Posted on 02/23/2006 7:31:29 AM PST by N3WBI3
Who could be upset by a scheme that allows free use of software? Well, Gervase Markham has found one Trading Standards officer who is
Who could possibly be upset with the Mozilla Foundation for giving away its Firefox browser?
One of my roles at the Mozilla Foundation relates to copyright licensing. I'm responsible for making sure that the software we distribute respects the conditions of the free software licences of the underlying code. I'm also the first point of contact for licensing questions.
Most of the time, this job involves helping people who want to use our code in their own products understand the terms, or advising project members who want to integrate code from another project into our codebase. Occasionally, however, something a little more unusual comes along.
A little while ago, I received an e-mail from a lady in the Trading Standards department of a large northern town. They had encountered businesses which were selling copies of Firefox, and wanted to confirm that this was in violation of our licence agreements before taking action against them. * Click here to find out more!
I wrote back, politely explaining the principles of copyleft – that the software was free, both as in speech and as in price, and that people copying and redistributing it was a feature, not a bug. I said that selling verbatim copies of Firefox on physical media was absolutely fine with us, and we would like her to return any confiscated CDs and allow us to continue with our plan for world domination (or words to that effect).
Unfortunately, this was not well received. Her reply was incredulous:
"I can't believe that your company would allow people to make money from something that you allow people to have free access to. Is this really the case?" she asked.
"If Mozilla permit the sale of copied versions of its software, it makes it virtually impossible for us, from a practical point of view, to enforce UK anti-piracy legislation, as it is difficult for us to give general advice to businesses over what is/is not permitted."
I felt somewhat unnerved at being held responsible for the disintegration of the UK anti-piracy system. Who would have thought giving away software could cause such difficulties?
However, given that the free software movement is unlikely collectively to decide to go proprietary in order to make her life easier, I had another go, using examples like Linux and the OpenOffice office suite to show that it's not just Firefox which is throwing a spanner in the works.
She then asked me to identify myself, so that she could confirm that I was authorised to speak for the Mozilla Foundation on this matter. I wondered if she was imagining nefarious copyright-infringing street traders taking a few moments off from shouting about the price of bananas to pop into an internet cafe, crack a router and intercept her e-mail.
However, the more I thought about it, providing a sensible reply to that question is somewhat difficult. How could I prove I was authorised to speak for the Foundation? We're a virtual organisation – we have three employees, one in Vancouver, one in Virginia and one in leafy North London, with no office or registered trading address in the UK. As far as the Mozilla part of my life goes, my entire existence is electronic.
In the end, I just had to say that the fact that I am capable of receiving and replying to e-mail addressed to licensing@mozilla.org would have to be sufficient. She would just have to take it on trust that I was not a router-cracking banana merchant. She must have done so, as I never heard from her again.
While the identity verification aspect of this incident is amusing, what is more serious is the set of assumptions her e-mails implied. It demonstrates how the free software model disrupts the old proprietary way of doing things, where copying was theft and you were guilty until proven innocent.
In a world where both types of software exist, greater discernment is required on the part of the enforcers. I hope this is the beginning of the end of any automatic assumption that sharing software with your neighbour must be a crime.
Gervase Markham says that he works for the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting choice and innovation on the internet. Of course, he may just be a banana seller. His blog is Hacking For Christ
Good one, and Stallman still hates them for using Java.
Most are GPL because the authors chose to release it that way. And if they decide to release their $100,000 worth of code as GPL because they're facing a copyright infringement suit, you somehow think that's wrong. But you don't think it's wrong if someone's facing a copyright infringement suit from Microsoft and has to pay up $100,000.
Common Development and Distribution License
New BSD license
Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL)
Sun Industry Standards Source License (SISSL)
And many others, in addition to these I dont have any fundamental problems with closed source licenses..
BTW, as far as sneaky clauses, have you seen some commercial software licenses? They'll sue you if you benchmark their application and publish the results. Surely you condemn that.
Yea just the other day I was programming and some buy from the FSF started buying me drinks, Next thing I remember I woke up in a strange server room and all my code had been released under the GPL....
I reject the premise that private property can't be given away.
Your buddy says 80 percent are GPL, you mean you're not going to question or insult him about it too? Why not? Because you're finally ready to admit 80 percent of all OSS is licensed by that "rabid anti-capitalist"? Might as well since you got blown out of the water trying to deny it.
insult him about it too?
No inslut intended, you have in the past posted that Linux only had a 10% share, when pushed for a source it turned out to be closer to 20%
Because you're finally ready to admit 80 percent of all OSS
If you count every little never got off the ground alpha project on sourceforge, maybe. But if you count mainstream in use software like the contents of a RedHat CD its far south of 80%.
"rabid anti-capitalist"
I have written some code that is GPL, never once did I have to clear anything with that nutball RMS..
Because I only said that's the high number I've heard. I don't claim it's true, only that's what I've heard. I remember numbers quite a bit lower than your 70%+ too. Like it matters anyway.
Absolutely. I'm against all licenses that steal from users or leave them vulnerable to lawsuits. Based on most legal analysis, Stallman's are the worst.
Do whatever you want, but those claiming the giving of private property to the community is the prime example of capitalism have definitely lost it.
Proof? Let's see it.
Just like those claiming that licensing your IP anyway you want is not Capitalism have lost it?
This I know to be a lie. You can admit it now or I will post the link shortly.
http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html
Youll notice I find sources with a methodology listed.
Post it! You said 10-15% worldwide, the article said 15-20% in north America!
63% is not significantly less than 75%. Stallman's licenses are still the predominant licenses on even the commercial versions of Linux.
If you can't do what you want with your property it's not private nor are you free.
N3WBI3 says: "But if you count mainstream in use software like the contents of a RedHat CD its far south of 80%."
One: I never said far south of 75%, I said 80%. But just make up whatever you want, were used to it.
Two: 63 is only three quarters of 80, I know 25% might now be significant to you, at least its not when it suits you, but it is, in fact, significant.
Stallman's licenses are still the predominant licenses on even the commercial versions of Linux.
And yet RedHat is a growing, healthy company kinda shows the the GPL and capitalism are not incompatible... thanks for making my point, it took me awhile to lead you here but that statement was worth the time..
That's almost every commercial license out there, as they usually curtail your fair use rights.
Specifically, that clause I mentioned has been in in Microsoft's license for SQL Server for a while, and they have threatened legal action over benchmark results that were unfavorable to their product, stopping the publication. Using a license to quash freedom of speech, gotta love it. That is one evil software license, far worse than any free license I've ever seen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.