Fedora - DELL ?
Les
hlhowell at pacbell.net
Sat Mar 17 17:23:11 UTC 2007
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
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list