Intellectual Property and Open Source 92
stoolpigeon writes "There isn't a person writing code in this country who is not impacted by US intellectual property laws. I think that it is safe to say, that not all coders have a strong understanding of just what those laws are, let alone what they mean. Stepping into this gap is programmer become lawyer Van Lindberg with his new book Intellectual Property and Open Source. Lindberg has really done something special with this volume. I don't think I've ever read a tech oriented work where I've felt so convinced that I was reading something that would become a standard by which others would come to be judged." Read below for the rest of JR's review.
Let me quickly state what this book is not. It is not comprehensive. It does not cover all of US law on intellectual property. What it does cover is mostly viewed from a high level that does not address many finer points. It is not a reference for IP laws outside of the United States. While there is some commonality in various parts of the world, I think the differences preclude this book from being too useful for anyone not impacted by US law. | Intellectual Property and Open Source | |
| author | Van Lindberg |
| pages | 371 |
| publisher | O'Reilly Media, Inc. |
| rating | 10/10 |
| reviewer | JR Peck |
| ISBN | 978-0-596-51796-0 |
| summary | A practical guide to protecting code. |
So what is this book? To me it felt very much like sitting down with a lawyer who can speak my language, understands my concerns, uses open source software, cares about freedom and has a gift for building metaphors and illustrations that make sense. It is that ability to bridge the gap between lawyer and developer and do it in an readable way that makes this such an incredible book. If it were just accurate and thorough but I couldn't get past a couple pages it wouldn't be worth much. If things weren't put into terms that I could grasp and apply to real life situations, the same would be true.
The first seven chapters are a primer on the history and current status of U.S. IP law. Lindberg walks the reader through patents, copyright, trademarks, trade secrets, contracts and licenses. He discusses how these impact inventors and developers. I had considered myself to be somewhat familiar with most of these, but was surprised how much I learned. I was also a bit scared by the time I was done with it all. Lindberg cites not only the pitfalls that are out there, but backs it up with case history that illustrates his points. More than once I caught myself thinking, "I guess that is possible but it is unlikely." only to be reading a page or two later about how it had already happened and was in some cases still finding its way through the courts. This was all quite a wake-up call for me.
Chapter eight and on deal with how one can operate in the open source world. Lindberg talks about just what Open Source is and then handles the many things that a developer needs to consider from how to handle a new idea (especially if one is employed) to choosing a license, accepting patches, reverse engineering without being as likely to get sued, and setting up a non-profit to run a project.
I found the discussion on various licenses and just what they mean to be especially helpful. There is a general discussion that covers a wide array of licenses, and then a separate chapter just for working with the GPL. There is an illustration in that chapter that I think stands as an excellent illustration of what this book is like. "The Darth Vader Scale of Derivative Works", found in chapter twelve, serves to illustrate the Free Software Foundation's position on the applicability of the GPL. Lindberg takes time and care to explain the issue, but the figure showing a range from little "Anny" to the fully cloaked and helmeted Darth Vader shows how he also makes it fun at the same time.
It is not absolutely necessary to read through the book from start to finish but I would highly recommend it. The conversational style makes it easy to do, and there are concepts and metaphors that Lindberg reuses throughout the book that will be easier to understand if the reader has familiarity with their use right from the start. That said, the table of contents, index and topical separation of chapters will make this useful as a reference. I would just agree with Lindberg that reading it through first will make such use easier in the future.
The book has appendices that contribute over 80 pages to the total length. These include a sample Proprietary Information Agreement, a list of Open Source licenses ( along with some descriptions of how they are used), a Free Software license list, a list of the licenses used with Fedora on a grid that lists GPL compatibility, the full text for a number of licenses and a very nice GPL Compatibility Matrix. That matrix shows what versions of *GPL licenses can be used with one another from the perspective of adding code to an already licensed project or licensing a project that will include code already licensed under one of the *GPL licenses.
