Professor Eben Moglen Replies

The call for questions went out on Feb. 10. Here are your answers. We'd like to give Prof. Moglen special thanks for taking time out from his busy schedule to do this.

1) Biggest win and loss so far?
by Em Emalb

What would you consider to be your biggest "win" so far?

How about loss?

I am sure a lot of us here think we know, but it would be interesting to hear it directly from you.

thanks for fighting the good fight.

Eben:

When lawyers are engaged in litigation, their work can be judged in terms of wins and losses. But most of the work that I've done for the Free Software Foundation in the past ten years wasn't about litigation. It wasn't about conflict at all; it was about helping people cooperate, so that more high-quality free software came into being, and stayed free. Every time I persuaded someone that it was better to comply with GPL than to fight with the Foundation, everybody won. Every time I helped licensors who couldn't or didn't want to use GPL to use a GPL-compatible free software license, so that their code and all the world's GPL'd code could be freely combined, everybody won. Many of the outcomes I feel most satisfied about over the past decade wouldn't even make a good story: they're just examples of how persistent, patient reasoning with people can convince them to do the right thing. On the other hand, the matters I most regret are places where I failed to persuade people to work together. Everyone in the /. community can think of controversies in the free software world, personality conflicts, failures of cooperation that have impeded progress. I've tried over the years to bridge some of those gaps, sometimes with no success at all.

There have been litigation controversies in which I've been involved over the years, not always for the Foundation, which lend themselves to the calculus of win and loss. I still feel very pleased with the efforts I and others made from '91 to '94 to prevent the United States Government from indicting Phil Zimmerman over PGP. Winning the crypto wars was one of the most important things our side did in the '90s, and it started with Phil. On the other hand, this year's defeat in the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft, the copyright term extension case, is an unambiguous loss that's going to hurt the cause of free speech and free culture for years to come. I filed a brief amicus curiae in that case on the Foundation's behalf, and like my friend and colleague Larry Lessig, who argued the case in the Court, I take our defeat rather personally. But no defeat in court can possibly be as important as the victory all of us have won in the world: free software exists, and grows more powerful and more elegant every day. That's a victory of the profoundest consequence that we've all won together, and I'm intensely proud of the small contributions I've made to the cause.

2) Clarifying the GPL
by sterno

One issue that I know has come up for me is how the GPL applies in situations where I'm using GPL software but I'm not actually modifying it. For example, I write a Java application, and it is reliant on a JAR that is GPL'd. Do I then need to GPL my software? I haven't changed the JAR in anyway, I'm just redistributing it with my software. The end user could just as easily download the JAR themselves, it's just a convenience for me to offer it in my package.

Eben:

The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2(b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL. If the author of the other code had chosen to release his JAR under the Lesser GPL, your contribution to the combined work could be released under any license of your choosing, but by releasing under GPL he or she chose to invoke the principle of "share and share alike."

3) Helping independent developers work with the GPL
by SwellJoe

I've recently been doing some contract development work for other companies. These companies, so far, have all been very friendly to GPLing the work they hire me for that extends existing GPLed work.

However, when I'm preparing contracts I never know just how to specify that wholly original work we do for them will be "Work-for-hire" under whatever license they choose, but code based on and extending GPLed software will be placed under the same license.

I've browsed through the GNU site, in hopes of locating some example contract language that would make this clear to new customers and make it a legally binding aspect of any agreements made, but alas, I could find no help in this regard.

I should point out: my clients know that the GPL is an enforceable copyright, and don't have a problem with that--our work with GPL'ed software is usually the reason they come to us...this isn't a question of companies wishing to steal GPLed software. It is a question of how to make those terms compatible with an agreement that covers both GPLed work and non-GPLed "work-for-hire". Usually we are doing a bit of both types of work, and we'd like the contract to reflect that in a clear and comprehensive manner.

Seems like this would be a common problem for developers, and I was surprised that I couldn't find any documentation about adding this kind of clause to a contract.

Eben:

Two different issues arise here, and I think they're being conflated. One question is who will own the copyright on the code you are producing, and the other is what license terms the owner may use in releasing that code. Whether the code you write involves wholly new programs or modifications to existing GPL'd programs, your code constitutes a copyrightable work of authorship, and the first question is whether copyright will be vested in you or in the party with whom you are contracting. No matter who owns the copyright, however, modifications to or works based on GPL'd works can only be released under GPL. A "work for hire" provision in your agreement addresses the first question, and means that copyright in all the works of authorship will vest in your client. As to the works based on GPL'd code, in response to the second issue, you want your client to acknowledge its responsibility to release that code under GPL and GPL only. Any number of strategies in contract drafting might be appropriate, depending on the circumstances. The Foundation website doesn't make specific recommendations on how to draft contracts because contract law varies from country to country throughout the world, and no suggestion could possibly be right everywhere. Nor can I provide useful legal advice here, given the level of abstraction. On sensible approach, in a US contract, might be to include a provision in which the buyer acknowledges that the works listed in an attached schedule are subject to GPL, and promises that all code delivered under the contract modifying or extending any of the listed works will be released solely under GPL.

