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.

Fraud!

He didn't say "GNU" nearly enough. Can't be with the FSF.

Re:Fraud!

He didn't say "GNU" nearly enough. Can't be with the FSF.

If you notice, he never once said the word "linux" either. Like the GPL, which forces you to distribute source only if you distribute binaries, the FSF requires you to say GNU only when you say Linux.

HTH.

Thank you

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!

I demand ...

I demand that all words in this article be preceded by "GNU", by decree of the Dark Lord Stallman. This comment is exempt.

Re:I demand ...

GNU/I GNU/don't GNU/believe GNU/that GNU/you've GNU/been GNU/exempted.

Re:I demand ...

That's GNU/Stallman to you, buddy.

Notable in its Absence

Was the phrase "IANAL". Finally, someone on /. who _is_ a lawyer, not just playing one.

Nice

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.

Disclaimer

Disappoiningly, not one of his answers begins 'IAAL, but...'

He can't be lawyer!!

He obviously charges less per word than Shatner! [slashdot.org]

Rational Face

Looks like Prof. Moglen is the rational face of the FSF. He is able to explain things without ranting "Proprietary software is evil" and "Linux is really GNU/Linux" (although the word "Linux" never appeared in the article, so it's possible that he'd say it). He didn't object to the use of the phrase "open source".

Why don't we let the good Professor be the public face of the FSF and banish the zealots to a sound-proof box?

Re:Rational Face

He didn't object to the use of the phrase "open source," but I'd suggest that that's because it was used accurately.

People on both sides of the Free Software vs Open Source debate usually get equally upset when folks misuse the words. They mean different things. Even RMS doesn't get angry when folks discuss Open Source. He corrects them when they mistakenly suggest that he promotes Open Source Software.

Re:Rational Face

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:Rational Face

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

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

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.)

Reasoning works?

...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

My moderation of this interview...

+5 Insightful

Great quote

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.

Ours or his?

"Here are your answers"...

I'm really not a language expert (this not being my home language and everything).
But I was pondering the "Here are his questions and here are your answers" and was just still wondering who's answers and who's questions was it again?

Can trusted computing help FSF/GNU?

"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.

But can the "trusted computing" scenarion be used to protect GNU works? Can we make sure that others are not infringing on the GPL using this or am I grasping at straws here? Is there anything in this initiative that could be used to promote our freedoms?

Re:Can trusted computing help FSF/GNU?

Can we make sure that others are not infringing on the GPL using this

No.

or am I grasping at straws here?

Yes.

OK, now to be a little more helpful ;)

Trusted computing requires that the binaries be signed by a trusted signer. For example, Company A is a trusted signer, and Product B is GPL. Company A can take Product B, modify it to their heart's content, and publish it as their own. As long as they sign it, the computer will run it. The computer has no notion of license, just signed or unsigned.

Re:Can trusted computing help FSF/GNU?

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.

In your will? Yikes!

Now RMS is going to hunt you down and assassinate you for your insurance money! That RMS is like cat, or a ninja, or a ninja cat!

Paradigm really doesn't matter?

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:Paradigm really doesn't matter?

I think the answer is that although the GPL could in theory lead to perverse examples, this never happens in the real world.

It is obvious that the DNS server was written to allow closed-source software to call it. Otherwise it would be quite useless, people would not use it, or ignore the restriction (because it is impossible to enforce technically). I think all the really perverse examples that can be come up with it can be shown quite obviously that the writer intended non-GNU software to call it.

As for "libraries", it seems that all real-world examples are LGPL or similar. The only counter-example I have ever heard of is readline, can anybody (even RMS) name another? By this I mean a library that could in any concievable way be used by more than one program with significantly different functions. Libraries designed to work around the Windows DLL limitations so that "plugins" can load do not count.

