Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Responses to ADTI Paper 273

Posted by michael from the trolling-for-microsoft dept.
Everyone and their brother has something to say about the silly and incoherent ADTI paper released yesterday. It doesn't even seem worth the effort to me - it's so internally inconsistent that I can't imagine it convincing anyone of anything. Nevertheless, David Skoll of Roaring Penguin has a good rebuttal, and Newsforge ? pointed out that the MITRE study that's been kicking around for so long is now public, and took a look at the differences between the two. Update: 06/11 18:43 GMT by M : Another rebuttal, by John Viega and Bob Fleck of Secure Software.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Responses to ADTI Paper More

Responses to ADTI Paper

Comments Filter:
  • Was this really sponsored my Microsoft? Is there proof of that?
    • I think you raise an important point. Obviously, this study is severly flawed, and may well have been bought by M$. But, really, does it matter? Even if it was financed by M$, does that mean the conclusions was influenced by M$?

      We should be really careful about rejecting a study just because it was financed by somebody Big and Evil. It could backfire.

      You know, most organizations need to take money from someone to keep up their work. Especially if you're fighting in court.

      OK, say for example that EFF takes money from a consumer electronics manufacturer, that really don't want DRM, because it would hurt their business.

      The next thing you know is RIAA screams "EFF is just a bunch of thieving lapdogs for the consumer electronics industry, stealing the bread off the table of the poor, starving artists."

      Unless we focus on arguments, and show how arguments are flawed, this will certainly happen some day.

    • Re:Microsoft sponsored (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nathanm ( 12287 )
      From this [wired.com] Wired article:

      A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft provides funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.
      Need any more proof?
  • So you mean to tell me that all the trouble we went through switching to Windows yesterday was for nothing?

  • is the ADTI (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Karma Star ( 549944 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @11:40AM (#3680043) Journal
    really just a front for MS to push a political agenda around? i've never heard of ADTI (although i do know who Alexis DeTocqueville is) until now, and they don't seem to be a legitimate research organization.

    really, if open source poses a threat to national security because of the availability of the source code, then we should also remove all books from libraries because of the same threat they pose to national security.

    • Re:is the ADTI (Score:2, Funny)

      by kefoo ( 254567 )
      we should also remove all books from libraries because of the same threat they pose to national security.

      ACK! Please don't give the government any ideas!


    • > eally just a front for MS to push a political agenda around? i've never heard of ADTI (although i do know who Alexis DeTocqueville is) until now, and they don't seem to be a legitimate research organization.

      No, they're a "think tank" that will do a hatchet job on anything any right wing or pro-business group is willing to pay them for.

      (Not to imply that similar services aren't available to left wing / anti-business groups, albeit from other service providers.)

  • Not Convincing? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @11:43AM (#3680069) Journal
    I don't know what you all are talking about. I thought it was very convincing.

    And I'm a senator. My constituency trusts me to make decisions for them. Why else would Disney^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe people of South Carolina elect me?

  • What surprises me... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) <jhummel&johnhummel,net> on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @11:44AM (#3680074) Homepage
    Is how obviously biased the paper is - it's badly sourced, badly written, badly argued (there's holes in their arguments big enough to drive the proverbial truck through, like, "GNU doesn't let you steal source code for profit - the bastards!" - when proprietary licenses will throw you in jail for stealing source code), and so far, badly taken by anyone who knows anything about technology.

    The counter argument (I read it on The Register this morning) is well written, well argued, has plenty of great sources, and except for the "Adapt or Die" bit repeated over and over again which showed his own bias (cool, but probably not the professional white paper people care about), it was a convincing argument.

    So what was the point? If this "independant think tank" was paid for this research, whoever funded them should ask for a refund. If they did it to prove a point, someone should go back to "Presenting Important Arguments 101" and come back when they can present a logical, convincing argument.

    All this appears to be is something a backpocket Sentator can wave and say "Look at this important research that proves why we need the GNU Illegal Code Act of 2003!". And sadly, most voters won't care because they don't know any better.

    Then again, my 3 month old son doesn't know he shouldn't eat his hand. Same difference, I guess.
    • and except for the "Adapt or Die" bit repeated over and over again which showed his own bias.

      Tough! Adapt or Die!

    • Re:What surprises me... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by krlynch ( 158571 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @12:11PM (#3680273) Homepage

      The counter argument (I read it on The Register this morning) is well written,

      I have to vehemently disagree with this. NEITHER of the linked rebuttals qualifies as well written; the MITRE report qualifies as well written, and so does most of the AdTI report, but the rebuttals to the AdTI report do not. They BOTH make the mistake that continues to negatively impact the arguments of Open Source/ Free Software advocates: childish personal attacks. Continually repeating phrases like (paraphrasing here) "Microsoft, err, AdTI, says" and "worried about losing the Trophy Wife and the vacation home in the Bahamas" are NOT logical arguments for the superiority of open source software, and they make the open source community look bad. Logic alone will not win the day....

      So, while the AdTI piece is certainly poorly researched, corporate pandering tripe, it is likely to have a much MUCH larger impact on policy makers than any rebuttal, not BECAUSE of its accuracy, but because of its tone. Open Source gets bitten by this all the time, and the advocates don't seem to be learning.

