LWN: Comments on "Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations"

rhetorical questions

pjm — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:50:14 +0000

Sorry I forgot to add "IANAL" until after I'd already posted that comment (LWN doesn't have a comment edit facility).

I'm not sure what k8to means by the question "is that legal advice", but I believe the answer is fairly obvious for most meanings even without the IANAL disclaimer. I think points can be made more clearly without rhetorical questions such as the above; it actually comes across a bit sarcastic, which is not conducive to helpful discussion.

A point of rebuttal

whacker — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:55:01 +0000

> All that idiot Stalling(sic) did was tell all of us who build software that what we did was valueless.

He was right. What you do (make money by restricting the right to copy your software) is indeed worthless. It benefits nobody, including you.

The user is not benefitted because you have imposed artificial restrictions on how the software can be used.

You are not benefitted, because, for a lot of software, when the user pays for software, it is for support, not for the code itself. She needs someone to take responsibility for it. Paying you for your software allows her to hold you accountable for quality and service. Your software could be Free and you will still make exactly the same amount of money from it.

People who do not want to pay you for software will pirate it anyway.

Cisco likes OSS

whacker — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:36:10 +0000

> which would put a big dent in Cisco's OSS use, to put it midly.

No, It would not.

All Cisco would have to do is to publish sources, with modifications, if any. Said modifications will almost certainly be useless to anyone outside of Cisco, so they will not lose any competitive advantage.

Between the pain of publishing sources and having to re-engineer an entire range of products, the former course will come easier.

in which case you still don't have a license

k8to — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:54:20 +0000

Is that legal advice? You are a lawyer?

Copyright

dlang — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:17:31 +0000

another way of looking at it is how much would you be willing to pay for software that would give you the equivalent functionality.

something that you cannot sell can be worth quite a bit of money if it would cost a lot of money to replace it.

Copyright

martinfick — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 04:44:20 +0000

I wasn't actually debating the value of software, which is I assume what
you really mean: "value", not "worth money". I was just trying to be
point out an obvious verbal contradiction.

By definition: something is "not worth money" if you cannot sell it for
money! There is no debating this, it is what you are saying if you say
that you cannot sell it for money.

You probably mean that it has value which is not monetary, make sense?

Copyright

xaoc — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:20:32 +0000

>How is it worth money if you can't sell it? I suppose you meant is was worth paying money to create it.

Don't you think software is worth money because it helps getting something done eventhough it cannot be sold for money?

A point of rebuttal

man_ls — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 01:07:52 +0000

All wireless chip manufacturers insist on this, and have legal opinion to back them up.

Or rather legal muscle. Lawyers will back whoever pays them, and that is as it should.

And remember it is not the same executable, nor does it need to borrow on freeware.

I gather you are referring to "Free software". Please do not mix it up with "freeware", which commonly refers to gratis software.

There are a number of very competent well paid programmers working on the problem, not a bunch of part-timers. And why do they take this approach, you ask?

There is a bigger number of insanely competent outrageously-paid programmers working on the Linux kernel, and they publish their work under the GPL. And why, you ask? Because it is worth it.

And please dont suggest that a company that has sunk millions into developing a chip should be willing to provide the information for free. That's childish.

What we need is that companies just work together on the parts that are common, such as the wireless stack, and concentrate their differentiating efforts on building efficient chips. Everyone wins that way.

I am glad that you are willing to perform your profession for free, except that isn't the definition of a professional - it is the definition of an amateur.

Not exactly. Putting pride before money is a hallmark of the good professional.

All that idiot Stalling did was tell all of us who build software that what we did was valueless.

If you are referring to Stallman please use his proper name, and try to be "polite, respectful, and informative". Stallman made a living at the time selling software, and probably still does. But he believes that software has more value when it is shared than when it is kept proprietary. Nowadays we have several billion-dollar corporations that prove him right.

Every cynical business in the country (this one, anyway) will go right on taking advantage of such a golden opportunity - why buy the cow when you get the milk for free.

