GPL Violations

GPL Violations wins case against D-Link. D-Link had argued that the GPL was not legally binding.

On September 6, 2006 the district court issued its judgement, confirming the claims by gpl-violations.org, specifically its rights on the subject-matter source code, the violation of the GNU GPL by D-Link, the validity of the GPL under German law, and D-Links obligation to reimburse gpl-violations.org for legal expenses, test purchase and cost of re-engineering. Only the amount of the legal expenses was considered too high by some insignificant amount of 300 EUR. Therefore, this decision marks a clear-cut victory for gpl-violations.org. D-Link may file an appeal against the judgement.

(Via Cyberlaw)

I'm Sorry Microsoft (only a bit)

In an earlier post (What is wrong with DRM?) I wrote that Microsoft’s new Zune wrapped all content in DRM mechanisms. This was based on this announcement. Apparently this is wrong. Only content which has DRM mechanisms attached is wrapped with the Zune DRM limitation. This means that the Zune does not interfere with the CC anti-DRM clause. Sorry about that Microsoft.

However this does not go against the arguments in the post. The use of DRM has the effect of both limiting legal uses of content and of narrowing our understanding of what is permissable – we move slowly to a society where the default concept is that everything innovative must be illegal…

Anti-DRM Day in Göteborg

The 3rd of October has been announced as the â??Day Against DRMâ??. All over the world action groups are going out to protest against the uses and abuses of DRM. Naturally we will be active in Göteborg – more information below.

The point of the day is to be able to bring forward information to the general public and to show that the public concern about DRM is not limited to online virtual activity.

Anti-DRM actions in the past have taken the form of protesters, often wearing yellow (preferably haz-mat) suits protesting and handing out material.

Here is an example of an anti-DRM action which was held in Chicago on June 10, 2006

Naturally there will be an anti-DRM action in my hometown of Göteborg. So if you want the opportunity to see me in a yellow safety suit, why not join in and take a stand against DRM.

So you want to join in? or just watch the party? Well the dates and times are

3 October 08.30-10.15 Chalmersplatsen (outside Chalmers main entrance)
3 October 11.45-13.15 the corner of �. Hamngatan & �. Larmgatan (next to Kopparmärra)

If you let me know if you are interested in joining in then maybe I can organise a yellow suit for you!

For those of you who maybe follow this blog you will realise that the 3 October is the day after I defend my PhD. So this will be the day after the party…
More about DRM on Wikipedia

NeoOffice

While sitting in a boring meeting, getting annoyed at sales reps from Microsoft enthusiastically praising trusted computing. When I questioned them why anyone would give all that power to one corporate entity they replied that they couldn’t see why not –

“so long as you trusted Microsoft everything is fine…”

Honest – I was speechless! Can you imagine me speechless?

Anyway during the meeting I downloaded the latest version of NeoOffice for mac (Download NeoOffice 2.0 Aqua Beta 3). It looks pretty good and seems to start faster too.

NeoOffice is a fully-featured set of office applications (including word processing, spreadsheet, presentation, and drawing programs) for Mac OS X. It is based on the OpenOffice.org office suite.

Free Software & Microsoft Sales Reps

Due to a colleague calling in sick I jumped in and gave a short presentation on Free Software & Open Standards to IT technicians at my university. Following my presentation two salesmen from Microsoft presented the corporate visions of the future and a short demo of the coming Vista and Office software.

The first salesman after hearing my presentation insisted on talking about how “Free Software” microsoft was. Since they were involved in several projects intended to define open standards this made, according to him, Microsoft – Free Software.

Should someone tell Balmer?

I bit my tongue when he spoke about all this and about trusted computing. It was all too much. He was so positive that the inconsistencies were only embarrasing.
He also was lyrical about schools without books and the fact that many university students are not able to use basic excel – something he felt the university should teach them. So I shut up while he praised the dumming down of universities.

I will get him during the break… Or maybe not… it’s just too embarassing to listen to.

Smoke and Fire

Is it true that there is no smoke without fire?

Browzar claims to be privacy enhancing software. Despite the fact that it is little more than an “Internet Explorer shell”, a program that sits on top of Microsoft’s popular browser to change its look and some of its functions. It is a free download and is offered as a “beta”, or test version.
Now Browzar is being accused of being adware (BBC article) – in other words the privacy tool is being accused of collecting and using user data to ensure that advertising can be sent to it’s users.
Browzar denies that it is adware or spyware or anything och that sort. The interesting  thing is not whether the claims are correct or not but what will the effects of such claims be on a company… Obviously accusing a privacy enhancing company of violating users privacy is not a small thing.

