MESSAGE
| DATE | 2002-11-05 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout]
|
No Trouble
Ruben
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:41:23PM -0500, Joe Grastara wrote:
>
> Ruben,
>
> Just wanted to give you a heads up, I'm not going to be able to make it
> to the installfest until about 7:30 depending on how long it takes me
> to get there.
>
> -Joe
>
> On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 07:43 PM, Ruben I Safir wrote:
>
> >
> >Friday's ruling in U.S. v. Microsoft is not good news for free
> >software, according to Columbia Law School Professor Eben Moglen,
> >general counsel to the Free Software Foundation. In an interview with
> >Linux and Main, Moglen reacted to the ruling, pointed out how it can
> >hurt free software -- and what the FSF hopes to be able to do about it
> >-- and even gave a glimpse into how its having cleared the decks for
> >proprietary protocols and "trusted computing" is likely to figure into
> >the next major version of the General Public License.
> >
> >The questions are in bold face; Moglen's answers are in plain text.
> >Emphasis is added based on Moglen's verbal emphasis in the interview.
> >
> >What's your view of the ruling?
> >
> >It's not at all helpful to the free software movement or to the larger
> >community of users and developers. Not helpful because the
> >government's settlement with Microsoft contains serious flaws which
> >the Free Software Foundation pointed out to the Justice Department and
> >to the District Court in our filing under the Tunney Act; Judge
> >[Colleen] Kollar-Kotelly's order does not disturb those aspects of the
> >settlement agreement of which we disapprove. Not helpful because her
> >remedies or opinion and order in the litigating states' cases also
> >make no provision for the restoration of competition in the operating
> >systems market. We are, after all, as a community the competitor to
> >the monopoly.
> >
> >Judge Kollar-Kotelly makes clear in her opinion that she understands
> >that the United States government argued that Microsoft was illegally
> >maintaining a monopoly in the operating systems market. She doesn't
> >disagree with that. She states in her opinion, however, that for
> >whatever reason, she does not regard free software -- GNU/Linux and
> >all of its companion applications and programs -- as a viable
> >competitor; she repeats statements to that effect from Judge [Thomas
> >Penfield] Jackson's findings of fact, and we agree that those are
> >Judge Jackson's findings of fact, but the world has clarified somewhat
> >since Judge Jackson made those statements. And we think Judge
> >Kollar-Kotelly might have taken account of the changes in the market.
> >
> >We also think at the Free Software Foundation that there are some
> >disquieting aspects of what Judge Kollar-Kotelly has done in her
> >comments on parts of the settlement agreement with the Justice
> >Department and Microsoft. We are very concerned that the phrasing of
> >the settlement agreement, as we pointed out in our submission to the
> >Justice Department, we're very concerned that the release of API
> >information, which is absolutely crucial to free software developers,
> >has been organized by Microsoft in the settlement so that free
> >software developers cannot profit from it. And this, we fear, is made
> >yet more likely by some of the statements in Judge Kollar-Kotelly's
> >opinion, which affirms that Microsoft may, for example, make anything
> >which is in Microsoft's opinion a security or virus-avoidance or
> >e-commerce-protecting or encryption aspect of software not subject to
> >API release. This will in effect permit Microsoft to conceal or to
> >limit access to unfree terms to all the APIs conc!
> > erned with e-commerce. We think Judge Kollar-Kotelly and the Justice
> >Department have created an enormous loophole.
> >
> >It seems that it might be worse than the 1995 consent decree. Is that
> >your view?
> >
> >I certainly agree with you that at its worst it is worse than the
> >consent decree of 1995. There is nothing in this settlement agreement
> >of the Justice Department which addresses what we believe is the
> >central matter for the restoration of competition in the market, which
> >is to ensure that free software developers may write their own code to
> >implement any protocols and to provide services across any application
> >program interface that Windows applications may make use of. That is,
> >for the purpose of making competition in the O.S. market, the most
> >important thing. Whatever a Windows application program uses in order
> >to secure operating system services across any API or using any
> >communications protocol, it has to be the right of free software
> >developers to write their own code to serve across that interface. If
> >that is done, if for example WINE and X and GNU/Linux can exist and
> >can provide all those services, then there is de facto competition in
> >the O.S. market. Because any ap!
> > plication written for the Windows platform may run unmodified on a
> >free software platform. The central item is the API disclosure; that
> >was a central part of the government's case. Judge Jackson found that
> >it was the subject of the illegal maintenance of monopoly by
> >Microsoft, yet we have here an order now supported by Judge
> >Kollar-Kotelly's opinion which does nothing to ensure competition in
> >that domain. There are too many loopholes and too many weaknesses in
> >the settlement agreement.
