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
Not in the current business environment, but at the time IE was made free it was an exercise in monopolistic dumping.
You read the blurb. Read the whole story.
"I end up having to be fairly vocal about it, just because I have to explain to people -- most of whom hate DRM -- why the key-signing clauses are problematic, and why we don't even want to entertain upgrading the license as it stands now."The difference between Linus and Stallman is easily summed up here:
I think Linux has made the GPL more 'socially acceptable,' by being a hell of a lot less religious about it than the FSF was. ... To me the point of the GPL is not the 'convert the infidels' logic, but something totally different: 'quid pro quo.'"
In the article he still says now way as the draft stands now (see my other post). It is still a draft. He may accept the GPL3 final version for Linux if they remove the offending parts.
What does that have to do with any of this?
In the context of a monopoly it was dumping. The OEM thing was technically tying, another aspect of monopolistic practices. These things can be okay in general, but the context of the (then) current business environment and state of technology they were illegal.
Where's your proof? Why should I believe anything you say, I've already busted you for lying on this exact thread!
Got something from Microsoft, saying this is allowed and that you face no liability for running it on Linux?
Apple dumped Linux supporter IBM's chips to allow users to dual boot Windows and OSX on Intel, a response to Linux gaining on if not already passing Apple market share.
Hysterical! Do you even know what you just linked? Do you even know the difference between Palm and PalmSource, or what me and renuzit were talking about? Apparently not! But, it didn't stop you from coming along with one of your foreign sources and claiming to! LMAO!
Obviously, as we are now seeing. Practically everyone else will to, it's Stallman's lead.
That's the first time I've heard that one. Most believe it's any or all of these reasons
No doubt the notebook processors were a big reason why, but free Linux is eating *nix's lunch in many cases, and that includes OSX. Solaris can now go toe to toe on Intel, and so will OSX. Not sure how you never understood what was going on, when two of the most well known journalists covering Linux and Apple were all over it.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1824810,00.asp
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BD0E8469A%2D28FC%2D415D%2D9281%2DC97B5FA2CA3D%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=nbs
Huh? Apple dumped Intel because they were not happy with the heat issues on the G5 that kept apple from putting their top of the line processors in the powerbook. It was a good decision based on the architecture of the chips and apples needs. Linux was nowhere by apple was mentioned as a factor.
So what? They are obvious and natural competitors, battling for number 2 on the desktop. The point remains, the threat of free software like Linux is causing heretofore unthinkable partnerships, from Palm and Microsoft, to Sun and Microsoft, to Apple and Intel. Without the arrival of open source like Linux none of those partnerships would have happened. To think it was all simply simultaneous coincidence is laughable. IBM is the only major vendor contributing to GPL software, all others are either exploiting it, isolating it, or buying it and killing it.
So... unless youre a mindreader you have no factual basis for the statement "they did it because of Linux"
I don't think I've ever seen a thinner spine. At least you haven't balled to the moderator yet, or maybe you have but they figured it's time you finally spent an afternoon on your own.
You mean Mr. "I've been becoming increasingly unhinged lately" Dvorak?
Linux is nowhere a danger to Windows or OS X on the public desktop for the near future. The user experience is too fragmented for Joe User. If it were warranted, Apple had ample opportunity to be afraid of Linux already since Linux has been running on PPC for a while. Linux Torvalds' preferred machine is Linux on a PowerMac.
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.