10.01.08
Posted in FSF, GNU/Linux, GPL, FOSS, Interview at 6:59 pm by Roy Schestowitz
GNU @ 25 Special
I was entirely away on that special GNU day, so here is my interview which is being posted on this belated anniversary.
For information about the anniversary, see the message from FSF Europe or Linux Magazine.
The GNU Project celebrated its 25th birthday on September 27, 2008. With its GCC compiler and bash shell, GNU was ever at the forefront of today’s Linux distribution. To kick off the celebration, British humorist Stephen Fry appears in a video in defense of free software.
Now, here is the older article:
When Richard Stallman announced the GNU Project back in 1983, he planted the seeds of what rapidly evolved and recently became a revolution that transforms entire nations. The Free Software Foundation, which was also created by Richard Stallman and now sponsors the GNU Project, has probably become a center of attention to those who are affected by the most widely-used software license, the GNU GPL.
We discussed some of the more recent developments with Richard Stallman, whose passion for freedom in computing remains intense. The following Q & A explores the goals of free software, progress that has been made, and ways to maintain or instill freedom in software that we use.
Q: In the past few years we have come to find a number of countries which decided to embrace Free software as a matter of policy.
Many people attribute such milestones to your travels around the globe.
Richard Matthew Stallman: They may be focusing too much on me personally and giving insufficient credit to the rest of the movement. In Ecuador, I personally won the support of President Correa, but that’s the only such case I remember. In other countries, other people did most the persuasive work. For instance, the activists of FSF India persuaded the government of Kerala to begin the migration to free software; I could not have done that.
Q: How do you balance the need to preach to groups and individuals,
including world leaders, and other important activities such as writing
the GNU General Public License version 3 (GPLv3)?
RMS: It is only occasionally that I have a large project such as GPLv3.
Most of my work consists trying to spread awareness of the ideas of
free software, and I do it mostly by answering emails such as yours.
The basic idea of the Free Software Movement is that the social
conditions for use of software are vitally important — more important
even than the software’s technical characteristics. A free program
respects your freedom and the social solidarity of your community
with four essential freedoms:
0. The freedom to run the program as you wish.
1. The freedom to study the program’s source code and then change it
so the program does what you wish.
2. The freedom to distribute exact copies to others, when you wish.
3. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to
others, when you wish.
Everyone knows how to exercise freedoms 0 and 2. If you don’t know
how to program, then you don’t know how to exercise freedoms 1 and 3;
but when programmers do so, you can install their modified versions if
you wish, so you get the benefits. You can also ask or pay
programmers to make the changes you would like to use.
Q: Because software does not have a long history, your sources
of inspiration appear not to include people whose life legacy is
associated with software. Would you say that the nature of their impact
has motivated you to address ethical and moral issues that are not
necessarily related to software?
RMS: I was taught ideals of human rights growing up in the United States in
the 60s, and then was inspired by the Civil Rights Movement and the
Antiwar Movement. So I have cared about issues of freedom since
before I began programming. Later I started working at the MIT
Artificial Intelligence Lab and experienced the free software way of
life. Then I took an unusual step: I connected the free software
community’s way of life with the ideals of freedom I had learned.
The result was the Free Software Movement, a movement to give computer
users the freedom to cooperate and to control their own computing.
“I, as a software developer, had a responsibility to fight to end unethical practices in software development. ”
However, my focus on this particular issue of freedom doesn’t mean I’ve lost interest in others freedom issues. It’s simply that this issue dropped in my lap: I, as a software developer, had a responsibility to fight to end unethical practices in software development. If I did not do so, I would be a victim of them, and very likely at the same time a perpetrator.
In the past decade, I’ve tried to use the limited fame I’ve gained
from the GNU system and the free software movement as a platform to
take action on some other human rights and environmental issues, in
stallman.org. I’m not one of the leaders on those issues but I’m glad
I can help.
Q: Some of the more ubiquitous GNU/Linux distributions are ones
which incorporate proprietary drivers and other proprietary
software. When and where (in the system) is it acceptable to make
short-term compromises in order to create a userbase large enough to
make Free software compelling for the entire industry to support? Is a
so-called “critical mass” needed at all?
RMS: The central idea of the Free Software Movement is that you deserve the
four freedoms, and that taking them away from you is wrong. If we
were to grant legitimacy to certain non-free software merely because
it is convenient, that would contract the central idea. It would be
hypocritical, and it would defeat the whole point. You cannot advance
the cause of freedom by legitimizing the denial of freedom.
The people that put non-free software into GNU/Linux distributions do
so precisely because they are not concerned with users’ freedom. They
are not supporters of the Free Software Movement, and they usually
don’t speak about “free software” at all. Instead they talk about
“open source”, a term coined in 1998 to duck the ethical issues of
freedom and social solidarity and focus only on practical convenience.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html for
more explanation.
Q: There are ongoing efforts and even complete projects that
mimic Microsoft technologies and bring their functionality to GNU/Linux.
How would you say one should handle the need to interact with peers who
rely on Microsoft technologies while at the same time maintaining one’s
freedom?
RMS: I am all in favor of implementing in free software the languages, file
formats and protocols popularized by non-free software, when we can do
so. However, in many cases these formats and protocols are secret,
which means we must do difficult reverse engineering, or patented,
which means that implementing them is prohibited. These legal
obstacles to the development of free software are among the biggest
threats we face.
Q: Recently, with various software patent deals, Microsoft has
attempted to marginalize GNU/Linux by adding price and liability to
certain distributions of it. What do you think would be the effect of
embracing such distributions?
RMS: A meaningful discussion of software patents has to start by explaining
what software patents are, and what they do.
A patent is an artificial government-imposed monopoly on implementing
a certain method or technique. If the method or technique can be
implemented by software, so that the patent prohibits the distribution
and use of certain programs, we call it a software patent.
A large program implements thousands of methods and techniques
together. Each one of them is an idea that might be patented, and
thus represents a possible lawsuit against the program’s developers
and its users. Thus, software patents make software development a
dangerous activity. They are an absurd system and ought to be
abolished entirely.