        • NEITHER of the linked rebuttals qualifies as well written [both make] childish personal attacks.

        I take your point, but I rather think that the point that the rebutters are making is that the AdTI article is so blatantly biased that it simply doesn't deserve to be treated seriously.

        I suspect the problem that we're seeing here is really that news publications will run the most inflamatory rebuttals rather than the driest, most factual ones. It's easy to argue that rebutters should just stick to the facts, but then they'd vanish without trace and we'd just end up reading equally inflamatory replies from different sources. On balance, I believe that both rebuttals do a good job of balancing necessary publisher appeal with useful references.

      • NEITHER of the linked rebuttals qualifies as well written; the MITRE report qualifies as well written, and so does most of the AdTI report, but the rebuttals to the AdTI report do not.
        I agree MITRE's report is well written, as should be expected. They're a well known, reasonably respected think tank.

        However, the AdTI report is worse than many poorly written high school papers I've seen. They have trouble with basic grammar. I'd never heard of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute before this debacle. Now I know why. They're a complete and utter disgrace to the name.

      • Its seems like the intended audience for his counter rant was pretty much the slashdot crowd itself (the proverbial "choir")

        Any version of it to be sent to an "outsider" would probably have to be cleaned up, or in other words boring-erized.

        Its very difficult to write a logically strong argument that is both business/professinal as well as interesting/readable. (The recent writings of peruvian congressmen qualify as both)

        It would be preferable to me if the rigid business types were a little more forgiving of humor, and accepting of unproven yet obvious anecdotes (such as the fact the ADTI is a blatant shill).

      • The answer is simple, we need JohnKatz to write a rebuttal. One he's finished talking about the benefits of Open Source in a post-9/11 world. The impacts of open source on globalization, and the importance of impartial reports in a digital era people will be so fed up with the debate that the AdTI report will be forgotten completely!
    • "If this "independant think tank" was paid for this research, whoever funded them should ask for a refund. "

      No what needs to happen is that this think tank should be taken to task. There should be public humuliation of this think tank for their bias and for their stupidity. The gramatical errors make excellant fodder and they should be publicly derided as a stupid lot who can not even put together a decent piece of propaganda.

      This will accomplish two things.
      1) It will cancel any effect the paper might have.
      2) It might discourage MS (or anybody else) from hiring them again.

      It's not bad to go calling people names. Microsoft calls open source developers communists and un-american, Bush calls North Korea evil etc. If you keep calling people names eventually those names will stick, they know whis and we need to as well. It's time to think of things to call your enemies (make no mistake they see you as their enemies) and to start calling them by that name every chance you get. It will stick sooner or later.

    • Then again, my 3 month old son doesn't know he shouldn't eat his hand. Same difference, I guess.

      HEY! Hand is good eatin'.

  • How much do you think ADTI would charge to conduct another unbiased study that completely counters and argues against their original report?

  • Wired Article (Score:5, Informative)

    by Target Drone ( 546651 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @11:50AM (#3680115)
    Wired has an article from almost a week ago titled Did MS Pay for Open-Source Scare [wired.com].
  • Dave does good work. He has a weekly column at @monitor.ca [monitor.ca] That is full of good Linux information. The column can be reached directly at volXissY/lnxstuff.html [monitor.ca]

  • Running a business is a privilege (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Neil Watson ( 60859 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @11:50AM (#3680120) Homepage
    I like this part:

    The government's productive alliance with private enterprise is also relevant particularly when its decision to use GPL source code would inherently turn away many of its traditional partners. Security, as well as other impracticalities make GPL open source very unattractive to companies concerned about intellectual property rights. In effect, the government's use of GPL source code could inevitably shut out the intellectual property based sector.

    The Government must choose software to maximize national security and minimize government expenditure. It owes absolutely nothing to the "IP-based sector" or any other corporation. What was it I said before? Oh, yes: "Tough. Adapt or die."

    It seems to me that many corporations are complaining about loosing their ability to make a profit. They expect the government to legislate things to help them. The author hints to this here but, let me add to it:

    Running a business is a privilege granted by the people (business/vendor license). There are no rights, promises, or guarantees that running a business will earn any profit.

    • Business licenses aren't much of a privlege. It would be wrong to grant or revoke licenses without clear rules and due process. They should not be a significant barrier to business.

      Running a business is even less of a privilege. In many fields, you can run a business simply by saying you are doing so (and later filling out appropriate tax forms). If someone is paying you, and you are not their employee, you've just started running a business. (Maybe it's harder in other countries, but thankfuly this is all easy in the US)

      A corporation is a privilege, as it gives you extra rights and protections. You don't need a corporation to run a business.

      However, your underlying point that there is no guarantee or right to make a profit, and that remains true.

  • OS, GPL, and Linux'll lose in the long term. Why? Because they play fair!

    It doesn't matter that they are technically, practically and totally better than any alternative from M$ or any other company. The EFF simply does not have enough money to line the pockets of the next politician or lawyer that's against them.

    In order to win, you'd have to be orders of magnitude better than any commercial alternative. In a fair fight, you'd win, but there ain't going to be any fair fight!

