On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 06:32 +0000, Andy Green wrote: > Les Mikesell wrote: > > Andy Green wrote: > > > >> This problem: ''It's Linux that brings a problem into this picture.'' > >> Mentioned after your noting that Dells ship with MP3 and WMA and "It's > >> Linux that brings a problem into this picture.". The reason Linux > >> distros don't ship with that support is patents. I hope that clears > >> up your sudden attack of 'confusion'. > > > > No, it doesn't clear it up, given that other operating systems are able > > to arrange distribution with patented components. I'm not insisting > > that this combination be free, just available. > > For Microsoft, it's paid-for and the whole thing is not redistributable. > For Linspire solutions for Linux, the OS is redistributable but not > the MP3 part. Fedora's basis is that it is contains freely > redistributable stuff, and indeed I find being able to copy it around at > will is important. > > >>> you are willing to meet the licensing terms of all the components you > >>> want to have, no one is allowed to combine them for you if any part > >>> is covered by the GPL and any other part has different restrictions. > >> > >> These are completely separate areas in law. The GPL operates under > >> Copyright law. But the work you have fully legitimate copyright to > >> can easily violate dozens of patents, which is regulated by a > >> completely separate body of patent law. Let's imagine your enduser > >> view of the GPL making problems was solved. Say the GPL became BSD > >> overnight. Still Redhat cannot bundle mp3 players due to patent law. > > > > They would no longer be constrained by licensing to not add components > > with different redistribution restrictions. So they could bundle > > anything they want as long as the license requirements were met > > independently. > > You mean: "Copyright licensing". Patentholders typically did it to make > money, and won't license their patents for free usage unless there is a > quid pro quo in the form of a patent crosslicense. So Fedora could not > go on as it is even in that hypothetical situation where copyright > licensing restrictions disappeared but it wanted to include patented > software: it would have to charge like all the other solutions currently > have to charge. > > >> I have to say I noted the irony of your using Alan Cox's code in the > >> networking stack to piss him off. Seems your complaints should be > >> tempered by some recognition that a lot of work went into giving us > >> this stuff for free. Without acknowledging the debt, your complaints > >> sound like a teenager complaining about how unfair his life is, while > >> he lives under a roof he doesn't have to pay for, eats food, wears > >> clothes that are given to him. > > > > Is there something unique about the linux kernel that should matter to > > me? It is a convenient place to run X, apache, sendmail, perl, nfs, > > java, firefox, openoffice, etc. and I use it because it has hijacked > > much driver and kernel development that might have gone into the *bsd's > > otherwise. But I'll turn your comment around and point out that Linux > > But your complaints centre on Linux and the GPL. > > > wouldn't exist without the design and specification of the original > > proprietary version of unix, and those other applications wouldn't exist > > without their original proprietary host OS's and in many cases their own > > proprietary versions. If you are going to pay homage to the development > > You should turn it around a little further: Linux wouldn't exist as it > is without the GPL, because the same set of contributors and the same > ecosystem would not have formed. When you compose your complaints about > the downstream effects of the GPL limiting what can be bundled, you > should consider effect #0: it gave you the thing in the first place. > > > cycle, you should point out the irony of the self-serving GPL exception > > allowing linkage with proprietary libraries of operating systems that it > > happens to need to run and initially couldn't have existed without, yet > > denying distribution with other binary-only components. What's that > > about acknowledging debt? Meanwhile I still buy copies of Windows and > > OS X for my machines because Linux distributions don't (and perhaps > > can't ever) include components to do all of the equivalent things. > > People did a lot of work and gave you the result for free so you would > have something to complain about. That is what should be acknowledged. > It doesn't mean falling to your knees and weeping. But instead of > acknowledging it, which should be easy enough since the evidence is all > around you, you find yourself reaching into the GPL and picking out a > specific feature of the license to complain about in response > instead[1]. Your point is that this license feature means they didn't > do all that work and give it to you for free? No, it means you have a > problem acknowledging that you are the recipient of their kindness, > because doing so puts the complaints in a different, more holistic light. > > I have to use XP in vmware for one program myself, it doesn't invalidate > the great work in Linux that works in every other area of my computer > use, in fact having to go in there reminds me how great it all is. Use > Linux where it makes sense and does a good job, by all means use other > stuff when you have to. Don't try to bend Linux and Fedora out of the > shape of what they are to fit all cases. > > >>> How is this going to change? I expect encodings to continue to > >>> improve and for people to continue to need a way to fund the > >>> development work. The GPL just doesn't provide a good model to fairly > >>> share those costs and it doesn't co-exist well with the schemes that do. > >> > >> Yeah that's actually right IMO. About a year ago I had the same > >> argument with ESR. Proprietary software -- proprietary in the > >> copyright sense -- is given meaning and a lease of life by proprietary > >> codecs -- proprietary in the patent sense. The two are symbiotic > >> because they can share revenue. The FOSS "niche" is everywhere else. > >> > >> Because of great patent-free codecs like Matroska and Vorbis we are > >> not locked out of participating in audio and video, but the content > >> rightsholders, by their choice of patent-protected codings, can and > >> will lock us out of being able to offer their content. > > > > Yes, content is what matters, so those codecs become important when/if > > the content you want is available in that encoding. Until the content > > vendors give up on DRM by finding out it doesn't sell, that's probably > > not going to happen. > > Yeah, although there are signs EMI in financial desperation may be > preparing to push the MP3 button, not that it helps us much as we > discussed. The best answer is not to buy content that is restrictively > licensed. http://jamendo.com will work with Fedora out of the box, with > CC licensed music in OGG Vorbis format. If you encourage that stuff > with your money instead you are doing something to reward people for > being open and trusting and punishing the closed people that will jump > at the chance to sue you. > > >> And despite ESR's naive hopes of getting rescued by Linspire, there is > >> nothing that can be done about it from this side going on. And who to > >> blame? Patent law. > > > > I agree that we'd be better off if software were recognized as math and > > not eligible for patents, but the mere existence of a patent doesn't > > mean that the terms of licensing have to be unreasonable or that the > > license can't be arranged and aggregated by a distributor. However > > vendor-provided binary drivers are a more immediate issue relating > > specifically to Linux. The mp3 discussion was just a sidetrack since > > it's all application level and can be done without inheriting any GPL > > restrictions. > > In practice it does typically mean that unless the patent is used in > crosslicensing horsetrading, it won't be granted in a redistributable > way for $0: because then why bother with a patent. So patents > inherently stand against free and freely redistributable software like > Fedora, GPL or no GPL. The content rightsholders that will leverage > that by patented codec choice stand against it too: why reward that with > your money. > > -Andy And all of this overlooks the base design of patent law. Patents are supposed to give the grantee the exclusive rights to his work for a limited time. After that by law, the work is to pass into the public domain. Thus technology would have a profit attached, but would benefit all of us by creating and then liberating technology for the next round of advancement of society as a whole. All patents were to have an expiration date set at the issuance of the patent. Regards, Les H