> >
> >We made absolutely clear to the Justice Department and to the District
> >Court what needed to be done, in a very precise way, in order to close
> >those loopholes. And we regret very much that that has not happened.
> >
> >I would like to note that the only modification that Judge
> >Kollar-Kotelly has made in the government's proposed orders and in the
> >settlement agreement is to provide for continuing unilateral
> >supervisory jurisdiction by the District Court. The one thing that
> >Judge Kollar-Kotelly has been interested in in these opinions, beyond
> >the government and Microsoft, is securing her own power to intervene.
> >And I have to take that as a limited positive sign, that it will be
> >possible for us to address the District Court and to show her why in
> >practice this settlement agreement will not have the effect of the
> >pro-competitive gains that the Justice Department told her that she
> >could expect.
> >
> >In the interim there have been plans put forth by Microsoft for things
> >called "Palladium" and "trusted computing." Couldn't these effectively
> >lock out free software?
> >
> >We regard "trusted computing" and all the various forms of
> >protected-boot, closed hardware, whether adopted by industry
> >consensus, or by legislative mandate, as in Sen. Hollings's
> >legislation presently called "CBDTPA," as an absolute threat to the
> >existence of free software. We regard Microsoft's interest in those
> >subjects as plainly informed by the opportunities it presents to
> >exclude from the consumer market its only viable competitor. There is
> >no question that "trusted computing" has to be taken seriously as a
> >profound threat to the free software ecology.
> >
> >We point out to our friends in the hardware business, all the time,
> >the difficulties that this presents, not just to us but to them, and
> >we believe that within limits they have been entirely understanding of
> >our common concerns. Accordingly, with respect to
> >government-mandatedso-called "trusted computing" -- the pro-Disney
> >legislation sponsored by Sen. Hollings, for example -- IBM and
> >Hewlett-Packard have been extremely cooperative with the free software
> >movement, and with the Free Software Foundation in particular, in
> >making our point of view clear and understandable by government.
> >
> >I am speaking to the annual convention of the Business Software
> >Alliance on the 14th of November in Washington, which in itself is
> >somewhat unusual, obviously, and to be invited to address that
> >gathering in that place on that occasion strikes me as a very
> >significant acknowledgement by BSA of where we are in the software
> >world now. And I will have some remarks there on this particular
> >subject.
> >
> >I also think, however, that the question you are asking has a specific
> >answer for your readership. Which is that we regard taking measures in
> >the license, in the GPL, to assist free software in resisting "trusted
> >computing" as a very important facet in drafting GPL version 3. It is
> >one of the reasons why I expect that there will be a GPL version 3
> >draft for public discussion within the next several months. And it is
> >precisely in order to consider our options with respect to "trusted
> >computing" that I am again briefly delaying release of such a draft.
> >
> >I think that we need to make changes in the fundamental legal
> >infrastructure of free software, subtle but comprehensive, that will
> >help us to face the threat presented by "trusted computing," in part
> >by helping to convince users of free software who are also its
> >redistributors -- and by this I have in mind particularly the hardware
> >manufacturers -- to recognize that they must treat as fundamentally
> >incompatible "trusted computing" and the enormous benefit that they
> >gain by socializing software research and development through the free
> >software movement. We need them to understand that it is not possible
> >to pursue both courses simultaneously, because while the large
> >hardware manufacturers have been extremely helpful to us in furthering
> >our joint interest in preventing government-mandated "trusted
> >computing," they continue to explore in industry fora and in standards
> >organizations how they might go about it. And we need to point out to
> >them that the loss of the enormous benefi!
> > ts of treating software as a public utility in the 21st century --
> >having development and research done by everybody collectively -- is
> >simply way more important than even the apparent business interests
> >that lead them to explore the idea of computers that are not under the
> >control of their users.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Printer Friendly Page Printer Friendly Page
> >Send to a Friend Send to a Friend
> >
> >"Login" | Login/Create an Account | 4 comments
> >Threshold
> >The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their
> >content.
> >Re: Interview: Eben Moglen on the Microsoft decision and its
> >ramifications (Score: 1)
> >by mmarq on Monday, November 04 -at- 16:45:36 EST
> >(User Info | Send a Message)
> >WHAT IN THE HELL DID IT REALLY CHANGED????
> >
> >MICROSOFT HAVEN'T EVEN MADE A BREAK IN IT'S FEALTY ACTIONS, DURING THE
> >TRIAL!!!!
