LawMeme LawMeme Yale Law School  
LawMeme
Search LawMeme [ Advanced Search ]
 
 
 
 
Linux's Enforcers
Posted by Badri Natarajan on Tuesday, October 14 @ 16:10:57 EDT Linux

A fascinating story today in Forbes about the Free Software Foundation and their aggressive enforcement of the GPL.

In essence, the story describes the enforcement action by FSF in connection with alleged inclusion of GPL'd code in a Linksys Wi-Fi router sold by Cisco (which recently acquired Linksys) without adhering to the GPL provisions (which require distribution of source code with the executable code, among other things). The story talks about the "threats" made by FSF in this regard, during negotiations with Cisco and Broadcom (which is the supplier of the actual chip used in the router).

The whole tone of the article is about how such aggressive GPL/copyright enforcement can be hurting the free software movement itself, although the article is not very clear on how exactly that happens, except to suggest that companies might be "scared away" from using open source software, because of the threats, and allegations of GPL violation that might ensue. It looks to me as if the entire article is based on the false premise that GPL/Open Source/Free software (all of which terms have been used almost interchangeably, by stating rather misleadingly that "the FSF controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free" programs.") is copyright-free, in the public domain, and free for anyone to do whatever they like with it. Continues inside . . .



This is one of the central misconceptions that most people have internalized about open source software - just because they don't have to pay money for it, and it is freely distributable, people tend to believe that they can do anything they want with it. In reality, open source software, and GPL'd open source software in particular, takes advantage of strong copyright laws and enforcement, to make software as free (as in freely available to the maximum number of people, not free as in beer, to borrow a famous phrase) and open (for viewing, modification and improvement) as possible. Broadly speaking, any use of GPL'd software that violates the tenets of the GPL's philosophy (and therefore it's license terms), such as distributing GPL'd software without source code, would not be allowed and the FSF would step in to take "enforcement action".

The article rather snidely suggests that the FSF is ideologically driven and is using the GPL to spread open source software, and using the GPL terms to "force open" as much closed software as possible. Well..DUH. Of course the FSF is ideologically driven and it wants to spread open source software and reduce usage of closed software.

There is also the suggestion that GPL enforcement is basically a money-making tool for the FSF, since they collect money from the people they "bust" for GPL violation or grateful people whose GPL'd products they've helped to protect.

Even if that's true, so what? Do either of these things mean they're not entitled to enforce the terms of the GPL and the copyright in the work? Or that they can't use the legal system to achieve their ideological goals?

The thing I don't like about this article is the implicit assumption that all these happy, leftist free software developers are giving away their work for free, and therefore, it is somehow dishonourable, or sleazy for them to seek to enforce the licence terms for their software. Wielding that kind of legal stick should (supposedly) be left to the Big Bad Corporations who write closed software and want to protect.

That's a mentality that we need to change. Why should only the "bad guys" carry sticks?

 
Related Links
· More about Linux
· News by Badri Natarajan


Most read story about Linux:
Linux's Enforcers

Options

 Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

 Send to a Friend  Send to a Friend

Threshold
  
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Re: Linux's Enforcers (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 @ 23:01:32 EDT
This is why I love the BSD license and its variants. The GPL guys are all so proud of themselves and their little ideological games, and meanwhile practically minded people are creating truly free software, software that can be used by anyone, software that comes with no strings, software that is a gift to the world. No company in its right mind will use GPL software, but BSD is widely used and appreciated.

In the long run, GPL cannot survive in competition with BSD, because the BSD software can be used so much more widely. Just as open source will win out over closed source, truly free software like BSD will win out over strings-attached, ideological software like GPL.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: Linux's Enforcers (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 @ 08:36:12 EDT
That article was one of the biggest pieces of trash I've ever had the misfortune to read. God forbid that someone who's GPL'ed their code should enforce their IP rights. It's okay for SCO to jump feet-first into lawsuits and FUD about the GPL, but for the FSF to negotiate with companies to bring them into compliance with the GPL, it's somehow a major sin.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: Linux's Enforcers (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, October 17 @ 02:52:32 EDT
Jerkface idjit has posted a response. I refuse to link to it because Forbes is a) doing this to get banner views or b) trying to attack Linux for ideological/profit motives. In it, he states that he was only trying to point out that Linux's cost is too high and that this impedes its adoption.

First off, he says that he's merely asking what's good for Linux. If this is true, why all the highly pejorative words in the original article. It's full of slurs like "Hit man", "dark side", and many others. With friends like him, who needs SCO? Has he ever written anything complimentary about Linux before? A quick look around shows that he has a habit of slamming it instead. This reminds me of political pundits who oh-so kindly give advice to other ideologies. And as for his goal of widening Linux adoption, his only solution is dropping any enforcement of the license it was created under. I bet Windows could be far more widely adopted if it was free, but he's not going to suggest that because MS doesn't want that. (Well, except when piracy can wipe out competitors, and you better expect enforcement once they lock up the market.) If we were only concerned with adoption and not with the continued freedom of code, we'd work on BSD.

Second, if he's trying to make corporations aware that Linux is not public domain, he's doing it in an incredibly deceitful manner. He's trying to paint Linux as a truly viral OS where merely using it in a product requires giving away all your IP. He completely ignores the fact that proprietary apps can run on Linux all day long without violating the GPL and Cisco got in trouble for modifying kernel code.

FUD, FUD and more FUD. What a jerk. Forbes is on my list of not-to-be-read publications now.


[ Reply to This ]


Lyon's ideology vs facts (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, October 17 @ 06:26:44 EDT
The editors posted a reply containing Lyon's initial response to the comments he received, but even in the reply he failed to acknowledge that the GPL is a license and stood by his original position that Cisco and others should feel free to violate the terms of the license should they disagree with it. In all, it was a clever troll and many took the bait.


[ Reply to This ]


Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die

Contributors retain copyright interests in all stories, comments and submissions.
Everything else copyright (c) 2002 by the Information Society Project.

This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later.
The latest version is currently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/.

You can syndicate our news with backend.php

Page Generation: 0.264 Seconds