Free software is vulnerable to software patents, just like proprietary
software and custom software (most of the software industry develops
custom software).
I intend to do everything possible to stop Microsoft (or anyone) from
converting free software into proprietary software through the use of
software patents. Microsoft’s deal with Novell tried to do that,
and we designed version 3 of the GNU GPL to thwart that scheme.
Q: Microsoft encourages developers to build Web sites that
incorporate Silverlight. For GNU/Linux to be able view Silverlight
objects, Moonlight, which is built on top of Mono, needs to be
downloaded from Novell’s Web site. Would you advise GNU/Linux users to
install Moonlight and accept such changes in the World Wide Web?
RMS: Moonlight is free software, so I don’t see anything bad about
installing Moonlight as such. It seems that the reason it needs to be
downloaded from Novell’s web site is that it isn’t ready to be
included in any GNU/Linux distros. However, I don’t know what
Moonlight actually does.
What I can say in general is that we should continue to demand that
web sites use standard (and unpatented) formats and protocols, and put
pressure on those that don’t.
Q: What about Adobe Flash and its equivalent viewers, such as gnash, which is Free software?
RMS: Flash illustrates the problems that arise when web sites use nonstandard
proprietary formats. I am glad that Gnash, our free Flash player is
making progress, but we had to wait years for this.
People who don’t value their freedom are likely to lose it. This is
just as true in computing as in other areas of life, and Flash is an
example. Flash is inherently a problem because it requires a non-free
plug-in. But how did the problem grow to a significant size? This
happened because many web users installed the Flash plug-in without
first checking whether it was free software. Their foolish disregard
for their own freedom made them vulnerable.
The development of Gnash means we may be able to put an end to this
particular outbreak of non-freedom. But if people don’t learn to stop
installing non-free plug-ins, the web will be vulnerable to other
outbreaks in the future. It is a lot less work to avoid these
problems than to fix them. We need to teach people to refuse to
install non-free plug-ins; we need to teach people to care more about
their long-term interest of freedom than their immediate desire to
view a particular site.
Q: Research shows that the GPLv3 is gaining acceptance. In the mailing lists of the Linux kernel, a hypothetical scenario was described where Linus Torvalds et al might consider upgrading their kernel’s license to the GPLv3. This scenario involved Sun’s OpenSolaris (project ‘Indiana’) and its choice of a license. What would you say is the greatest advantage for a kernel — any kernel for that matter — in adopting the GPLv3?
RMS: Kernels (and other programs) don’t really matter — people do. So the
issue here is how moving Linux to GPLv3 would affect the users of
Linux, including the users of the combined GNU/Linux system.
The most relevant aspect of GPL version 3 is the prohibition on
tivoization. Tivoization is the practice of building machines that
come with free software preinstalled, and that are designed to shut
down if you install a modified version of the free software. In
effect, tivoization turns freedom 1 (the freedom to modify the program
to make it do what you wish) into a theoretical fiction.
As long as Linux continues to be distributed under GPL version 2,
manufacturers will be allowed to tivoize it and thus stop users from
changing it and controlling their own computing. This is why Linux
needs to move to GPLv3.
Q: Simon Phipps (of Sun Microsystems) has spoken about the GPLv3 on numerous occasions and he even inquired to see what Bob Sutor, Vice President of Open Source and Standards at IBM, thought about it. If Sun decided to embrace the GPLv3 for its software, including OpenSolaris, would you be willing to endorse OpenSolaris?
RMS: OpenSolaris is already free software, and I can endorse it as such.
If Sun releases it under GPLv3, that will be even better; however,
when choosing between free programs, the main factor is practical.
Q: Linus Torvalds once referred to you as “the great
philosopher” and he also argued that we should think of him as the
engineer. He is clearly very focused on what he does so well. Do you
believe that there are dangers that he is not aware of?
RMS: I am sure he is aware of the dangers. The problem is that there are some
he doesn’t care about. For instance, he seems not to care about the danger
to your freedom posed by tivoization.
Q: If you were allowed to have only one piece of software,
what would it be, assuming that underlying components like an operating
system were already provided?
RMS: There’s a confusion in the question, because all the programs I use
are part of the GNU/Linux operating system. Even the games I
sometimes play are included in the gNewSense distribution which I use.
But if the question is which single user-interactive program is most
important to me, that is GNU Emacs. I spend most of my day using
Emacs to edit files, to read mail, to send mail, to compile, to search
files, and many other things. Of course, GNU Emacs is included in
gNewSense, and in most of the GNU/Linux distributions. I developed
GNU Emacs initially in 1984-5, specifically for the GNU system. █
Originally published in Datamation in 2007 and reached the front page of Digg
Permalink
Send this to a friend 
View as PDF
09.20.08
Posted in Law, Microsoft, GNU/Linux, SCO, Novell, Mono, Patents, GPL at 9:33 am by Roy Schestowitz
In part I, our reader and guest writer was trying to get the underlying ideas about Mono across. There was a car analogy. Here is a more detailed explanation of the picture (metaphorically speaking).
Microsoft is suing someone for not paying Mono rather than paying for Java makes a big difference in the view of the public eye regarding merit and ultimate success. The public understanding of “which side is morally right” would be accompanied for sure by a slew of Microsoft propaganda, that would say: Mono is an intentional direct rewrite of Microsoft IP and enables free rides based on our IP.
It would be hard to convince why Microsoft should not be entitled to collect royalties for such a big chunk of IP, if Novell does pay Microsoft.
“It would be hard to convince why Microsoft should not be entitled to collect royalties for such a big chunk of IP, if Novell does pay Microsoft.”This makes it so much harder for something like Groklaw to counter the propaganda, which is also something Microsoft learned from the SCO-case.
The idea is basically to show that Mono is something like a specially-designed Trojan horse, that masks itself with free-licensing and therefore makes it seem legit and on the same perceived risk-scale than other technologies.
