation is proving to be a great example to current European legislators (and other countries) on why they sould not adopt similar legislation! Isn't it ironic that in Rusia a newsman was fired from his job, because he was critical of his president and in the US a film maker who's film wich is critical of his president was attempted to be stopped by the studio because it "might influence the elections"
Open source: Prepare for attack (ZDNet) Posted Jun 3, 2004 16:15 UTC (Thu) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] ut lets face it the US legislation is proving to be a great example to current European legislators (and other countries) on why they sould not adopt similar legislation!But somehow the EU politicians don't understand a thing about software or software patents and they think, that: "market==good", => "market for ideas==good" => "software patents == good"
Open source: Prepare for attack (ZDNet) Posted Jun 3, 2004 19:41 UTC (Thu) by verzonnen (guest, #9406) [Link] I have been following the debate (as far as I can) in Holland and even the "VVD" (political party who's views are simmilar to Bush) stated tonight something along the lines as "we do not want to end up with the same mess as currently exsist in the US"But I do agree that "private" donations to political parties (at least for the purpose of advertising) are bad for democracy and this may wel be the reason why there is such silly legislation. But I think this is somewhat of topic. Just to clarify my background, I have also worked for bigger corporations (600+ servers) as a unix administrator and some of those companies where running Linux simply because it made sense to them (technicaly), one I worked for started a very long time ago, without naming names but lets say that company has expanded into the US in a big way ;) Now the reason I found was that some companies did not want to addopt linux or open source is that management could not point the finger at some other company like for example Microsoft or IBM if something went wrong. Now with companies like redhat this is changed as wel. I also do not think there is a need to push Linux, Linux will take over, probably way to fast. Just to give an example of how civil disobediance can work; In Holland softdrugs are (semi) legal, not because the Dutch think that drugs are good, but because the politicians realized they could not win the war on drugs. The Dutch where just being practical. (The enforcement cost where much higher than treatment) And believe me, the Dutch are not as tolerant as the countries laws suggest ;) I will continue to use and promote free and open source software regardles. of legislation, I have no money to pay a fine so if country wants to spend money to send and keep me in jail that would be sad, for me and the taxpayer, but it is a price that I am willing to pay. I also believe software patents are bad for the buisines world as a whole and not just for open source. Open source will continue no matter what. It's more the US economy as a whole that will suffer in a big way if this (anti competitive) legislation is allowed to stand. I do not think that the OSF should spend money on fighting this crap. It just ends up giving legitimacy to the whole thing and at the same time the OSF is setting itself up as a easy target. It's the user base that wil need to make the change, best thing that could happen is to publish the political candidates views and voting history on this subject in each country/state on the net. Include a letter why OSF think it's bad or good and for the rest and just spend the effort instead on making the open source software even better. I imagine that for a software developer this to be a litle more satisfying than arguing with lawers and/or (corrupt) politicians. I am not picking a fight here, I just hope that some of the things I said are taken into consideration. Even if I am wrong about this, governments will need to consider this posibility also, they may need to build more jails ;)
Open source: Prepare for attack (ZDNet) Posted Jun 4, 2004 1:11 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Your sacrifice would have been in vain. The moment two or more arrests happens, without any counterclaim or prospect of legal fight,... like virus authors when they get caught,... i was sayng upon that momment the commercial part of the Linux/FOSS community will colapse, because entreprises will run for cover.And to make things worst that civil disobidience will translate in an "underground" of only a small percentage of more or less tech savy users in passioned dedication to their cause and work. It will be impossible, IMO, to convert that way the huge mass of common users, that are now in a more or less "Confort Zone" with pirated windows, that no matter the BSODs is the only OS that can run all the hardware they trow in. And with no masses of users converted to the cause of this civil disobidience movement, not even in dreams will be possible the gaining of political power to the point of forcing goverments to change the law. You will be left in prison, forgotten , and by the time Microsoft FUD machine finishes, Linux will be nothing more than a dark thing of wirdo pirates and hackers.
Open source: Prepare for attack (ZDNet) Posted Jun 4, 2004 7:38 UTC (Fri) by verzonnen (guest, #9406) [Link] I do not see it as a sacrifice, there is no cause that I am fighting for. I use linux because it suits my needs (and income) better! The problem is that it is seen as a strugle in the US against big evil corporations, I do not care if any company does, or does not want to use linux. The corporations do not care, they are interested in making money. Would you feel proud if an "enron" used your product?? The developers working for those companies will use (at least parts) open source regardles.Sadly Linux needs these "big evil corporations" for now, because without a common enemy, the comunity will fall apart with internal squibeling. I have seen some maturity in the samba team in there statement regarding SCO's use of samba. Linux wil not disapear in a hurry, there is to much momentum now and if the industry continues to use inferior systems that just garanties work for alot of MCSE'rs ;)
Open source: Prepare for attack (ZDNet) Posted Jun 4, 2004 1:41 UTC (Fri) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] Eu politicians aided and abbettied by the Irish and M$ Corp
Open source: Prepare for attack (ZDNet) Posted Jun 4, 2004 3:56 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] Companies don't need to go after every user to do damage.Look at the SCO suite. Have they actually tried to get money from users? (There was a story about a user that called them and asked how to pay the license. It turnes out that folks at SCO couldn't tell him how to pay...)
