Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
On Sunday, 16 September 2007, J.C. Roberts wrote: Let's say someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository, removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they are older than the originals. Now take it one step further. For the sake of example, let's assume all of this atheros driver nonsense went to a German court and the GNU/FSF/SFLC/Linux or whoever you want to call yourselves lost a criminal copyright infringement suit. You have now been legally proven to be guilty code theft. After such a ruling let's assume some jerk was to do the all the horrific stuff mentioned in the first paragraph above to the linux source tree, along with a little regex magic to call it something other than linux and seeded the Internet with countless copies. None of this has happened. What has happened is that people who do not have full possession of the facts and have no legal expertise-- people whom from the very beginning we have been trying to help--have made irresponsible charges and threatened lawsuits, thus slowing down our efforts to help them. It might be useful to recall the first stage of this process, when OpenBSD developers were accused of misappropriating Atheros code, and SFLC investigated and proved that no such misappropriation had occurred? Wild accusations about our motives are even more silly than they are false. We understand that attribution issues are critically important to free software developers; we are accustomed to the strong feelings that are involved in such situations. In the fifteen years I have spent giving free legal help to developers throughout the community, attribution disputes have been, always, the most emotionally charged. But making threats of litigation and throwing around words like theft and malpractice was a Really Bad Idea, because once some people started using that language--thus making adversaries rather than collaborators of themselves--I had no choice but to ask my clients and my colleagues to stop communicating with them. Let me therefore point out one last time that if the threats of litigation and bluster about crime and malpractice--none of which has the slightest basis in fact or law--were withdrawn, we would be able to resume detailed communication with everyone who has a stake in the outcome. Also, and again for the last time, let me state that SFLC's instructions from its clients are to establish all the facts concerning the development of the current relevant code (which means the painstaking reconstruction of several independent and overlapping lines of development, including forensic reconstruction through line-by-line code reviews where version control system information is not available), as well as to resolve all outstanding legal issues, and to make policy recommendations, if possible, that would result in all projects, under both GPL and ISC, having full access to all code on their preferred terms, on an *ongoing* basis, with full respect for everyone's legal rights. We continue to believe those policy goals are achievable in this situation. The required work has been made more arduous because some people have chosen not to cooperate in good faith. But we will complete the work as soon as we can, and we will, as Mr Garvik says, follow the community's practice of complete publication, so everyone can see all the evidence. We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us instead of helping. -- Eben Moglenv: 212-461-1901 Professor of Law, Columbia Law School f: 212-580-0898 moglen@ Founding Director, Software Freedom Law Centercolumbia.edu 1995 Broadway (68th Street), fl #17, NYC 10023softwarefreedom.org
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Eben Moglen wrote: We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us instead of helping. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/jul/31/openhal/ As I said in a former email, this has several glaring problems. As far as I understand, this is a public statement, even if it predates the issue at hand. Please fix it in a timely manner, or take it down for now.
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
Thanks for the detailed response. There have also been some very articulate and fact-oriented responses here from the OpenBSD Misc list as well. I will repeat and elaborate on what I wrote in my first response which I gave the subject Divide and conquer (was Re: Wasting our Freedom) Although there are some valid concerns regarding workflow between projects of different licensing families, keep in mind that 1) a license (ie. GPL, BSD, or other) is simply another tool 2) some outside FOSS would like nothing better than to divide FOSS up and set the factions against each other Intentional trolls (agent provacateur) are part of the bag of tricks available to the political groups that have much to gain by playing the various FOSS projects off against each other. Various political parties and factions, not the least of which is MS, lose out if we use our time effectively or if the general public start to understand and apply principles that make for sound, secure, and interoperable systems. Bickering with or harranging the FSF, OBSD, or any other project is less useful than coding, documenting, debugging (even workflow debugging) or teaching. It plays right into MS' media strategy of Saturate, Diffuse, and Confuse by filling up the communications channels with noise, thus drowning or diluting the useful material and burning out the casual observer. One of the common tactics seen again and again, including in this case, is the re-circulation of outdated and incorrect sources. Some of the people doing the bickering may just be plainly and simply less than knowledgeable and further handicapped by inability to express themselves. Others may just be 'tards easily goading into action by an agent provacateur and, unless proven otherwise, should be treated as the first group. Regards, -Lars
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
On 16/09/2007, Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Eben Moglen wrote: We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us instead of helping. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/jul/31/openhal/ As I said in a former email, this has several glaring problems. As far as I understand, this is a public statement, even if it predates the issue at hand. Please fix it in a timely manner, or take it down for now. Most noticeably, I fail to see any credits to Reyk Floeter in the above press release. Moreover, back when the release was first posted at the above address, there was no credit even to the OpenBSD project, which I found simply outrageous! Only after I (and possibly others) have complained to SFLC did they append the release to give some really vague mention that OpenHAL is based on OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL. Eben, is this the work that you are doing in bringing the communities together, by omitting such vital information as giving credit to the people and projects who performed most of the work? After all of these mistakes, after ignoring the ethical side of the relicensing, after failing to inform when relicensing is even legally an option, are you seriously even surprised about the negative attention that SFLC is getting now? Taking a step aside, don't you agree it is well-deserved? http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/156258 C.