A lot of otherwise cynical businesses have not taken advantage of GPL licensed software, but are good players that share their improvements. To perform such blatant violations you have to be cynical and stupid. Luckily the well is not so easy to poison.

in which case you still don't have a license

pjm — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 01:04:34 +0000

Even if the GPL said you can only distribute this software if you do something illegal, you still wouldn't be able to distribute the software:

If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. (§7, GPLv2)

This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue

man_ls — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:54:59 +0000

But it is sufficient. According to GPLv2, 3.b:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program [...] provided that you also [...]: b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange

A link qualifies as "written offer", the internet is a customary medium, and any reasonable person would be satisfied with that.

But that's not the point

dark — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:37:38 +0000

The "or not distribute it" choice is the one available here. A program that, when run, links against a shared library that is already present on the user's system does not have to be distributed with that shared library. But the FSF claims that it is still covered by that library's license. That's exactly the point of dispute.

This tends not to matter for Linux distributions because they need to provide the library anyway, but it matters for independent software vendors.

Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations

ballombe — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:46:09 +0000

> And please dont suggest that a company that has sunk millions into developing a chip should be willing to provide the information for free. That's childish.

Except that wifi chips are not given for free, but sold. So people have already paid for it.

This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue

trasz — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 07:50:29 +0000

Of the things you mentioned, the only ones included in BSD are GCC, Binutils and GDB. Nothing that one would install on a wireless router. Rest of the stuff - coreutils, glibc etc - have no use in BSD system.

Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations

wheelsIII — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:09:52 +0000

several comments...

1.
"As long as the binary wireless driver was in a state of "mere aggregation" (i.e. it was a loadable module and not compiled into the kernel image)..."

That's an 'interesting' interpretation of the phrase "mere aggregation on a volume of a storage or distribution medium", and not one with which I agree."

All wireless chip manufacturers insist on this, and have legal opinion to back them up. And remember it is not the same executable, nor does it need to borrow on freeware. There are a number of very competent well paid programmers working on the problem, not a bunch of part-timers. And why do they take this approach, you ask?

"
Physical property, i.e. property that is unreplicatable, needs to be regulated one way or another, whether you believe in personal property (I will claim everyone does), or communal property only. So any laws applied to physical property at least have a solid ground to justify their existence, with or without a government. The lack of regulation of physical property (with or without) government leads to obvious continual conflict.

If however, physical property could be replicated, it would be insane to think that it should therefore still be regulated. Why should I not be able to replicate my universe without you or anyone else in it? :) On what ethical grounds could anyone stand to prevent such a thing if it were possible? Religious ones only most likely."

No - its called intellectual property. The alternative to being able to reverse engineer the wireless section of a chip is to reverse engineer the driver. For companies that provide wireless chips the way in which these chips are structured is held very tightly - it is a highly competitive field and a lot of money is at stake. You often have a hard time getting access to certain parts of the register map even when you work there. And please dont suggest that a company that has sunk millions into developing a chip should be willing to provide the information for free. That's childish.

3.
"
No, the incentive isn't money, the monetary compensation just keeps body and soul together."

I am glad that you are willing to perform your profession for free, except that isn't the definition of a professional - it is the definition of an amateur. All that idiot Stalling did was tell all of us who build software that what we did was valueless. Every cynical business in the country (this one, anyway) will go right on taking advantage of such a golden opportunity - why buy the cow when you get the milk for free.

The ultimate goal

man_ls — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:01:54 +0000

Indeed, passwords are only useful when shared: the owner has to share them with the authenticator to make them work. If whacker shared with you his/her passwords then they would be useful for you to steal his identity (or whatever they protect).

The quote "knowledge is most useful only when it is shared" is surprisingly accurate, even beyond software where it was supposed to be applied.

Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations

salimma — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:50:47 +0000

Even more bizarre would be Trolltech's use of GPL+exceptions. One of the exceptions for Qt is if it's linked to a BSD-licensed code -- if this BSD-licensed code is just a wrapper that is then linked to from proprietary code, they might as well have used LGPL from the start and avoid the exception mess.

That's pretty much my problem with FSF's over-promotion of GPL. The percentage of software out there that is effectively GPLed might be lower than one might think.

Copyright

drag — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:54:43 +0000

Probably you have a better city government. Ours sucks.

Copyright

sepreece — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:11:47 +0000

My experience is that there are people who do resist annexation, usually strictly because of taxes. There are also typically people who want to be annexed, usually because they want the enhanced services that the city provides.

Obviously, specific circumstances will affect how people feel. I don't personally know of situations where annexation represented a downgrading of services, but I'm sure they exist. Usually the resisters claim that they don't want the enhanced services (often including better-funded schools, access to park districts and libraries, etc.).

But, again, circumstances vary...

Copyright

dskoll — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:06:25 +0000

What's the incentive? And here's you supposedly running a company. Come on dskoll, if you're not lying about your business experience then you already know lesson #1 it's not about the money.

I run Roaring Penguin Software. Absolutely, starting Roaring Penguin was not initially about the money. Now that I have employees and have to meet payroll, it's quite a bit about the money.

No, the incentive isn't money, the monetary compensation just keeps body and soul together.

Without copyright protection, I would have no money to pay my employees. It's that simple.

The way it actually works for the vast majority of actual professional photographers is that they get compensated (or least the deal is made) up front, and the amazing photo comes afterwards.

Please ask a professional photographer for comments on your idea to abolish copyright. Then get back to us.

And then there's musicians. Once again, it's not about the money.

Please ask a professional musician for comments on your idea to abolish copyright. Then get back to us. (It's true that very, very few musicians make it big. But quite a number make a decent living selling their own CDs and music, and a vast number wouldn't get into the business if it weren't for the possibility of making it.)

Please note: I'm not saying that copyright law as it stands now is perfect. All I'm saying is that throwing it out rather than trying to reform it is a bad idea.

This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue

sepreece — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:06:24 +0000

I agree that you should abide by the license.

However, I also think the license is wrong to require that every redistributor of *unmodified* programs must redistribute the source. A link to a well-known, persistent source, identifying a specific version, should be sufficient.

Copyright

drag — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:02:23 +0000

Well ya. Everythings built to standards.

And usually the small communities are built with a expectation that they'll get absorbed by the city as the city extends it's boundries every decade or so.

Quite often these communities try to resist getting absorbed legally through lawsuites and whatnot once they realise the drop in quality of services and increased costs that are associated with getting absorbed into the larger city. That and the drop in quality of education with the combined increase in cost per child that you get by being tied into a larger school district is one thing that people tend to especially go to arms about.

A few places have successfully resisted, but it's a minority.

Copyright

tialaramex — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:23:52 +0000

What's the incentive? And here's you supposedly running a company. Come on dskoll, if you're not lying about your business experience then you already know lesson #1 it's not about the money. No matter how much they pay, boring firms don't attract superstar programmers, it's not about the money. Wasn't before copyright, won't be afterwards. No, the incentive isn't money, the monetary compensation just keeps body and soul together.

The way it actually works for the vast majority of actual professional photographers is that they get compensated (or least the deal is made) up front, and the amazing photo comes afterwards. The most notable exception are the paparazzi, but (a) are you really putting paps in the list of good things about copyright? most of them hate the job, and they're the ones doing it (b) even with copyright the paps get ripped off all the time by newspapers and magazines. They might actually be better off without it (c) there are a lot of failed paps. It's back to the gambling I mentioned already.