In the real world (as opposed to RMS's fantasy wourld) the LGPL (or an even looser version that explicitly allows static linking, like I use) very well protects your clever algorithim from being stolen. People have to use your library (or write possibly worse algorithims from scratch) and that can hugely limit the amount of damage they can do with their closed-source, since the library and what it does is open, and because the license requires that reverse-engineering be allowed.

IMHO putting the GPL on libraries seems to be an attempt to lock the *interface* so that non-GPL code cannot call it. This sounds suspiciously like what MicroSoft does. It also does not work, the result (like for readline) is that nobody uses the library at all. Even for GPL code, since part of the GPL is the freedom to change your own code to be non-GPL if possible, and using that library means that is not possible.

Color Me Confused...

"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.""

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

I'm just curious, trying to understand better.

Expiration of copyright and GPL

What happens with GPL-ed code after the
copyright on it is expired?
I probably can do with that code whatever I want.

Re:Expiration of copyright and GPL

It's a moot point: no copyright on GPLed code will ever expire, because we lost the Eldred case. This means that Disney will have its paid congresscritters extend the copyright term again every time Mickey Mouse threatens to go into the public domain. As a result, all GPLed code will always be copyrighted.

If we had won Eldred, then eventually GPLed code would enter the public domain.

Trusted computing as the true enemy

I find it highly meaningful that he would see this as the true enemy of free software. Another question is: how do we stop it? What if, a few years down the road, you cannot buy a CPU or motherboard that doesn't contain it?

Lawyer

Legal questions, on Slashdot, being answered by a lawyer.

How refreshingly novel.

Eben

Doesn't that mean "father of" in some older languages

I'm confused about this claim

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.

Section 2(b) of the GPL does not contain the "only under the GPL" part of that statement. It is my understanding that if I write a program that links against a GPL library, I may distribute the source code to my own program under the terms of (say) the MIT license as long as I also provide it under the terms of the GPL.

Another question

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.

Speaking of lawyers...

How about an "Ask Slashdot" with Hank Mishkoff of www.taubmansucks.com [taubmansucks.com] and/or Paul Levy of Public Citizen [citizen.org]? Their fight and eventual win against Taubman and their crooked lawyers (just read the account and you'll see -- they're lying and distorting throughout the process, and frankly I find it amazing what they *get away* with[0]) is not only important in itself, but the way Hank documented it is an inspiration to all. It provides real insight into fighting a corporation out the crush you.

Great work by the team of Public Citizen; Press Release [citizen.org] (Won appeal)

Here's an article in the Dallas Observer [dallasobserver.com] about the case -- check the spin Taubman tries! (third paragraph from the end)

[0] Maybe we should Ask Slashdot with Julie from Gifford-Krass-Groh-Sprinkle and ask her how she sleeps at night. "Great", I guess :-\

GPL and BS wording

I was very disappointed with the reply to question 5, the one about the GPL text itself sounding amateurish. Sorry, but I don't buy for a second the comment about needing to understand the context of the license, etc. Any software license that starts with a political manifesto, in effect, is poorly written and shows with perfect clarity just how screwed up are the author's priorities.

I know, this is exactly the kind of license you would expect from a fanatic like RMS, but I agree with the thrust of the original question--the wording does look stupid and I know for a fact that it turns off some business people.

Clarification to the answer for question #2

Okay I've been around long enough to hear this question come up time and again in one form or another, but I've rarely had a true-blue lawyer (who's head is apparently attached to his body, as is the case with our guest here, thankfully) convey the answer.

But the answer is, to me is kind of muddled. And I think it has primarily to do with the question. A *.jar is basically a zip file. Usually filled with compiled classes. My restatement of the question would be:

For any given language, I use compiled library X(a DSO, DLL, etc.). If the code, Y, which when compiled yields compiled library X, is released under the GPL, that forces my code Z to be GPLed as well?

In most simple terms, the license for my code is in part dictated by the libraries, packages, (sharable) objects, and classes I use in my code?

Eben Moglen is definitely one of us . . .