Some of the sections are quite sobering. I don't think becoming more educated about these issues is going to encourage people that things are headed in the right direction. That said, I don't think they will arrive at that conclusion because Lindberg is pushing a particular point of view. He is very even handed in his approach and it is obvious that he took great pains to focus on one single goal, disseminating accurate and valuable information without letting anything else get in the way. He leaves value judgments to the reader. When there are issues of debate he presents information on both sides, and may express his leaning but does not argue for it or attack other view points.
This book may be frustrating for those who just want copyright and all intellectual property laws to go away. I get the sense that while Lindberg believes that there is a lot of room for improvement, he isn't trying to describe what could or should be, he is just giving advice on how to try and best navigate what is. Right now, the penalties for failing to understand the current environment can be quite harsh, and so I think that such a guide is very important. This extremely approachable and useful book is must reading for anyone creating or contributing to FOSS projects.
You can purchase Intellectual Property and Open Source from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Re:My review based on your review (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds great, like getting a book on storage media and having 50 pages about punch cards.
Previous cases affect judicial rulings as much as the law, therefore having a large portion of it devoted to the history makes sense, whereas storage mediums don't rely on anything in the past except what they want to remain interoperable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm guessing that ccguy might not live in America. First because of his complaint about "this country", but also because my understanding is that not all countries have the same sense of precedence that the US legal system does.
At least in the US, what other courts have ruled in the past can be determinant of how future judges will rule. Also, it's my understanding that judges are allowed to look at the intent of the laws, which could possibly connect to the history of the law.
I talked to an Austr
Re: (Score:2)
You are completely right. A case decided does not change anything, except it was decided by the highest courts.
New decisions are published and discussed in juridical journals, but all this means is that there is something called "majority opinion" about how some of the cases should be decided. But a case decision following a "minority opinion" is as valid in the findings of law as a decision following the "majority opinion".
So having an important case decided in a lower court and published and discussed in
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My review based on your review (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds great, like getting a book on storage media and having 50 pages about punch cards.
Which may not be as important in the tech industry, but in order to comprehend what laws mean you do need to know the history behind them. Laws, when interpreted by a judge, are viewed in context of the conversations and laws that preceded them, and thus it is important to understand where they came from.
I now leave you to continue trolling.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that anyone's opinion other than Richard Stallman's is irrelevant and useless, that the very use of the term "intellectual property" must immediately eliminate any attempt at rational discourse, and that going to the effort to illustrate a complex issue like this one using popular, easy to understand allegories must be rejected as "industry propaganda". Without further thought, no less.
Thanks, that makes sense. I'm sure I'm going to buy this book now, considering how unfocused, bias
Re: (Score:1)
*yawn* Sockpuppets, as usual.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah so any book that doesn't agree with your view point or the view point of the FSF is propaganda? You really need to stop drinking the koolaid. I love how someone who is such a strong advocate for freedom is so quick to want to suppress something that *gasp* may disagree with your reality. Not everyone likes the GPL, it doesn't make them evil, freedom hates, or employees of Microsoft. It just makes them people who don't prefer the GPL. There are plenty of people who provide source code openly that don't
Re: (Score:1)
He doesn't treat GPL code like Darth Vader. You didn't read what I wrote. It is a scale illustrating how FSF views derivative works - ranging from mere aggregation (Anny) all the way to incorporation (Darth Vader). In between are plug-ins, dynamic linking and static linking.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, aggregation is not a derivative work under US copyright law. If anything, it's a compilation. On first blush, I don't even think static linking creates a derivative work.
Re: (Score:1)
That's all a matter of some discussion - which is what the author explains - this is one figure in a larger treatment of the topic.
The reason I brought it up is because I think it gives some idea of how Lindberg works to make the book fun and readable while dealing with what can be rather dry material.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not always true. The unreasonable man theory holds here (although it will often damage that man's bottom line)
Re: (Score:1)
Ya know, I found myself wishing the book had more eye-candy. Charts, graphs, perhaps pictures of the patented items, etc. The book reads smoothly, but a bit light and dry.
I'd love to see a Wired Mag style make-over of the book.
