RoR: Forum

Post 0

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 4:17am

Link

Edit

Nice comparison, Adam. But, as somebody who uses the software Darl McBride and Bill Gates like to slander, I wanted to point something out.

Darl McBride of SCO thinks that only proprietary software (like his company's flavor of UNIX) is protected under copyright, but Free/Open Source software is also protected under copyright. In fact, the General Public License used by http://www.gnu.org would have no legal force if not for the copyright law provided by the US Constitution and by international law like the Berne Convention.

Post 1

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 6:55am

Link

Edit

All I can say is: Ayn Rand was right :-) Reminds me of a certain excerpt from Atlas Shrugged where Dr. Potter from the State Science Institute is trying to get Rearden to keep Rearden Metal off the market for a few years.

Post 2

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:08am

Link

Edit

Well spotted, Adam. We probably too often overlook the genius of Bastiat because we're put off by his belief that rights originate from God. But we can learn so much from his no-nonsense, trenchant, non-academese insights.

Post 3

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 7:22am

Link

Edit

For an article that's entirely cut-and-paste, you make your point quite eloquently. :) God save us (metaphor) from this kind of protectionist crap!

On the other hand... McBride's letter does contain one legitimate, and entirely significant point:

"The second problem with Open Source software is that it is not all original. Linux software contains significant UNIX software code that has been ... without authorization, placed in Linux."
etc...

I admittedly don't have the technical knowledge of UNIX/Linux to verify the legitimacy of McBride's claim, but if it is true, then Linux IS an illegal theft of proprietary software. The GNU licence is all fine and good, but you can't apply it to someone else's proprietary code.

Post 4

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 8:12am

Link

Edit

From what I know about SCO, and they have a litigious history. Formerly named Caldera, they acquired DR-DOS from Novell (who had purchased it from Digital Research), then sued Microsoft for claiming that Windows could only run on top of MS-DOS. Microsoft eventually settled with Caldera to make them go away.

Caldera used to sell their own version of Linux. I took the second Linux Admin class that they offered (here's a cheesy review: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=3259) . During the class I asked a rather frank question: how could Caldera make money on a free operating system? A company rep admitted that most of their revenue came from sales of shrink-wrapped CDs. I wondered at the time how such a profit model could survive, because one only buys a copy of a free operating system if it is cheaper than downloading it from the internet. As bandwidth costs dropped and availability increased, this profit model evaporated. Caldera obviously came up with a new profit model: buying SCO to get its intellectual property, then selling Unix licenses to unsuspecting Linux users.

A Finnish graduate student, Linus Torvalds, created a free version of Unix, now called Linux, by cloning most of the functionality of proprietary Unix systems. He did not borrow Unix code to do it. This is exactly the same thing that Bill Gates did when he duplicated the functionality of the CP/M operating system to produce MS-DOS, except that Gates went on to market MS-DOS as a commercial product, while Torvalds simply released his code to the programming community. SCO claims that Linux contains 100,000 (the exact number is a trifle vague) lines of proprietary code. When asked about SCO's claim, Torvalds said, "They are smoking crack." I tend to agree. The Linux kernel has been so heavily scrutinized by so many people that massive intellectual property theft just doesn't seem possible. Major Linux vendors like Red Hat also think the SCO claims are spurious, and have begun offering their users full indemnity against future legal challenges.

On the other hand, the Linux camp may argue about the constraints that GPL places on software development and transfer, but no one seems to cite court cases to back it up. Below is a link to the only pending legal challenge, that I am aware of, which tests the legality of the GPL:

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00050/008924/title/Subject/topic/Intellectual%20Property%20Law_Licensing/filename/intellectualpropertylaw_1_239

The problem seems to be that many legal scholars consider the GPL unenforceable. Here is a quote from Robert Merges of the Berkeley Law School:

"By its own terms, the copyleft agreement is an unusual license; at the most basic level consider the problem of determining damages when the licensee frustrates the licensor's expectation of zero profits under the contract," writes Merges. "But what is most significant about the agreement is that it purports to restrict subsequent transferees who receive software from a licensee, presumably even if the licensee fails to attach a copy of the agreement. As this new transferee is not in privity with the original copyleft licensor, the stipulation seems unenforceable."

