Democrats Seek to Outlaw Linux

The Age (Australia) and InformationWeek ^ | October | D. Ian Hopper, AP

[JohnathanRGalt]

Democrats Seek to Outlaw Linux

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., whose biggest political contributor is Microsoft, is seeking an end to GPL.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/24/1035416921766.html

Bid to outlaw GPL

October 24 2002

Leaders of the New Democrat Coalition in the US Congress are seeking to have licenses such as those in the GNU and GPL outlawed on the grounds that they are "restrictive, preclude innovation, improvement, adoption and establishment of commercial IP rights."

In a letter to fellow members of their coalition, the three members of Congress leading the charge - Adam Smith, Ron Kind and Jim Davis - claim that "the terms of restrictive license's (sic) - such as those in the GNU or GPL - prevent companies from adopting, improving, commercializing and deriving profits from the software by precluding companies from establishing commercial IP rights in any subsequent code."

The letter says: "Thus, if government R&D creates a security innovation under a restrictive license, a commercial vendor will not integrate that code into its software. So long as government research is not released under licensing terms that restrict commercialization, publicly funded research provides an important resource for the software industry."

Davis and Jim Turner, Ranking Member of the Reform Subcommittee on Technology, have drafted a letter to be sent to Richard Clarke, chairman of the President's Critical Infrastructure Board, expressing these sentiments, saying " it is essential that the National Strategy affirm federal tradition by explicitly rejecting licenses that would prevent or discourage commercial adoption of promising cyber security technologies developed through federal R&D." Members of the coalition have been urged to sign the letter to show their support.

---

http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20021024S0001

Congressman Criticized For Attacking Free Software Movement

Washington Rep. Adam Smith, whose biggest contributor is Microsoft, is blasted by head of a House technology committee.
By D. Ian Hopper, AP Technology Writer, Oct. 24, 2002

WASHINGTON (AP)--A congressman from Microsoft Corp.'s home state was criticized by the chairman of a House technology committee for an attack on the free software movement.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers had written a letter urging White House computer security adviser Richard Clarke to find sales opportunities for government-funded software projects. The letter had no mention of the issue of free software, also known as open-source or General Public License (GPL) software.

But when Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., whose biggest political contributor is Microsoft, began circulating the letter to his fellow Democrats asking for their signatures, he added his own correspondence, saying the free software philosophy is "problematic and threaten(s) to undermine innovation and security.''

The open-source movement advocates that software, such as the Linux operating system, should be distributed free and open to modification by others rather than treated as copyright-protected, for-profit property.

Smith's attack on open-source drew an angry response on Wednesday from one of the original authors of the letter, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy.

"We had no knowledge about that letter that twisted this position into a debate over the open source GPL issues,'' said Melissa Wojciak, staff director of the subcommittee. Wojciak added that Davis supports government funding of open-source projects.

Smith spokeswoman Katharine Lister said he has "definitely spoken with (Microsoft) about this issue,'' but that there wasn't a direct relationship between those discussions and his decision to write his letter to fellow Democrats.

Sixty-seven representatives signed the letter to Clarke; almost two-thirds were Democrats. "I'm going to hope that the people who signed on to the letter did their homework,'' Lister said.

Microsoft, whose Windows operating system competes with Linux, says open-source hurts a company's right to protect its intellectual property.

Microsoft is Smith's top source of donations. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Microsoft employees and its political action committee have given $22,900 to Smith's re-election campaign.

The original letter was fashioned by Davis and Jim Turner, D-Texas. They wanted the White House's national cybersecurity plan, which is set to be finished next month, to ensure that companies that develop software using federal funds are free to use the resulting products for commercial gain.

Clarke and his top spokeswoman were traveling Wednesday, and did not return a message seeking comment.

[xyggyx]

You know, sometimes Democrats are right!

I wouldn't really say that, but GPL bad for the public if the government decides to release ONLY GPL'd software.

GPL is like socialism... everyone can benefit, but nobody can profit.

With BSD/GPL2, everyone can benefit from the government work, but those that expand on the government work are allowed to sell the software for profit, building companies, creating jobs. Sure you can profit from GPL software, but only by selling support and services, not by improving the software.

[Bush2000]

Anyways, trying to ban a license is ridiculous. That guy is a nut.

Listen to you. You just answered the question of why government should not be advocating the GPL:

Why do you want the government telling you, the citizens, what you can do with software that they develop and distribute? Shouldn't you be allowed to profit off of work that you base off of government work that you pay for?

Clearly, having the government avoid the GPL is a good thing.

[B Knotts]

My point is simply that proprietary licenses are at least as restrictive as the GPL, and that one could argue that releasing gov't-funded code under GPL allows everyone equal access to it.

I can see the other side of the argument, but "restrictive" is sort of a relative term, depending on whether or not one is a proprietary software vendor.

What the heck is this GPL2, you're talking about, BTW? You mean GPL Version 2, or LGPL? Version 2 is still the current version of the GPL. GPL Version 3 is still being developed.

[xyggyx]

Clearly, having the government avoid the GPL is a good thing.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. The Democrats are trying to ban the GPL from the government. They don't realize that it's a very capitalist thing to do.

[xyggyx]

What the heck is this GPL2, you're talking about, BTW? You mean GPL Version 2, or LGPL? Version 2 is still the current version of the GPL. GPL Version 3 is still being developed.

Sorry, I meant LGPL. Everyone substitute LGPL for GPL2 in everything I said :)

[B Knotts]

Also, you, can, feel, free, to, disregard, some, of, my, commas,. :-)

[That Subliminal Kid]

Even though linux sucks beyond all imagination for anything but serving up data, this is beyond the pale even for Dems.

[Bush2000]

The Democrats are trying to ban the GPL from the government. They don't realize that it's a very capitalist thing to do.

Then don't tell them; otherwise, they'll channel Che Guevara for advice.

[TennesseeProfessor]

The GNU license is restrictive. If you use a GNU component in your program, it requires not just that you publish your own code, but anyone modifying your system must also publish their code ab infinitum. You could argue that open source is better than closed source, but you can not argue that the GNU license is "less restrictive" than say BSD or MIT's X11 license.

[xyggyx]

I was arguing that the GNU license is MORE restrictive than the BSD license. I'm not saying the government should not release source code. I think they should. It should be under a BSD or LGPL license and NOT GNU.

[rdb3]

The Penguin Ping.

Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!

Got root?

[TennesseeProfessor]

Absolutely agreed. Or even put it in the public domain.

[FreeTheHostages]

All Your Linux Are Belong to Us

[FreeTheHostages]

GPL is like socialism... everyone can benefit, but nobody can profit.

ROFL -- were you paid my Microsoft to post that or is it that you just know totally nothing about computers?

[Bush2000]

Absolutely agreed. Or even put it in the public domain.

Careful. The open source cultists are going to say that the public domain isn't "open" enough.

[FreeTheHostages]

Please Penguin ping me.

[rdb3]

Done deal.

[FreeTheHostages]

Hving the government avoid the GPL is a good thing

Funny. Lots of smart people dealing with national defense infrastructure don't think so. 'Course, unlike these Dems, they're not taking campaign contribs from Microsoft.

The idea that the best thing for the government is to rely on one operating system that, because it's not open source, will always be hackable, is absurd. You want security? Try Linux.

[JohnathanRGalt]

Rep. Adam Smith

You can't make stuff like this up. Presumably, the irony is lost on the congressman...

I suspect the Invisible Hand of Bill Gates had something to do with it:

..., he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

-- The Wealth of Nations, Book IV Chapter II

[RippleFire]

BUMP