Won't stop'em. (Score:3)
This book may be frustrating for those who just want copyright and all intellectual property laws to go away
I'm sure that won't stop them from quoting everything negative about IP law from the book here on /. while omitting the other side. But omitting the other side has become par for the course on the internet, TV, radio, print, etc...
Nyah, nyah, doesn't affect me! (Score:3, Funny)
That's why I live in an offshore oil rig! I can code to my heart's content, and I'm not affected by silly intellectual property and copyright laws!
Muhahahaaa!
Re:Nyah, nyah, doesn't affect me! (Score:5, Funny)
That's why I live in an offshore oil rig! I can code to my heart's content, and I'm not affected by silly intellectual property and copyright laws!
Muhahahaaa!
Couldn't afford your own secret volcano lair?
Pft! Some evil genius you are!
What about a submarine?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! Me too. Right off the coast of TeSPLASH GLUNK, GLUNK. NO CARRIER.
Re: (Score:2)
Case studies (Score:4, Insightful)
I know case studies are important, but it would be nice to see more statisical evidence of the impact of bad IP policy in addition to anecdotal.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Those numbers didn't prove his point so they were left out. Do you expect a document to be created as an attempt to prove something then to show the data is disproves the hypothesis. Whatever happened to good science, where you were allowed to be wrong and not ostracized from the scientific community.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Those numbers didn't prove his point so they were left out.
Do you have evidence for this assertion, or are you leaving it out because the evidence doesn't support your point?
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers didn't prove my point so they were left out. Do you expect a comment to be created as an attempt to trash something then to show the data is[^H^H^H] disproves the hypothesis. Whatever happened to good critique where you were allowed to be wrong and not ostracized from the slashdot community.
Changes in bold. In reply to your modified last sentence (the one I put in your moth): you're not being modded down because you are wrong. You're being modded down because you're being rude.
Did you note how the review said that the author is mostly descriptive? You ascribe him a motive (which goes against that), and then use that motive (which you don't know he has) to accuse him of poor scholarship (which we don't know he committed) without backing up any of your claims (which we know you didn't).
Re: (Score:2)
Um why do you think I care that Slashdot modded me as a troll. I have karma to burn, and I am not afraid to give my views right or wrong raw to the public. Should I be afraid to Share my Views with the world because some guy who is on a power trip decides to mod me up or down. I fell the Tech and Scientific community has gone to far astray. They are increasingly political and are trying to change the world vs. trying to understand it, and I feel that is dangerous. My post wasn't to insult or to say for t
Re: (Score:2)
So, were you claiming that the case history is false, or are you claiming that the case history does not support the conclusion that legal risk exists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki [wikipedia.org]
Re:Case studies (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe I wasn't clear. For example he talks about someone who creates an idea while they have a job can be sued by their employer if at some point that idea becomes profitable and the employer wants control. He lays out steps to help avoid having this happen.
Then he explains a case where a guy had an idea, cleared it with legal as his own idea, not connected to his job and they basically said, "Yeah - run with that, it is yours." It did well and IRIC is still in court now that they've sued him for control of it.
There are no statistics - he just proves that what he says might possibly happen is more than just a fantasy - it is based on what has and is happening.
Does that make more sense? I don't think statistical evidence about the impact of IP law is what this book is about.
Re: (Score:2)
See various articles on the recent Mattel vs Bratz lawsuit, such as this wrap up. [icm.ac.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry to reply to myself - but when I wrote the above I was going by memory and it's been about a month since I read the book. I grabbed my copy when I got a chance and here are the details - so people know I'm not just making something up. The specific case I'm talking about here is described starting on page 180 of the book and has to do with David Barstow, a company called Schlumberger and Major League Baseball.
Barstow worked for Schlumberger and while employed there had an idea for a baseball
Re: (Score:2)
I was also a bit scared by the time I was done with it all. Lindberg cites not only the pitfalls that are out there, but backs it up with case history that illustrates his points.
I know case studies are important, but it would be nice to see more statisical evidence of the impact of bad IP policy in addition to anecdotal.