Open source: Prepare for attack (ZDNet) Posted Jun 11, 2004 18:49 UTC (Fri) by pimlott (guest, #1535) [Link] I am indeed sugesting that you stop developing that particular bit of software that you are being sued over. What makes you think that will make the suit go away? Say the claim is copyright infringement, that you've included some improperly contributed code in your software that is really owned by an evil corporation. Under US law, you can be penalized up to $30,000 in statutory damages per act of non-wilful infringement. Yes, this includes acts you didn't know were infringement, according to a smart law school friend of mine, so you're on the hook for everything you've done to date. Not to mention, this makes the software undistributable by anyone (in the US at least) until the case is resolved. I hate to think about it, but this could be a very serious problem awaiting us.
Strategy and software legislation Posted Jun 3, 2004 13:35 UTC (Thu) by jvotaw (subscriber, #3678) [Link] To me, the difference is a question of strategy. Guerilla warfare can work, but due to the sacrifices (developers moving their families to India, etc), it doesn't make sense to me as a first result. Given that our legal and political systems are functional enough that we can fight for better software legislation within the system, it makes sense to do so.Of course this situation could change, or it could change for some things (crypto) but not others (intellectual property)... -Joel
Open source: Prepare for attack (ZDNet) Posted Jun 3, 2004 16:08 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " What chance does any government and/or company think they have with preventing software from being written and/or used is beyond me..."The politicians in that goverments are in large extend financed in their campaigns by those Big Corporations that are positined to attack everything that threat their income ability... its a well establiched network of interestes and cumplicitys. Seems to me that your experience is more in touch with the general commom home user than with the closed walls of big corporations data centers. But IMO you are wrong, and right now Linux/FOSS as no chance but to fight this war. The general population user's computacional needs is completely immersed in a hypocritical logic of software piracy. As you can see mentined here: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2004/tc2004061_4160_PG4_tc_169.htm The large populations of users are not yet aware of Linux/FOSS. They have no reasons to be, because everything they need is taked from that large worldwide pool of... of warez,... and their resistance to change is enourmous because of this very good "Comfort Zone" with windows. I doubt that Microsoft is going to change much of this in their next comming OS Longhorn. They are in trouble because Linux/FOSS is clearly winning in the Data Center of entreprises, where the real money is. So is a matter of time for when will they legaly assault Linux/FOSS with patents threats, now that their baked SCO assault seems to have failed. If Linux/FOSS is ilegalized now, they will win the data center for good. So the Open Source has to fight now, or descent to the "underground" where it will not be accepted by the entreprises and neither by the general home users population. The Linux/FOSS community needs time, and needs the power of common solution, now that "we" are going to face the biggest threats. In small steps all pieces are coming togheter, but it will fail if "we" lay down the arms and quit of fighting. Marques
Open source: Prepare for attack (ZDNet) Posted Jun 4, 2004 1:54 UTC (Fri) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] The Linux Communitity world wide needs the courts world wide to start behaving correctly and deal with M$ Corp the way they should be dealt with as common criminals and thieves they have more stolen code in use than any other orgaiseation in existance , So when they are brought to book for there transgressions the Linux world will be able to show that it has the technical abaility and the software to help people/organiseations world wide but while we are under threat from such hoodlums as M$ Corp we need to look sharp and keep smart we need eyes in our butts cus the world as ruled by M$ Corp is out to get us thats true .
Greater threats justify stronger defensive actions Posted Jun 4, 2004 5:29 UTC (Fri) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] As the media here remind us of the 60th aniversary of D-Day, I think frequently of the sacrifice of freedoms which everyone involved had to make in order to defend the greater freedoms which democracy can bring.I don't think we need regard the SCO case as the equivalent of the invasion of Poland in 1939, or Pearl Harbour. When a case arises which can be considered to have such equivalence in connection with software freedoms, and perhaps in responsible advance preparation, it will be time for another version of the GPL. This new version will require those using software licensed under it to license their own use of a pool of software patents already donated to a suitable organisation, e.g .the FSF or EFF, in exchange for granting free use of all software patents they themselves own if any, to all users for all uses of free software based on all licenses defined as such by the FSF. This would not take away all "potential shareholder value" from ownership of such patents, as the use of these would still be possible within the context of proprietary software. Getting rid of the latter potential would require legislation preventing software from being patentable, something worth campaigning for, but not neccessary for continued use of free software if this particular defence is successfully used. It might be argued that compelling such cross licensing by these means makes this new GPL version "non free", which somehow defeats the purpose of having free software. I would argue that the greater threat against democratic governance made by the axis powers in WW2 justified the limited sacrifice of smaller freedoms which the allied populations had to make in order to make any of the freedoms which we now enjoy possible. Software authors could then choose whether or not to use this new license for new work. Perhaps a few organisations would succeed in avoiding use of any software made available under this new license. However, even Microsoft uses GPL software under current versions, (their Services for Unix product). MS are also believed to have made more substantial use of BSD licensed TCP/IP code. The more software organisations which refuse this new license are forced to reengineer from scratch, the greater their costs in refusing to use this new license. They will only be able to justify these costs to their shareholders if they can point to a revenue stream which justifies it. One lesson we should learn from WW2 is that we should not be unwilling to prepare against such a threat if delaying the need to counter it results in greater damage when we are eventually left with no other options but to fight or surrender.
How big a warchest would we need? Posted Jun 4, 2004 9:45 UTC (Fri) by jae (guest, #2369) [Link] Considering Microsoft has ~50 billion in the bank... how much money would we need so they can't sap it dry?I agree with the general conclusion: I've been thinking for the last couple years that the bigger a threat FOSS becomes to the established businesses, the hotter the fight will be. First the ignore you Just as likely as Ghandi's original. (Yes, that's 2.5 postings in 1)
|
|||||||||||