Open Source Software Shows Its Muscle

Law.com ^ | June 3, 2008 | Edmund J. Walsh

[antiRepublicrat]

Two recent events should give for-profit companies new reasons to re-evaluate the ways in which they use open source software as well as the extent to which they use it. These events are: (1) the release of a new version of the widely used license that covers such software, i.e., the General Public License version 3, and (2) a round of lawsuits filed by the Software Freedom Law Center against for-profit companies using the software for commercial gain. Four companies to date, the largest of which is Verizon Communications Inc., have been sued for violation of the GPL.

Although the lawsuits are not about changed provisions in the GPL, both events are muscle-flexing by the free software community and, taken together, may foreshadow new risks in the irreconcilable conflict between open source software and its widespread use by for-profit companies. With the filing of court documents, a philosophical debate about the proper place for software in society has become a business dispute with the risk of substantial consequences. For-profit companies using open source software should take notice and understand the risks.

[Toskrin]

Under Marxism, charging for software support is perfectly acceptable because support is labor, not capital.

So it’s all good...

</sarc>

[Knitebane]

Good question, but more importantly in my mind, what do they want provided to them "for free" via a "tax" next?

You are some piece of work.

Despite having been debunked on numerous occasions you still trot out your "Stallman is going to tax us!!!11111" horsepucky.

The "software tax" reference that RMS made was a semi-humorous suggestion as to how to eliminate the Microsoft Tax.

You've been told this before and have slunk off quietly, only to resurface on new threads with the same tired, old, debunked FUD.

Begone, foul troll. Go back to your master in Redmond and report that you have failed once again.

[Still Thinking]

We agree that it would be wrong for Stallman to change the license to go after Google, but then you do that.

What do you mean by that? Did Microsoft play similar license games to rump wrangle Google? If so do you have a link? I'd be very interested to get more details.

[longtermmemmory]

The next world war is being fought with accountants and computer programers.

Essentially an enemy of the USA can do what microsoft did to netscape via giving away for free the internet explorer program back when netscape cost money.

(see also sovereign funds, comodity trading, currency trading, et al)

[Golden Eagle]

I don’t see his calls for a software tax as humorous at all, it’s listed right in his own “manifesto” under the section “Programmers need to make a living somehow” as his recommended solution. The only thing that’s funny is watching you try to deny it LOL.

http://www.gnu.org/manifesto.html

[Still Thinking]

It means they have to change their hardware to allow untrusted code. It's a software license controlling hardware design, simply unacceptable. And if the hardware isn't changed then you cannot ship that software on it. That doesn't seem to be very free to me.

No, I see what bornred's saying. GPL3 won't apply retroactively to whatever version of Linux is in the Tivo, so as long as that's all they need, they're fine.

Stallman's just saying that if there's something in new versions of Linux they would benefit from, they have to make it writable to use them. I wouldn't do that if I were Tivo, but it doesn't seem like changing the ground rules retroactively, because they won't apply to the old code anyway.

[antiRepublicrat]

What do you mean by that?

GE portrays proprietary software copyright enforcement as protecting rights, but portrays GPL software copyright enforcement as confiscation. I know, it is not consistent.

He is correct on the Google issue. Google has made massive contributions to Linux but has made very few public. They don't have to because they haven't distributed it, thus haven't invoked the give-back terms of the GPL. The FSF doesn't like this, and given the ideological extreme, anti-business direction they are going with the GPL I wouldn't be surprised if the next revision included a clause that would require Google to give up its proprietary additions to Linux. It has nothing to do with Microsoft.

[Knitebane]

I don’t see his calls for a software tax as humorous at all,...

That's because you are a humorless troll.

The only thing that’s funny is watching you try to deny it LOL.

I find it supremely amusing that the link you posted gets 404'd.

Good luck in learning how to use the Internet.

LOL indeed.

[Golden Eagle]

Because I have more important things to do than educate the uneducatable, but here it is again for the benefit of others since you will surely still deny.