I don't think it's that kind of book. That would be more for a "what's good, what needs fixing" report, this book sounds more like "this is how things are, and this is how to deal with it".
Re: (Score:2)
"Case history" is not "case studies". It's an overview of caselaw, discussing how the law has actually been applied in the courts. In other words, it's exactly what you're asking for: how bad IP policy has made an impact.
A case study isn't necessarily anecdotal either in the usual sense of the term, as long as the case is selected in an intelligent way.
Re: (Score:2)
I know case studies are important, but it would be nice to see more statisical evidence of the impact of bad IP policy in addition to anecdotal.
Frankly, if you can't quantitative arguments against certain aspects of IP policy, you haven't looked very hard.
I'm interested in copyright, particularly term extensions, so I'll give you a link to something from that area [harvard.edu]. It's an amicus brief for Eldred v. Ashcroft, which challenged the constitutionality of a retroactive extension of the copyright term. This particular brief was signed by 17 well-known economists, including five Nobel laureates.
One of the main problems with a lot of IP policy is that it s
Re: (Score:2)
The world may never know...
Re:Compromise is submission, servitude, slavery... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it concedes that IP law exists, and is a reality that must be dealt with.
You can keep on living in an imaginary world where ideas are free (as in beer, as in speech, as in love), but the rest of us have to live in a world where IP exists and has the legal system behind it. Unlike yourself, an understandable guide to that system (like this book) is a useful tool.
I'm all for idealistic notions, but those of us who need to earn our bread in the real world have pressing concerns that makes such idealism impractical.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it concedes that alcohol prohibition exists, and is a reality that must be dealt with. You can keep on living in an imaginary world where alcohol is legal (as in beer, as in speech, as in love), but the rest of us have to live in a world where alcohol prohibition exists and has the legal system behind it. Unlike yourself, an understandable guide to that system (like this book) is a useful tool. I'm all for idealistic notions, but those of us who need to earn our bread in the real world have pressing concerns that makes such idealism impractical.
Yours truly, Al Capone
Re: (Score:2)
Laws come and go. The US had seggregation laws not so long ago. No there aren't, in fact the opposite is true.
On the other hand, seggregation probably generated no direct corporate income, while IP does, so at the end of the day you probably are right, IP is here to stay.
Re: (Score:2)
David Drumlin: I wish the world was a place where fair was the bottom line, where the kind of idealism you showed at the hearing was rewarded, not taken advantage of. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.
Ellie Arroway: Funny, I've always believed that the world is what we make of it.
Re: (Score:2)
So following your opinion drawing a map of a dungeon as a guide to get out of it is false, because the dungeon shouldn't be here to begin with, and having a map of it finalizes its existance?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Paper is soooo last century.
Don't you mean "so last several millinea?"
Call me a geezer (well I am) but I don't think paper is going away any time soon. A quarter century ago they talked about how computers were going to give us "the paperless office" but the computers generate more paper than all the Xerox machines there were before computers. My office is awash with paper.
One of my most prized posessions at the moment is an omnibus edition of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy with all the novels, unabri
Re: (Score:1)
A quarter century ago they talked about how computers were going to give us "the paperless office" but the computers generate more paper than all the Xerox machines there were before computers. My office is awash with paper.
Or, as we were told in a Professional Development lecture, "the paperless office is as about as likely as the paperless toilet" (quote attributed to Keith Davidson of Xplor International).
Re: (Score:1)
I think there are many areas in which paper will not go away, but eventually the office will be paperless. We may have to kill off a generation or two of paper-bound workers that generate tons of garbage annually, and we'll need technology to take some more steps to make it easier for us not to use paper for things like taking notes.
For books, though, it's a mixed bag. I read significantly faster on the computer, but a book is more convenient sometimes. It's also more than just reading text on a page, it's
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really that bad? (Score:1, Flamebait)
There is a general discussion that covers a wide array of licenses, and then a separate chapter just for working with the GPL.
