sharealike.org

Last night I download the source for the 2.4.20 Linux kernel from SCO’s website. The Linux kernel is copyrighted by its authors, as all computer code is, and in the case of the Linux kernel, the authors have chosen a Copyright License called the General Public License or GPL. In SCO’s latest court document in its suit against IBM, its Reply to IBM’s Amended Answer with Counterclaims, SCO claims in its Sixth Affirmative Defense, “The General Public License (‘GPL’) is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM’s claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred.” and in its Eighth Affirmative Defense they say, “The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM’s claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred.” So, it is clear that SCO does not accept the GPL or find it to be a valid Copyright license.

That is, of course, problematic for SCO, since just last night, they distributed the Linux kernel to me without any license to do so. One is always free to reject the license terms offered. SCO apparently rejects the terms offered to them by the Linux kernel’s authors. The problem then is that without that license SCO is bound by the default standards of Copyright, which is “All Rights Reserved” which includes the rights to copy, modify, or distribute. SCO is copying, modifying, and distributing the Linux kernel without a license, and as a result can face pretty steep damages under Copyrihgt Law for each infringement, up to $150,000 per instance.

My download was just one such instance. If you downloaded the source too, it might create another. The damages for SCO would pile up. They might want to rethink this…

[I just posted this comment below on Dean's blog.]

Hello Dean supporters and Staff!

I want to ask something of Governor Dean. First, let me say that I’ve donated to the Dean campaign, have a Dean bumper sticker on my car, and a Dean poster in my Apartment window. He is, in my opinion, Democrats’ (and America’s) best hope. But I also like Clark and Kucinich as they oppose(d) the war and have a number of other policies I agree with. Despite my outward appearance of whole-hearted Dean support, I have a couple concerns that might change my vote in my primary.

They are:
1) Dean supports the death penalty. I don’t support it under any circumstance. Intelligent people can disagree about this, so I’d ask Gov. Dean to pledge something like this: “I am a supporter of the death penalty, but since recent evidence has shown a troubling number of death-row inmates able to conclusively prove their innocence, if elected, I promise to immediately enact a moratorium on the Federal Death Penalty so that a full review can be done. Once the results of that are known, I may or may not re-establish a Federal Death penalty, based on what we find.” He could point out he is just following the good example of the Governor from Illinois, here.

2) The NRA loves Dean. I’m not comfortable with the NRA loving the candidate I vote for. I’d like Gov. Dean to take a long hard look at his positions here and see if he can be moved to favor more gun control legislation than he currently does. I’m not opposed to people owning hunting rifles, but semi-automatic weapons, and the glut of handguns in this country are seriously problematic. What the solution is, I don’t know, but I want a President who will commit to changing the status quo on this issue in a meaningful way.

3) Campaign Finance Reform. Perhaps I just haven’t heard what Dean has to say about this, but I believe this may be the most pressing issue facing our country. Yes, worse than terrorism. The terrorists of 9/11 struck once over two years ago, but the corporate terrorists that control our government are terrorizing our country every day. I want radical reform. The government should give the candidates from each party that had at least x% of the vote in the last election the exact same amount of money (and let me tell you it ain’t 100 million) and should mandate the major networks give each of these candidates the exact same amount of air time (free). Remember, they are the people’s airwaves and we just lease them to NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. For an important civic cause like this, we can take the airwaves back. Other than that, absolutely no outside funding should be allowed. (Notice, I didn’t say anything about funding during the primaries. What a candidate wants to spend to beat her fellow party members is her business, I think, but none of that money would carry over to the national race.)

That’s a good start. So, what I ask of Governor Dean is this: Commit to doing the right thing on these three issues. I want you to truly represent the Democratic Wing of the Democratic party. I think you can best do that by taking up the three commitments above.

Brian

Slashdot readers know of the potential threats of Palladium/Trusted Computing and of the “Fritz chip“, and a past Slashdot piece even warned of the MPAA’s push to have the FCC implement a so-called “broadcast flag”. Now the Washington Post reports that the broadcast flag will soon be a reality. The soon-to-be-passed FCC Rule Would Control Digital TV Copies and The Post says that none of the five FCC Commissioners have led a public campaign against the broadcast flag. Apparently, the FCC needs to hear a little more clearly that consumers don’t want the fundamental technology in their computers, digital televisions, or digital video recorders altered to only read content approved by the MPAA. Not to mention the forced-upgrade we’ll endure when our old DVD players refuse to play the new “flagged” media. Luckily, the EFF’s Action center has made it easy for you to tell the FCC to reject the MPAA’s broadcast flag. Do it now! (This was a Slashdot submission of mine.)