    As long as anyone can get money from dubious practices, GPL will be ridiculed.
    • 1. "Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb" -Dark Helmet

      2. Mod the parent up, and emblazon it onto as many cluesticks as possible. Then -maybe- we can beat it into the heads of those who matter and actually come up with a better way of fighting the good fight.

  • Thanks, MS. (Score:3, Funny)

    by OpenSourced ( 323149 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @11:57AM (#3680170) Journal
    Perhaps the AdTI misses the point. GPL advocates do not care if GPL'd software can be made to work in a proprietary business model. It's not our problem. There's no God-given right for proprietary software vendors to make money; they have to compete. And if the rules of the marketplace suddenly change and make it difficult for them, well---tough. Adapt or die. Don't moan.



    Yup, I think that's the point I've always wondered at. Why is MS so upset at the GPL? Nobody is forcing anybody to use it (to my knowledge,at least. Long-haired liberals may have kidnapped some CEOs and forced them to renounce Microsoft and all its pomps and works since I last checked, but I rather doubt it).


    So I suppose it's only some kind of friendly warning to innocent users (as we all know that nobody ever reads licenses, uhh... wait a moment...). If it's so, well... thanks and all that. Nice from you to spend all those dollars in raising the public awareness of the problem. I think the point is already made, thanks, walk along, it's been a pleasure, we already know what we are doing, thanks, keep moving.

    • Re:Thanks, MS. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by David Gerard ( 12369 ) <slashdot&davidgerard,co,uk> on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @01:09PM (#3680665) Homepage
      Yup, I think that's the point I've always wondered at. Why is MS so upset at the GPL?

      This goes back to the Halloween Papers [opensource.org] - which correctly identified the GPL as "immune to FUD tactics". But that's all they've got, so they're trying it again and again.

      Microsoft's competition model is to wound their enemy (Netscape, Word Perfect, Novell) and wait for them bleed to death. Copyleft (the GPL, the MPL) is the wound to Microsoft that they cannot heal.

  • While the original ADTI report is blatant bias, the rebuttal isn't exactly above and beyond that either.

    While I agree with most of the rebuttal, there are a few points that the author's zealotry shows through just as badly as in the Micros.... I mean ADTI report. Example being this:

    There are two groups of programmers that contribute to the open source community. The first group consists of professionally hired programmers by day, who freely contribute code. The second group consists of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that are hiring open source programmers for their products. However, open source principally perpetuates itself because there is an avid pool of experts and enthusiasts willing to spend their spare time to provide fixes and modifications to open-source software. This volunteer system works well as an academic model, but not as a business one.

    Who cares about business models? We have Linux, Apache, Mozilla, Gnome, KDE, Perl, Python, PHP, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and so on in spite of the supposed lack of a business model. What we see here is more whining from proprietary vendors about how free software is hurting their business model. Let's hear the refrain: "Tough. Adapt or die."


    About the only thing that I find arguable about that small section of the ADTI report is the part about Open Source not working for a business model. First thing that David Skoll indicates is that he doesn't care about business models.

    When are the open source zealots (I said zealots not supporters, they AREN'T the same) going to realize that 100% open source isn't truely viable, and that a BALANCE is necessary.

    Oh well, at least this one wasn't a Microsoft front.

    SUMMARY:

    The rebuttal is factually (much) more accurate, but just as zealous as the ADTI report.
    • When are the open source zealots (I said zealots not supporters, they AREN'T the same) going to realize that 100% open source isn't truely viable, and that a BALANCE is necessary.

      What "balance" is necessary if making money is orthogonal to a project's goals? What "balance" was necessary to make Apache a success?

      What exactly do you mean by "balance"? It's a nice-sounding word, but I do not think you used it in any meaningful way.

      Do you mean that some programs in the marketplace are GPL and some are not? That is what we have today. And if you agree, then what is your point about needing "balance"?

      Or do you mean that the ideal license is somewhere in between the extremes of GPL and the most onerous Microsoft EULA? That doesn't make any sense. If the extreme EULAs did not exist, there'd be no need for the GPL. The GPL brings "balance" by providing an alternative to onerous proprietary licenses.

      So what do you mean by "balance is necessary?"

      • Re:Bias on bias (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Dark Nexus ( 172808 )
        Well, a bit of both of what you suggested. But I should note that I never said it doesn't already exist. My comments were directed at the views expressed in the rebuttal, NOT towards the current state of software.

        When I said balance is necessary, I mostly meant that there be both open source and closed source programs out there. With regards to this, my point was that the author of the rebuttal, at times, seems to be advocating 100% GPL'd software. That's NOT balance.

        As for a blend of the extremes as you called them, some balance there in the form of more software being released somewhere in the middle, such as the licsencing scheme used by BitMover for BitKeeper (described in this [kerneltrap.org] interview) would be nice.

        With this point, I think more balance would be achieved through a more co-operative existance between open and closed source. Of course, I can't expect we'll ever see Microsoft being part of such an initiative.

    • When are the open source zealots (I said zealots not supporters, they AREN'T the same) going to realize that 100% open source isn't truely viable, and that a BALANCE is necessary.

      I think you've got it wrong. He's not saying that everything must be open source. He's saying that open source and proprietary software should compete. He's rebutting the argument made by the report's author that the government should not use open source software. It's the proprietary vendors that are trying to make things 100% proprietary software here by discrediting open source.