4) Put you in my will...
by wowbagger

I'm a single guy, no dependants. I just had to update all my benefits info at work - if I die, who gets my employer-supplied insurance money.

So how would I go about making the FSF a beneficiary? You might want to put that info on the web site.

Right now, the only organization I have listed is the NRA - they make it pretty easy to set this sort of thing up.

Eben:

Without information about the specifics of your employer's insurance program, I can't provide any detailed advice. The Foundation is of course enormously grateful for the support it receives from members of the free software community around the world. As a moderately large donor to the Foundation myself, I want to express my personal appreciation of your willingness to give. Anyone who wishes to donate to FSF, whether through testamentary disposition or direct contribution, can get further information from the Foundation's Director of Communications, Ravi Khanna, [e-mail].

5) PHB opinions
by Eric Seppanen

My boss' boss (who is quite sharp technically as well as an attorney) thinks that the GPL is stupid because it doesn't read like it was written by a lawyer. He doesn't object to the principles and methods involved-- he's just disgusted by the unlawyerly writing. He says it was written by an amateur, not a lawyer, giving the impression that everyone using it is an amateur, and not serious about their work. What would you say to that?

Eben:

With all due respect to your boss' boss, he may not have appreciated the context in which the GPL is drafted. Most distributors of copyrighted material use a different copyright license for each country in which their work is distributed. That's not feasible for the free software movement: we have no control over the international path that any given piece of code may take, as it is copied and redistributed by its users, and we must therefore do business all over the world on a single license. What would seem good lawyerly drafting to a lawyer in one country might seem like officious or loquacious nonsense to a lawyer in another. Moreover, unlike the licenses written by the legal departments of proprietary content companies, our licenses are meant to be read by individual programmers, who we hope will choose to use those licenses to distribute their own programs. So the GPL is not addressed to lawyers in a single legal system, but to developers in every legal system around the world. Doing optimal drafting for that rather unusual set of needs is plenty serious business, I will say. It isn't work for amateurs. Whether we have been successful in achieving our intentions can only be judged by the results.

6) What can be done about spurious legal threats?
by Tom7

I've noticed a scary trend in "de facto" internet law: Sites are shut down, projects stopped, and ideas silenced because of scary notices from lawyers. Lots of the time, these cease and desist letters don't actually have much to stand on, but they're so cheap to send, and so effective, that any business with a site it doesn't like and a lawyer on salary would be crazy not to do it. The effect of these letters is chilling (so to speak): sites that are probably legal are shut down without the benefit of a trial, and the "precedent" affects the way other laymen interpret the law. I've seen numerous mostly-serious posts on slashdot proclaiming "Wouldn't this be a violation of the DMCA?" when referring to any sort of activity the MPAA or RIAA, etc. wouldn't like. (Speaking of the DMCA -- it has built-in provisions for making precisely this kind of judge-free takedown by an ISP!) This trend seems to be a serious breakdown of the legal system, and I don't like it.

My question is: In your opinion, what can be done to change the way the system operates so that spurious legal threats aren't so economical? What can someone like me do, besides donating to the EFF or going to law school?

Eben:

It's true that it's cheap to write letters threatening legal action, and it's true that many people would prefer to stop doing whatever they're doing that causes them to receive such letters. Bullying of this kind is one of the ways that the rich and powerful oppress the weak and poor. Your question contains specific versions of the only two general answers I know: those of us who are lawyers should fulfill our obligation to provide assistance pro bono publico (for the good of the public, which means without charging fees) to those who need our help and can't pay for it; those of us who aren't lawyers should contribute to organizations, like EFF and FSF, that provide legal support to individuals who need help furthering the causes we believe in.

7) Question
by edward.virtually@pob

Given the failure of the DOJ and other cases against Microsoft (no meaningful penalties, technically incompetent judge overseeing DOJ case, requirement to support Java in IE endlessly held up in court) and the continuing wide-spread abuse of IP law to monopolize cyberspace (patents on obviously invalid claims -- decades of prior art, etc.), do you think Free Software (and it's more "popular" spin-off Open Source) has any chance of long term surival in the United States or it is just a matter of time before it is crushed?

Eben:

Despite the annoyances you mention, which I regard as unfortunate but inessential, I think the position of free software is almost impregnable, both in the United States and everywhere else. The most important threat to the survival of free software is the concept of "trusted computing," which really means the building of hardware you as a user can't trust at all. "Trusted" computers are computers that can be trusted by media companies not to run software that users can modify, so that media company "content" can be delivered without fear that software modified by users will exercise fair use rights that media companies don't want to allow. If the free software movement and its allies can avoid having "trusted" computing forced on PC consumers by either mandatory legislation or industry "consensus," I believe free software will be around forever, and will become the dominant mode of software production and distribution in the course of the next two decades.