While the original dotnet is genuine (although it borrows and builds on top of a lot of other ideas - just like cars do built on the same old concepts and evolve), Mono is specifically and superficially created, as to incorporate the very same underlying technology - all the blueprints for copying are purposely thrown on the table, and so letting Mono grow fulfills 2 goals:
Goal No. 1
Keep the other numerous car-makers from advancing their technology (which like Java, Python, etc. are also available for free and libre) and therefore prevent the possibility of building useful stuff with other stuff than Microsoft (these are the apps like navigation, car-radios, etc.) Or short: Draining attention away and diverting the landscape so to prepare conquest (divide and conquer). This is done by the license and cannot be debated on why GPL for Java should be good and GPL for Mono should be bad and therefore perceived with more caution.
Goal No. 2
Lure as many developers into building useful apps (or the entire car) with Microsoft-technology.
In my opinion, Microsoft can’t do that by developing Mono itself, if it wants to sue for licensing afterwards, because it gets harder to release stuff intentionally UNDER GPL (as opposed to their usual proprietary licenses) and later prove you didn’t know what your INTENTION was by pretending to not understood the consequences of the GPL (even v2)…
This is the major point Microsoft learned from the SCO-fiasco, as it was hard to prove that when SCO actively was part of UnitedLinux, it didn’t know exactly what it was doing with their “so-called IP” when releasing it under the terms the GPL…
So Microsoft changes and finds the perfect partner to fulfill its goals: Hurt Red Hat as much as possible, and letting Novell only continue develop “Mono” under its protection-racket as to give this project the perception it is legally save for Novell-users. Otherwise, Microsoft would have been forced to stop Novell from developing Mono or start to sue Novell, while with every day passing by, it would have gotten harder to argue that Microsoft stood there so long seeing what Novell was doing (including Mono in Linux), and not to find a “solution” (=cross-patent-licensing) or litigate right away.
Now as Novell is under Microsoft “guided control”, Microsoft can much more easily claim that Novell started building something that mimics Microsoft-technology as close as possible in the past, then talked with Microsoft about this (and other) technology resulting in “covenants not to sue” and others distributors or users who want to use Mono too (which resembles dotnet not only from the outside (the look of the apps: the car’s shape), but also from the inside (the technology or motor)) should clearly see that Microsoft is entitled to demand royalties from costumers who built their stuff by using a copy of Microsoft-technology to get a “free-ride”…
“Someone has to weigh these arguments in, if s/he choses to defend usage of Mono by claiming it is on the same scale as usage of Java.”It is much, much harder to prove such a case and nurture such a claim for MS with regards to using Java (for example), as MS themselves built dotnet on ideas relating to Java, which could then be proven to be mostly prior art. Java-technology would also get defended by a company like Sun (or Google), and MS had to prove the infringing IP of Java resembling dotnet, which would be easy in case of dotnet vs. mono.
So the litigation-scenario IS a major factor for anyone, who tries to compare the risk of possible litigation on the basis of IP-claims between dotnet and Mono and dotnet and Java. Someone has to weigh these arguments in, if s/he choses to defend usage of Mono by claiming it is on the same scale as usage of Java.
From Microsoft’s perspective and the public viewing of such a case, it is clearly not. Even the possible danger from Sun suing over Java is clearly not comparable, because Sun knew what it did when releasing GPL-Java and would have a hard stand to sue anyone not wanting to pay patent-royalties afterwards. If Microsoft would do the same as sun and release an official “Microsoft-certified” dotnet-variant under GPL, later license demanding through litigation would instantly lose a great deal of appeal.
So Microsoft having set up everything in place in its favor with Novell, now sits back and laughs silently as they have found the ONE weak-spot, with they trying to split FLOSS-land: The GPLv2 only and LGPLv2 only, which are poorly designed to such a clever patent-scam-attack. Microsoft weapon is a GPL-tarnished sword called Mono, developed by Novell.
At least, this is how I perceive this whole Microsoft-Novell-nonsense. Now the hard part is to prove this theory other than to wait and let it prove itself. So all we can and should do is make that threat as transparent as possible by exposing its nature to the fullest by just describing it as precisely as possible without making anything up.
Maybe this analogy helps a little to achieve this goal, and raise the awareness to where the difference (and danger) lies. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
Posted in FSF, GNU/Linux, GPL, Ubuntu, FOSS at 6:19 am by Roy Schestowitz
Today is Software Freedom Day. It is an excellent opportunity to educate our family, friends. and colleagues about the importance of Free(dom) software. To mark this event, I’m posting an old article of mine, which refers to a distribution that’s now retired. This also coincides with the Ubuntu/Mozilla EULA kerkuffle.
“It has nothing whatsoever to do with Freedom,” argues one of Gobuntu’s contributors. The contributor, Keith G. Robertson-Turner, is a longtime, passionate advocate of free software advocate. Before joining Gobuntu, he was among the first package maintainers on the Fedora project. Yet recently he opted to leave the Gobuntu project after what he sees as continued disappointment.
“In fact, [Mark] Shuttleworth has just confirmed on-list that his only interest is the kernel (i.e. disable as much of the contentious drivers as possible) … and see what still works,” he continues.
In contrast, Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu, disagrees with Robertson-Turner. The developer’s complaints “reflect one person’s recollection of a vigorous discussion on the Gobuntu development mailing lists,” he replied in an email response to Robertson-Turner’s allegations. Indeed, in Shuttleworth’s view, “Gobuntu is about building a platform that expresses freedom in software and in content.” He urges those interested to read key parts of the Gobuntu mailing list (linked to below).
Before examining Robertson-Turner’s experiences and findings, let’s delve into a little background. Later on, internal problems will be explained and ways to improve Gobuntu’s direction will be suggested.
What Makes a Linux Distribution Truly Free
A truly free GNU/Linux distribution is one which honours the idea that full access to and control over program source code is both valuable and necessary. Such a distribution should avoid software and hardware drivers that cannot be controlled by the user. Moreover, all expressions of creativity, including artwork, should permit derivative work. All in all, this ensures that there is no restriction that ties the user to the software and hardware vendors.