      • Actually, he makes several comments that can easily and logically be interpreted (possibly misinterpreted, I'll admit that, I'm not a mind reader) as indicating that he IS advocating that.

        Beyond the paragraph I quoted in my original post, here's another more blatant one.

        On the contrary, it is imperative that businesses rely solely on free software for access to critical information. Only in this way can they guarantee access to their data, and not be held hostage by proprietary file formats and proprietary vendors.


        While he makes a good point about proprietary file formats, he falls into the same trap that he accuses ADTI of using by failing to mention that closed source software doesn't HAVE to use proprietary file formats. Microsoft chooses to, but that's Microsoft. Take a look at MP3s. That's not a proprietary file format, and yet there seems to be closed source softare that makes use of it...

        • Actually, that quote is from Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nunez, the Peruvian legislator that is part of a group proposing that the government of Peru use only open source software in cases where it is available and meets the needs of the state. You can read his response to a letter written by the head of Microsoft's Peru office here [linuxtoday.com].

          Even that one doesn't propose to do away with proprietary software, or prohibit it from competing for government contracts if it can meet the requirements of the state for openness. I recommend reading the full letter. It's quite interesting and well-written.

          • No, that's from the author of the rebuttal, copy & pasted from the paragraph right BEFORE he quotes Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nunez. It's at about the half point in the rebuttal, if you want to check. Just do a find for Nunez.

            But you're right about the letter, and Dr. Nunez's proposal.

            • Whoops. Yep, you're right. I got it mixed up. Anyway, it is a bit zealous, but he's also correct about not relying on proprietary software (that uses proprietary data formats) for critical data. The Nunez letter just fills in the reasons. His letter refers to the needs of the state, where Skoll's article refers to businesses. I think the argument for the state is a good one. The argument for businesses is also good, but not as strong. I think that some proprietary software could meet the more limited needs of business a lot easier than it could meet the needs of a government like that of Peru. The bottom line is that both Skoll and Nunez believe that open source makes more sense where availability and retainability of data are concerned. I don't think either are trying to get rid of proprietary software. They are just saying that proprietary vendors may need to meet some different requirements that are currently only filled by open source software. They both seem to want competition. Skoll's refrain of "adapt or die" seems to indicate this.

    • Raise your hand if you write off-the-shelf s/w (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sab39 ( 10510 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @12:29PM (#3680405) Homepage
      If you ever get the opportunity, try asking for a show of hands at a computer convention of any kind, for all the people who work writing off-the-shelf software. Last I heard, the number was typically well below 20%.

      The rest work in a variety of areas, ranging from custom embedded systems (where the license of your code matters not one iota because the code can't be changed once the device is manufactured, and it's only useful to the one device anyway) to custom software such as web application development or "enterprise" business logic (where the license of the code matters not one iota because it's never released, and only useful to the one company anyway).

      So at worst, if all off-the-shelf software were eliminated, the software industry would shrink by 20%.

      More likely, companies with large software requirements (like needing 100,000 installations of an office suite) will channel some of the money they're not spending on licenses and employ some programmers to answer the question of "where do we get bugfixes from if there's no company to turn to?". Once you reach a certain size, employing a few full-time programmers is actually cheaper than paying the ludicrous license costs of OTS software these days. Or they could pay a company like Red Hat or IBM or Sun for "support" (ie, to employ some programmers to prioritize this set of bugs/features over all others).

      You've said that "100% open source isn't truely viable" but not backed it up in any way. David Skoll at least backed his point of view up by pointing to great software produced entirely without business models being in the picture. Who is more credible, the one who makes a (admittedly lightweight) argument to back up his point of view, or the one who simply calls the other a zealot with no argument?

      It's hard to argue against someone calling for "balance". But sometimes "balance" simply isn't necessary or desirable. Just ask the Catholic Church what kind of reception their "balanced" approach to sex abuse is getting. Sure, that's a reductio-ad-absurdum. But since your whole argument seems to be "balance is necessary!", it suffices to point out a single counterexample...

      Stuart.
  • IBM has a billion worth of marketing efforts put behind Linux.

    Why dont they put forth some study on Open Source and GPL to counter these silly childish efforts be ADTI ?

    I hate to say this, the Govt and the industry would definitely listen to Big Blue than a bunch of geeks.

  • One point misstated... (Score:4, Informative)

    by the gnat ( 153162 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @12:02PM (#3680207)
    The author of the Roaring Penguin rebuttal misses a point, one that's endlessly tossed around Slashdot. That Microsoft's (proprietary) TCP/IP stack is derived from the Berkeley stack is a good thing. As I understand things, the Berkeley stack is pretty much universal now because it was simply better than the closed versions. It's essentially the reference implementation of TCP/IP. And those programmers (not "thousands") who wrote it presumably meant for it to be used anywhere and everywhere.

    This is the code the Internet is built on- it's a good thing it's under such a liberal license, and a good thing that Microsoft chose to use it. Certain things should not be GPL'd, and I think Microsoft has this right; open standards like this will never be fully accepted otherwise. A web browser, or a server, or an OS is an entirely different matter, though Microsoft doesn't seem to see this.

    The FSF would of course disagree; they put ideology ahead of technology and have demonstrated that the "morality" of a project is more important than its success.

