Jacobsen v. Katzer concludes, Open Source wins
I've written about the conclusion of Jacobsen v. Katzer, including my participation as an expert witness.
Here's my testimony.
Searching for a new online publisher to replace Datamation
I've enjoyed writing for Datamation. They got a good audience for my articles, and they paid for them. I generally write at the paid publication level, which I hope is somewhat above the level you'd expect from a blogger.
Unfortunately, Datamation's new owner won't revert articles to authors after a time. This means that I can't use the articles in a book, or on my own web site. That's not acceptable.
My articles often are derived from my strategic consulting work - with the customer name and specifics carefully removed. I must own them, because I don't want to be in the situation of having my consulting work be considered "derivative" of some article when it's actually the other way around.
So, I'm looking for a new online publisher who is willing to pay for writing, and will revert rights appropriately. Most of my articles get Slashdotted, so it's a good deal for the publisher.
Interested? email bruce at perens dot com, or call 510-904-3064.
Statement on Busybox Lawsuits
Statement on Busybox Lawsuits
Bruce Perens
I am the creator of the Busybox program which is currently subject to lawsuits brought by Mr. Erik Andersen and the Software Freedom Law Center, and which was subject to previous suits brought by SFLC, Mr. Andersen and Mr. Robert Landley.
First, I'd like to point out that I'm not represented in these lawsuits, and that the parties and the Software Freedom Law Center have never attempted to contact me with regard to them. As far as I am aware, and under advice of various attorneys, I still hold an interest in Busybox through both content and compilation copyrights. As present Busybox development is a direct continuation of my original work on the project, much of the current code base is a derivative work of my copyrighted code.
The basic claim of the lawsuits is that the GPL license terms must be followed by all parties that distribute works containing GPL software. I support this claim. The GPL terms are simple and are complied with by many companies. For example, see the distribution of source code by SONY at http://products.sel.sony.com/opensource/ . This straightforward distribution of the source code embedded in hundreds of their television models and other products doesn't appear to cause them any hardship.
Busybox does not endanger the proprietary software of any company that makes the most trivial effort to comply with its license. Such software need only be placed in a separate executable file from Busybox, and will thus be insulated from any license obligations of Busybox. These companies are obligated to distribute the Busybox source code, not their own source code, and to provide the Busybox license statement where appropriate. Thus, companies don't fall out of compliance with the GPL license on the busybox software unless they fail to exercise the slightest bit of due diligence, and then fail to respond appropriately when contacted by copyright holders who seek to remedy the situation. It is only after protracted failure to respond that non-compliant parties are pursued for damages.
In short, nobody violates the Busybox license (or indeed any Free Software license) for a smart reason.
Unfortunately, all of this is confusing my strategic consulting customers. Thus, I will offer them a waiver of my interest where appropriate. I will also offer a waiver to those companies that use my assistance in coming in to compliance with the Busybox license, at my usual consulting rate for that assistance rather than "damages" related to my copyright, regardless of their past or present infringement.
I have some complaints regarding Mr. Andersen, Mr. Landley, and the Software Freedom Law Center.
SFLC, which is supposed to represent Free Software developers without charge and without prejudice, seems to have been selective in which of the Busybox developers it chooses to represent, and has in the past been either guarded or hostile in its correspondence when contacted by other developers of the Busybox program.
The version 0.60.3 of Busybox upon which Mr. Andersen claims copyright registration in the lawsuits is to a great extent my own work and that of other developers. I am not party to the registration. It is not at all clear that Mr. Andersen holds a majority interest in that work.
Mr. Andersen, his past employers and Mr. Landley appear to have removed some of the copyright statements of other Busybox developers, and appear to have altered license statements, in apparent violation of various laws. Mr. Landley once claimed that all of my contribution had been completely removed from the Busybox program, using a misinterpretation of Judge Walker's methods for identifying non-literal copying to justify his claim. As far as I'm aware, he was incorrect.
Much as other Busybox developers wish to support the general cause of getting companies to comply with simple Free Software Licenses, some of the other developers and I are becoming annoyed with Mr. Andersen and Mr. Landley's apparent violation of our own rights, and SFLC's treatment of our interest. We have held off, to date, to avoid confusing issues, but our patience is limited.
Bruce Perens
Monta Vista Devalues Employee Stock in Sale
Ex employees of Monta Vista, the embedded Linux company, are telling me that they are being paid $0 for the sale of their company to Cavium Networks while USD$44 Million goes to the holders of three series of preferred stock. CEO Jim Ready and another executive are taking parachute payments and either retention or severance payments to the tune of 1 to 2 Million a piece in addition to anything they make from holdings in the preferred rounds.
I wasn't aware that Monta Vista went bankrupt, and a merger or purchase of a company isn't a liquidation, so I'm not at all clear how they can pay only the preferred stockholders. The employees need a good securities attorney.
Articles on Open Source and Business
Here are some articles I've written on Open Source and Business:
Cenzic report bashes Firefox, Safari as insecure - Without Substantiation
A "security" company called "cenzic" claims that Firefox has 44% of web browser security vulnerabilities while Microsoft Internet Explorer has only 15%. But their report offers no substantiation: just a pie chart which we are to take on faith and not a shred of data regarding how they arrived at the figures. Want to bet that Microsoft sponsored the report?
What is even more irksome is that Slashdot founder Rob Malda gave this the headline "Firefox Most Vulnerable Browser, Safari Close" - which makes it sound like a fact - when even a brief look at the report would have told him the company had nothing to back up their claim. Rob should know better. Most of the Slashdot readers who bothered to post a comment were able to conclude quickly enough that the report had no substance.
Bruce Perens to Keynote Olswang Open Source Summit, London UK, 1-December-2009
The Olswang law firm will be holding an Open Source Summit in London on 1-December-2009. Bruce Perens will keynote. Mr. Perens reprises his keynote appearance at the first such summit in 2007. The summit will be held from 8:30 AM to 11 AM. For an invitation, email sophie.lang at olswang dot com
Black-Hat Search-Engine Optimization
Here's a site being used for black-hat search-engine optimization: SkyKitPilotShop.com
Apparently, this is the web site of a defunct pilot shop business. The new owner has created garbage content that is slightly related a few former products of the business, which is enough to trick a search engine into thinking there's still a valid business there. And then they link from the site to the customers who are paying for SEO that day.
The site is still linked to by legitimate aeronautical web sites like AirNav . This illustrates why you should not release domains that recently have had good traffic. SEO black-hats will pick them up and use them. I guess the only solution for sites like this is to report them to the search engine operators, and to the sites that link to them.
By the way, I linked to the site with rel="nofollow", which prevents further elevation of their search engine rank.
Fake Flash Memory
There seems to be an epidemic of fake flash memory, sold at flea markets, on eBay, etc. SOSFakeFlash has a ton of information.
Sequoia to publish "Disclosed Source Code" for voting machine
Sequoia is publishing the source code for a new line of voting machines. It's important to note that they aren't talking about Open Source, which isn't just source code but a set of rights that make the software useful and encourage collaboration. Disclosed source code means there's source code, but you don't necessarily have the right to run it, to redistribute it, to modify it - all of which you get with Open Source.
Code without the right to run it wouldn't in general be very useful. But in this case the purpose of making the code public is to allow searches for back-doors and bugs that might allow deliberate distortion of the vote or might cause it accidentally. That's essential if democracy is not to be a sham.
People who are testing such software need rights too, at least the right to run it and to modify it for purposes of experimentation or testing, and the right to communicate with others about it, including with snippets of the code and proposed modifications. It will be interesting to see what rights Sequoia gives researchers.
Manage
