They do for making programs and working on various projects, but the Open Source Initiative has quite a history telling people that it is okay to dismiss freedom talk.

I think highly of people, like Eben Moglen, who are able to work so well with OSI advocates. I think it’s important we all work together to achieve some common goals like the abolition of software patents, freeing people from the anti-user circumstances of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), and writing more free software. When I hear Michael Tiemann, current president of the OSI and head of Red Hat, say that he respects freedom (audio) I want to believe him. But there is quite a bit of work for the OSI to do to address what has happened over many years (remember, the OSI which started the open source movement, launched over a decade after the GNU Project which began the free software movement).

Continue reading →

Matthias Klang’s article in First Monday falls into a common trap regarding free software because they have an absolutist position on freedom, Klang promotes propaganda instead of clear thinking, and fails to do proper research. I’ll just consider the conclusion and a couple other parts.

Continue reading →

I found Daniel Olivera’s part of this talk (audio) interesting (I only speak English, so I can only discuss the English parts of it), but I’d like to expand on the last part some more. This video is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license.

The initial versions of the Apple Public Source License (APSL) are a specific example of the difference between the Open Source and Free Software movements. When Apple initially published the APSL, the Open Source proponents concluded it was an Open Source Initiative (OSI) approved license. The Free Software Foundation did not, they called this license a non-free license because it did not uphold certain freedoms. This difference is a direct result of the definitions of “free software” and “open source”.

I would have also pointed out that it is curious why anyone would want to say that the OSI supports software freedom when they call such effort “ideological tub-thumping” in their FAQ. The FSF shows that differences between the movements can be described respectfully without name-calling. The OSI was set up to not have to talk about software freedom; software freedom talk was getting in the way of OSI representatives talking to their preferred audience: businesses. So the OSI was founded to frame the debate for free software by throwing out the name “free software” and taking on motivations that would appeal to business: faster, cheaper, and less buggy software development. These consequences of software freedom were taken as chief reasons to adopt what they came to call “open source” software. Hearing someone (perhaps it was Michael Tiemann of Red Hat?) ask about this makes me think if there’s interest in further supplanting the free software movement by getting someone sufficiently high up in an FSF branch to say that the OSI fights for our software freedom like the FSF does, thus allowing the OSI to echo this anytime someone points out an uncomfortable history filled with episodes where software freedom was forgotten in the pursuit of developmental goals.

Finally, it seems that every week there are a few examples of where free software and open source proponents view the situation differently. The recent dust-up about “Open Source DRM” is another example.

Generally, Open Source proponents look at nothing but technical merit whereas Free Software proponents look at what effect a program has on society. There’s a quote from Stallman I’ll have to look for, it goes something like this: If a proprietary program that functions well comes along, an Open Source proponent is likely to look at it and conclude that they’re surprised such a program could be written without involving more developers, but they can’t argue with the technical success the programmers achieved. So they’re compelled to run the program and recommend it to others. The Free Software proponent says that taking away their freedom is not an option. They will not recommend this program to anyone and will only run it for the purpose of making a free replacement.

GPL-violations.org has the scoop and Groklaw has commentary worth reading as well: Harald Welte, and his lawyer, Till Jaeger, co-founder of the Institute for Legal Issues of Free and Open Source Software have enforced the GNU General Public License (the preeminent free software license) in Germany again, this time against D-Link Germany GmbH. The first time was in Munich in 2004.

D-Link’s lawyers argued that the GPL is invalid. This is a trap of an argument because the GPL is valid, and because if the GPL can be shown to be invalid the natural response is “By what right did you copy, modify, or distribute the covered software?”. There is no suitable response; if any copyright license were shown to be invalid, the copyrighted work would revert to the default for copyright which (put simply) is to disallow all regulated behavior.

Pamela Jones points out the trap on Groklaw:

Moglen has explained for many years that the way the GPL works is this: if you don’t accept it or violate its terms, you have no right to distribute at all, and if you do distribute anyway, it’s a copyright violation, because only the license gives you any distribution rights.

Well, that’s what the German judge said to D-Link, that if you don’t accept the terms of the GPL, where’s the permission to distribute at all? Even if you could prove the license wasn’t legal or binding, you gain nothing, because you thereby lose all rights to distribute. Some seem to think they get to misappropriate the code if they could just get that pesky GPL out of the way. Nope. It’s a package deal. And that is exactly what Moglen told you, but some just wouldn’t listen.

Prof. Eben Moglen on enforcing the GPL is well worth reading. If you license or distribute GPL-covered software, you’ll want to know that you’re using a license you too can stand behind in court, if need be.

It’s sad to see any GPL dispute go to court because it means that the litigants could not resolve their differences and reach an amicable end. But now we’ve got multiple cases in multiple countries to draw upon whenever someone tries to raise fear, uncertainty, or doubt of the GPL’s validity.

Now the EFF informs us that your investment in Microsoft DRM-laden tracks may be wasted if you hope to take them on the road with Zune:

In yesterday’s announcement of the new Zune media player and Zune Marketplace, Microsoft (and many press reports) glossed over a remarkable misfeature that should demonstrate once and for all how DRM and the DMCA harm legitimate customers.

Microsoft’s Zune will not play protected Windows Media Audio and Video purchased or “rented” from Napster 2.0, Rhapsody, Yahoo! Unlimited, Movielink, Cinemanow, or any other online media service. That’s right — the media that Microsoft promised would Play For Sure doesn’t even play on Microsoft’s own device. Buried in footnote 4 of its press release, Microsoft clearly states that “Zune software can import audio files in unprotected WMA, MP3, AAC; photos in JPEG; and videos in WMV, MPEG-4, H.264” — protected WMA and WMV (not to mention iTunes DRMed AAC) are conspicuously absent.

But if you get a Zune anyway, you won’t have to worry about sharing those sharable tracks; if Medialoper is right, Zune will wrap a DRM layer around any sharable track making it unplayable after 3 plays:

Zune’s wireless music sharing is turning out to be one of those features that seemed better when it was just a rumor. While Zune users will be able share music with friends, there’s a catch (isn’t there always). As Jim noted earlier, recipients of shared songs will only be able to listen to them three times or for three days, whichever comes first. It sort of sounds like a really bad tire warranty.

Zune accomplishes this amazingly stupid feat by wrapping shared music in a proprietary layer of DRM, regardless of what format the original content may be in. If Microsoft’s claims are to be believed, this on-the-fly DRM will be seamless and automatic – which must be some kind of first for Microsoft.

DRM really is about digital restrictions management.

As if this isn’t embarassing enough, consider the name of the device. Microsoft named their newest device similarly to a French Canadian slang term for penis or vagina. Microsoft knew this and is apparently okay with it.

A Microsoft spokeswoman in Montreal told CanWest News Service that “it was pointed out to us” during focus groups in the province that the proposed brand name sounded much like a French-Canadian term used as a euphemism for penis or vagina.

The French word “zoune” and the variant “bizoune” typically serve as a less jolting way of referring to male or female genitalia when addressing children.

Suddenly Nintendo’s “Wii” device (pronounced “wee”) is becoming more clear.