    • The FSF would of course disagree; they put ideology ahead of technology and have demonstrated that the "morality" of a project is more important than its success.

      RMS supported Ogg's transition from LGPL to BSD-style. You should try to understand why, it is quite important.

    • As I understand things, the Berkeley stack is pretty much universal now because it was simply better than the closed versions.
      It's "universal" everywhere except in Linux, right? Or has something changed while I wasn't looking? As I understood it, Linux used its own, "from scratch" networking code (which is why the BSD zealots don't want to touch it).

      Admittedly this minor quibble really doesn't have anything to do with your point, because Linux itself is open source. I just wanted to get clarification.


    • You mean that it is a good thing that there was a berkeley stack for MS to use, otherwise we would all have ended up using some MS/proprietary networking stack. Were that the case, then it is good because we have open standard interoperable TCP/IP networking.


      However, you failed to consider the possibility that MS o/sen would have been a little less dominant if they did not have a tcp stack to acquire. Perhaps we would be using other operating systems while microsoft scrambled to come up with an alternative to a hypothetical GPL'd tcp stack.
      Whole operating systems could be interoperable then... perhaps having less market share would encourage MS to be even more standards compliant yet(to compete). Would that not be an even better? Is it inconceivable to entertain the possibility?

  • ADTI software employment stats(sic) (Score:3, Funny)

    by fw3 ( 523647 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @12:03PM (#3680217) Homepage Journal
    "in the U.S. the software sectore accounted for approimately 319 million jobs in 2001"

    Interesting given that the US census population clock currently pegs US population at 289 Million.:-).

    Seriously, having spoken extensively with the author of this study on the 'phone, he just doesn't follow a lot of the details at a level to coherently argue them with an informed audience.

    Sure I can find bright folks on both sides of debates on oss/proprietary, full-disclosure/security-secrecy, win/unix/mac etc.

    However ADTI's treatment may pass muster with folks who don't know the details and might have a similar set of economic / philosophic biases (e.g. capitalistic=successful=proprietary).

    Anyhow 'Debates' are stoopid imo, debates with 'opponents' who lack enough clue to really participate are simply boring / frustrating.

  • Since no one seems to be discussing the MITRE paper, I guess I'll opin.

    The MITRE paper takes a fair look at the business reasons for using OSS. By fair I mean that they don't simply extol the vertues of OSS, but look at the down sides as well. Yes there are some from the business viewpoint. They especially look at what makes it optimal for servers and the military. In the executive summary, they provide pretty pictures easily interpretable by pointy haired bosses every where as good hard data on why they should use OSS. I suggest that every one read at east the first 25 pages(the executive summary) while the business persons among us might gain something might get more details by reading the detailed business case portion of the pdf.
  • If the Manhattan Project had used Proprietary Physics, we wouldn't be so worried about terrorists building bombs to drop on us. Problem is, all these photons and atoms and stuff are Public Domain; anybody with a calculator and a few pounds of Plutonium can make use of the technology.
  • Refer to the chart on page 23. How is it that the BSD license is "GNU GPL compatible"?

    • Re:BSD license (Score:2, Informative)

      by Arandir ( 19206 )
      Because it is. It's not backward compatible, meaning you can't license a derivative of GPL software under the BSD license, but it is indeed forward compatible, so that you can license a derivative of BSD software under the GPL. The *only* license that is both forward and backward compatible with the GPL is the GPL and LGPL (which is automatically converted irrevocably to pure GPL as necessary).

  • What I'd like to know.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Danse ( 1026 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @12:16PM (#3680313)

    Why does the author keep referring to the IP community and the "GPL community" as separate things? He even says that the GPL competes with US copyright law. This guy either has a fundamental lack of understanding about copyright or is a bald-faced liar. GPL'd software is IP as much as any proprietary software. GPL'd software uses copyright law as its basis, just as proprietary software does. The only issue here is the licensing terms. The only term that they take issue with is the fact that they can't simply steal the code and incorporate it into proprietary products because they would have to release the source to those products. That's their whole gripe.

    They don't even consider the fact that most proprietary licenses are far more harsh than the GPL. In fact, you don't even have to agree to the GPL to use GPL'd software. If you don't agree, then basic copyright law applies. If you do agree, then you get additional rights, over and above what traditional copyright law allows, albeit with some obligations as well. I think that any claim about the restrictiveness of the GPL license is disingenuous at best.

    • IP is traditionally held by an individual or corporation. GPL forces it to be owned by everyone - it can't even be put under a more restrictive license later on. Unless it is a superset of GPL, it can't even be put under a less restrictive license later on. You can't re-negotiate the license for a private party. In a lot of ways, from the view of traditional software, GPL *is* anti-IP. GPL is IP that can no longer be privately owned.

      • You can't re-negotiate the license for a private party.

        This isn't true. The author can release the software under as many different licenses as he wishes, and to whomever he wishes.

        GPL is IP that can no longer be privately owned.

        Again, not really true. The other still holds the copyright to the code. He is the owner. He has simply decided to license it to anyone that wants it under the terms of the GPL. He can still license it out to other people or businesses under a different license if he wishes.

        • So, I can take a piece of code, GPL it, and then sell it to SoftCo for $100k under a license that allows them to redistribute it *WITHOUT* the source?

