Open Source As Legal Time Bomb 372
Hwyman writes "TechWorld is reporting on the latest attack on open-source software by the Microsoft-backed Alexis de Toqueville Institution (ADTI). Many here will remember ADTI's previous assertion that Linux Torvald was NOT the true father of the Linux kernel. Taking the stance that OSS is in conflict with IP law, ADTI president Kenneth Brown states, 'After a brief glance at much open source software development, it becomes readily apparent that a number of open source practices directly conflict with best practices associated with protecting intellectual property.' With references like 'open sores software,' it's easy to believe that ADTI might be somewhat biased."
They don't just lie about Linux. (Score:4, Informative)
=== cut here ===
Subject: Oh, my.
How had I not hit this link yet?
http://www.answers.com/topic/alexis-de-tocq
It goes without saying that my opinion of you has suddenly -- and almost incredibly -- dropped several notches. Nothing you have to say in your defense will in the least matter. I will gladly -- and publicly -- continue to flame you, but believe me; nothing you write will ever sway me.
Until today, I thought you were merely "for sale." Now I know that you are reprehensible, and without redeeming value of any kind. Covert collusion with the tobacco corporations?
Hanging is too good for you.
Good day, and good riddance.
Link is buggered. (Score:3, Informative)
Stupid slashcode.
Re:They don't just lie about Linux. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets not fight, use and develop linux, and leave the fools to use inferior closed source products.
Re:They don't just lie about Linux. (Score:4, Insightful)
Among the people performing quality development of open source software at this time are for-profit companies that have found a way to work open source into their business model.
If the enemies of open source can find a way to put these companies at an unfair disadvantage with customers through paid public slander, open source will indirectly suffer as a result of their problems.
I think most of the possible "fight" responses, as you put it, to this sort of thing are unlikely to be meaningfully productive. But it's definitely worth caring about.
Re:They don't just lie about Linux. (Score:5, Informative)
Just my $.02,
Ron
If I win the lottery... (Score:5, Funny)
True Fathers (Score:5, Funny)
Tux: Noooooooo!
Typo (Score:2, Insightful)
Linus Torvald..
Re:Typo #2 (Score:5, Informative)
Linus Torvalds
Then what they say is true... (Score:2)
Um... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Um... (Score:5, Funny)
Big Stick Policy? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This whole thing is ludicrous (Score:5, Insightful)
Give someone a computer, some time, and some programming skills, and they can empower themselves for FREE - that is, without compensating anyone else that somehow manages to lay claim to what they've created. They can also decide to empower others by sharing what the've created. How can any law sanely deny someone what seems to me, to be such a fundamental freedom?
Re:This whole thing is ludicrous (Score:4, Insightful)
Rhetoric is a dangerous weapon and we should be cautious. If they say it often enough, people really will begin to believe it despite it being completely preposterous.
Re:This whole thing is ludicrous (Score:5, Interesting)
Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Minister of Propaganda
Re:This whole thing is ludicrous (Score:4, Insightful)
The frequent attacks on open-source as "communism" only hold true to the extent that RMS has more or less admitted that he'd like to outlaw closed-source software. And I've seen posters here claim that copyright is immoral and I should write software for the betterment of humanity. In the context of our current system, however, it's 100% compatible with capitalism. Everyone has a choice whether or not they want to contribute, or whether they want to use the products. If the software or business model is superior, it'll succeed because of that, not because the government is forcing anyone to use it. And if conventional software companies go bankrupt because of competition from the open-source movement, fuck 'em. The free market's a bitch. Learn to love it.
Re:Big Stick Policy? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Big Stick Policy? (Score:2)
The problem is with lobby groups, those with an adgenda who use money to fund candidates, then corner the politicians to do thier bidding. How hard is it for a politician to say no to a lobby? How hard is it on them to lose, that's how hard. I am sure more than one lobbyist has whispered you need us.