(see full article at http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/2000/1/)

The problem I have with opensource code and the GPL is that proponents see it as a new religion. Programming to them is a holy war, and one often hears them say that all software should be free. Excuse me? As someone who started programming on punch cards, I recall the days when all software was free and "open-source" because there was no way to protect the code. Many end users wrote their own software and traded it freely long before Linux strolled in using the GPL to mandate the same thing. Early programmers released source code, but often inserted a line in the code reserving copyright to the author. This still makes more sense to me than the GPL, because copyright law protects the author from mass copying and profiteering, while still permitting limited copying for non-commercial use. And while copyrights eventually lapse, I'm not aware of any time limits built into the GPL.

Post 5

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 11:53am

Link

Edit

Gordon, SCO has yet to prove that there's any actual code from their brand of Unix in the Linux kernel. Were they to do so, it's a safe bet that a new version of the Linux kernel that did not have the infringing code would hit the internet within two weeks; the kernel hackers take a great deal of pride in their work.

stschad, I personally think that the BSD license makes more sense than the GPL; it's more of a "use the code as you will, but give the authors the credit they're due" license.

Post 6

Sunday, February 1, 2004 - 2:37am

Link

Edit

There is a problem with current copyright law that SCO is exploiting for its claim against IBM (and, indirectly, Linux.) Originally, copyright was conditional on publication; one could check one's writings against the published literature and make sure that no copyrights were violated. At some point the publication requirement was dropped, so that a software writer has no way of making sure that his code does NOT duplicate code that SCO keeps secret, yet still claims copyright over. Unlike creative writing, there is usually just one clearly optimal way to code a Posix-standard header file, or an algorithm that needs to be compatible with some standard interface. So similarities between SCO's secret code and Linux are unavoidable: since SCO's copyrighted code is secret, Linux programmers have no way to avoid writing code that happens to be _similar because that is the best way to write it_. An objective law would hold that since Linux programmers had no way of knowing what it was that they were supposed to not duplicate, the programmers and users of Linux cannot be held liable for similarities they had no way to avoid. But then, the actual rulings of US courts bear little resemblance to objective law.

Post 7

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:48am

Link

Edit

Adam I think your argument is confused.

UNIX may be "out of the bag", but a software company in principle ought to be able to copyright an API. E.g., the creator of UNIX ought to be able to copyright the whole collection of API's, such that anyone cloning it would be in violation.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for "open source" movements whose sole existence is made possible by cloning things companies have spent millions of dollars to try to define and create. It is *very easy* to clone; it's far more difficult to create it in the first place. Much, though not all, of the open source movement is parasitical in this sense.

Again, as far as UNIX goes the IP I'm referring to may already have been in the public domain, so my argument is moot for UNIX at this point in time. But in principle I think the companies should have retained rights such that no cloning would have been possible.

Post 8

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 4:11am

Link

Edit

If you use the Search features here, you can find at least three discussions of Patents and Copyrights.

It gets complicated and no one gets convinced.

Personally, I am opposed on principle to the government granting monopolies. I know that others will say that software patents do not grant, but recognize, property rights.

One thing that these discussions often lack is a firm basis in fact. For instance, in one of the discussions, someone said, suppose you had a secret invention... Well, ok, suppose. You see, this is not theoretical. The formula for Coca Cola is a trade secret. Three people know it. Only two are allowed to travel together. It has been like that for decades and decades. There is no need for "suppose..." We have real cases we can look at, if empirical evidence is important.

In another post, someone completely inverted the definition of "copyright" and no one called him on it. They just went right on discussing an unreality.

At Michigan State University about 20 years ago, one of the computer science professors hacked out a parser to read student programs. You would think that for an undergraduate problem in programming 101, there would be only so many ways to write a program. In fact, there is at least one for each student, sometimes more than one. Like any other form of plagiarism, stolen code is easy to identify.

You might say that you don't care where the product comes from as long as it works at a price you want to pay. My response would be: They stole the code from us, which is fine. You want buy it from them, fine. That's the free market. But you know what? When it breaks, they cannot steal customer support from us and we're going to charge you every cent you can afford when you come to us -- which you will. Have a nice day.

Some Objectivists are kind of like Liberals in that both believe in the free market, but both know that the free market only works up to a point and after that they need the government to step in.

Post 9

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 7:32am

Link

Edit

"My response would be: They stole the code from us, which is fine."

Absurd.

Post 10

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 8:48am

Link

Edit

Hi Michael,

Question: Why did you write that "fine" remark? Were you using it to show that you agreed to wholesale theft of your intellectual property, giving it your total moral sanction and providing a philosophical basis for showing what a despicable evader and retard your are?