          What if I take my code + GPL code and try to license it with a redistribution without source code clause?

          I have never seen any indication that either of these scenarios are ever allowed.

          Can you point me to the clause that I am missing?

          • OK, let me clarify things. Let's assume that you are the author of a piece of software. Now, you decide to license it under the GPL. Now, people are distributing it around and building new programs out of it, also licensed under the GPL (as would be required since they are using your code). Now, you are approached by SoftCo. They want to use your code in a piece of commercial software and they don't want to have to distribute source. Since you're the author and copyright holder of the code, you are free to charge them $100K and license it to them under different terms.

            Your second scenario is not legal. You can't use GPL'd code in a program of your own and then distribute without offering up the source as well. If you want to do such a thing, you would have to obtain permission from the copyright owner.

            The key point to remember here is that the GPL depends upon copyright law for its existence. If you don't own the copyright, then how could you license it under the GPL? If you do own the copyright, then, just like any other copyright holder, you can make your own terms for licensing. Nobody has to agree to it, but then if they don't, then they may not be able to make use of your software. There is no reason that a copyright holder has to give everybody the same terms. Microsoft can license Windows to a big corporation under different terms than they license it to you. So too can you license your software to everybody under the terms of the GPL, and then also license it to someone under different terms. You hold the copyright, you call the shots.

      • Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)

        by blueskies ( 525815 )
        Wrong.

        If write a program and distribute it under the GPL, I am free to re-license it in any way i choose since i own the copyright. I can't bring back the GPL versions but I can sell another version along side of it. No one else owns the GPLed version, but they are free to modify and distribute it under the terms of the GPL.
      • GPL's biggest obstacle is the terrible misconception posted here. The uninformed seem to believe that GPL'ed code is forever tainted by the license and nothing can ever be done with it. We see people saying this on every single /. article on the GPL. It's bullshit, but people in the know don't seem to be all that driven to refute it in big print. It's the basis of most attacks on GPL, and we're still doing doing enough to get the truth out. I mean, how can GPL prevent me from licensing my source to someone for profit, when GPL is something to applies towards others and not the author?
        • Can you point me to the clause that explains this?

          If I write GPL code, and because I write GPL code I'm going to use a GPL library, or maybe someone else give me a bug fix that is GPLed, I can't sell the exclusive rights to this code, I can't sell the rights to redistribute without the source, there *IS* a lot of taint here - and maybe it is just because of that library or that bugfix, but what good is a library if you can't sell your original work if it used the library?

          Maybe I am "the uniformed", but I've read through the GPL legalese several times and that seems to be the entire POINT of GPL. If I am wrong, please explain it to me, and please quote the license when you do.

          • In this situation, I would recommend one of the following:

            1. Write your own version of the GPL'd library and avoid the issue entirely;
            2. Work out a deal with the owner(s) of the library, possibly paying them royalties for the use of their code;
            3. Use a different library with a less restrictive license (such as LGPL or BSD).

            The second option is more realistic than you think. As you may be aware, Qt is available under both GPL and a pay-for, proprietary license. The same goes for MySQL.

          • If I write GPL code, and because I write GPL code I'm going to use a GPL library, or maybe someone else give me a bug fix that is GPLed, I can't sell the exclusive rights to this code

            Some project require that contributors turn over the copyright of any code they submit to the project owner. This usually works well. Most people will still contribute to the project and it simplifies the copyright issues. Usually the contributors are interested in the final product and don't have a problem with contributing bits to that project in order to help it along. It's generally a very amiable environment.

            The other option is to simply write your own bug fixes and libraries, etc. You aren't obligated to accept code from anyone else. If nobody is willing to fix some problem or provide some functionality, then do it yourself, or pay someone for the code to do it.

      • "IP is traditionally held by an individual or corporation."

        True, but only in relatively recent history. Intellectual Property is a very new concept and had the modern Corp-centric view of IP existed in say Greek or Roman times, there would be no modern civilization.

      • GPL forces it to be owned by everyone - it can't even be put under a more restrictive license later on.

        This statement is false. If I am the copyright holder of a GPL'd work, I have the right to re-license it under a different, more restrictive license, at any time. In fact, this is exactly what happened to TuxRacer: the project forked when the author decided to release his next version as a closed-source product.

        GPL is IP that can no longer be privately owned.

        This is also false. Let us suppose that I hold the patent on a process to incorporate web service into the Linux kernel. I then release my modifications under GPL. GPLing a work gives a royalty-free license to everyone who wants to play the GPL game; those who want to incorporate my patented idea in their own project, either must license their project under GPL, or pay me royalties. Conversely, if I were to license said source code under an MIT or BSD license, I would surrender my ability to make any royalties off of my patent.

        GPL is IP that can no longer be privately owned.

        This is also false. Trolltech and MySQL both offer their products both for free (under GPL) and for cost (under a license that allows incorporation of their product in proprietary software). The FSF seems to have no trouble with either of them offering their products under a more restrictive, proprietary license.

      • "IP is traditionally held by an individual or corporation. GPL forces it to be owned by everyone"

        W R O N G

        You still maintain copyright control over work contributed to GPLed projects (unless you made some other agreement). This is why the Mozilla project is looking [mozilla.org] for developers with which they've lost contact so they can ask for their permission before they relicense the codebase.