8) Being like you.
by Anonymous Coward

As an undergraduate in computer science I have found licensing and intellectual property issues so interesting that I have chosen to go to law school. I would like to advance many of the causes that you support. What advice would you have for an aspiring lawyer who wants to promote freedom and the public domain? What steps would be necessary to support my family and still fight for the cause? How best can a lawyer help society without selling out to big money?

Eben:

There are businesses all over the technology sector that are making money through the employment of free software. They sell hardware, services, solutions, expertise, and even the software itself. They employ lawyers who promote freedom by helping businesses that promote free software. There are going to be businesses all over the media landscape in the next decade that help cultural producers (writers, musicians, videographers, etc.) escape the system of cultural ownership that produces the schlock jamming the eyeballs and eardrums of the world. They're going to need lawyers to resist the onslaught of the "content" oligarchs, who will try to do everything to keep free content from succeeding. There is going to be a major movement in the next two decades to free the electromagnetic spectrum from the iron triangle of the broadcasters, the politicians, and the "campaign contributors," all of whom have tremendous interests in preserving the system where "free speech" means Rupert Murdoch has a million times more right to speak than you and I. Getting back the wireless bandwidth of the world for the people themselves, giving everyone an equal right to communicate, is the next great frontier of freedom. So there are enterprises that need lawyers, provide livings to those lawyers, and further freedom all at once. There are non-profit organizations too that we can work for or donate our time to. Being a young lawyer, as I tell my students at Columbia, is--at its best--an imagination test. We are very fortunate members of this society, in that we can imagine the lives we want and then make them happen. My advice is, aim high.

9) FSF's W3C patent policy position
by The Pim

I sent the following to [e-mail] on January 1, and have not received a reply. Since it is a legal question, perhaps Professor Moglen would answer it here. Some context:

• Act Now To Sidestep A W3C Patent Pitfall [slashdot.org]
• Please Help Pass W3C Patent Policy [debian.org]

I'm writing because I cannot understand some parts of the "FSF's Position on Proposed W3 Consortium 'Royalty-Free' Patent Policy", at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html .

First, it is quite clear that you believe that software exercising patents with "field-of-use" licenses cannot be distributed under the GPL. However, it is not clear whether you believe that such software could be distributed as free software at all. Paragraph two seems to say that it could not, but it also appears to conflate GPLed software with free software, so I am not sure this is what the author meant. Paragraph three equivocates by saying "licensing under other free software licenses does not imply free", without saying "licensing under other free software licenses implies not free".

The impact of the proposed policy on the free software community obviously depends greatly on whether it could prevent us from implementing some standards at all, or only under the GPL. Which is it? (Since most of the document focuses on the GPL, I assume it is the latter. But it should be stated explicitly, and the hints to the contrary should be cleaned up.)

Second, who exactly would be prevented from distributing software exercising such patents under the GPL? Those in jurisdictions in which the patent applies, or everyone?

Third, why exactly are "field-of-use" patents incompatible with the GPL? The addendum intended to clarify this matter does not succeed. Step 4 in its example says,

C's patent license prohibits folks from taking his URL parsing code and putting it into, say, a search engine.

But C's patent equally prohibits folks from taking a (hypothetical) GPLed search engine and adding URL parsing code. So by that argument, nobody can distribute a GPLed search engine, either. What really is the criterion that prevents distribution under the GPL? Is it that the author "knows" that others will be "tempted" to modify the software such that it no longer meets the "field-of-use" restriction? Is it that the author has accepted the patent license himself?

And how does this differ from the situation of distributing GPLed software that cannot be used in some jurisdictions? If I distribute cryptographic software under the GPL, it will end up in the hands of people in repressive countries who are not allowed to use (never mind redistribute) it. This would seem to imply that such software cannot be distributed under the GPL.

I hope you can answer these questions and update the text on your web site.

Eben:

The question as asked is quite complex. Let me try to simplify it somewhat. Free software should be freely modifiable and redistributable by its users. Of course, any code once modified may practice claims of a patent about which the modifying user is uninformed. So anyone distributing free software is unable to assure his users that each and every modification they may want to make is noninfringing. But when someone distributes apparently-free software under actual but undisclosed legal restrictions preventing modification or redistribution, the software is not really free. GPL tries to deal with this problem through section 7, which says that if code you are distributing is actually under restriction that is incompatible with the terms of the GPL, you can't distribute under GPL at all. So if you have accepted a patent license that prohibits you from reusing some of your code, or code you have received from others, in different contexts, GPL section 7 means that you cannot distribute under GPL, and if the code you received was under GPL, your acceptance of the patent license precludes redistribution altogether. The goal is to ensure that, so far as each redistributor's actual knowledge is concerned, each item of GPL'd software distributed is fairly labeled: it can be freely copied, modified and redistributed.