“The main goal of projects that follow this route is to reverse a growing trend where hardware and software turn against their users.”
There are several projects that strive to create such a Linux distribution, e.g. Ututo and gNewSense. The projects make their work widely available, not necessarily for profit. The main goal of projects that follow this route is to reverse a growing trend where hardware and software turn against their users. Examples include compromise of privacy, restriction on access, and forced upgrades, which can be expensive.
Gobuntu is a project whose purpose is to deliver a Linux distribution that is free not only in terms of cost, but also free in that it facilitates user freedom. Gobuntu essentially comprises a reduced set of packages that are used in Ubuntu Linux, with possible replacements for “non free” software packages and drivers.
Drivers versus Applications
A complete operating system can be looked at from several levels of abstractions or operation. Two such levels are the applications and the kernel. In a truly free Linux distribution, source code should be openly available at all levels. But what does this mean in practical terms?
At the level of the kernel, things are relatively simple. All code, including that which operates peripheral devices such as printers and keyboards, as well as internal storage media, should be made available for inspection, modification, and even redistribution. The user is in total charge of the way software interacts with the hardware and can therefore tweak the computer’s behaviour to his/her heart’s content.
When it comes to applications, the notion of “free” becomes more complex. Above the level of source code there tends to exist a graphical user interface with images, sounds, and other forms of art. Applications, unlike kernel code, can be very large and complex.
Dedication to both levels – the kernel and applications that sit on top – is needed when producing a truly free Linux distro. Without the conditions of freedom being satisfied, the computer which runs that software is not entirely under its user’s control. The user is forbidden from doing certain things on the computer that he/she actually owns. The user is sometimes forced to do undesirable things, too. Examples include a scenario where the user is not permitted access to vital personal information or a scenario where very sensitive information is sent over the network without the user’s consent.
Is Gobuntu a Free Linux?
According to recent arguments in Gobuntu’s mailing lists, focus has been shifting toward freeing the kernel. This effort comes at the expense of freedom at a higher level, which still includes popular “non free” applications. At present, the applications layer in Gobuntu resembles those which can be already found in Ubuntu (the less free version).
Mark Shuttleworth defends his stance on such issues by highlighting key parts of a long mailing list thread.
“At present, the applications layer in Gobuntu resembles those which can be already found in Ubuntu (the less free version).”
One vision that some Gobuntu developers have in mind is a free laptop. Free, that is, in the sense that the hardware requires no proprietary code in order to be used with Linux. This admirable goal was set by Mark Shuttleworth himself. In an interview with Robertson-Turner we found out that this goal may have been a distraction that led to the project losing sight of its more important goal. The most important goal should involve no actual product like a laptop, but establishing a generic system that is free in every sense. It leaves room for choice when selecting hardware rather than impose restriction on diversity.
Shuttleworth, though, disputes that Gobuntu’s goal is a free laptop. “A key point is that the idea of the free-software-only laptop and Gobuntu are entirely orthogonal and independent of one another,” Shuttleworth wrote in an email response to us. “I’ve had a number of people say they would like to know if such a laptop existed, so I invited people to register their interest in that idea separately from Gobuntu. I’m not sure what would make Keith think the two ideas are connected, except in the obvious way that both are about demonstrating a commitment to free software.”
Who Controls Gobuntu?
There appears to be a certain fear among the Gobuntu development community when it comes to voicing criticism, especially because the project meets the public eye. It thrives in transparency, but concerns about the project’s direction are sometimes raised off-list instead. We are told by Robertson-Turner that discussions among the contributors tend to be philosophical, but only in the sense that there is a ‘political’ power struggle, not in the sense that free software philosophies are encouraged though free and open expression.
Paraphrasing from memory, Robertson-Turner says that Mark Shuttleworth “comes in and says, stop bickering, this is supposed to be a devel[opment] mailing list, so talk about development stuff, and stop wasting time on trivial matters like Freedom.”
But Matthew East, a member of the Ubuntu Community Council, strongly disagrees with this assessment. “With limited exceptions, no one has yet (or at least until recently) stepped up with any concrete work which actually furthers Gobuntu’s aims of developing a completely free derivative of Ubuntu,” he tells us. He does, however, acknowledge the fact that mistakes were made. He believes that the company failed to give the Gobuntu project more substantial guidance about the scope and methods of the project, until recently. However, “This has been recognised and is being addressed,” he assures us.
There appears to be a mild confrontation between those who are volunteers and those who are associated with Canonical, which is the company behind Gobuntu. Robertson-Turner says: Somebody else pointed out that, if we can’t even establish what is or isn’t Free, then how are we supposed to proceed? This is core to the goals of this project. Where is the advisory board? Where are the mentors? Where is the information necessary to actually get involved? It’s all very well telling us to talk devel stuff, but what is it that we’re supposed to be developing … etc., etc.”
He argues that this was never the case when he participated in Fedora, where it was easier than ever to be a contributor. “They’re tripping over themselves to help volunteers,” he said, referring to Red Hat, which took over Fedora.
Robertson-Turner further complains that, “I suggested various non-Free packages be removed, and the reaction was, to put it mildly, aggressive. There seems to be core of contributors who are blind to the dangers of certain software, such as Mono, and argue vigorously in its defense, despite it having a particularly untrustworthy so-called ‘RAND’ clause from Microsoft. It is poison for the well, but certain Gobuntu contributors just don’t seem to care, and embrace this encumbered Microsoft technology with open arms. It’s deeply unsettling to discover this kind of attitude, especially in, of all places, the Gobuntu project.”
As it stands, other than the supposed changes to the kernel, Robertson-Tuner claims that one is hard pressed to find any difference between Gobuntu and Ubuntu at all, likening it to “little more than a new paint job,” adding that “as for changes in the kernel, even that was done without any consultation to the list, and to this day it remains a mystery as to what, if anything, has actually been changed.” A direct request from Robertson-Turner to Shuttleworth, on the mailing list, for information regarding those changes, went unanswered.