And then there's musicians. Once again, it's not about the money. Very few people "make it big" and those who do will usually still end up penniless because copyright doesn't protect them, it protects the guy with the lawyers whose contract they had to sign to "make it big". The KLF wrote a book about how to have a hit single. You're thinking "free money" right? Wrong. The book explicitly warns you that having a hit single will lose you money. I know a dozen or more people who've been in a "real band" and they all had day jobs, because it doesn't pay. If you're /really/ good and you make it into a real job, where you get up and write songs, and practice and then go play songs live for an audience, then you can make a good living. But then you're not affected by copyright - bands that do this make most of their income from live performance. Typical professional musicians though aren't in a band. They get paid as work-for-hire, and so once again, copyright doesn't apply. Similarly, most composers aren't writing music in the hope that hundreds of people will buy the score and pay $50 each, they're writing it under contract "Intro to radio quiz show, upbeat and quirky".

You seem very confident that the monopoly has helped in some meaningful way. Actual studies are much less certain. Looking at the US for example, the US used to be a "pirate nation", it didn't observe copyright so that its citizens could get rich printing books written by Englishmen without paying royalties. Proponents of copyright said, as you are saying, that it would power an explosive increase in creativity because of the new incentive. They got their way but we don't really see the promised new creativity in the historical record. Quickly this argument was waved aside, in favour of the argument that the term of copyright needed to be increased in order to ensure the incentive was retained. And that's the same argument still being made today with copyright already essentially perpetual. "Longer terms, we must have longer terms" say the publishers. The creators are of course long dead.

Copyright

sepreece — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:49:01 +0000

"That is simply not true. Please explain how I can legally use BSD code after it is compiled and included in some proprietary binary? - I can't. You did say anyone, not just the first person to receive the code."

Presumably, you can get a copy from wherever the author of the proprietary program did. You have to distinguish between "the code" (the thing the original author wrote and licensed) and "a particular copy or derivative of the code" (which may or may not be available or visible to you).

Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations

kragil — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:46:33 +0000

From someone who knows a thing or two about gpl violations ;)

http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/2008/12/12/#20081212-f...

Copyright

sepreece — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:42:32 +0000

"What happens around my town is that building corporations come in, buy up a farm on the edge of town, then build a cluster of houses. They build the streets, provide for gas/water/sewage/electricity. (The electricity is provided by another private company working under contract from the state, but the gas/water/sewage, is city provided, but not city built.)"

In many places (like those around where I live), the infrastructure is typically built by the developer, but to specifications negotiated with the city/township/county, and ownership and operation of that infrastructure is passed to the government at completion of development (typically in phases as the development is built out).

Sometimes court can declare PART of the license "null and void"

khim — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:04:05 +0000

For example if your license demands that you'll chop your hand before you'll start using the program court will usually say it's "unreasonable demand" and THIS PART of the license will be declared null and void (but the license as whole will still be valid). But in reality this rarely happen: usually some part of the license can be voided only when license contains requirements which are specifically forbidden by some law.

Copyright

dskoll — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:53:11 +0000

Think it through, how does the elimination of a law granting a monopoly on /copying/ prevent people from taking photographs?

Of course it does not. But what incentive is there to become a professional photographer? You spend thousands on education, tens of thousands on equipment, and you take an amazing photo... which anyone is then free to reproduce and even sell without compensating you.

People made music before the "labels" and they'll make music after the labels are gone.

I don't care about labels. But without copyright, there would be almost no way to make money as a musician. You'd sell one CD, and that would be the end of it. Anyone else could copy and sell it without repercussions.

All that copyright does is create an artificial monopoly.

Yes, of course! Because the framers of copyright law wisely realized that a limited, time-limited monopoly was a huge incentive to encourage the creation of new works. Copyright law can provide a benefit to society. The fact that current copyright law sometimes does not is no reason to advocate throwing the whole thing out.

What copyright does in the post-scarcity era of digital information is distort the market. It creates the situation where your "small software company" writes software not because it needs software, and not even because someone else wants the software, but because it hopes, blindly, that lots of people will be willing to pay a small amount for individual copies of the software. And if you're wrong? The company goes to the wall. Copyright has made you a gambler. Without copyright, your company would exist to fill customer contracts, creating the software people want, rather than the software you hope someone might need.