From the Free Software Foundation's point of view, any code subject to field of use restrictions is not free software, but most free software copyright licenses don't read on the problem at all, and GPL section 7 only addresses one aspect of the problem. With respect to the specific issue involved in your question--the W3C proposed patent policy--GPL section 7 will be relevant in the following circumstances: a patent-holder contributes patent claims to a W3C Recommendation, and requires each implementer to take an explicit license containing a field of use restriction. GPL section 7 will preclude GPL'd implementation of that Recommendation. Apparently-free software can implement that Recommendation under, for example, BSD or X11 licenses, but despite its release under those licenses the software will not, from the Foundation's point of view, be actually and fully free.

10) Legal equivalent of GNU
by nattt

If free software / open source / etc. is seen as the saviour of the computer world, what do you see as the route or force to act towards making a better legal profession?

Eben:

I don't think I would talk about free software as the saviour of the computer world. I would say that free software is an important tool for preserving freedom of speech and freedom of thought in our networked society. The equivalent forces acting to produce a better legal system and a better legal profession are the constitutional norms in the US and other societies that protect freedoms of expression, inquiry, and publication. Our job as lawyers is to defend those freedoms, and to increase the relevance of legal doctrine in new social and technological environments.

Thank you

[jaybird144]

I would like to echo the post by saying thank you to Professor Moglen for his willingness to take time to respond to these questions...I can only imagine how busy his time is, and that his willingness wo do things like this is very indicitave of his support for the FSF. Thank you!

Nice

[t0ny]

wow, its nice to see someone working to help open-source without sounding like a zealot. I guess thats why he is out ther getting things done, and a lot of other people are typing baseless complaints into an internet forum.

Reasoning works?

[Jezral]

...persistent, patient reasoning with people can convince them to do the right thing.

I wish I had seen the effects of that more often.

In my experience, people are fanatic about their way of doing something, even if it is completely illogical and not in their best interest.

Or maybe I am the wrongheaded zealot...nah, never...

-- Tino Didriksen / ProjectJJ.dk

Great quote

[TopShelf]

The most important threat to the survival of free software is the concept of "trusted computing," which really means the building of hardware you as a user can't trust at all

Well said - this is a perfect example of Doublespeak, for which you could also say that the built-in presumption is that the user cannot be trusted.

Verbose interview...

[$$$$$exyGal]

Leave it to a lawyer to have one of the most verbose interviews on Slashdot ;-). Even the questions themselves were mostly very verbose. Just compare this interview with the one that William Shatner did [slashdot.org]. You'll notice that Moglen goes into much greater detail than Shatner, even though Moglen is, no doubt, way more busy.

--sex [slashdot.org]

Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[Sloppy]

The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2(b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL

That's pretty broad. If I take that really literally, then if my networking program does DNS lookups in order to make it easier for users to specify what host they want to talk to, then my program is a "combined work" with a DNS server program?

That's obviously absurd. (Right? Please tell me I'm right!))

Somewhere there's some line that is crossed that determines whether two works are really combined or not, and I think that the JAR question was intended to nail that down. At face value, Moglen's assertion that the paradigm doesn't matter, seems pretty radical IMHO. Because if it really doesn't matter, then the whole internet is one combined work.

Re:Rational Face

[Fnkmaster]

Do you understand how annoying it is to talk to RMS in person? You have to consciously keep telling yourself not to use the word Open Source. Despite your assertion that he only gets mad when people "misuse" a word, and that the Open Source people are equally fanatical about the words people use (they aren't), he is a nut. If you ask him for his thoughts on something like Linux, he'll correct you and say, "Well, I can't tell you that, but I'll tell you about my thoughts on GNU/Linux...".

It's not that HE chooses to refer to Linux as GNU/Linux or that HE chooses to speak exclusively for the Free Software movement, but the obnoxious and geekily obsessive-compulsive way he corrects other people's language all the time that pisses everybody off.

It's like if somebody asks you about those "hackers" that broke into some web site. If you start out by saying "I can't tell you about 'hackers', because I only know about 'crackers' and that's the only terminology that I will use..." - well it doesn't matter if you are technically correct, you are an asshole and people will hate you. I appreciate the fact that it can be frustrating to hear people abuse language in discussing topics close to your heart, but subtlety is a virtue if you don't want to inspire enmity in everybody you meet.

Re:Color Me Confused...

[stratjakt]

>> Based upon this, wouldn't any software linking against libraries (assuming they GPL-ed) on a system be required to be GPL-ed?

Yes

>> Seems like it would be difficult to write any software that didn't need to be GPL-ed if you were doing it on a Linux system

It is, though not impossible. Not every library on every linux system is GPLd, and you can always statically compile against the proprietary libraries (after you licensed them) that the GPL'd ones are based on.

Ever notice commercial linux softwares tend to have gigantic executables?