Firefox Divides the Development Team
What broke the camel’s back turns out to be a discussion about the inclusion of Mozilla Firefox in Gobuntu. It was only days beforehand that Mark Pilgrim, an influential technology writer, described this as the reason for failure in Gobuntu.
“What broke the camel’s back turns out to be a discussion about the inclusion of Mozilla Firefox in Gobuntu.”
Firefox is widely-known as an open source success story, but it is does not meet the requirements of free software. A few such issues led to the creation of a sibling project called IceWeasel, which is intended to resolve issues pertaining to artwork. A controversy revolves around the Firefox logo and its effect on derivatives (forks). In the developers’ mailing list, Mark Shuttleworth insisted that maintaining two copies of the codebase of the Firefox browser — one for Ubuntu and one for Gobuntu — will have “such little benefit.” Several volunteers immediately begged to differ in off-list coversations that we saw.
Outraged by this apparent disregard for the significance of the issue, Robertson-Turner responded “It’s time that Gobuntu started living up to the ‘very strict’ policy that motivated it’s inception, otherwise it will be nothing more than a different coloured Ubuntu, with a slightly smaller kernel,” and he concluded that “I don’t know about you, but that isn’t quite the vision that got me excited enough to want to get involved in this project.”
The Gobuntu Laptop
Towards the end of his long affair, which ended just recently, the main concern about the project had a lot to do with goals, maybe even a hidden agenda. “I’ve discovered the truth about Gobuntu. Essentially … it’s a hardware experiment,” Robertson-Turner tells us. He then refers to the idea involving a laptop, as mentioned at the beginning of this article. He likens it to a contest where people run a poll out of sheer curiosity.
Shuttleworth, however, begs to differ. “Contrary to the assertion made by Keith, there are no other private agendas or conversations about Gobuntu,” he states in our correspondence with him.
With the vision of pre-installed Ubuntu laptop that was free of proprietary drivers in mind, he calls this idea a response to Nicholas Negroponte’s One Laptop Per Child. Mark Shuttleworth’s blog post, which spoke about working in collaboration with a laptop manufacturer to produce a system favourable to free software drivers, certainly rang a bell here.
“It’s an experiment to produce a laptop independent of proprietary drivers (GPU, Wi-Fi, etc.), presumably so he can then capitalise on the idea,” we are told by Robertson-Turner. This ambitious statement did not escape a solid counter argument from Shuttleworth, who stepped in to clarify:
“A key point, though, is that the idea of the free-software-only laptop and Gobuntu are entirely orthogonal and independent of one another. I’ve had a number of people say they would like to know if such a laptop existed, so I invited people to register their interest in that idea separately from Gobuntu,” says Shuttleworth. He clarifies that the two ideas are not by any means connected “except in the obvious way that both are about demonstrating a commitment to free software.”
Ways Forwards
Gobuntu can hopefully be improved by reminding Canonical that the project should stick to things it was intended to achieve. As promised, it should also be driven by a community, as opposed to becoming a project that — at least in part — absorbs criticism against inclusion of proprietary components in Ubuntu. At worst, this is maybe a case of capitalization. The project can — and probably should — be built to provide what free software enthusiasts sought in the first place. Only then can it make a big impact and draw a community large enough to help it grow and thrive.
Shuttleworth asserts that “Gobuntu is about building a platform that expresses freedom in software and in content. Debating what constitutes freedom is essential to the process of building it.” The latter part — the past which is all about debating freedom — seems to contradict the experience of at least two Gobuntu developers whom we heard from (one prefers to remain unnamed). The project may be suffering from a disconnect, or simply a case of miscommunication. Canonical is already responding to these issues. “I’m personally quite positive that the project will soon be pointed in the right direction,” adds Matthew East, so it is encouraging to know that the problems are already taken into consideration and addressed. █
Originally published in Datamation in 2007
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
09.16.08
Posted in Microsoft, Patents, GPL, Europe, America, FOSS at 8:35 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Patent Systems Under Fire
It’s already known that the American industry, just like the rest of the world, is growing wary of the US patent system. An article has just been published to explain this backlash and outline the problem, but not without a solution (also to be found here).
Some of the biggest players in the technology industry complain that the U.S. patent system is broken — putting too many patents of dubious merit in the hands of people who can use them to drag companies and other inventors to court.
And Blaise Mouttet, a small inventor in Alexandria, Virginia, thinks he knows why. The problem, he said, is that “there are too many lawyers and not enough inventors involved with the patent system.”
So Mouttet is taking part in an experimental program launched in June 2007 with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and backed by the technology industry that is intended to give the public — including inventors — more of a voice in the system.
In Europe, there is a protest coming and not just activists will participate. Actual staff of the patent office will protest against their own employer, which says plenty about the severity of their crisis. They will be joined by the Stop Software Patents protesters.
The Stop Software Patents website carries a copy of a press release put out by SUEPO – the union representing European Patent Office examiners – to coincide with the one day strike of EPO staff and a protest to be held in Brussels, both of which are scheduled for this Thursday, 18th September.
According to this release: “The confidence of the workforce in the EPO President, Alison Brimelow, and her Vice-Presidents is very low. According to internal staff survey conducted in June 2008, only 6% of the workforce have confidence in the management qualities of this body. And only 9% of the patent examiners believe that Brimelow and the Vice-Presidents actively promote patent quality.”
To those who live nearby and can attend the protest, T-shirts will be available.
100 T-shirts with the Red Dove and the Stop Software Patents slogan arrive tomorrow at the Brussels office, so pre-order yours! The previous yellow one is a collector now.
Microsoft, Patent Trolls, and GPLv3
Microsoft’s good friend Acacia [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] has just been crowned top-of-the-league patent troll. This ought to show just what type of company is now being run by former Microsoft executives in its higher ranks.
Acacia Technologies is the most litigious non-practising entity/troll (delete according to preference) in the United States. According to research done by PatentFreedom, which is featured in an article to be published in the next issue of IAM, Acacia has been involved in a total of 308 cases in the US courts, 239 of which have been filed since 2003. In second place is Rates Technology Inc, which has been involved in 130 cases – although just 38 have been over the last six years.