Even if laws don't exsist yet to kill Open Source, the laws are comming if they threaten the big cor
Solution: Go Low. (Score:4, Insightful)
When this happens, the open source community in the developed world will continue what they're doing quietly. Their code development won't stop: it will just not be implemented into businesses in the developed world (i.e. any country where the lawyers have more money than the industrialists).
However in the developing world, corporate lawyers don't have enough money to retard the development of industries that have the potential of making bigger payoffs to the politicians than the corporate lawyers do. In other words, the open source programs will be adopted by businesses and industries in the developing world regardless of the quasi-legal roadblocks that Microsoft uses to prevent OS use by businesses in the wealthy countries.
In countries that are rich enough to allow businesses to have the resources to both pay off the politicians and buy legal copies of Microsoft applications, businesses will allow Microsoft to control the laws applicable to open-source programs. In countries where businesses can't afford to pay off the politicians and buy legal Microsoft aps, the local governments will refuse to allow Microsoft to use the government's legal structures for that company's sole gain because the local politicians know that in the long run they will get more money in pay-offs from business that are using open-source software than they will from Microsoft.
When you can grasp the pay-off structures, then you can understand the how the law will be interpreted and applied in most situations.
There is nothing majestic and omnipresent about the Law. Underneath all the rhetoric about justice and order, the law is merely a means to facilate the flow of money to those who control the application of violence in a society. If they feel that you are not sending enough money their way, then they will direct their control of violence your way. This is the fundamental guiding principle of how the world works.
This applies in the developed world even more than the developing world, but in developed countries these primal forces are better hidden through patents, copyrights, and academic consultants.
They also have a big brother (Score:2, Insightful)
By utterly crushing tSCOg, IBM is making it very clear that anyone who threatens the viability of open source is in serious trouble.
Re:Big Stick Policy? (Score:5, Funny)
Then the courts will take away their girlfriends. Oh wait
Not serious journalism or research (Score:5, Insightful)
If anyone does, well, they're just not too bright to start with.
Re:Not serious journalism or research (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't kid yourself there. These guys put out papers and postions that soon after will appear on republican talking points all over the media.
Not quite (Score:3, Insightful)
When President Bush first mused, just before his party's convention, that the war on terror might be unwinnable...
Seriously, how are republicans any different from democrats?
Re:Not quite (Score:2, Funny)
Thank goodness the rest of us didn't.
Re:Not serious journalism or research (Score:2, Insightful)
They've certainly lost any shred of credibility with me. "Open sores" indeed. Imagine the outcry if the OSI or FSF put "Microshit" or something on their front page.
Re:Not serious journalism or research (Score:2)
Do tell.
"Microsoft Backed" (Score:2, Interesting)
Biased, with a point (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if nothing ever comes to light from IP/patent problems, it can ( and is ) keeping some companies away from adoption of anything open source out of fear of lawsuits.
Remember, even if you win, the fight can easily cost you enough to put you out of business..
I agree... but have to disagree. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Biased, with a point (Score:5, Insightful)
> it can ( and is ) keeping some companies away from adoption of anything open source out of fear of lawsuits.
And while they're doing that, they're losing $$$ to the companies that DO leverage FS/OSS to do it better, cheaper.
The "Boo-hoo -- don't use FS/OSS!" is going to fly about as well as "Boo-hoo -- don't buy foreign cars!"
Re:Biased, with a point (Score:3, Insightful)
What would it cost to stick with your tried and true closed source software while paying a small number of guys (1 to, say, 15 depending on the size of your organization) to spend a portion of their work week (10-20%) devoted to seeing what they can do with FS/OSS? You could probably budget it as R&D for your IT department, and after those guys come through with one or two big wins (StarOffice, OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbir
Re:Biased, with a point (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are businesses that are too afraid and meek to even explore OSS, it's quite possible that their competitors will find that edge and beat them in the marketplace (assuming, as I do, that OSS does provide a competitive edge). The least a business should do is to examine what the risks really are, instead of being buffaloed by the likes of Ken Brown.
