Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 20:59 +0200, David Kastrup escreveu: > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Sonny! Uncle Hasler has spoken! > > > > John Hasler wrote: > >> > >> David Kastrup writes: > >> > An "illegal document"? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the > >> > GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be > >> > pornography or similar. > >> > >> Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed GPLv2 was "unconstitutional". The phrase > >> "illegal document" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, at least > >> under US law. > > > > http://supreme.justia.com/us/38/157/case.html > > > > "a void, useless, and illegal document" > > I should hope that you can come up with something better than a > verdict from 1839: one has to suspect that the formal use of certain > terms in the legal profession might have evolved somewhat in the last > 168 years. Even then, the word "illegal" in this passage of the > verdict is not employed in a formal sense but as part of a rhetorical > figure. Specially because they were talking about fake insurance contracts and not of copyright licenses. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? signature.asc Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 19:56 +0200, David Kastrup escreveu: > rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I suspect one reason Eben Moglen is leaving the Free Software > > Foundation prior to official adoption of the GPL3 is due to concerns > > about it's illegality. A suit against the FSF for the above cited > > reasons could have consequences for Moglen's professional standing > > as an attorney. Deliberatly crafting an illegal document with intent > > is risky professional behavior. I wouldn't be too surprised if other > > blowhards abandon the GPL3 ship before it sinks. > > An "illegal document"? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on > the GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be > pornography or similar. Anyway, since it is a license, not a > contract, it is to be used only between consenting adults. Two words for you: First Amendment Not even pornography is illegal, check out Larry Flint's troubles with Flint vs USA on Hustler's, largely popularized by a recent film. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? signature.asc Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
rjack wrote: [...] > The Review article Here's more: http://digitalbusinessstrategy.com/?p=74 - OSBC: Initial Thoughts Eben Moglen and Patents 25th May 2007 During his OSBC keynote, Eben Moglen said that Science must be free. Knowledge must be free. Let freedom ring. This parallels the argument hes made in the past that patent software is akin to patenting math. This is compelling rhetoric, and demonstrates Moglens abilities as a lawyer. But rhetoric is a double-edged sword, in that it can be put in the service of logic and truth JFK or Martin Luther King come to mind or in opposition to logic and truth. I believe Moglens rhetoric falls in the latter category. There are two main flaws in Moglens arguments. First, he confuses knowledge with invention. My undergrad degree is in Physics, so I know first-hand the huge difference between Physics and Engineering. Our purposes were different, our training was different, our culture was different than the Engineering students down the hill at UCLA. The goal of the physicist is to further knowledge without any thought to its immediate usefulness. Its rare that any new discovery in Physics has any commercial application within the twenty-year period of patent protection. Engineerings goal, on the other hand, is to make things that solve an immediate problem, often a commercial one. They couldnt be more different. The same difference is found between theoretical and applied mathematics. When Calculus was invented by Isaac Newton, it had no commercial application. On the other hand, figuring out how to perform real-time Fourier transforms to compute 3D distance readings from sound echoes hardly advanced the state of mathematical knowledge, but it did make sonar possible. Invention, and knowledge, two entirely different things that Moglen lumps together. Knowledge is free, always has been, and that didnt change with software patents. Invention, a commercial activity, has historically been protected for a short period of time. I dont know if Moglen deliberately confuses these two categories, or just doesnt understand the difference, but either way, its a shame. As a result of his confusion of knowledge and invention, Moglen implies that true invention must be instantiated in a physical invention, since any innovation instantiated digitally, according to Moglen, is not invention but knowledge. He is selling software short. Is invention any less deserving of protection because it results in software rather than a physical contraption? Software engineers should take offense at that implication. They are no less inventors, or innovators, than someone building a new hybrid engine or a nano drug delivery device. His artificial conflation of invention and knowledge leads to a necessary short-changing of digital invention. [... the part I don't quite agree snipped ...] - regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
David Kastrup wrote: rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: John Hasler wrote: David Kastrup writes: An "illegal document"? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be pornography or similar. Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed GPLv2 was "unconstitutional". The phrase "illegal document" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, at least under US law. A document (instrument) is illegal if it is used for some some purpose contrary to established law. For example a document to consummate a violation of law: 1. illegal immigration documents 2. counterfit bonds or false ID's 3. contract to perpetrate or induce a tort (GPL3) Those are _invalid_ (let us just disregard the nonsensical parenthetical remark on point 3). The possession or creation or dissemination or employment for a particular purpose of such documents may be illegal. The documents themselves don't break laws. People do. Oh vey, the pain, the pain of it all! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John Hasler wrote: >> David Kastrup writes: >>> An "illegal document"? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the >>> GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be >>> pornography or similar. >> >> Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed GPLv2 was "unconstitutional". The phrase >> "illegal document" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, at least >> under US law. > > A document (instrument) is illegal if it is used for some some purpose > contrary to established law. > > > For example a document to consummate a violation of law: > > 1. illegal immigration documents > 2. counterfit bonds or false ID's > 3. contract to perpetrate or induce a tort (GPL3) Those are _invalid_ (let us just disregard the nonsensical parenthetical remark on point 3). The possession or creation or dissemination or employment for a particular purpose of such documents may be illegal. The documents themselves don't break laws. People do. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sonny! Uncle Hasler has spoken! John Hasler wrote: David Kastrup writes: An "illegal document"? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be pornography or similar. Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed GPLv2 was "unconstitutional". The phrase "illegal document" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, at least under US law. http://supreme.justia.com/us/38/157/case.html "a void, useless, and illegal document" I should hope that you can come up with something better than a verdict from 1839 It just shows that I can do better than Eben The Historian, your GNU Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda: http://dartreview.com/archives/2005/04/08/intellectual_property_is_so_last_year.php "an investigation of Oliver Wendell Holmes' "The Path of the Law," published in 1897, which was our assigned reading for the week. " LOL. regards, alexander. The Review article describes a "kiss-up, kick-down" tenured professor. Eben Moglen reminds me of Ambassador John Bolton: "The former head of the State Department's in house intelligence bureau Tuesday described President Bush's nominee for United Nations ambassador as "a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy" whose attempt to intimidate a mid-level analyst raises "real questions about his suitability for high office." rjack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Sonny! Uncle Hasler has spoken! > > > > John Hasler wrote: > >> > >> David Kastrup writes: > >> > An "illegal document"? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the > >> > GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be > >> > pornography or similar. > >> > >> Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed GPLv2 was "unconstitutional". The phrase > >> "illegal document" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, at least > >> under US law. > > > > http://supreme.justia.com/us/38/157/case.html > > > > "a void, useless, and illegal document" > > I should hope that you can come up with something better than a > verdict from 1839 It just shows that I can do better than Eben The Historian, your GNU Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda: http://dartreview.com/archives/2005/04/08/intellectual_property_is_so_last_year.php "an investigation of Oliver Wendell Holmes' "The Path of the Law," published in 1897, which was our assigned reading for the week. " LOL. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
John Hasler wrote: David Kastrup writes: An "illegal document"? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be pornography or similar. Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed GPLv2 was "unconstitutional". The phrase "illegal document" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, at least under US law. A document (instrument) is illegal if it is used for some some purpose contrary to established law. For example a document to consummate a violation of law: 1. illegal immigration documents 2. counterfit bonds or false ID's 3. contract to perpetrate or induce a tort (GPL3) rjack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sonny! Uncle Hasler has spoken! > > John Hasler wrote: >> >> David Kastrup writes: >> > An "illegal document"? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the >> > GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be >> > pornography or similar. >> >> Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed GPLv2 was "unconstitutional". The phrase >> "illegal document" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, at least >> under US law. > > http://supreme.justia.com/us/38/157/case.html > > "a void, useless, and illegal document" I should hope that you can come up with something better than a verdict from 1839: one has to suspect that the formal use of certain terms in the legal profession might have evolved somewhat in the last 168 years. Even then, the word "illegal" in this passage of the verdict is not employed in a formal sense but as part of a rhetorical figure. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
Sonny! Uncle Hasler has spoken! John Hasler wrote: > > David Kastrup writes: > > An "illegal document"? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the > > GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be > > pornography or similar. > > Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed GPLv2 was "unconstitutional". The phrase > "illegal document" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, at least > under US law. http://supreme.justia.com/us/38/157/case.html "a void, useless, and illegal document" regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
David Kastrup writes: > An "illegal document"? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the > GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be > pornography or similar. Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed GPLv2 was "unconstitutional". The phrase "illegal document" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, at least under US law. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