There's a certain 'indian-giver' aspect to the GPL thats distasteful when applied to library code. Luckily most are bright enough to use the LGPL, and no doubt the true GPL'd libraries will fade away into non-use (like proprietary ones like Motif largely did)

Re:Rational Face

[Fnkmaster]

I realize that many geeks are like that. I'm just trying to explain that that's not a good way to be popular, well liked, or a charismatic leader. I am a nerd, perhaps even a geek, but I'm a social person. I understand how to interact with people in a business or professional environment, how to interact with people in an academic environment, how to be persuasive, when it's desireable or appropriate to be aggressive and so on. My actual views are often quite strongly held, though I consider myself a rational person open to logical persuasion on issues where it's appropriate. I just don't think people like RMS understand how to interact with normal folks well enough to be representing a community. Witness how many Slashdotters, geeks by trade or hobby, who are annoyed by the guy.

And yes I have talked to him in person before, several years back at a talk he gave at Harvard. Maybe asshole was too strong a word, I understand it's just "the way he is", I'm just pointing out it could rub a lot of people the wrong way.

Other similar talk

[A nonymous Coward]

Do you understand how annoying it is to talk an African-American and constantly keep telling yourself not to use certain derogatory terms?

Do you understand how annoying it is to talk to an Irish-American and not use various derogatory terms?

Ditto for Polish-Americans, American Indians, women, hackers, how often do you mistakenly talk to someopne and unknowingly insult them? Ever use the word suit to a suit, to his face, by mistake?

Face it, you are insulting RMS by using derogatory terms. If you don't like that, if you think he is overly sensitive, then turn around and look at it from his point of view, and maybe, just maybe, you will see you need a bit of sensitivity in your language. Maybe you need to see RMS as a human being who doesn't like being insulted, and maybe you will see how arrogant you are to think he should adapt to your terms and accept your insulting language.

Another question

[riptalon]

It would be interesting to know Prof. Moglen's views on the main point in this article [ilaw.com.au] in the unlikely event that he is reading this. Namely that while the GPL and most other Free/Open software licenses are perfectly enforcable, there exists a weak point with the copyright holder themselves. If the copyright holder of a peice of free software decided to they could change, or totally revoke the license of the software, and that change would apply to all copies of the software not just future versions. If this is indeed true it is certainly not the way most users of free software believe things work.

I don't think most users believe that Linus could wake up one morning and decide he is going to revoke the license to all the code he has contributed to the Linux kernel and bring linux development to a crashing halt until all that code could be reimplemented by other people. While this is an unlikely senario there are plenty of companies that contribute to free software which might be bought out, go bankrupt or simply have a change of heart.

What about the case of an individual free software developer going bankrupt? Couldn't the copyright of some free software be considered an asset that could be seized to pay their debts? Would the FSF even be a safe copyright holder? Wouldn't it be possible for the FSF to be forced into bankruptcy? Would it be any different from a company or an individual going bankrupt?

My limited usderstanding of this is that the GPL only really applies at the point where a copy is made of the work, although our friends at the RIAA/MPAA are doing their best to make copyright property, rather than a limited monoply on copying. If this is the case then revoking a free software license would seem to only directly affect the distribution and development of the software and current users would be free to continue using it. Although I know there have been attempts to argue that using software involves copying it into memory and so is covered by copyright. What is the status of that?

Of course provided most copyright holders don't do this, free software as a whole can advance but it would be preferable if you could rely on a piece of software staying free after it has been released under the GPL. But in the end I think free software licenses are just a necessarily imperfect attempt to mitigate some of the evils of copyright and that it is suprising that it does as well as it does.

Re:Rational Face

[stevenj]

The sad thing is that most people on here who criticize RMS for being irrational are demonstrably far more so than he. For example, name-calling (e.g. "zealot," "ranting") is an ad hominem attack. Putting words in someone's mouth is little better. (I've never read a single criticism of the FSF's position on "GNU/Linux" that responds to their actual arguments on the issue. Usually, people create strawmen and/or make arguments that the FSF has already responded to in writing.)

It is quite possible to disagree with Richard Stallman's views, especially if you don't start with the same values as axioms. And, in person, he is not always the most suave and charming character, to say the least. But if you actually read anything he has written [gnu.org], you'll find that his essays never make personal attacks, almost always try to directly respond with reasons to the actual arguments of those who disagree with him, and maintain a calm tone.

It is unfair to base your opinion of him on the strawmen propped up continually at Slashdot, and embarrassing that his strongest critics don't measure up to RMS's level of rationality.

(To be fair, the particular post I'm responding to is pretty mild; it doesn't make any arguments, it simply takes the Slashdot characterization of RMS as a given.)

Re:Other similar talk

[Fnkmaster]

That is possibly the most inane argument I've ever heard. I can turn that argument around the other way to refer to anybody's use of language it makes equally little sense:

Face it, RMS is insulting me by using derogatory terms. Turn it around and look at it from my point of view, and maybe, just maybe, you will see that he needs a bit of sensitivity in his language. Has he ever stopped to think that the way he uses language might be insulting to some people? I am a human being too, and I don't deserve to be insulted. It is so arrogant of RMS to assume that I should adapt my terms to his standards and accept his insulting language.