On the other hand, there will still be companies that develop proprietary software, and they'll have to find their place in the new ecosystem. Many of them already are. There's room for both models.
The same goes for nations. If a country allows patents to stifle innovation*, as we're seeing here in the U.S., then other countries will step up to the bat and be happy to take our place.
*I'm not against patents in principle, but it's clear that 1) Software patents are not a good thing for the most part, and 2) Our current patent system in the U.S. is broken and not creating an environment for innovation.
Re:Biased, with a point (Score:5, Insightful)
Even MS had some issues with developers using non-licensed tools to create.. sound files I think it was. We only find out the issues that go public. How many IP/patent issues do we never hear about because of the closed nature of closed-source software and private companies?
Pure ADTI bias aside, I think this is the most dishonest thing about this article. Open Source will likely have to solve the problems differently than private companies, but the issues aren't a whole lot different.
Software Theft: PROMIS (Score:5, Interesting)
True. Example: Inslaw's PROMIS [google.com]. -kgj
Re:Biased, with a point (Score:5, Informative)
And that is the heart of the problem, isn't it? Not the law, but the cost of protecting yourself in court against false accusations.
EVERY business is at risk of law suits. Even Microsoft. However it is the big multi-billion-dollar corporations that promote and thrive in this type of legal ecosystem.
What needs to be done here is to remove this money/power from those big corporations. And how that is done is by changing public perception, boycotts, and alternatives like F/OSS.
So if all we do is go around crying wolf everytime we feel insecure we don't shift public perception in the right direction and F/OSS loses support. It doesn't need any support, but if you want to remedy the situation, and the real problem of IP/patent abuse, F/OSS is the best way to fight it.
But I realize most of you are cowards and would rather run than fight. So, what are you waiting for? Run for the hills! The rest of us will hold our ground and let you know when its safe to come back down.
Re:Biased, with a point (Score:3, Insightful)
long O when you read this (Score:3, Funny)
Re:long O when you read this (Score:2)
steps (Score:3, Insightful)
first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
Regards,
John
It's FUD and it will work (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm all for open source, but I can understand how companies are afraid to risk backing it if it means it could end up costing them more later. And sadly, I feel this can slow down adoption of open source software. But for companies with good lawyers who can see past the FUD and who take the risk and use OSS, I hope they are successful because they are paving the way for others.
Re:It's FUD and it will work (Score:2)
Re:It's FUD and it will work (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is going to take a while yet. But I don't suppose you've felt the need to try and analyze why there hasn't been a truely precedent setting court case just yet, have you?
Think about those that have been through what passes for our legal system, and try and explain why it is that they've not went down to the wire and had a judges opinion rendered so it gets into recorded case law.
Go ahead, I've got a bit of time while you cogitate on the sub
Re:It's FUD and it will work (Score:2)
What exactly does this mean? A user of software can't be sued on the basis of code integrity as far as I know, so are you talking about developers who use GPL code without knowledge of its parentage? How is that riskier than reusing proprietary code?
Just what is the mission of this organization? (Score:2)
But somehow it's too shoddy looking to be purely an invention of MS. Anyone know who's behind this group? Do they have a real agenda, or are they really an astroturf factory for big corporate interests?
Re:Just what is the mission of this organization? (Score:2)
-N
Re:Just what is the mission of this organization? (Score:2)
confederation of corporate interests (and the
governments they own).
See also: "Corporate National Socialism"
An economic and political entity that is "by
the corporation, for the corporation, of the
people".
One comment... (Score:2)
Re:One comment... (Score:4, Insightful)
employees beholden to strict employee/invention/intellectual property agreements, in their spare time (and even during work-hours) freely give away ideas, code, and products to open source projects
It's just a venomous insinuation and nonsense. These employees (untold amounts of them) are giving away whose ideas, code, and products? We're meant to believe the employer's IP, but he can't come out and say directly: "Hey, big corporations, your employees are stealing your IP," because then he'd actually have to back up his words.
