Free software? You can't just give it away

Times Online ^ | February 21, 2006 | Times Online

[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

[antiRepublicrat]

From Wikipedia, the "open source encyclopedia", again all very straightforward, except for those seemingly attempting to cover it all up:

Instead of reading from a third party, why don't you go to gnu.org and read Stallman's own history of how it all started. That fits with what I told you.

[eazdzit]

N3WBI3 stated:"Sorry guy; Capitalism, by definition, does not compel you to sell your private property. You can, so long as you choose to sell your private property but you may also give it away and still be a capitalist (because its *your* private property), you may also keep it to yourself (because its *your* private property).

"
Halfmanhalamazing stated: "Capitalism isn't only about money. It's about economic freedom. Source code is capital, and if one wishes to give away their code by their own free will that is within *THE VERY DEFINITION OF CAPITALISM*. It wasn't forced. They made that decision because it fit their business model the best according to their goals."

Golden Eagle stated: "It's not private property when you give it away for free, and private ownership is the basis of capitalism. The rest is just you spinning and distorting like usual.

"
MY COMMENTS: Very interesting comments. However let me give you some historical facts to factor into your conversation.

At one time IBM did not sell their equipment, they only rented it. They were forced to sell it by the government(around 1956). They proceeded to give systems engineering support and software to run the equipment for free. They were forced by the government to charge for both.(beginning June 23 1969)

Giving products away is anticompetitive to anyone producing and selling similar products. Whether and how long it is allowed and who will be allowed to do it is determined by politics.

For the sake of competition, politics trumps capitalism. Without competition monopolistic practices set in and progress and the consumer suffer. Look at banking consolidations and the accompanying 30% interest rates.

Just a couple of things to think about. Sorry I can't stick around.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Not for very long. The newest Palm Treos are capable of using Windows Mobile--the 700 model offered by Verizon already does.

The evidence for your being an MS shill lies in that you constantly harangue Open-Source for specific actions. Yet when MS does the exact same thing, you explicitly praise.

Why you aren't running a Palm Treo w/o WinMobile is beyond me. With your support of MS, and the knowledge that PalmSource (the current developer of the Palm OS) is going to base future releases of its OS on the Linux kernel

[antiRepublicrat]

Giving products away is anticompetitive to anyone producing and selling similar products.

Not always. What you're talking about is monopolistic competition performed by a company with a near monopolistic position in the market, specifically in this case dumping (putting out products below cost to harm competitors).

Linux is an example of growing towards an efficiency monopoly, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

[N3WBI3]

Giving products away is anticompetitive to anyone producing and selling similar products. Whether and how long it is allowed and who will be allowed to do it is determined by politics.

I will point out that giving something away and opensource are two totally different issues. MS gives away Internet Explorer, yet IE is not open source. FreeWare has been around forever yet mush of it is not OpenSource.

Microsoft gives away IE to anyone who follows the licensing conditions, same as Linux. Neither is anti-capitalisitc for doing so.

[Golden Eagle]

Giving products away is anticompetitive to anyone producing and selling similar products. Whether and how long it is allowed and who will be allowed to do it is determined by politics.

Great post, welcome to the discussion. And so far, the DNC is clearly on the side of 'open source'. Not only do all of their systems run on open source software, Howard Dean even refers to his campaign methods as "open source politics".

[Golden Eagle]

You mean you haven't heard? Torvalds did a practical 180 on GPL3 after the deluge of insults he suffered from the free software mob on message boards across the internet. Go look at newsforge.com, linuxtoday.com, etc, where Stallman was praised and Torvalds ridiculed. Torvalds latest comments re:GPL v3 are that it is now quote "quite possible".

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=13607

[Golden Eagle]

Why you aren't running a Palm Treo w/o WinMobile is beyond me.

You obviously don't know much about handhelds, either. FYI it is simply because it is a more mature device with many more 3rd party applications for it. My personal favorite is MobiTV, which isn't available for Windows Mobile devices. One day MS and their partners may offer something equivalent, but not yet, the Treo (and Blackberry, which I also have) are simply superior devices.

With your support of MS, and the knowledge that PalmSource (the current developer of the Palm OS) is going to base future releases of its OS on the Linux kernel.

You must mean the Japanese and Chinese that bought the Palm O/S spinoff that is no longer associated with the Palm hardware company. All indications are Palm will be using their current version of the the Palm O/S, and Windows Mobile, on future versions of their hardware, they've given zero indication they plan on supporting this foreign version of Linux on their devices. Obviously nor would I.

[Golden Eagle]

Microsoft gives away IE to anyone who follows the licensing conditions, same as Linux.