The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting that Acacia Technologies is suing colleges for patent infringement. Acacia claims to hold five patents that cover streaming media used in online courses and wants colleges to license the technology to the tune of 2% of all online course revenues. Virgil Varvel, a computer-assisted-instruction specialist for the University of Illinois system said online courses are “already a borderline return of investment. We would have to stop doing what we’re doing.” That’s how simple it is. Here’s a software patent that is going to stifle a cool technology and reduce the public’s access to education. Online courses reach working people, adult students, students with disabilities and other groups who often are unable to participate in traditional courses. The ability to use the web to reach these people more effectively and to provide them access to educational opportunities is a good thing, and clearly a far better thing than giving Acacia a private monopoly on an obvious and commonplace technology. Tell your representative. Software patents must die!

This press release from the Consumer’s Against Government Waste lambasts the state of Mass. for adopting open source software. Here’s the letter I wrote them trying to steer them away from their misunderstandings:

Hi,

Your press release at: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_09302003b

seems to exhibit a couple of misunderstandings that, if corrected, would likely lead to a change in the position of the CAGW.

The CAGW says in another current press release that “Competition leads to improved production and higher customer satisfaction.” I could not agree more. Competition is a good thing. That’s also why Massachusett’s proposed move to open source software will also be a good thing, because it will increase competition. A simple example can illustrate:

If Massachusetts uses a proprietary vendor, like say PeopleSoft, for its numerous human resources software needs, then when they need upgrades, changes, improvements, services, technical support, etc for that software then there is a single vendor they can turn to for those services, namely PeopleSoft. The proprietary vendor of a closed-source program has a monopoly on the servicing of that software, which you rightly recognize as a major component cost of software used by the state.

On the contrary, if an open-source program were used instead to meet those same state needs, then when the state needs upgrades, changes, improvements, services, technical support, etc for that software then there are an unlimited number of potential vendors from which the state might choose. The reason for this is obvious: with an open source program any competent IT vendor can familiarize themselves with the source code and offer services for that software. Indeed, widespread government use of open source software would almost certainly spur the formation of new businesses whose sole aim would be to service such software. This situation is impossible with proprietary software because a single vendor holds monopoly control over its source code.

Also, nothing about the adoption of open source software excludes traditionally proprietary companies from joining the competition. Open source software creates a level playing field where even Microsoft themselves could decide to support such software with service contracts. Indeed, traditionally proprietary vendors could also still sell their software if they simple opened the source for inspection. And as you point out, the “Free” in “Free Software” does not necessarily refer to the price. Traditionally proprietary vendors can still make profits on selling open sourced software if they choose to. There are numerous NASDAQ-listed companies whose whole business model is selling open-sourced software for a price.

I agree that “the best policy on the use of software is to place all products on equal footing” but your release fails to recognize that choosing a proprietary program puts a monopolist in a position of total control, whereas choosing an open-sourced program places all software service vendors on the equal footing we both would like to see.

I could elaborate more, but I trust you are fully capable of reflecting on these issues yourself and I believe if you look at all the information carefully you will see that the way towards greater competition on an equal footing is through open source.

Brian W. Carver
Oakland, CA

Here’s the headline: Car-Loan Rates Marked Up More for Blacks, Report Says. Now, under the insane Proposition 54 that voters will decide on October 7, it would be impossible to even do the research that demonstrated this form of discrimination. Stop the Information Ban. Vote NO on 54.

This is an extremely interesting use of the internet and the power of collaborative action. Check out the Downhill Battle P2P Legal Defense Fund. Whether you just think legal expenses are too high for normal people and sympathize with the little guy all the way to Copyright Abolitionists this site is for you. You can contribute (via evil PayPal) any amount you like and it will go directly to someone who has been sued for file-sharing by the RIAA.

Here’s a crucial thought: If people are willing to pay for someone else’s legal expenses accrued by file-sharing, how much more willing would they be to pay a reasonable fee for legal file-sharing?!? The Recording Industry is missing a huge opportunity here.