Have you ever actually run a software company? I've been running one for nine years. Initially, every single one of our products was GPLd, and we survived on support contracts and development contracts. This did not scale. Creating a proprietary product has enabled us to increase our revenues and staff size by a factor of 10. It has enabled me to employ some really great developers who spend part of their time developing free software. And it has enabled us to produce a really nice product that (frankly) could never have happened under a Free Software development model. Before I started the proprietary product, I even *asked* on the mailing list for its GPL'd core if anyone would sponsor the new product (which I then would GPL.) No-one was willing to spend the money.

The fact is that copyright law permitted us to reduce the cost of production to the point where development of the product was feasible. Without copyright law, we'd be out of business and several talented FOSS developers would be out of work.

Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations

petegn — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:50:16 +0000

>> Wanna be safe - use BSD instead of Linux. :-)

Yea Yea Yea for sure <plonk>

Copyright

mgb — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:33:29 +0000

You appear to have just awoken from three hundred years of sleep so kindly permit us to update you on some of the developments over the last few centuries. Printing presses are much more common and much faster and there are new and amazing technologies such as color copiers, DVD burners, and computers.

Bands can make a few hundred dollars per concert when their promotion consists solely of free downloads by their existing fans. Bands can make a few hundred dollars per head at a concert when they are aggressively promoted through copyrighted materials. The choice belongs to the bands, not the anti-copyright parasites, which is as it should be.

Similarly software authors can choose how to license their creations, whether GPL or BSD or something nasty they made up after reading the first chapter of a law book. The choice belongs to the software authors, not the anti-copyright parasites, which is as it should be.

Without copyright their would be no shareware and no GPL, and far fewer people would become FLOSS authors for the honor of seeing their creations make fortunes for Bill Gates and nothing for them.

Frankly...

corbet — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:25:59 +0000

I hate to complain, but this is heading into the sort of discussion that I would really rather not see on LWN. We can disagree without being vulgar and insulting. Any chance of reining it in just a little bit?

Copyright

drag — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:19:56 +0000

Actually...

What happens around my town is that building corporations come in, buy up a farm on the edge of town, then build a cluster of houses. They build the streets, provide for gas/water/sewage/electricity. (The electricity is provided by another private company working under contract from the state, but the gas/water/sewage, is city provided, but not city built.)

So for things like streetlamps, garbage collection (which is another entirely private company), street cleanup and maintenance for those communities then everything is paid for by individuals who buy the houses and join the housing community.

All it all it works out quite well and even though your dealing with relatively small numbers of people the services are usually cheaper then what you pay in additional city taxes and the services are higher quality.

Dividing up street lamp into a individual ownership thing is a bit extreme, but that's one thing that can at least be taken care of fairly obviously without much need for high-levels of government.

------------------------------------------

Anarchy is a idealized society.

In a perfect society there is no need for any government or law or whatever because everybody behaves themselves. If they were to break any laws in todays society it would because they had a good and sound reason to.

Of course we both know that would never happen.

----------------------------

One thing though.... If you had a private police force that worked for the members in a community and had their paychecks come from those people directly and could be fired for pissing them off...

then they would be spending a great deal more of their time patrolling neighborhoods, investigating crimes, and protecting private property then going around and writing traffic violation tickets and essentially terrorizing motorists. (in a mild way, not a 'blow up your family' way)

It wouldn't be much different then what you have in small communities were you have a sheriffs that is elected and hired by the town to protect it, then that sheriff then selects deputies to assist him.

Of course in larger towns this sort of concept goes to shit. Stuffing millions of people into a relatively small area has always been a terrible idea, but it's just how things happen. And it destroys most of the justification for things like private police forces and whatnot.

Copyright

angdraug — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:53:17 +0000

to read that FAQ online

should read as "to read that FAQ offline", of course.