        "You can't re-negotiate the license for a private party."

        If you have agreement of all contributors/copyright owners OF COURSE YOU CAN.

        Just because many developers might not really enforce their rights over works they have contributed, doesn't mean they don't still have those rights. Weren't you paying attention when OpenBSD replaced IPF with PF and underwent a license audit [deadly.org]? NVIDIA specifically removed [slashdot.org] some GPLed code they accidentally added to their binary driver. I seem to recall some other proprietary company got slapped when they tried to freeload off the GPL also. But this is no different than you or I including and distributing some piece of somebody else's proprietary software in our own software.

  • ADTI and Google (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JoeBuck ( 7947 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @12:17PM (#3680317) Homepage

    We've all helped ADTI increase their profile drastically. Thanks to all the links in the Linux-friendly press to their site, they are now the #1 entry for "Alexis de Tocqueville", even though, as best I can tell, they go against everything the man stood for. Guess what, we've made these clowns famous. It seems all a site has to do now to rise to #1 on Google is to publish a bogus attack on open source: we'll all dutifully link to them and talk about them, increasing their respectability in the process.

    You can help rectify this by avoiding linking to their home page, and including links to high-quality de Tocqueville sites instead (use Google to find some).

  • A Change of Heart? (Score:2, Informative)

    by envisionary ( 238020 )
    At the moment there seems to be only a one-page PDF document at the original site explaining that the original paper has been recalled for some unspecified rework. Info [linuxtoday.com] regarding the sudden change of position can be found at linuxtoday.

    The most interesting point was that when they contacted ADTI, a representative informed them that he was not sure why the paper was off-line, but he believed "they had to make a couple of revisions to the paper." The representative was not sure when the paper would be back online. The paper's author, Kenneth Brown, was
    unavailable for comment.
  • Quoth David Skoll:

    Once again, the white paper is worried about "large commercial entities." Well, some large commercial entities like HP/Compaq, IBM, Dell and Sun are quite willing to use, produce and/or distribute GPL'd software.

    Which reminds me, doesn't Microsoft distribute GPL'd software in one of its "migrate-to-Windows-from-Unix" packages?

  • Email I sent to David Skoll & Response:

    I would like to comment on this papers addressing of 'documentation' of open source versus proprietary software. I would like to point out that when I bought a copy of Microsoft Windows 2000 Server, there was no documentation at all provided. I had to blindly figure out how to use the product, and eventually had to invest over $200 in outside books and materials (or alternatively I could have paid $1000 for training classes). I purchased Mandrake 8.2 and got a huge book of documentation. I also found online documentation for all of the packages included (apache, sendmail, php, etc.) that was absolutely free. I think open source documentation is some of the best in the world, with code examples and tutorials available all over the internet. Closed source software, by contrast, since it is proprietary, sports very few code examples or complete documentation. Try finding an active server pages version of PHP Nuke for example... Just my $.02. Thank you for your time.

    Thanks for your letter; you're not the only person to comment on the lack of documentation for MS software. I was unaware of the documentation situation because I've never actually used MS software to any great extent. A few years back, I briefly (4 months) developed under Windows and became totally frustrated, not by the lack of documentation, but by the fact that a lot of it was inaccurate.

    Regards,

    David.

  • The Roaring Penguin article was reprinted in full in The Age [theage.com.au] (Melbourne) and the Sydney Morning Herald [smh.com.au] today. Those IT sections are read by really quite a lot of people in IT in Australia.

  • My quote (Score:5, Informative)

    by rossz ( 67331 ) <ogre@NosPAm.geekbiker.net> on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @12:49PM (#3680548) Journal
    I was quoted in the document as a "programming expert". Er, not exactly. My specialty is installation programs and configuration management. Yes, I code, but in the open source world, I'm not an important contributor. Also, in my email exchange with Mr. Brown, I pointed out that I was not an expert in the GPL, yet he specifically cites me about aspects of the GPL. That particular portion was quite possible my least favorite of everything I wrote because I neglected to mention you only need to publicly release your own source code if you publicly release the binaries. This is a glaring omission and I must apologize to the Open Source community for my own stupidity.
  • Note this statement in ADTI's supposed "Paper"

    "A worse consideration is that use of GPL could inadvertently create legal problems. IP community members could argue that the government's choice of open source is restrictive and excludes taxpaying firms from taxpayer-funded projects. Adverse impact would include a discontinued flow of technology transfer from government-funded research to the technology sector. Without value, it becomes highly likely that government funding for research would slow as well. "

    vs. this one in the letter in response to the Peruvian bill

    "The bill, by making the use of open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by public bodies, violating the base principles of the "Law of State Contracting and Aquisitions" (Number 26850)"

  • Responses to some Slashdot comments (Score:4, Informative)

    by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @01:12PM (#3680687) Homepage
    krlynch writes: They BOTH make the mistake that continues to negatively impact the arguments of Open Source/ Free Software advocates: childish personal attacks.

    I tried not to make personal attacks, but the AdTI paper is so blatant that I don't see any harm in showing exactly what I think of it now and then. There are well-written non-personal defenses of free software (like Villaneuva's); it's just not my style to hold back.