> >
> >IT'S ALL ABOUT "MONEY",..., NOT LAW OR JUSTICE,NOT COMPUTER
> >CODE,...,IT'S ABOUT AN ARTIFICIAL FREE ECONOMY WHIT ARTIFICIAL FREE
> >MARKETS WHERE BIG CORPORATIONS ARE ALLOWED TO SQUACH THE COMPETITION
> >WHIT EVERY DIRTY TRICKS IN THE BOOKS, AND A EVEN BIGGER NUMBER THAT
> >AREN'T IN THE BOOKS, JUST BECAUSE THEY PAY FOR THE POLITITIANS(the
> >campaigns and trouble) THAT MAKE LAWS TO PROTECT THEM, AND THEM LIES
> >AND PROPAGANDA TO MAKE AN ILLUSION OF A ARTIFICIAL FREE AND PROSPER
> >WORLD....!!!!
> >
> >AND THIS ISN'T A USA ONLY DISEASE, IT'S EUROPEAN, AND ASIA AND SOUTH
> >AMERICA,..., AND EVEN WORST,..., PEOPLE DONT REALLY WANT FREE MARKETS,
> >FREE OPPORTUNITYS FOR ALL,..., ALL THEY WANT IS TO MAKE "MONEY" AND
> >SCROU THE OTHERS!!!...
> >
> >SO NOTHING REALLY NEW UNDER THE SUN!!!....
> >
> >BUT I BELIVE THE BREATH OF FRESH AIR THAT IS "OPEN SOURCE" NEEDS MORE
> >AND DESERVES MORE... SO I APPEAL TO EVERYBODY TO GIVE BETTER AND MORE,
> >NOW THAT THEY UNDERSTAND CLEARLY THAT THEY HAVE BEEN AND ARE
> >CONTINUING TO BE UNDER HEAVY FIRE OF "MS & FRIENDS".
> >
> >AND IF ANYONE IN IS FREE RIGTH, BELIVES THAT I'M A STUPID ASSHOLE, HE
> >OR SHE WOULD BE KIND ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN:
> >A)WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A COMMON "LOOK & FEEL", AT LEAST IN OURS LINUX
> >DESKTOPS??
> >B)WHY DOES "KDEvsGNOME" WAR SOMETIMES FEELS WORST THAN MICROSOFT??
> >C)WHY THERE ISN'T A COMMON DOCUMENT FORMAT FOR ALL OFFICE APPLICATIONS
> >IN "OPEN SOURCE" WORLD(giving MS a chance??)???
> >D)WHY THERE ISN'T A COMMON WAY OF TRANSLATE MS OFFICE DOCUMENTS, AND
> >INSTEAD LOTS OF DUPLICATED EFFORTS(giving MS another chance??)???
> >
> >(the list could be much bigger)
> >
> >IF UNDER FIRE IN THIS TOUGH WAR, WE GIVE THE "ENEMY" SO MUCH CHANCES,
> >THE ONLY HOPE THAT "OPEN SOURCE" HAS, IS IF BILL GATES HAS A FEALTY
> >PERSONALITY AND CHOKE AND DIE IN IS LAUGHING OF THE
> >COMPETITION...............................
> >
> >
> >[ No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register ]
> >
> >Re: Interview: Eben Moglen on the Microsoft decision and its
> >ramifications (Score: 1)
> >by GuildPortal on Monday, November 04 -at- 17:01:10 EST
> >(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.guildportal.com
> >Here's my favorite part:
> >
> >"that for whatever reason, she does not regard free software --
> >GNU/Linux and all of its companion applications and programs -- as a
> >viable competitor;"
> >
> >In response, you have got to be kidding. It's simply not a competitor
> >on the desktop market. Tell you what, you come over to my place, we'll
> >run RedHat install on my server and watch it lock up completely when
> >trying to load the SCSI drivers. Then we'll head to IRC or Newsgroups
> >or Forums (on my Wintel machine, which works) and hear about how we
> >need to change a little something here and there and recompile the
> >kernel.
> >
> >Did you hear me? Recompile the kernel. Again, you've got to be kidding
> >me.
> >
> >But anyway, I understand why a person working with or on GNU/Linux
> >variants would want a little more out of the settlement.
> >
> >If you can't compete, litigate.
> >
> >
> >--
> >__________________________
> >Brooklyn Linux Solutions
> >__________________________
> >DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com
> >
> >http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
> >http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
> >http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
> >http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories
> >and articles from around the net
> >http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown
> >Brooklyn....
> >
> >1-718-382-0585
> >____________________________
> >New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
> >Fair Use -
> >because it's either fair use or useless....
>
> ____________________________
> New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
> Fair Use -
> because it's either fair use or useless....
--
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
__________________________
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
1-718-382-0585
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