. . . One day a few years back, while working on the helpdesk hotline Columbia's IT department [columbia.edu] runs, I got a call from a law professor wanting to report portscan attempts on his office box. I assured him that I had the same thing happen on my personal box connected to the campus network, that they were done by people who were probing the entire Columbia network as opposed to him specifically, and that as long as he made sure to follow security bulletins and upgrade software when appropriate he probably didn't have much to worry about. After the call I mentioned it to my manager, as Unix-savvy faculty is awfully rare in my experience. He nodded his head and said "That's Eben."

DMCA Provisions ?

Speaking of the DMCA -- it has built-in provisions for making precisely this kind of judge-free takedown by an ISP!

What provisions are these ? Are they pro-user or pro-copyright holder ? I don't understand...

Whoa.

I'm surprised he didn't switch his name back to "Ben" after the dot-com craze died down. *shrug*

Question nobody asked

How does giving away "free" software protect free speech? It may be a role model for free speech, but I don't see how it protects free speech.

What it really does is it undercuts the value of commercial software, which destroys jobs in the software industry.

Anyone think that can't happen any more?

Eben Moglen, the "Enforcer?"

Eben Moglen writes:

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....

Interesting. Gangsters use exactly the same term -- "cooperate" -- when they coerce victims to pay them protection money or otherwise do their bidding. And the FSF now has, or so it says, a "compliance" engineer, specifically charged with finding people to coerce to give away their work.

It appears to me, at least, that the fact that the FSF needs a lawyer like Moglen to rattle sabers at people smacks of the exact opposite of freedom. What do you think?

re: Leave you in my will

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

Sshhh. It may not be so wise to let the NRA know you're worth more to them dead than alive.

Free Hardware

> 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.

I'm a contributor at OpenCores [opencores.org], a hardware equivalent of sourceforge.

Many moons ago, one of the list subscribers emailed the FSF (not sure who was the contact, but I think it was RMS). At the time the FSF didn't seem to be interested. RMS has also written [linuxtoday.com] that the FSF is not interested in free hardware. His arguments seem to revolve around copyright not applying to physical objects and the fact that hardware cannot be copied like software.

RMS (and the FSF since he is speaking for them) seems to have misunderstood modern hardware design. Engineers no longer sit in labs surrounded by piles of circuit boards and logic chips.

Today's hardware is converging with software. Typically a generic Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) is used as an implementation platform, with desktop manufacturing in the future. The definition of the system is written in a hardware description language (HDL), and is covered by copyright. Saying free hardware is not relevant is like saying free software is not relevant because the system on which it runs (a PC) cannot be copyrighted.

What will convince the FSF to change its position?

HDL by any other name is software. It is copyrightable, copiable and modifiable and deserves to have its freedom fully recognised.

HDL has the additional hurdle that it can describe patented objects. As such it is subject to threats by patent holders, even though one could argue that it is only the object, and not its description, which is patentable. Laws such as the CBDTPA will only increase the number of threats made against free hardware.

HDL descriptions already been removed from OpenCores due to theatened patent action. (See nnARM project [opencores.org].) This fledgling movement does not have the resources to even consider fighting such threats. It badly needs the protection of an organisation like the FSF.

Free hardware might not yet be on people's radar, but it will be once 'trusted' computing takes hold.

I think he is out to lunck on the Java jar questio

The original GPL predated the use of components such as in Java, CORBA, COM, SOAP and so on. A claim that use of a GPL'd component requires the client program to be GPL'd is bogus. Why is it ok to call a GPL piece of code running in a GPL'd shell program using SOAP remotely but not ok to link that same bit of code or call it as an inline component? It would greatly harm the cause of Free Software to make such a claim. If this was true then no one doing commercial software or working within a company doing commercial software would be able to make use of free and open components. The LGPL was created for similar cases in "libraries". The software world of today is more sophisticated than just "programs" and "libraries" wheter static or dynamic. The GPL must keep up with the times if it is truly to be a boon to free software.