Or were you just using a common expression for dramatic effect to prepare your next statement, which actually shows in a very clever manner that most thieves do not have the mental capacity to maintain what they steal in the computer realm?

Just a question...

Michael

Post 11

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 7:07am

Link

Edit

Many people may disagree with me on this because it is so easy to copy software, but I feel strongly about buying the programs. I respect the the hard work that has gone into making some of the programs that I use and they don't come cheap, especially professional graphics applications. I think the prices are so high because so many people pirate it, download warz, etc. Recently software has become harder to share. It is my hope more people will be honorable capitalists and buy rather than steal, and hopefully software prices will drop before the next Adobe Creative Suite comes out.

(Michael K, git, I saw that... git to the kitchen... and I mean now.)

Post 12

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 7:09am

Link

Edit

I agree with you kat. The fact that it's easy doesn't make it right.

J.

Post 13

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 7:44am

Link

Edit

Michael K:

"Why did you write that "fine" remark? Were you using it to show that you agreed to wholesale theft of your intellectual property, giving it your total moral sanction and providing a philosophical basis for showing what a despicable evader and retard your are?"

This is one of those times where too much meaning is lost by reading the text of a persons comments and not imagining how they are saying it. Michael M's "fine" was intended to be sarcastic. Much technical software is very hard to use effectively without the technical support of the authors of the program. Michael is saying "steal it, but you won't be able to use it unless you come to us for support, and then you will pay dearly." Michael Marotta was not saying it's ok to steal software, more like "crime doesn't pay". Even in a totally free market.

Post 14

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 9:53am

Link

Edit

Mike,

I think I misfired. I was actually being sarcastic because of the insinuations of the post right above mine, where Michael M's remark was called "absurd" by Shayne. I did not directly address Shayne because I did not want to get into a another go-nowhere pissing match with him.

I caught the meaning of what Michael M was saying. I just have a thing about people using out-of-context quotes to make silly insinuations and stick their tongues out at someone. (I really am trying to curb my manners, but sometimes I get riled.) So I took the insinuations to their logical conclusions, which I personally find "absurd."

To counter the sarcasm, I made my second comment, the one about Michael M actually being clever. This is what I really think.

I apologize to Michael M for any hard feelings this vagueness may have caused.

MM, I find your posts fascinating in general. On this go-round, I wanted to stick up for you. I guess I just wasn't as clever as I thought I was.

Michael

Post 15

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 11:32am

Link

Edit

Michael K:

I get it. I guess I misfired too.

"despicable evader and retard.." certainly doesn't sound like you, unless I've only seen you on your good days. [music from "Jaws" here]

I ignored Shaynes' post, but he occasionally says something interesting. I just take it he sometimes doesn't finish reading before writing. I had a mentor once who said "99% thinking, 1% doing". Sounds about right.

Post 16

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 12:16pm

Link

Edit

My, you guys sure are going to absurd lengths to rationalize his absurd comment.

And just because you are being rude and talking about me without talking to me doesn't mean you're not participating in a "pissing" contest. You're just doing it while not admitting it to yourselves.

It's ironic that it's the touchiest people who have the biggest capacity for being obnoxiously rude.

Post 17

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 2:03pm

Link

Edit

Since when is understanding what someone said "rationalizing"? Ask Michael Marotta what he meant if you still don't get it.

"It's ironic that it's the touchiest people who have the biggest capacity for being obnoxiously rude."

Pot, kettle, black. [to borrow a phrase from Thomas L. Knapp]

Post 18

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 3:38pm

Link

Edit

Shayne,

"...talking about me without talking to me doesn't mean you're not participating in a "pissing" contest. You're just doing it while not admitting it to yourselves."

No. It meant that I don't want to talk to you at all because I don't think you are civil. But you piss me off when you stick your tongue out at people I like reading instead of writing something intelligent.

You are not a stupid man. Why you act that way I don't know, but I don't like it.

Michael

Post 19

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 4:30pm

Link

Edit

Michael: I called a *statement* he made absurd. Which it was. Then you two come in and attack *me*. Yes I was terse, and I didn't elaborate on the other things I thought were wrong with what he said. But at least I was on subject. If you want to whine about me, why don't you start another thread, rather than derailing every thread that I make a comment on? It's really getting tiresome to have you making pointless jabs at me at every opportunity.

And on top of all that, you have the audacity to accuse me of not being civil. What a couple of hypocrites.