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Most noticeably, I fail to see any credits to Reyk Floeter in the above press release. Moreover, back when the release was first posted at the above address, there was no credit even to the OpenBSD project, which I found simply outrageous! Only after I (and possibly others) have complained to SFLC did they append the release to give some really vague mention that OpenHAL is based on OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL. Eben, is this the work that you are doing in bringing the communities together, by omitting such vital information as giving credit to the people and projects who performed most of the work? After all of these mistakes, after ignoring the ethical side of the relicensing, after failing to inform when relicensing is even legally an option, are you seriously even surprised about the negative attention that SFLC is getting now? Taking a step aside, don't you agree it is well-deserved? It is a press release, and an old one at that. There is no particular obligation to be fair, complete, or credit everyone with everything. It might have been politically wise - particularly as there are mentions of Linux and other developers to include OpenBSD and Reyk. Of course before posting it they sould have asked for individual critiques from every member of the FOSS community. What the SFLC is trying to do is assure that Reyk get's everything his license requires, everytime his work is used or is the basis for a derivative work. That is not the same as assuring that he gets credit everytime Atheros, Linux, or OpenHAL are mentioned. In the specific release you are pointing to, the issue the SFLC was resolving was whether the Linux Atheros driver or OpenHAL infringed on Atheros copyrights - a completely unrelated issue to the current dispute. While only Linux and the Linux wireless system maintainer are mentioned, the SFLC basically cleared the OpenHAL project and probably by implication the BSD Atheros drivers from copyright claims by Atheros. In essence rather than maligning Reyk they have agreed to defend his work should Atheros ever raise a claim, They may not have named him or OpenBSD specifically, but they have placed their impramatur on his work. While credit might have been nice too, the SFLC is basically saying the OpenHAL reverse engineering work was well done and does not violate Atheros's copyrights. The SFLC did Reyk and the OpenBSD community a favor. They did it for free. They did it at the request of Linux developers, and that is who they mentioned in their release. -- Dave Lynch DLA Systems Software Development:Embedded Linux 717.627.3770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlasys.net fax: 1.253.369.9244Cell: 1.717.587.7774 Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list. Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Eben Moglen wrote: Also, and again for the last time, let me state that SFLC's instructions from its clients are to establish all the facts concerning the development of the current relevant code (which means the painstaking reconstruction of several independent and overlapping lines of development, including forensic reconstruction through line-by-line code reviews where version control system information is not available), as well as to resolve all outstanding legal issues, and to make policy recommendations Everyone is expecting yet another one of your lovely recommendations which very simply reads: steal and infect everything you possibly can and refuse to pass on the rights that you have received. http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/ As you do your imaginary painstaking reconstruction the whole world can see you refuse to practice what you preach in the supposed spirit of your steal-alike license because you refuse to pass on the rights you have received. The required work has been made more arduous because some people have chosen not to cooperate in good faith. When you stated you intend to secure as much code as possible under your license of choice, you mistakenly told the world you had no intention of cooperating in good faith with anyone. But making threats of litigation and throwing around words like theft and malpractice was a Really Bad Idea Speaking of Really Bad Ideas, you trained us. The only time we get any form of response is when we continue to become more loud, more abrasive, more aggressive, and more accusational. As long as people in your camp continue to use your license and lawyers as a weapon to push your free as in koolaid political agenda there will be people like me who will stand up and fight against your theft, your malpractice, your stalling tactics and your legal bullying. I hope the name Pavlov rings a bell. jcr
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
I don't thinl this helps openbsd or anyone else. As Theo is already working with the individuals involved, and hasn't asked for help, I think rather than saying I think you're going to suck, let's see what happens. Going ovewrboard isn't going to help anyone. On 9/16/07, J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 16 September 2007, Eben Moglen wrote: Also, and again for the last time, let me state that SFLC's instructions from its clients are to establish all the facts concerning the development of the current relevant code (which means the painstaking reconstruction of several independent and overlapping lines of development, including forensic reconstruction through line-by-line code reviews where version control system information is not available), as well as to resolve all outstanding legal issues, and to make policy recommendations Everyone is expecting yet another one of your lovely recommendations which very simply reads: steal and infect everything you possibly can and refuse to pass on the rights that you have received. http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/ As you do your imaginary painstaking reconstruction the whole world can see you refuse to practice what you preach in the supposed spirit of your steal-alike license because you refuse to pass on the rights you have received. The required work has been made more arduous because some people have chosen not to cooperate in good faith. When you stated you intend to secure as much code as possible under your license of choice, you mistakenly told the world you had no intention of cooperating in good faith with anyone. But making threats of litigation and throwing around words like theft and malpractice was a Really Bad Idea Speaking of Really Bad Ideas, you trained us. The only time we get any form of response is when we continue to become more loud, more abrasive, more aggressive, and more accusational. As long as people in your camp continue to use your license and lawyers as a weapon to push your free as in koolaid political agenda there will be people like me who will stand up and fight against your theft, your malpractice, your stalling tactics and your legal bullying. I hope the name Pavlov rings a bell. jcr -- This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity. -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