In other words, your argument is content-free. My language pisses him off. His practice of correcting other people's language pisses me off. I was simply arguing that if you don't understand how to correct people in a way that doesn't offend 80% of people in the room, you are going to be an ineffective communicator. We have societal norms for interpersonal interactions. If a person has no intention of conforming to cultural norms, fine, but don't expect people in that culture to just smile and say "well, he's the most annoying fuck in the world, but let's see things from his perspective, he has the right to be an annoying, anal fuck, he's a human being too, maybe he is insulted by our use of language contrary to the rules he has drafted in his own isolated universe".

Re:Rational Face

[Elwood P Dowd]

Yeah. I've gotta agree with you there. If someone misuses a term, and that causes real confusion of meaning, then it's fair to politely request clarification. If they misuse a term, but that does not cause confusion of meaning, then all you can do (politely) is to use the word correctly, or use the correct word.

So I am diminished :) RMS doesn't need to be such a jerk. He could (and damn well better) remain just as ever-vigilant.

Re:Can trusted computing help FSF/GNU?

[DickBreath]

The "trust" in trusted computing means that the user and the software provider can both be assured that the software and hardware are not tampered with. The software intregity is assured.

While this does mean that, yes the software is not compromised by a spy, or spy agency, or some enemy, or by some virus; it also means that the software is not compromised by the end user.

A software package that does something good, such as securely handling classified data, can be trusted to do its job properly.

But also, a software package that

• limits your rights
• sends your private data to some corporation
• pops up ads in your face
• tampers with search results to cause their own links to come to the top

such as program can likewise be trusted to do its job properly.

You know, I've read all the people who have said "I've read the TCPA / TPM specs, and this is good and won't hurt us.".

Are people really so gullible today? Yeah, maybe it won't hurt us if everyone plays nice. Do you really think Microsoft (or any corporation) is going to play nice? Maybe today. What about in ten years when everyone has forgotton?

You know what? I just don't trust corporations. They lie through their teeth. Microsoft has already disclaimed that Palladium has anything to do with DRM, yet The Register soon afterward showed some Microsoft help wanted ads for Palladium that expressly stated that you would get to work with cutting edge DRM, etc.

Haven't you learned anything from thousands of years of human history?

If not, then....

Haven't you learned anything from Babylon 5. The suspension of civil liberties and rights is just temporary.

Haven't you learned anything from Jar Jar Binks? Meesa thinks weesa should give the chancellor emergency powers. Chancellor: I will lay down these powers after the emergency has passed.

Don't they teach World History in high school anymore?

Some people ask, but aren't there some advantages to trusted computing?

Hey, there are advantages to living in a police state. Just ask anyone how low or non-existant the crime rate was in Soviet Russia. (Please no Soviet Russia jokes.) You could walk in a dark alley at 3 AM with no fear of getting mugged. (or very little fear)

I'm sure there are probably some advantages to having a system that takes away my freedom and takes away my control over the software.

It's so funny how youngsters these days who were born way after most of the horrors of the 20th century seem to think it could never happen to them. I guess I'll end up laughing my ass off and saying I told you so.

Re:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

[Jason Earl]

Another example of a GPLed library is QT. This allows developers to use QT if they are willing to let their software fall under the GPL. If you want to use QT in a commercial product you must pay money for a commercial (non-GPL) license.

As for your belief that GPLing a library is an attempt to lock the *interface*, that's blatantly false. As proof of this take a look at libedit [sourceforge.net]. It's goal is to be 100% API compatible with readline, but with a BSD-style license.

The FSF argues that there is little reason to GPL a library that is a reimplementation of a commercial library (ie glibc), because if you did that no one would use the GPLed library. However, if your library has new and interesting features that aren't found in a commercial library then the GPL makes sense. People will want to use the library in their own programs (because of the features), but they will need to release their software under the GPL to be able to use it. There are several examples (ncftp using readline being the prime example) where this has actually been the case.

Re:Rational Face

[1984]

"I appreciate the fact that it can be frustrating to hear people abuse language in discussing topics close to your heart, but subtlety is a virtue if you don't want to inspire enmity in everybody you meet."

Good point, well put. It matters if the person across the table thinks you're a nut, and it's short-sighted to the point of being infantile to think that deliberately being a prick to that person is the quickest, surest or most complete route to your goal. Unless your goal is to be thought a prick.

Re:Rational Face

[swillden]

I dunno about your experience, but *many* geeks are like that. They can't accept somebody else being a little different than them or having different viewpoints.

