On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Jon Biddell wrote:
> At 09:17 PM 16/02/01 +1100, Richard Blackburn wrote:
> >Those who think that the comments by what's 'is name from M$ are from a
> >raving loony better think again. This is part of an orchestrated
> >campaign. M$ more than probably has batteries of lawyers trying to
> >figure out how to beat open source legally and others doing a lot of
> >political lobbying to the same end. The patriotism line is one angle and
> >it does work more with Yanks that others, but not entirely. Should be a
> >good fight.
>
> So what are they gonna do, make Open Source illegal ?
>
> Never work...
>
> If I, for example, develop a whiz-bang application and decide to GIVE it
> away under the (current) GPL, how can they stop me ?
>
> More importantly, how can they stop YOU from using it ?
This indeed is the crux of the matter... how could anyone make open
source illegal? Well, it seems to me that one way would be to amend
contract law so that forcing a third party recipient to also give their
work away would be illegal, ie, to pass a law that effectively
invalidated the GPL. That would mean that anyone could write
enhancements to free software that would effectively make the whole
product commercial. This would be a way of combating free software by
subsuming it. Anyone giving away their work would be giving it to
companies like microsoft. This already occurs, but companies that use it
currently are obligated to give their enahncements back.
Another way is already being pursued, closed standards backed up by
legal provisions that make reverse engineering illegal. You can combat
free software my making it illegal to provide certain things, like DVD
decoders, for free, even though they are for a legitimate purpose. In
this way you give commercial enterprises the tools to lock out free
software providers from sufficiently large areas as to cripple free
software.
Also, there's no reason why you couldn't pass stronger laws, if they
were backed up by a sufficient propaganda campaign. It's simple fact
that laws get passed that were once seen as unthinkable. You simply need
to manipulate public opinion sufficiently first.
Also, you rightly raise the important matter of enforcement. Many
current laws are unenforcable, and laws against free software might also
be unenforceable for small groups of committed people. But they might
easily be enforceable in a general commercial sense, and thats what
matters to players like Micro$oft.
Personally, I believe that M$ wouldn't end piracy completely tomorrow
even if they could. I literally know dozens of people illegally using
copies on Window$ who would switch overnight to linux if the alternative
was truly being forced to pay for windows and office. M$ market
dominance to at least some extent is built on a platform of limited
piracy, and the partially consequent fact that everyone is familiar with
their OS paradigms, even those who don't pay for them. The trick for M$
is making all those who can pay pay as much as possible while making
sure that those who can't don't turn en masse to alternatives.
I don't think there's too much room here to be complacent. I agree with
you that there are substantial obstacles to attacks on free software,
but I think that doesn't mean such attacks can't happen. I think that the
difficulty of such attacks has persuaded many businesses to get into
free software, but there is a deeply incompatible principle here, and if
businesses like IBM cant find a profit model for free software,
eventually they will come to see it as an enemy, much as Mico$oft
does. When or if that happens I think things might become a lot more
concerted. At the moment free software gets a lot of mileage because the
"enemy" for most software companies is other software companies. That
can (and may) change.
cheers,
Martin.
P.S, The above was written after more than a few beers, hope it still
makes sense :)
P.P.S. I really don't want to enter the on list debate over communism,
but I'll just say a little. As a result of propaganda, studies done in
the US at one point showed that people made statements when pressed on
what communism really meant, like "I don't know what communists believe
in, but I think they should all be shot". I would hope that people on
this list would be more intelligent than that. I for one think that any
idea where "the free development of each is the pre-requisite for the
free development of all" deserves more than a propaganda based
dismissal, whether you finally agree with it or not. For anyone who is
really interested in this topic, I'd be happy to have a civil discussion
off list, but flames on this topic on list will be ignored.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