This is all a smear campaign. Make vile insinuations, prove nothing.
Your mistake is to take him at face value, and to try counter arguments. I say, DON'T! Instead, let's get him to support his allegations. Guess what? He can't!
Oh my gosh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see what happened in the last few days:
What's next? SCO will publish another inane series of press releases on its latest strategic re-deployment?
It's FUD, people. Nothing new here. Move along. Film at 11, and could the last person out of the building please shut down the lights? Thanks.
Sheeesh. They should have figured it out by now. What do they teach MBAs these days anyway?
Seriously, though, this is another attempt by a really worried company to smear the competition. A clue for Microsoft: it did not work for IBM. It won't work for you.
Re:Oh my gosh! (Score:5, Funny)
From the looks of things, Applied Greed for the most part.
No I didn't read it, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude! Tokey McTokerson (Score:3, Funny)
Liars can still tell the truth. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the good side, it is a problem that is easily fixed. Traceability of the code base back to the contributor can be implemented, but it means some sort of centralized repository AND use of good tracking tools. IMO, no major distribution, and definitely no kernel, should leave the foundry without knowing who touched it.
Re:Liars can still tell the truth. (Score:2)
Actually most open-source projects do have traceability. Most of them use CVS for source-code version control, and CVS lets you trace back any piece of code to the user who commited that piece of code. That person is responsible for what they commited, and probably knows the original source of the code if they didn't write it themselves.
And frankly, I think the ubiquity of version control in open-source projects is one of the reasons you don't see lawsuits about IP infringement against those projects. The
Re:Liars can still tell the truth. (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, you do realize that any non-trivial project is already using revision control software of some kind, that submissions are logged, and that users are authenticated before they can commit to the repository, right?
Re:Liars can still tell the truth. (Score:5, Insightful)
This claim gets the real world situation backwards.
All major open source projects retain a complete and precise development history through use of a a source code repository (e.g. CVS). This source code repository is open to public inspection, so anyone who wishes can determine the exact time and submitter of every line in that project. This has the effect of discouraging cheating, because the cheating is easy to detect, and the perpetrator is easily identified.
Proprietary software, on the other hand, may not have such a record o contributions, and even if one exists, it's certainly not open to public inspection (short of a lawsuit). So if you question the origin of some aspect of a proprietary system, you have to ask the company (i.e. sue them) for the information that you want. This is a bit of a catch-22, since you can't provide evidence of cheating until after you sue them in order to reveal the evidence.
It's certainly true that someone could illegally submit code that they don't own into an open source project, but the same is true for a proprietary project. And if someone thinks that their IP has been incorporated into an open source project, they can easily inspect the project's source code repository, and determine where the code came from and when, which should clarify the situation (and if someone submitted code illegally, smack them and remove the code from the project).
The only case where there's a problem is with proprietary code bases, where it's very difficult to determine whether IP has been illegally used, and if so it's extremely difficult to determine the source of the code.
Note that despite the theoretical risk of commercial IP getting into Open Sourrce projects, in practice I can't think of any cases where that's been shown to have occurred (even SCO gave up making all such charges against IBM), perhaps because the open source projects are open to inspection so such cheating is discouraged, while proprietary products are revealed fairly regularly to include open source software (or illegally used proprietary software), perhaps because the perpetrators thought that nobody outside their company would see the source code, so the cheating was "safe".
"no major distribution, and definitely no kernel, should leave the foundry without knowing who touched it."
You should be happy, because that's already the case for open source software. If the same were true of proprietary software, then we could put the whole issue to bed.
Re:Liars can still tell the truth. (Score:3, Insightful)
uhh... are you admitting to trying to poison the kernel? It'd be nice if you gave a reason for doing that and said whether the code is still in there.
Re:Liars can still tell the truth. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Liars can still tell the truth. (Score:2)
And you've admitted to it in a public forum.
Now, perhaps those same patches may be noticed by someone who can trace your email address, and also, possibly bring legal action against you, for wilfully attempting to bring the Linux kernel (and the OSS movement) into disrepute.