Allow me to correct your inaccuracy... :-)

While it's possible that many geeks can't accept different viewpoints, that's not my experience at all. My experience is that hard-core geeks tend to be fairly accomodating of different viewpoints, but they tend to correct *inaccurate* or, even more baffling to many people, *imprecise* statements relentlessly.

I think that much of this focus on precision and accuracy stems from spending great slabs of time with stupid machines that don't have the ability to determine what you meant and instead do only what you said. The habits of precision thus developed are reinforced when geeks spend time with other geeks and I think geeks soon realize that highly precise communication is very efficient, or at least can be.

The problem with this, of course, is that the vast majority of the human race does not value precision to the same degree and is perfectly content with any communication that gets the point across with a modicum of accuracy. This causes no end of problems when serious geeks talk to others. On the one hand, the geek expects his listener to understand all of the nuances and shadings of his precisely chosen words, and their logical implications, whereas the non-geek expects it to be spelled out. This problem even afflicts "junior" geeks in many cases, such as, for example, the Unix man pages, which are generally well-written and almost always densely packed with all of the needed information -- if only you understand the precise meaning of the terminology used.

On the other hand, when the geek listens to a non-geek (or lesser geek), he expects the speaker to be similarly precise and is occasionally baffled momentarily by apparent contradictions that are caused by "loose" language. The instinctive geek response (and one that would be appreciated by a fellow geek) is to provide a corrected version of the erroneous sentence. To another geek, steeped in the terminology and thought processes, this correction would either encourage greater precision or, even better, provide clarification of an error in the speaker's understanding of the subject. Correcting errors is good. To a non-geek, the correction seems to be a pointlessly nitpicky restatement of what was just said! Even worse, the nitpicking is clearly unnecessary, since the listener did, in fact, understand.

This dichotomy of precision levels gets to be especially apparent when the subject of discussion is the geek's area of expertise, because the geek tends to have a very broad and subtly nuanced vocabulary, encompassing a thousand fine distinctions which are critical to the expert but silly hairsplitting to anyone else. It's also important to realize that this phenomenon isn't restricted to *computer* geeks, although as I mentioned, I think the machines reinforce it. By way of example, my wife has a degree in Zoology and she occasionally corrects my misapplication of the terms "insect" and "bug". Not because she's trying to be annoying but because the distinctions are as clear to her as, say, the difference between a just-in-time compiler and an interpreter are to me.

Bringing this back to RMS, there actually *is* an important distinction between GNU/Linux and Linux. How important it is depends on the context of the discussion, but in RMS' world, the distinction is always important. His insistence is a little over the top, since context can generally make clear whether "Linux" is intended to mean "the GNU/Linux operating system" or "the Linux kernel", and that pettiness arises from his feeling that people generally give too much of the credit to Linus and company and not enough to GNU (and RMS himself).

The distinction between "Free Software" and "Open Source" is one that RMS would probably never allow to slide, because they are so similar that context may not clue you in as to which one is meant, without careful and consistent application of the correct terminology.

Re:Rational Face

[Fnkmaster]

You are on target with your description of "geeks" and their precise use of language. My point is simple: when you are supposed to be speaking for a community, you need to understand how to use the language that your audience will comprehend. When I'm talking to a broad, general but educated audience, having conversations with students in good colleges, or talking to executives from software and other technology companies, and other generally bright but non-"geek" people, I use the speech and mannerisms expected in our culture to communicate ideas effectively. Precision is sometimes important, but an effective communicator who doesn't want to anger those he or she is communicating with knows when to insist on precision (sometimes, but not constantly) and when to let a point slide because it's not germane to the topic at hand, or because the ideas can be communcated well enough without worrying about it.

In RMS's world, precise use of "Free" vs. "Open" may be important all the time for philisophical reasons, but it's not the most important point to a generally educated, non-geek audience - or rather, it's a point you can bring up once in a talk, but to harp on your audience for every slip of the tongue is disrespectful and annoying. He doesn't understand this distinction. Ergo he should not be considered a mouthpiece for the Free Software community or any other community.

A sufficiently bright person should be able to tune their communications to an appropriate level for the audience. I don't think I qualify as a "lesser geek" just because I don't ALWAYS consider the distinction between Free Software and Open Source software to be relevant to every conversation that touches on the topic.

Re:Rational Face

[4of12]

rub a lot of people the wrong way.

I can believe that he does.

I can also believe that Richard holds his principles so strongly that he himself is constantly being rubbed the wrong way by nearly everyone around him.

History is witness, though, of many men of principle and vision, unwilling to sacrifice or compromise with the conventional wisdom. These are the key people that leave a legacy of progress from which all of society benefits.

More common, though, are plain garden variety assholes that do not possess principles or visions, or at least none apart from a primal need for ego maintenance and inflation.

I think Richard belongs to the former category of "perceived assholes" rather than the latter.

Re:Rational Face

[rgmoore]

I'm just trying to explain that that's not a good way to be popular, well liked, or a charismatic leader.