[...] a list of the licenses used with Fedora on a grid that lists GPL compatibility, the full text for a number of licenses and a very nice GPL Compatibility Matrix. That matrix shows what versions of *GPL licenses can be used with one another from the perspective of adding code to an already licensed project or licensing a project that will include code already licensed under one of the *GPL licenses.
Wow, GPL by itself is as complicated and hard to explain as all other licenses put together?
Re: (Score:1)
Where did you get that idea? [softwarefreedom.org]
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think so - I think it is used enough that it was worth taking the extra time and space. It's almost impossible to work in the FOSS arena without bumping into GPL code somewhere.
GPLv3 isn't complex by itself (Score:1, Informative)
But it confuses a lot of people because the FSF's statements about linking don't match the text of the new license AT ALL. (I expect some of their statements were simply cut'n'pasted from GPLv2 documents without re-analysis.)
Eben Moglen made GPLv3 applicability 100% clear when he explicitly defined (in Section 0. Definitions) the terms "conveying", "modify", "based on" and "covered work" (all applicable), and explicitly denied applicability of the license when "making an exact copy" or "executing GPLv3 cod
And Here's Why (Score:5, Funny)
I think that it is safe to say, that not all coders have a strong understanding of just what those laws are, let alone what they mean.
I think one of the main reasons I don't have a strong understanding is because this kind of stuff is so mind-numbingly boring. I can't seem to get through the first paragraph of any legal mumbo-jumbo without wanting to ... Speaking of legalese, you practically have to go to law school to understand what they are saying. Sometimes they don't even use proper sentence structure. (Not that I have any room to talk.)
My point is, this stuff is boring, and I doubt there will ever be a widespread understanding of it all until it either becomes simpler, or affects us to a large degree, or maybe if it's explained using some kind of car analogy.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You come up with a brilliant idea--let's call it a "Porsche" just for the sake of argument. Unfortunately, IP law is like driving your Porsche on a one-lane dirt road behind a tractor with a top speed of 5 mph.
Does that help?
Re: (Score:2)
"You come up with a brilliant idea--let's call it a "Porsche""
No, you can't. Porsche is already a trade mark and its unfair use it's void and will be prosecuted.
IP law is something like *this*.
Re: (Score:1)
This book goes a long long way to reaching what you describe. That's why I think it is so awesome. It isn't boring - it is really interesting and understandable. I think Lingberg has done a lot to keep it accurate but readable.
<pedant> (Score:1)
There isn't a person writing code in this country who is not impacted by US intellectual property laws
You misspelled "imaginary"
</pedant>
Re: (Score:2)
Is it me or is all this legal crap on slashdot really f*cking boring?
What happened to "News for nerds stuff that matters"? :-/
It's turning into "News for lawyers, stuff no one gives a sh*t about..."
It can be rather useful to know that you can't link this library to that program and distribute the result. It can also be useful to know that if you cheese of the FSF they'll change their licenses to make their (future) code unusable in whatever field your products are in.
Re: (Score:2)
PDF Version also Available (Score:4, Informative)
If you buy it directly from O'Reilly they also offer a DRM-free pdf version, or book/pdf bundle:
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517960/index.html
I'm glad to see this becoming more common, I'd like to have pdf version of more books I use for reference. Digital search is so much faster than flipping through a book, even if the Index is accurate.
Repeat after me: (Score:2)
There
is
no
such
thing
as
intellectual
property
!
Case closed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The people are intellectual. The property is not. :D
In fact it's as stupid as a rock. Literally.
Re: (Score:2)
We're working on it. [parc.com] :)
Sounds like a good resource (Score:1)
Nerds DO need to know this stuff so some moron doesn't steal their work.
Re: (Score:1)
programmer become lawyer? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I used to work with a laywer for like 3 or 4 years (I was coding as Human Resources oriented app.) and I can say it was a very enrichful experience, I learned to read (and write a bit of) mexican legalese and understand what the things on the contracts actually mean.
As most knowledge you can eigther use it on your favor or let the others use _you_ in their favor.
iIntellectual property a seductive mirage .. (Score:2)
"...in this country..." (Score:1)