MESSAGE
| DATE | 2002-11-05 |
| FROM | Joe Grastara
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout]
|
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....
|
|