The licence which defangs patent trolls is continues to be adopted pretty well. GPLv3 has just crossed the 3,000-projects milestone, according to Palamida’s count.
After over a year of tracking GPL3 adoption, we would like to announce that 3000 projects have adopted version 3 of the GNU GPL License. The strong adoption rate represented by this milestone shows the continued acceptance of this license by the Open Source and Free Software communities. We’d like to thank everyone that has been involved with this project. Without your hard work, none of this would’ve been possible.
In order to resolve this problem completely, software patents will need to be dropped altogether. █
“Fighting patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria.”
–Richard Stallman
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
09.15.08
Posted in FSF, GNU/Linux, Hardware, GPL, Ubuntu, FOSS at 3:21 am by Roy Schestowitz
[Note: some of the arguments here are out of date]
As GNU/Linux becomes more popular, the motives behind its inceptions are often forgotten. Linux is a free operating system, but its broadening userbase perceives this freedom as one that pertains to cost, not rights and liberty. It is therefore important to step back and remind ourselves of the purpose and importance of distributions which try to make a difference, sometimes at the cost of ease of installation and use.
gNewSense (pronounced nuisance) quickly caught the spotlight last year. It was the latest among several Linux distributions which adhered to the mantra of Free software [sic] (capitalisation in “Free” indicates that it refers not to price but to freedom). This mantra had been defined in line with the principles of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation. gNewSense is a version of Linux which is derived from Ubuntu Linux. It essentially strips off every bit of code that is not Free, i.e. all elements that are closed and proprietary.
gNewSense is an intriguing name that has been neglected for a while because Canonical, the founder and parent company of Ubuntu Linux, introduced Gobuntu, which maintained its roots and relationship with gNewSense. At present, because of the popularity and ubiquity of Ubuntu Linux, Gobuntu is often seen as the de facto Free distribution of Linux.
“…deficiencies should often be associated with the manufacturers of various bits of hardware.”To an average user, Gobuntu can be daunting. It would not work trivially with the average laptop. Its support for certain hardware components, for example, would be limited or nonexistent. The fault lies not in Linux. Rather, such deficiencies should often be associated with the manufacturers of various bits of hardware.
If drivers are provided for Linux, they often come only in binary form (i.e. no source code), which is forbidden from inclusion in Free Linux distributions. In fact, some hardware is not supported by Linux at all, albeit the situation is improving as more manufacturers recognise and respond to growth and rising demand for Linux in the marketplace.
The goals of Free Linux distributions and particularly the means for achieving these goals are not a case of prejudice, let alone what sometimes gets attributed to zeal. The assumptions made here and the theory behind this have deep roots in scientific thinking. Free Linux distributions offer several benefits, which will be discussed in turn.
Security
It is not only believed, but it was also shown by studies that open source drivers make the software more secure, predictable, and therefore robust as a whole. A Linux distribution that contains ‘black boxes’ from various vendors is generally misunderstood. It is therefore unsurprising that the next Linux kernel, whose version number will be 2.6.24, has already taken steps that discriminate against binary drivers.
It must be remembered that software cannot be tested properly if some of its internal parts are developed in complete isolation. There is no room for independent inspection and comprehensive audits of the software in its entirety — from the bottom layer which is the kernel up to more abstract and user-fundamental layers, such as the graphical user interface.
As an example of this issue, consider a number of critical security holes in the binary drivers delivered to Linux by NVidia. These drivers, which sit deep in the ‘belly’ of the operating system, have on several occasions exposed the entire system to intrusion, essentially leaving it open for full compromise. Not only could this be prevented at an early stage had more eyes been watching the code, but independent parties could also patch the flaw promptly rather than wait for NVidia to finally unleash a solution. As long as the development is closed-source, NVidia is the only company that controls its drivers, which are the only ones available. This leads to the next point.
Control
Over time, due to questionably-welcomed sophistication, there is an increasing loss of control over one’s own software. To use an example, many of us have heard about digital rights management (DRM). In the Free software world, a great deal of notoriety was earned by DRM. Its harms are believed to have outweighed the claimed benefit, which is reduction in copyrights infringement (and to content producers — the reselling of content, which is essentially being rented, not sold). At the end of the day, data can be lost repeatedly, which costs the consumer.
In this struggle for control, the user strives to control access to personal data and manage his/her expenses. With proprietary software, one usually buys a license to use the software rather than truly own the software. It is firmly believed by some luminaries that only Free software can change these worrisome rules completely. It would stop discrimination against the user of software and the consumer of information.
With Linux, ideally, the user should be in full control of the software. The user gains full ownership too. However, binary drivers in Linux change this. When it comes to behaviour of a driver, one relies on the vendor of that driver. It’s all or nothing at all. If the user is not happy with the behaviour of the driver and rejects it, then corresponding hardware is rendered unusable. Likewise, if the user dislikes the behaviour of closed-source software (application), then the only other option is to choose alternative software which is open and Free, rather than reshape and tailor the existing software for personal needs.
Choice
Binary drivers and software reduce choice. They narrow down and impose limits on choice of hardware. Additionally, they often restrict the user in terms of platforms and pertinent packages that are supported. Once again, the rigid nature of such drivers (or software) means that it remains the choice of the hardware (or software) maker what is supported and what is not. Decisions get tied to considerations such as a budget, business relationships, business objectives, and neglect of legacy. These factors are not customer-centric, so rights can be abused.
On the other hand, with free drivers, whose acceptance is facilitated by projects like Gobuntu, all code is independent from the iron fist of its original creator and maintainer. The benefits are many; they include more control over cost, reuse of old PCs, improved digital preservation, and diversity, which can be important in a plethora of situations. For instance, diversity is sometimes vital for security. It is through obscurity and inconsistency, which are separate from but not opposites of transparency.