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

[Still Thinking]

Well, specifically I was asking about the "and then you do that" part which made it sound like GE or someone he supports did something similar to what he's complaining about Stallman doing, thus exposing himself to charges of hypocrisy. I got the parts that you reirterated in the response, but not the other part.

[Golden Eagle]

Copyright, I support. Copyleft extensions to copyright, put out by radical leftists and still unproven specifically in US court, I don’t, hence your whining.

[Knitebane]

He is correct on the Google issue.

Not really.

Google has made massive contributions to Linux but has made very few public.

Google has published a lot of GPL software, including Linux versions of many of their products, sponorship for the Summer of Code, and hosting for Open Source projects.

It would be incorrect to say that the FSF has an issue with Google using GPL code internally and not releasing the changes, as this is entirely in line with the GPL. It would be more correct to say that Richard Stallman would like Google to open up their internal changes:

1. Stallman is not the FSF.

2. Thinking it would nice if Google opened up their changes is a far cry from making them do so.

And the FSF and Google are apparently on quite good terms: The GNU Hurd project has been accepted as a mentoring organisation for the Google Summer of Code 2008!

[antiRepublicrat]

No it doesn't

Yes it does, right here on this board, I've seen it. It gets people to mix up the four different things in it. They'll be talking about patents using "IP" but think rules related to copyright, or vice-versa, or mix trademark with copyright. Then of course the name makes them think property rules apply, but they don't because it's not property. They are wildly different subjects, so we shouldn't be lumping them together or calling them property.

First of all, he wants to deny the institution of intellectual property even exists and that it is purely a lump term of certain laws.

But that's exactly what it is as I have shown.

What we have are three separate sets of laws which reflect the social institution of intellectual property.

We have four sets of laws that were developed long before the term intellectual property was invented. I don't see any social institution except for maybe patent and copyright, which is a constitutional pact between the producer and the public for public benefit (no, the end purpose is not the benefit of the producer, that is only a means to an end).

Private property ownership is governed by disparate sets of laws as well. Does that mean that private property does not exist?

Private property encompasses, well, private property. You actually own something tangible. "Intellectual property" covers completely different concepts (constitutional quid pro quo, consumer protection and secrets), none dealing with property. The first three are only government-granted limited monopolies.

Secondly, he states the the free software movement is a political movement.

It is when Stallman starts getting ideological that I split into complete disagreement with him on this subject. My objections are mainly constitutional.

[Knitebane]

but here it is again for the benefit of others since you will surely still deny.

I'm glad you posted the correct link. Now I can (once again) thrash you publicly for your distortions.

Do note that the "software tax" section you posted is listed as one of several possible ways for programmers to get paid for writing open source software and not a recommendation.

It's listed as a response to the usual whining that closed-source programmers make.

Ironic, since closed-source programmers use the taxpayer-supported copyright system to make their money.

[antiRepublicrat]

Well, specifically I was asking about the "and then you do that"

That refers to GE's double standard for copyright enforcement. He uses the fallacy that Stallman can force the release of proprietary code (he can't) to support this double standard.

[bornred]

I don’t see his calls for a software tax as humorous at all, it’s listed right in his own “manifesto”

Face it bud, the guy's a kook and there's no chance that any of this nonsense will ever actually happen.

[Still Thinking]

Ah, got it. Thank you.

[Knitebane]

Copyleft extensions to copyright, put out by radical leftists...

And yet supporting leftists like Bill Gates is apparently okay with you.

still unproven specifically in US court,

LIAR!

The GPL was upheld by a US District Court in Wallace v. FSF

[antiRepublicrat]

Copyleft extensions to copyright

It is a license, operating under the exact same rules as any other license. You concentrate on ideology, I concentrate on law.

and still unproven specifically in US court

Nope, every defendant here has been smart enough to settle, so it's never gotten to court. The fact that Cisco, a multi-billion dollar corporation up against the the tiny non-profit FSF, settled is quite an indicator of its validity.

However, it has been proven in German court.

[Knitebane]

See My post #78