However, as you've proven that you're perfectly happy to insert copyright code (patents on software aren't universal across the globe, so that's a
In the spirit of Alexis de Tocqueville... (Score:5, Interesting)
Our next report will reflect on offer new insights on orbital mechanics based on the unprecidented rotations obsrved in Mr. de Tocqueville's grave.
Re:In the spirit of Alexis de Tocqueville... (Score:3, Informative)
"spread and perfection of democracy around the world" = "spread and perfect of American hegemony around the world"
"without rushing to judgement about which means will be most affective in producing it" = "we may use lies, economic sanctions or outright war to get what we want"
And since power in the USA resides with the corporations that means that pushing their agenda is indeed compatible with the AdTI's mission.
Biased or just idiots. (Score:3, Funny)
What's all this I hear about Open sores software? don't we have enough bad software out there? We have viruses and dirty worms, yuck. Some software has bugs in it. I'm sure that's not healthy. I think if we have open sores software, it will get infected and will die. I think we should put some ointment on open sores software and....
What? Open source software?
Never mind.
Why feed the troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why feed the troll? (Score:2)
Maybe we should start collecting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Recall what Mozilla firefox got for advertising!
And of course it'd be done thru EFF...
proceeds of the winning would of course go towards sponsoring FOSS works. In fact sponsorship of such a case might included what project you'd like your return percentage to go to...
Re:Maybe we should start collecting... (Score:2)
Protecting IP rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Protecting IP rights? (Score:2)
Unless, of course, you own the government.
The best part of OSS (Score:4, Informative)
Show us what's wrong. It's all there, look! Found anything? Keep looking. In fact, look until you find something...keep looking. Go for it! Found anything yet? No? Hmmm, I would suggest to keep looking actually. What's that, you're tired of looking? You would rather write an aricle about how you bet if you looked hard you would find something? Ok, the look!
Show us what's wrong. It's all there, look! Found anything? Keep looking. In fact, look until you find something...keep looking. Go for it! Found anything yet? No? Hmmm, I would suggest to keep looking actually. What's that, you're tired of looking? You would rather write an aricle about how you bet if you looked hard you would find something? Ok, the look!
Re:The best part of OSS (Score:2)
An your analogy is poor as it shadow better if you said:
"That's a little bit like telling a mechanic:"
Re:The best part of OSS (Score:2, Insightful)
"If something goes wrong on your car and you want to look under the hood, be my guest. If not, you can go to any mechanic you want to try to fix it -- you don't have to go back to the dealer and take their word as to what's wrong with your car."
Harmless, really (Score:2)
Best of Show (Score:5, Insightful)
Like frivolous patents, astroturf, monopoly lobbying, and, most important, funding the AdTI. Yep, Linux and most "open source" projects don't do any of that stuff.
"public domain" (Score:5, Informative)
Public domain is pretty clearly defined under current IP laws, and just about the only thing it has in common with open source, free software, copyleft, etc. is the fact that all generally permit anyone to look and touch. In fact, public domain refers to who owns it and only implies the license terms (to the best of my understanding, it's basically "the public owns this and, as the owner, the public can do whatever they want with it"). Copyleft does not release ownership of IP to the public.
Then again, that's probably exactly what these clowns want the public to think it does...
Re:"public domain" (Score:2)
if you're doing it willingly where the fuck is the timebomb?
Easter bunny implicated? (Score:3, Funny)
As Linus wrote last year:
why do /. still bother ??? (Score:2)
we're all sick tired of knowing ADTI is just a bunch of lunatic FUDsters in M$ payroll and nothing they write is worth taking into account.
unless, of course, you put it on "it's funny. laugh" section
Simply cite examples... (Score:2)
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&
Or these days, typing pretty much any big name and linux into Google will turn up a load of press releases and other info.
Storm in a teacup.
Alexis de Tocqueville is rolling over in his grave (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocquevi
Truely ashame that they should damage his name.