Leave it to newbi3 to show back up and attempt to compare apples to oranges. IE is an application, which requires a purchased operating system to function, not a full O/S complete with multiple applications. Also, Microsoft underwent an anti-trust suit related to giving away their browser. If free open source software ever achieves any significant market share, then we should expect the same, correct?

[rzeznikj at stout]

Nice try, but not even close--your article says diddly squat.

All it says is that Torvalds hasn't ruled out GPL v.3

The original comment was that when Torvalds said no way, that was for the then-current draft--which arguably was very political and extremely anti-capitalist in nature.

The GPL v.3 is undergoing revisions. If RMS's drivel in there is seriously toned down, the version might gain acceptance. Torvalds is merely saying Anything's Possible.

[rzeznikj at stout]

You obviously don't know much about handhelds, either.

I'll grant you that I'm no expert on handhelds. But I'm not a complete DUmmie about them either.

I have a simple palm pilot and a Nokia phone. Because I'm a college student, I can't afford a smartphone.

As for the Palm OS--Palm sold their OS to PalmSource for the future development of their OS. Even you have to admit it's a pretty stupid idea to sell the company's OS off for development and never use it. Especially if they plan to continue making products capable of using (what was) its own OS.

[Golden Eagle]

It clearly indicates his quote of the kernel becoming GPL3 as "quite possible", which is an essential 180 degree change from his previous comments. All Stallman had to do was publicly say "the Linux kernel developerS will decide" and wa-la Torvalds immediately started caving. Not to mention the kernel is only a small portion of "Linux distributions" and most everything else will certianly be converted. Even IF you hate admitting Stallman is firmly in control of the free open source software world, it's time you face up to it.

[N3WBI3]

Arnt you tired of getting schooled on stuff like this?

IE is an application, which requires a purchased operating system to function

No I can Run IE on a free copy of Linux. No OS purchased...

Also, Microsoft underwent an anti-trust suit related to giving away their browser.

And yet I can still download it free from their site on a Linux box.. They still give it away which, I think, is their prerogative.

If free open source software ever achieves any significant market share, then we should expect the same, correct?

Hey my beef with MS has never been they offer free addons to their product, trying to screw up Java was pretty lame but giving away IE and Media Player is just fine.

[Golden Eagle]

Every indication is Palm deeply regrets selling the Palm O/S now, since it is basically being sent to the graveyard by this foreign company more interested in developing a version of Linux. But instead of making the transition to Linux themselves, Palm has chosen to sell itself to the proverbial devil, Microsoft, instead. Just as Apple did with Intel, just as Sun did with SCO, maybe one day you'll realize many great American companies are doing most everything they can to thwart Linux without completely alienating these freakish Linux supporters permanently.

[rzeznikj at stout]

No it doesn't. As I've said, it seems the GPL v.3 is being toned down. Torvalds said no way to the then-current draft. It didn't necessarily imply he'd write off v.3 completely--just as it was written.

It doesn't take a genius to realize there's bad blood between Torvalds and RMS. It's just not logical (or very likely) that Torvalds will flip-flop.

[N3WBI3]

Sun did with SCO

Really? So Sun is selling Solaris and OpenUnix/UnixWare on the x86 now? I guess they must have forgotten to pull This page down..

[Golden Eagle]

Just because you hackers have cobbled together some bizzare way to run IE on Linux doesn't mean that it's completley legal or intended. Although I'm certainly not surprised you wasted effort massive amounts of effort just to run something you claim is inferior simply because you don't have to pay for it.

[rzeznikj at stout]

What indication?

Have you even considered that perhaps Palm senses something in basing their OS on the Linux kernel--and perhaps something that their own engineers and developers cannot do effectively?

Finally, Linux supporters aren't freakish. We just want a system that works and where the stability isn't at the mercy and whims of a single company.

[N3WBI3]

Just because you hackers have cobbled together some bizzare way to run IE on Linux doesn't mean that it's completley legal or intended.

Completely legal, if not I would never have done it (though I no longer needed it after one of our internal apps started supporting FireFox).

As for intended, the point is *MS gives it away*, hell I have a copy running on my Mac which was given away by MS.

Although I'm certainly not surprised you wasted effort massive amounts of effort just to run something you claim is inferior simply because you don't have to pay for it.

I have not contributed code to the WINE project, so my 'effort' was installing wine (clicking a link in the web browser) and then just running the exe to install ie. I did it because one of the apps we had purchased through a vendor did not work right on FireFox. They corrected the issue and IE is now gone on my box.

[Poser]

When you use free software, you get what you pay for. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, but you've got no right to complain about the quality, service or support.

Go Mozilla. So far, you browser has been adequate for most applications.