Cost
The issue of choice can be broken down further to discuss cost separately. Many of us have at some stage faced the unfortunate phenomenon (and usually a deliberate business strategy) known as “forced upgrades”. The argument which underlines the danger of this — from the user’s point of view — is that vendors are able to control the way that drivers, much like the hardware that they operate, evolve over the years. Hardware can become unsupported at any stage and assuming bug fixes are needed, the only choice is then to purchase new hardware. This is where the high price of upgrades comes into play.
If an entire operating system is maintained and controlled by a group of so-called ‘benevolent dictators’ who have full access to all the code, then responsible action will be taken to ensure legacy hardware is supported and bug fixes are delivered without the conflicting interests of hardware makers (profits versus obligations towards the customer). Even if the code is not maintained by this group, which could, for example, be core BSD or Linux kernel developers, a company large enough can hire a professional — if none is already available in house — in order to mend driver code, which is both openly available and free to modify.
“The inconveniences encountered initially, whilst getting accustomed to a simplified and stripped-down version of Linux, are short-lived.”To sum up, betting one’s business on a Linux distribution that is truly Free is a case of controlling one’s own destination, direction- and expense-wise. The inconveniences encountered initially, whilst getting accustomed to a simplified and stripped-down version of Linux, are short-lived. That is because when correct hardware configurations and combinations are chosen (e.g. in the next hardware refresh cycle), there is no trouble ahead. Au Conraire — trouble is only caused when hardware is picked with long-lasting dependency on the company from which it was bought.
Next time someone enthusiastically says “you should try Gobuntu,” ponder this: rather than dismiss this as ‘religious’ madness, as some people do, you ought to understand that a larger proportion of the industry that surrounds us finally takes a step in the right direction. AMD, for example, proved that the impossible can become a reality. They took the Free route with their highly-valued ATI drivers.
Never shall we say never. If you demand open source drivers and dismiss those which shift control towards the vendor (i.e. themselves) rather than yourself, then change will follow. Remind yourself that the customer is always in charge and demand drive sales distribution. A good start would be to attempt installing a distribution of Linux which is free in every [gNew]sense of the word. It might prove to be a nuisance at first, but if you do not stand up for a needed change, who will? █
Originally published in Datamation in 2007
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
09.08.08
Posted in Microsoft, Windows, GNU/Linux, Novell, FUD, Mono, Patents, GPL, Asia, Interoperability, Java, FOSS at 6:00 am by Roy Schestowitz
The issues of copyrights in .NET and of downstreaming from Microsoft were both raised before. There are also technical and legal (patent) issues, which matter a lot because of the holder the technology.
Some of these issues are beginning to be raised not in any other Web site than Miguel’s own.
The rule obviously applies to any new APIs that are built for .NET as they are not immediately available for Mono. But unlike the binary-only APIs, these half-open source code releases pose additional problems for the open source CLI:
* More people are exposed to the source code, preventing them from working on a fully open source implementation of it.
* There is a smaller desire from the community to reimplement the code, as it is relatively easy to just use the existing implementation or ignore the issue for the time being.
* Some folks might not care about the license restriction, and ignore it altogether. A practice I do not endorse.
Miguel de Icaza is not only playing with fire (only Novell is draped with Mono asbestos), but he also helps Microsoft’s long-going goal of muscling Java out of the game. Novell is helping its partner in duopoly (Microsoft) ‘reverse’ a court’s decision by demoting Java [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
Sun Microsystems scored a major legal victory Monday when a federal judge ordered rival Microsoft to include Sun’s Java programming language in its Windows operating system.
U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz issued a preliminary injunction that will force Microsoft to distribute an up-to-date version of Java while Sun pursues its antitrust case against Microsoft. Motz, in a 42-page opinion, said Microsoft “leveraged its PC monopoly to create market conditions in which it is unfairly advantaged.”
For Microsoft it would be too risky to discriminate against Java. Partners like Novell are more suited for the job.
The latest conversation about Mono contains some iffy considerations of Microsoft’s CodePlex, which already has established some ‘hooks’ with SourceForge. The increasingly Windows/Microsoft-leaning SourceForge is a known issue and this new blog post from Ross Turk suggests that he is a good friend of a prominent Novell employee, Joe Brockmeier.
Our good friend Joe Brockmeier, community manager for openSUSE, has just started blogging for ZDnet.
This may not matter much, but it could — just could — explain why SourceForge is as blind (or careless) as Novell about the threats against GNU/Linux. Larry Augustin has already responded with a “put up or shut up” disclaimer to Microsoft, but he was too polite. There seems to be some indifference inside SourceForge to software which is being abducted to be made dependent on non-Free software and subjected to mistreatment by a convicted monopoly abuser.
This type of indifference is becoming prevalent. Melvin Calimag, for example, has been publishing pro-Microsoft articles and something about GNU/Linux failures after that free trip to Redmond [1, 2] (Microsoft invited him). Maybe it’s just a coincidence (the statistic sample is admittedly too small), but either way, he has just posted another Microsoft-serving piece that portrays Microsoft as an open source player.
Microsoft, once an ardent proponent of proprietary software, is no longer fighting the growing army of open source developers worldwide and in the Philippines. In fact, it will soon open in the country its first interoperability lab in Asia.
[…]
Contrary to popular notion, Microsoft claimed it had collaborated before with companies identified with the open source community. The company said it started its Linux Interoperability Lab in 2004 and opened the Open Source Software Lab in 2006.
It’s only the illusion that Microsoft no longer fights what it only recently called a greater threat than Google.
The real intent is soon expressed:
“These four principles include: one, ensuring open connections to our high-volume products such as Vista, Office, and Windows Server; second, promoting data portability; third, enhancing support for industry standards; and lastly, foster more open engagement with our customers and the community.”
So, it’s all about “open source” becoming dependent on the proprietary software stack from Microsoft.
Also in the news, following the latest cash infusion, a marriage of patents between Novell and Microsoft is briefly mentioned here.
More recently Hauser played a strategic role on Microsoft’s Law and Corporate Affairs, Intellectual Property Leadership team where she worked on Microsoft’s relationship with Novell and its efforts on interoperability. She was instrumental role in developing Microsoft’s first Interop Executive Customer Council with 45 worldwide CIO’s across commercial and public sector customers, added Scott.