Of course it's always possible that RMS doesn't particularly want to be a popular, well liked person. He cares a great deal about Free Software, and has poured his heart and soul into it, but has never particularly shown that he cares about being liked. He appears to care about being listened to and have his ideas thought about, but he shows no sign that he particularly cares if people like him.

Personally, I'd have it no other way. The Free Software movement does need some charismatic leaders, but it also needs some uncompromising zealots who will stick to their guns in the face of hostility. RMS has shown that he has the vision to see possible problems facing Free Software and the determination not to back down in his defense of those principles. It's unfortunate that those characteristics make him tough to get along with, but Free Software would have foundered long ago without RMS's unwillingness to bend.

Re:Clear up

[Jason Earl]

I write an application called FooEdit, which dynamically links to a GPLed library called libfoo. I distribute FooEdit under some closed license, requiring my users to get their own copy of libfoo. Have I done wrong? If I understand your post correctly, then you believe that the FSF does not really have a case against me.

If you write an application that links (dynamically or statically it doesn't matter) with a GPLed library then you must distribute your application under the GPL (assuming you distribute your application). This doesn't "lock" the interface or the API because you are perfectly free to create your own replacement for libfoo (called libbar, of course). Example: libedit is a replacement for readline.

What I get from this interview is that the FSF does think it has such a case. The question I'd like to see answered is how it would go about enforcing it. In distributing FooEdit, I haven't agreed to the terms of the GPL, so they would have no choice but to go after me for copyright infringement. In order to gain any traction they would have to argue that my use of libfoo's API constitutes copyright infringement.

If your application doesn't work without libfoo then it is clearly a derivative work of libfoo. You are infringing on the copyright not because you used the libfoo API, but because you created and distributed a derivative work without the permission of the copyright holder.

Is the FSF willing to argue that point in a court of law? Or are they just blowing hot air and hoping to scare people into licensing their applications under the GPL?

Here's a little secret. The reason that the GPL has never been tried in court is not because the GPL is on shaky ground, but rather because it is on such firm ground that only an idiot would want to get up in front of a judge and become a precedent. First of all, all of the major software houses rely on copyright to protect their own intellectual property.

Take the large software development firms, for example. The last thing that IBM or Microsoft would want is a legal precedent that weakened copyright. So count out the large software houses as potential GPL litigators. This explains why there is not a single major software company that hasn't responded, and responded quickly, to perceived GPL violations. Even Microsoft distributes GPLed software, strange as that may seem.

So that leaves the small-time developers. Now imagine your local software consulting firm paying for the lawyer fees that would arise from butting heads with the likes of Moglen or Lessig. The FSF has access to excellent lawyers, and in a copyright case the FSF could even push for the reward of heavy damages. So not only would the small consulting firm be faced with large legal bills, but they would also be faced with the possibility of losing their own copyrighted works (since they would be a derivative of the FSF's works), and paying a hefty fine. It's no wonder that a case hasn't gone to court. Especially since the FSF is happy to forgive you if you simply make the source code available to your customers (note, you don't have to make the source available to the whole world). And the FSF almost certainly would win the court case anyhow. You see, they were very careful to make sure that the GPL relied on the "distribution" of the software as the key to their license. Under normal copyright terms the end user is denied the right to distribute copyright material without permission of the copyright holder. The GPL simply points out the terms under which the original copyright holder is willing to allow you to distribute their work. Either the end user accepts the GPL, or they don't have permission to distribute the software (or its derivatives). The end user can still use the software, but that's it.

Re:Clear up

[Waffle Iron]

So I looked at the FAQ and the GPL again. Clearly, I can't redistribute a GPL'd program that I've modified to depend on a proprietary program. However, the question here was whether I could distribute a proprietary program that depends on a GPL'd program. The proprietary program would be distributed by itself; the end user would have to obtain the GPL'd library.

I still maintain that the GPL can in no way affect my distribution of my program. It is not a deriviative work until it is actually linked. Just because it doesn't do anything by itself doesn't mean I can't sell it; there's no guarantee that anybody will ever try to link it to the GPL'd code. Nor is there a guarantee that a compatible non-GPL'd library doesn't exist or will never exist.

The question then boils down to whether the end user can legally link the two parts together and use them. That's a stickier question. However, here's the actual restriction from the GPL:

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, distribute or transfer the Program except as expressly provided under this General Public License.

If the end user were to install (copy) the GPL'd library first before running it with the proprietary program, then he would no longer be covered by any of the above restrictions (which do not prohibit using the program). The next sentence in the GPL forbids using the program if you violate the above conditions, but the user isn't violating them as written.

The end-user would probably considered to be "modifying" the GPL'd library by linking it to form the derived work. However, the GPL only says (in paragraph 2a) that the user must place notices on modified files (he modified none), and (in paragraph 2b) that if he redistributes it, the whole thing is GPL'd. Obviously, the end user couldn't redistribute it. But I still think he can get away with just using it.