Re:A bit pompous

Grammar Nazis are especially annoying when they are flat-out WRONG. "Rupert Murdoch has a million times more right to speak than you and I" is correct. Proof? Insert the implied verb: "Rupert Murdoch has a million times more right to speak than you and I [do]." You would not say "me do." I won't even go into the matter of using an apostrophe to pluralize Nazi.

Re:Beneficiary?

The NRA? I don't know all about your U.S. organisations, but isn't that the National Rifle Association?

You are leaving them as a Beneficiary? Let me get this right.

So when you die, you can help other people join you?

No, no. You're thinking about the National Murderer's Association. The National Rifile Assocation just helps people be killed in an effiicent manner, often taking their murderers with them--as opposed to a rather gruesome knife fight. ;)

Re:Beneficiary?

No, so when he dies he will help people protect themselves.

Re:I dont understand

Theres precious little thats written just for linux. Most apps will compile under a dozen or so flavors of unix, like HP-UX, Solaris, BSD, etc, etc.

What I dont get is say I write an application FOO, which requires certain library routines from BAR. BAR is proprietary under HP-UX (for example). There's a copylefted GNU/BAR for linux.

I can release my FOO binaries for HP-UX as proprietary (closed) license, but if I want to sell it to linux systems, it requires GNU/BAR so now I must open the source?

Re:Crap!

>What ever happened to truly *free* sw like >Public Domain? Hell, even the BSD license is a >hell of a lot free-er (IMO) than *GPL. Why do I >have to *force* people to not use my code in >certain ways?

It depends your intent. For example I design rocket models using Orbiter Sim. I release all the my source under the BSD liscense. I am enough of a libertarian that I find forcing people to do what I say repugent.

However there is a community of users that run virtual space agency that use orbiter and my models (I create mostly historical rockets). For some reason they like to keep everything tight within themselves. I find them very cliquish (sp?).

So because I release under the BSD those agencie are not required to release their source to their modifications of my modules. And there are few other module writer that used pieces of my code to implement important aspect of a flight plan (re-entry flames, parachutes, etc) and don't release their source.

This really gets under my skin. But I still find it very repugent to force people to open their code under a GPL license. This for me outways my use of the GPL license.

My solution is that I feel that I am a good enough programmer with enough people working with me that I can reverse engineer anything that I find in a closed source version of my module. Also I and my compatriots can make a better version to boot.

However if other people want too use GPL then they have the right to do so. I think the strength of the community relies on the cooperation of working on a project with the source code open to all. If somebody or some company take a version of that source and close it doesn't matter because the bazaar will beat the cathedral.

But hey if folks feel they need the copyleft that the GPL provides then they have the perfect right to do it. And I have to perfect right NOT to use it if the GPL is not right to me. But I do use in a project that is dependent on it then I need to abide by the terms of the GPL.

Rob Conley
http://www.alltel.net/~estar/orbiter.html
http://www.orbitersim.com

Re:"Look, honey!"

You, sir, seem to be in denial of the fact that guns are designed solely to kill people. Quickly. Efficiently.

(apart from hunting of course)

And are instead trying to make it into a political point.

And just what is a 'bleeding heart liberal'?
Someone who believes that civilisation can evolve to become more than a neverending hostile pissing match?

If you don't mind, I'm going to lock myself up in my castle, drop the portcullis and bring up the drawbridge.

You right wingers scare me.

Re:Beneficiary?

Someone must have accidentally moded you up instead of down. Your comment is sad and off-topic.

Re:Verbose interview...

You'll notice that Moglen goes into much greater detail than Shatner, even though Moglen is, no doubt, way more busy.

I'm guessing that's because writing, and writing eloquently and clearly, is part of Moglen's profession, whereas Shatner is primarily an actor (some would say living puppet, although I disagree :).

Re:Actually, he's perversely correct

It is much more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves...

From what?