David Kastrup wrote: > > rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I suspect one reason Eben Moglen is leaving the Free Software > > Foundation prior to official adoption of the GPL3 is due to concerns > > about it's illegality. A suit against the FSF for the above cited > > reasons could have consequences for Moglen's professional standing > > as an attorney. Deliberatly crafting an illegal document with intent > > is risky professional behavior. I wouldn't be too surprised if other > > blowhards abandon the GPL3 ship before it sinks. > > An "illegal document"? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on > the GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be > pornography or similar. A contract to make RMS' kids (if any) become child porn stars would be "illegal document" just like the GPL3. > Anyway, since it is a license, not a > contract, it is to be used only between consenting adults. Yeah, between consenting adults. This reminds me that in the GNU Republic, linking creates a "derived work" (see the GNU Copyleft Act) akin to (quoting renowned GNUtian Alan Mackenzie) "embryo which is derived from the egg and sperm." Accordingly, GNUtians believe that linking is akin to sex without condoms (and that it is not oral or anal) resulting in 100% rate of embryo (partner is a side effect) contamination by the GPL virus. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I suspect one reason Eben Moglen is leaving the Free Software > Foundation prior to official adoption of the GPL3 is due to concerns > about it's illegality. A suit against the FSF for the above cited > reasons could have consequences for Moglen's professional standing > as an attorney. Deliberatly crafting an illegal document with intent > is risky professional behavior. I wouldn't be too surprised if other > blowhards abandon the GPL3 ship before it sinks. An "illegal document"? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be pornography or similar. Anyway, since it is a license, not a contract, it is to be used only between consenting adults. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yeah, and pigs will fly. Comedian Eben's best stunt this month. http://news.com.com/Eben+Moglen+predicts+broad+embrace+of+GPL+3/2100-7344_3-6186025.html -- The GPL has the power to enable open-source software to dethrone Microsoft from its position of dominance, Moglen said. "The time is rapidly approaching when the GPL is capable of leveling the monopolist to the ground," he said. -- LOL. Clown Eben. In the meantime: http://www.managingrights.com/2007/04/gplv3_draft_ed_.html --- GPLv3 Draft - Ed Walsh on the Anti-Microsoft-Novell provisions To say that the anti-Microsoft-Novell provisions of the draft GPLv3 are controversial is a major understatement. I asked Ed Walsh, an attorney at Wolf Greenfield & Sacks whose practice includes advising on issues relating to open source licensing, about paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 11 (Patents) of the GPLv3. Here's what Ed told me: The anti-Microsoft/Novell clauses are different in kind than anything that has appeared before and require a new risk assessment. Rather than merely allocate rights, those clauses are intended to encourage active participation in disrupting an existing agreement and in general promote a boycott of buying patent licenses. Those clauses flirt with conduct that would, in other contexts, be called "tortious interference with contract," "inducing infringement" and "an agreement in restraint of trade." Most for-profit companies would not allow their employees to make such agreements as part of a trade group or industry consortium, so the unintended, as well as the intended, consequences of these clauses should be given special attention. As noted previously in this series, there are many other open source licenses that may be more appropriate than the GPLv3 in its current form. Anyone contemplating adopting GPLv3 should seek legal advise before doing so. --- regards, alexander. I suspect one reason Eben Moglen is leaving the Free Software Foundation prior to official adoption of the GPL3 is due to concerns about it's illegality. A suit against the FSF for the above cited reasons could have consequences for Moglen's professional standing as an attorney. Deliberatly crafting an illegal document with intent is risky professional behavior. I wouldn't be too surprised if other blowhards abandon the GPL3 ship before it sinks. rjack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3
Yeah, and pigs will fly. Comedian Eben's best stunt this month. http://news.com.com/Eben+Moglen+predicts+broad+embrace+of+GPL+3/2100-7344_3-6186025.html -- The GPL has the power to enable open-source software to dethrone Microsoft from its position of dominance, Moglen said. "The time is rapidly approaching when the GPL is capable of leveling the monopolist to the ground," he said. -- LOL. Clown Eben. In the meantime: http://www.managingrights.com/2007/04/gplv3_draft_ed_.html --- GPLv3 Draft - Ed Walsh on the Anti-Microsoft-Novell provisions To say that the anti-Microsoft-Novell provisions of the draft GPLv3 are controversial is a major understatement. I asked Ed Walsh, an attorney at Wolf Greenfield & Sacks whose practice includes advising on issues relating to open source licensing, about paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 11 (Patents) of the GPLv3. Here's what Ed told me: The anti-Microsoft/Novell clauses are different in kind than anything that has appeared before and require a new risk assessment. Rather than merely allocate rights, those clauses are intended to encourage active participation in disrupting an existing agreement and in general promote a boycott of buying patent licenses. Those clauses flirt with conduct that would, in other contexts, be called "tortious interference with contract," "inducing infringement" and "an agreement in restraint of trade." Most for-profit companies would not allow their employees to make such agreements as part of a trade group or industry consortium, so the unintended, as well as the intended, consequences of these clauses should be given special attention. As noted previously in this series, there are many other open source licenses that may be more appropriate than the GPLv3 in its current form. Anyone contemplating adopting GPLv3 should seek legal advise before doing so. --- regards, alexander. -- "At some point you become so shrill that you lose the audience, who moves on to something that better fits the business needs," Steve Mills senior vice president of IBM's software group, said Wednesday while discussing the new GPL. -- news.com ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