Copyright

angdraug — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:50:40 +0000

I can't speak for anarcho-capitalism brand of libertarians (the kind that would charge you for using streetlights), but if you're really curious, proper (i.e. anti-capitalist) anarchists do have a plan or two for the problem of crime, among many others. To keep this Linux-related, just apt-get install anarchism to read that FAQ online.

Copyright

k3ninho — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:46:06 +0000

The Berne Convention (home to the worldwide scope for protection of my copyrights in your country) identifies the moral right to be known as author. See Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works at Wikipedia.

Cisco likes OSS

dwmw2 — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:30:34 +0000

"As long as the binary wireless driver was in a state of "mere aggregation" (i.e. it was a loadable module and not compiled into the kernel image)..."

That's an 'interesting' interpretation of the phrase "mere aggregation on a volume of a storage or distribution medium", and not one with which I agree.

To me, it's obviously part of a greater whole; a coherent work which relies on both parts for its correct operation. And those parts are intimately tied together.

Some people make wild claims about what is meant by "mere aggregation..." which basically cover every form of combining works, and which would render the whole text about 'independent and separate works in themselves' completely ineffective — which is obviously not a reasonable interpretation.

You can't just say "well, I used 1000 lines of your source code and I aggregrated them with 1000 lines of my source code, in the same executable... and that's merely aggregation". It is aggregation, and the word 'mere' has no specific meaning so doesn't really help. But it's obviously inconsistent with the intent of the licence.

Your own interpretation doesn't seem to be very far from that extreme.

But neither of us is right or wrong until/unless a court has ruled on the matter.

Cisco likes OSS

tetromino — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:10:01 +0000

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

As long as the binary wireless driver was in a state of "mere aggregation" (i.e. it was a loadable module and not compiled into the kernel image), and as long as the wireless driver wasn't a "derived work" (wasn't heavily based on existing kernel code), Linksys was not violating paragraph 2, at least as far as the kernel is concerned.

[But in any case, that issue is not directly relevant to the lawsuit: the FSF does not have copyright for the kernel, and so doesn't have standing sue Linksys for the binary driver. Instead, they are claiming that Linksys did not provide source code for Glibc and GCC, and it was my impression that at least for the WRT54GL - don't know about other Linksys products - that this was not the case.]

Cisco likes OSS

nix — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:07:06 +0000

I think this is proportionate. The FSF gave Cisco *five years* to comply,
and they didn't bother. They obviously never would unless forced.

(Isn't this the first time the FSF has had to do something like this?
*Everyone* else has buckled and complied with the GPL faster than this,
usually much faster.)

Copyright

nix — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:03:49 +0000

I've long found anarchy curious, because it's self-evidently unstable. As
an anarchist how would you stop people from stealing the entire contents
of your house? You could hire men with guns to stop it (-> paying for
police), but how would you stop them from doing exactly the same thing?
Relying on their reputation sounds all very good until you realise that
you'd have to do that *every single day* and the first day you're unlucky,
you've lost everything.

(I had a discussion with a libertarian a while back in which it was
seriously proposed that streetlights should stay off unless you'd paid for
that specific streetlight, and that lighting away from your home should be
implemented by street-by-street reciprocal agreements. Thus we save the
huge expense of paying for public street lighting... and spend fifty times
as much on lawyers for an unreliable lighting system instead. Yay.)

Copyright

DonDiego — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:56:26 +0000

Frankly, you're a fucking idiot.

For a moment I feared I had to sit down and take the time to argue against some of your points. Thankfully you've already done a superb job of discrediting yourself and my efforts are no longer needed.

Copyright

hppnq — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:13:42 +0000

Imagine there's no Cisco, it's easy if you try
No RMS behind us, above us only Skype
Imagine all the people
Abandoning copyright

You may say you don't need it
And you're not the only one
I really hope someday some anarchist will write something non-copyrighted but intelligent and immensely popular and widespread about peace, love, tivoization and tolerance like the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta or a great recipe for chicken tikka or maybe some kernel driver
And the world will live as one