    Dark Nexus writes: About the only thing that I find arguable about that small section of the ADTI report is the part about Open Source not working for a business model. First thing that David Skoll indicates is that he doesn't care about business models.

    Perhaps I should have reworded that. What I mean is, I don't care about the GPL in relation to existing, proprietary software business models. And it's not my job to explain to people how to make money from GPL'd software. GPL'd software is out there, and we'd all better learn to adapt.

    The gnat writes: This is the code the Internet is built on- it's a good thing it's under such a liberal license, and a good thing that Microsoft chose to use it.

    I have no problem with BSD license advocates. But I choose GPL, the AdTI paper attacked the GPL, and it was the GPL I was defending. If people want to use BSD licenses or proprietary licenses, that's fine. All I'm saying is they'd better learn to live with GPL'd software, because it will be out there. It's changing the game.

    Anarchos writes: It's interesting to note that Roaring Penguin's own CanIt license [roaringpenguin.com] is considerably more restrictve than the GPL, despite the article's "Tough. Adapt or die" refrain for proprietary licensing.

    Yes, the secret's out: I sell non-free software. I'm experimenting with business models, and one that I'm trying is to sell non-free software value-added on top of free software. I gradually migrate the non-free portions to the free parts. That's what paid for the RADIUS support I added to pppd in the Linux PPP CVS. That's what paid for MIMEDefang (the free software which underpins CanIt.)

    I'm not a total free software zealot. I believe there always will be proprietary software, and it will always have a niche. But it has to coexist with free software, and CanIt is my experiment with coexistence.

    --
    David F. Skoll

  • ...is spinning in his grave.

    Or perhaps not. After all, he did predict that the Republic would last until the masses realized they could vote themselves bread and circuses.

    To that, I'll add "Or Microsoft can buy FUD in his name."
  • What are the consequences of contributing to a project that comes under fire for patent or copyright infringement? Aren't the major contributors of BNETD kind of going through that now?

    If I am a large corporation and I adopt some GPL software for my business and later someone finds that some code in that project was obtained without authorization and now the owner of that code is looking for blood and sees that I have quite a bit of it to give don't I put myself at risk? I may not have been responsible for inserting that code into the project, it could have happened before I joined the project but I improved on it and helped distribute it on my company's website. That could really screw up my business by costing me time and money. Forget backdoors and trojans. I think the real potential enemy of free software is stolen code.

    I have a prediction for the future. At some point we will see some proprietary code slip into a free software project and really challenge the system. If I were Ximian I would be very mindful of what people are submitting to the Mono project.
    • Are the situations you described better or worse than using software that you don't have the source code to, and thus can't tell yourself whether it might be violating laws? With GPL (or other open source) software, you HAVE THE SOURCE CODE, so YOU can look at it and see whether you want to use it. Proprietary software requires you to trust the vendor.
    • If I am a large corporation and I adopt some proprietary software for my business and later someone finds that some code in that project was obtained without authorization and now the owner of that code is looking for blood and sees that I have quite a bit of it to give don't I put myself at risk?

      Same risk for proprietary software as GPLed.
      • How is it the same? Lets say I buy Flash and it turns out Macromedia had violated one of Adobe's patents, or I buy some class library and it turns out some of the code was copied line by line from another company's class library. I am not any way responsible as I am a third party.

        Turn in around and put me in an open source project where someone contributes stolen code and who is responsible? As a user of some GPLed binaries the scenario would be the same as buying propritary software. But as soon as I contribute I could become part of the problem. I'm not saying I denfinatly would be but the headache could be a bad one for me depending on how the legal team of the code's owner feels about it.

        Look at the BNED case. That has cost some people some money. And then there is the Broadcast 2000 [slashdot.org] project that shut down because of high risk.

        I am not an opponent of open source. I just think there is risk involved. Sometimes more than you think. Think about what could happen to Ximian if some clandestine op by Microsoft leaked some proprietary .Net code to the Mono project. Microsoft could sit back and wait until Mono started making a dent in their business and then let the hammer fall. They could easily force Ximian to close shop and put a huge dent in GNOME. They could seek royalties from other contributors and possibly shut down or chase these people away from using Open Source as well.

        It is only a matter of time before it happens and when it does I hope some nice person digs up this post and mods it up from the flamebait rating it is sure to get for me thinking that dabbling in open source is risky business.
        • "Think about what could happen to Ximian if some clandestine op by Microsoft leaked some proprietary .Net code to the Mono project. Microsoft could sit back and wait until Mono started making a dent in their business and then let the hammer fall."

          Turn it around. A developer gets a job at Microsoft and slips in some code from Mono. After .NET gains lots of users, they let the hammer fall. Microsoft now has to GPL all of .NET. The risks are the same. GPL is just another license, and its conditions must be followed just as completely as those of a proprietary license.

  • The Alexis DeTocqueville Institution appears to be a front for a financial-services firm, the "Emerging Markets Group" [angelfire.com]. The president of this fund is also the president of the ADTI. The Emerging Markets Group, their Democratic Century Fund, and the ADTI all have the same address in Alexandria, VA.

    The hedge fund, though, isn't involved with high-tech; it invests mostly in third-world countries.

Slashdot Top Deals

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.

Close