GJC
Re:Alexis de Tocqueville is rolling over in his gr (Score:3, Informative)
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
-
Some companies are smart, some are stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
There's no conflict with people contributing to open-source projects while employed by business firm
That's one shit website! (Score:2)
This [adti.net] is one totally amateur looking website! Not sure what the hell it's all about even, but I can't take it seriously just because it looks like someone's 13 year old kid put it together in Frontpage.
I mean... the branding is weak, the layout is sub-par and uninteresting - the overall impression created by that page is just one of confusion!
Who are they, and what is the point they are trying to make? I can't even be bothered to find out, really, because the website makes me switch off before I get tha
Sci Fi (Score:2, Funny)
he's writing some fantastic fantasy work these days - outta this world man!
Which is why ADTI is hosted on FreeBSD... (Score:3, Interesting)
They were on Irix up until a few years ago.
Best Practices? (Score:2)
Well hey, I am not so much concerned with the best practices associated with protecting "intellectual property" - I am more concerned with the best practices for creating and using and profiting from "intellectual property" - specifically copyrighted works. I think the GPL and other "copyl
If de Toqueville were alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a quote from the real Alexis de Toqueville about the tendencies of American's to help each other out:
"I must say that I have seen Americans make great and real sacrifices to the public welfare; and I have noticed a hundred instances in which they hardly ever failed to lend faithful support to one another."
Sounds pretty different from the message of these bought-off scumbags.
Re:If de Toqueville were alive. (Score:2)
Cut me some slack, i'm tired.
"Open sores"? That's outrageous! (Score:2)
Alexis de Tocqueville must bespinning in his grave (Score:4, Interesting)
Some comments on the ADTI mission statement (Score:3, Insightful)
Paragraph 1:
ADTI: Since 1988, the Alexis de' Tocqueville Institution has studied the spread of perfection of democracy around the world.
BjL: Most open source pundits do not believe that perfection is something to be attained through democracy.
ADTI: In this, we follow the principles of Tocqueville himself, while claiming no unique mandate to represent them. Among these liberal ideas are civil liberty, political equality, and economic freedom and opportunity.
At the root, perhaps, is a populist belief in the basic goodness, perfectibility, and nobility of mankind and the human community.
BjL: I simply do not buy or agree with their seemingly objective, however quite positive self-assessment in paragraph two.
It is my experience the open source community tends to have an entirely antithetical epistemological structure to the to the structure expressed by ADTI.
It also seems to me as though the open source community does more to advance the 'human community' through their nearly postmodern approach to technology than ADTI does through stoically expressing their 'liberal' views as fact.
depressing thought (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article:
Most worrying of all is the absence of litigation around open-source projects, Brown says.
Wow. If that's not an indictment of the thinking of these sorts of people, the nature of our society, and the assumptions behind what people say about IP, then I don't know what is.
If people aren't getting sued, then something must be wrong, eh? My god, what a depressing thought.
-Rob
ADTI Is An Unethical Organization (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it ADTI: you are nothing more than unethical Microsoft whores.
Re:Hurrah!! More Biased Crap!! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Institutionalized... (Score:2)
I think the word institute is more of a place that makes policy or defends it, not a place of higher learning.
Re:Institutionalized... (Score:2)
Re:Institutionalized... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is that Toqueville as in Toque? Sounds like some kind of happy home where everyone wears little woollen hats.
British places of higher education had a similar obsession with titles. First of all, once many places gained degree granting status, they dumped the "polytechnic" title. Then when competition for students became more intense, various "Institutes of Technology" paid a grand sum to image rebranding consultants who advised them to dump the "IT" part of their acronym a
Re:Alexis of Tocqueville Instituion: our mission (Score:5, Insightful)
Misnamed. And lying about what you stand for.
It's more like someone who claims to be speaking for the Democrats talking about how the unions are damaging businesses...
Re:Oh come on, lazy MS (Score:2)
Just my $.02,
Ron