Susan Hauser has already used the dealings in China as an opportunity to spread GNU/Linux FUD. She even stole the voices of Novell customers and misrepresented them. The team which is called “Intellectual Property Leadership” pretty much sums up what the Novell deal involved, but then again, even Novell has begun admitting that it’s about patents now [1, 2]. █
“I’ve heard from Novell sales representatives that Microsoft sales executives have started calling the Suse Linux Enterprise Server coupons “royalty payments”"
–Matt Asay, April 21st, 2008
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
09.07.08
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, SCO, Novell, SLES/SLED, Servers, GPL, Virtualization at 1:50 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Old tricks, different execution?
Two and a half weeks ago, Microsoft invested a lot of money in what was back then referred to as “Microsoft SUSE”. Having already seen Microsoft sneaking its way into “cancer” the OSI, nothing seems impossible anymore.
Microsoft has invested large sums of money in SUSE as a server platform simply because SUSE can replace Red Hat and Microsoft has control over SUSE. It’s merely a substitution of GNUs/Linuxes. Based on observations that Shane and I repeatedly made over a year ago, many of those coupons that Microsoft and Novell had distributed were actually handed out to existing GNU/Linux users, some of whom Red Hat users.
Back in 2005, roughly one year before Novell and Microsoft began to negotiate their software patents deal, PC World (IDG) published the following article.
While chatting over dinner with the executives of a middleware company during the recent RSA conference for encryption and security in San Francisco, I heard about a secret project. It concerned the development of a version of Linux that runs smoothly as a task under Windows. The project was completed and then shelved. Whether it will ever reemerge is doubtful, but it does offer some interesting possibilities and hints as to what Microsoft may be up to with MS-Linux.
[…]
If Microsoft actually produced an MS-Linux that was the standard Linux attached to the driver layer of Windows, giving users full Plug and Play (PnP) support of all their peripherals, nobody would buy any other Linux on the market. Well, except for the fact that Microsoft would be unable to produce such a product without allowing the other vendors access to the driver code as part of the open-source Linux license arrangement (GPL). You can be sure that Microsoft lawyers are studying this as closely as possible to see if there is any way they could market a dominant Linux distribution without killing themselves. So how could they do this?
Open-source law is new and not completely tested. I’m certain that Microsoft got involved with the SCO versus Linux lawsuit partly to reach a better understanding of how to proceed.
What if Microsoft has since then chosen virtualisation rather than middleware as a penetration/intervention vector? While virtualisation has not much effect on the desktop (not yet anyway), we already know that, according to Novell’s CEO Ron Hovsepian, Novell will not be pursuing the desktop. Earlier in the week John Dragoon said that they still lose money on the desktop. So instead, Novell goes for Red Hat’s jugular: the server room. It’s all about harming true GNU/Linux vendors one by one (Novell is still a proprietary software company).
“…there was a coordinated exclusion of virtualisation drivers and ’shims’ by Microsoft and Novell.”In virtualisation, Novell gets exclusivity from Microsoft. With VMware under Microsoft’s ‘puppet regime’, there remains room for reliance, but that could change in the future. Red Hat and Ubuntu have meanwhile moved to KVM.
As Shane wrote over a year ago, there was a coordinated exclusion of virtualisation drivers and ’shims’ by Microsoft and Novell. They ensure that only SUSE and Windows will play ‘nice’ with each another, which relates to the Op-Ed piece at the top (device layer as a differentiator).
That brings us back to the supposition that Microsoft indeed had such a plot. Does the above have much substance to it? Well, Maureen O’Gara, a Microsoft talking point [1, 2], had its ‘home base’ trying to ridicule this article anonymously (Maureen was publishing anonymously before). Why attack it? It’s the same ‘home base’ that supposes Microsoft might buy Novell and already covers a lot of Novell and SCO news, always in SCO’s favour. Could the story above be so much on the right topic that a story needed to be written just to attack its author? █
“As discussed in our PR meeting this morning. David & I have spoken with Maureen O’Gara (based on go ahead from BrianV) and planted the story. She has agreed to not attribute the story to us….
“[…] Inform Maureen O’ Gara (Senior Editor Client Server News/LinuxGram) or John Markoff (NYT) of announcement on Aug 28, 2000. Owner dougmil (Approval received from BrianV to proceed)
“Contact Eric Raymond, Tim O’Reilly or Bruce Perrins to solicit support for this going against the objectives of the Open Source movement. Owner: dougmil [Doug Miller]. Note that I will not be doing this. Maureen O’Gara said she was going to call them so it looks better coming from her.”
(From Microsoft’s smoking guns)
“That would be because we believe in Free Software and doing the right thing (a practice you appear to have given up on). Maybe it is time the term ‘open source’ also did the decent thing and died out with you.”
–Alan Cox to Eric Raymond
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
08.28.08
Posted in Microsoft, Novell, Mono, GPL, OpenDocument, FOSS at 8:11 am by Roy Schestowitz
From the Novell VP who says the darnest things:
For a project of mine, this weekend I put together a command-line editing class for .NET shell applications.
[…]
It is licensed under the MIT X11 license and the Apache 2.0 license so there are no annoying licensing issues and can be mixed with anything out there.
That’s a suggestion that GPL has “annoying licensing issues.” And what’s behind X11 anyway? Is this the former president (until recently) of the GNOME Foundation?
This comes a year after Miguel de Icaza’s ODF insult, to use Richard Stallman’s words:
Your insult is too vague to be checked, or refuted, but the reasons
why this question of standardization is important are very specific.
Governments around the world are interested in using an open standard
format. They have to decide whether to insist on a real open
standard, such as ODF, or accept a sham open standard, OOXML. If they
choose the former, they are likely to move somewhat to OpenOffice.
Otherwise they are likely to be stuck with Microsoft Office.
With ‘friends’ like these, need we have enemies? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
« Previous entries ·
