Disney goes for Linux
LWN has generally applauded Linux's commercial successes - more users will, in the end, mean more developers and more and better free software. And that could prove to be true in this case as well. But we should not lose track of another, important point: Disney is one of the prime movers behind the CBDTPA - a law which would make Linux illegal.
Disney thinks that free operating systems (or free computers in general)
are a threat to its business, and thus something to be outlawed. Free DVD
players are not to be allowed. Oppressive digital rights management
systems will put an end to any sort of fair use of copyrighted materials.
The people can not be trusted with control over their own systems.
Meanwhile, back at Disney: "Walt Disney Feature Animation will employ HP's Linux
infrastructure to give artists more powerful tools to translate their
artistry into animation while achieving significant cost
reductions
".
Supplying Linux to Disney thus looks like aiding the enemy - how much of those "significant cost reductions" will be applied to maintaining the company's private Senators in Washington? But consider this scenario: by the time a new, son-of-CBDTPA starts to look like it might pass, much of Disney's operation could be based on, and dependent on, free software. What fun it would be to attend the meeting where CEO Michael Eisner is made aware of what capabilities would be lost - and how much it would cost - if the company's free software had to be replaced with proprietary code carrying the Big Brother Stamp of Approval.
So Linux's infiltration into Disney could well be something to be encouraged.
With luck, freedom slipping in from below could end up subverting the
repressive plans of the leadership. One can always hope...
Posted Jun 20, 2002 2:51 UTC (Thu)
by jamienk (guest, #1144)
[Link]
It's possible that freedom brings with it some BAD practical effects: in the case of Free software, it COULD seriously harm the ecomomy, discourage art and artists, and give more power to terrorists. It's also possible that, even if that's true, there may be bigger benefits to humanity in the future... It seems to me that, when there's Freedom, we can't really predict how current systems will be changed, how won arguments' effects will cascade, and how thoughts that are currently unthinkable will be commonplace tomorrow. Disney can't predict it. And we -- we Freedom Fighters -- we can't predict it either. Disney's interests may ultimately be served with Free software. They may not. Ditto for humanity's interests. But who's to say we'd all be better off without freedom either?
Posted Jun 20, 2002 8:18 UTC (Thu)
by copsewood (subscriber, #199)
[Link] (3 responses)
The dilemma of whether people who attack freedom can also enjoy it is an old one, and I think historically this tends to hinge around 2 criteria:
Posted Jun 20, 2002 10:25 UTC (Thu)
by DeletedUser2169 ((unknown), #2169)
[Link]
Posted Jun 20, 2002 10:44 UTC (Thu)
by Trav (guest, #2170)
[Link]
[companies activily supporting]: Who would judge that? Thats too fuzzy for [patent claims against users of free software]: I suppose there is no Software covered by such a license would no longer be part of debian, since
Posted Jun 20, 2002 13:56 UTC (Thu)
by erat (guest, #21)
[Link]
1) As someone else stated already, what entity would be designated to determine who is "oppressing" free software? Even if there are very specific criteria for determining who's in and who's out, there will still be enough rope to allow the RMSes of the world to hang those companies that they simply don't like. I can envision this ending Linux's wave of popularity quickly, as well as scaring off literally almost all of the corporate users. 2) A GPL 3, 4, 50, whatever could be created, but software that is covered by GPL 2.0 will remain covered by GPL 2.0 until the folks producing the software decide to change. If the GPL is changed to be more restrictive than it already is, lots of code covered under it will more likely than not fork, leaving the GPL 2.0'd version for the free software community and licensing the new fork differently. If you own the copyright, I believe you can do that. It's not nice, but I believe it can happen (look at SourceForge).
Posted Jun 20, 2002 10:39 UTC (Thu)
by MontyZuma (guest, #1724)
[Link]
Posted Jun 21, 2002 3:15 UTC (Fri)
by tompoe (guest, #9)
[Link]
The answer, I think, lies with the Creative Commons Project. At http://www.creativecommons.org/ they're putting the infrastructure together that represents a way for browsers to coordinate "flagged" Open Source/public domain style. Open-Content Network is right there as well. We could see a day when people will use browsers dedicated to Open Source, and leave the copyright/commercial sites behind. Think of it as a sort of new layer of the Open Source Movement. Just my thought.
This issue brings back to life the RMS vs ESR debate: is Freedom good because it is morally right, or because it gives practical benefits? The issue goes to the heart of American ideology. (I see economic Capitalist arguments as being on the "practical benefits of freedom" side, and the ACLU/EFF, civil rights/liberties as often taking the "moral" approach...)Disney goes for Linux
Historically certain freedoms have, in some circumstances, had to be temporarily withdrawn in order to be effectively defended. In order to win the 2nd World War against Hitler, in the UK various democratic freedoms had to be temporarily suspended in 1939 and reinstated in 1945. I think the free-software movement may need to face attacks such as the CBDTPA in a similar way. For example a GPL version 3 may be needed to withdraw the right to use software by companies activily supporting repressive anti-free software legislation, or pursuing software patent claims against other users of free software. When this war is effectively won, a GPL version 4 could reinstate freedoms temporarily suspended for the duration of conflict e.g. the freedom to use free software while attacking software freedoms of others.Disney goes for free software in which manner ?
To compare the "withdrawal" of democratic rights is different because they were not withdrawn they were suspended with democratic consent. No change to the over all legal system occured in the same way as the various US acts strip previously available actions with no expiration expected.Disney goes for free software in which manner ?
> For example a GPL version 3 may be needed to withdraw the right to useDisney goes for free software in which manner ?
> software by companies activily supporting repressive anti-free software
> legislation, or pursuing software patent claims against other users of
> free software
a license.
single company or indiviual that does not use free software in some way.
Would this make an end to all patent suits? No. Large companies could
simply create small companies for the only purpose to use the software
in Question on their data for a fee.
it discriminates against fields of endeavour.
There are two serious flaws in your proposal:Disney goes for free software in which manner ?
> Supplying Linux to Disney thus looks like aiding the enemyDisney goes for Linux
No. It is making an other enemy to a friend!
Hi: The BPDG is tasked with "writing" the CBDTPA, which outlaws Open Source.Disney goes for Linux
With that in mind, Disney moves to Open Source. Disney is also EXEMPT from the CBDTPA, as are all the studios and News.Corp, and other corporate special interest groups. They're counting on continued Open Source development "around" the law. That is called free labor, eh? If I'm Disney, I'm thinking I have my cake and eat it too. In other words, folks, these corporate you-know-whats are pretty sure this is a winner for them, and the losers will keep on working that Open Source code for them.
Thanks,
Tom Poe
Reno, NV
http://www.studioforrecording.org/
http://www.ibiblio.org/studioforrecording/