Voodoo Technology

Since I am not a tecchie the actual innermost workings of software remains a mystery in the same way as good magic or voodoo is a mystery. So upgrading my wordpress blog is anxious experience every time.

So now I have moved to version 2.0.4 and the voodoo seems to have worked. The angry gods of software were appeased by the fear in my eyes, the fresh java in my cup and my slow reading of the howto fileâ?¦

There is a brilliant Calvin and Hobbes strip were Calvin asks his father how the lightbulb works and his father answers â??Magicâ??. Most people take their appliances for granted but would not consider them magic. I find this strange since we blindly trust (no other option really) our appliances and truly think we understand how technology works when we are able to make it function.

There is a world of difference between being able to turn on the light and being able to understand how it worksâ?¦and lets not get started with the ability to record something on a video recorderâ?¦

Evolution of a Social Contract (the GPLv3 process)

OK so the GPL is a copyright license. But in part it has also evolved into something larger than life. It has become one of those rare things among legal documents – an icon.

Naturally it is not alone in this position. But what is interesting is that other icons tend to be “larger”. The US constitution is an icon, the declaration of rights is an icon. Very few contracts and licenses can be called iconic since few or none ever make it outside their small community. So what happens when the process of technological development forces the “evolution” of a license?

Unlike nature we cannot expect a natural selection. The development must be moved by an outside force. It can be done either dictatorially or democratically. In one way dictatorially is easier – you don’t have to ask all the people what they think. But using this process does not work with software licenses since the dissatisfaction of users will only lead to the demise of the license. Democracy also has its advantages. It allows for participation and the ability of smart people to bring forward comments and ideas that the dictator may not have recognised. The GPL has chosen a democratic process.
The formal system can best be seen in the overview of the process, which begins with the initial release and presentation of the draft of the GPLv3 with additional documentation such as the overview of the review system and the explanatory documents. In addition to the more formal structure the information needs to be communicated out to the users and to ensure an equality of information transfers was established. The latter was accomplished primarily through the use of the Internet as a distribution method of all texts and additional audio and video material.

The essence of the drafting process here described is to make it possible for the Free Software Foundation to decide the contents of the GPL through the fullest possible discussion with the most diverse possible community of drafters and users. Ideally, we would identify every issue affecting every user of the license and resolve these issues with a full consideration of their risks and benefits. In order to accomplish such a large task, the discussion process involves individual community members and Discussion Committees that represent different types of users and distributors.

The process was formally commenced with the release of the first Discussion Draft of version 3 of the GPL (including additional explanatory material) at the first International Public Conference in January 2006, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The two day event at MIT was recorded and the audio video material was also made available online. The second draft has recently been released.

To ensure that comments on the GPL are collected and dealt with Discussion Committees have been formed. The members of the committees were chosen to represent diverse users groups such as â??â?¦large and small enterprises, both public and private; vendors, commercial and noncommercial redistributors; development projects that use the GPL as a license for their programs; development projects that use other free software licenses, but are invested in the contents of the GPL; and unaffiliated individual developers and people who use softwareâ??. The role of these committees is to organise and analyse the received comments and propose solutions.

The FSF invited the initial members of the Discussion Committees but granted the committees the power to invite further members and to autonomously organise their work process. The committees work to encourage commentary on the license from the sectors they represent. Once the comments have been collected, organised and analysed the committee is responsible for presenting its results of the deliberations to the FSF.

Aside from this organisational method of soliciting and analysing comments from a wider public the FSF have created an online method of allowing anyone to comment directly on the license draft. This is done by creating a software based commenting system, which works in this way. The draft text of the GPLv3 is online and users can mark a section of text, which they wish to comment, and then type â??câ??. Doing this opens a comment box, which allows the user to add a comment.

Once a user has commented on a section of text that section becomes highlighted. If no-one has commented on the text the background colour is white. After a comment the background is light yellow. The colour of the background becomes progressively darker for each comment added. This colour system allows users to see at a glance which sections of the draft are the most commented.

By holding the cursor over highlighted text the user is informed how many comments have been made on that section. By clicking on highlighted text the comments that have been made appear and can be read. The latter feature has the added benefit of reducing the amount of duplicated comments since the commentator can see the commentary of others.
So what are you waiting for? Participate in the democracy!

GPLv3 Second draft

Never turn your back on progress. I was offline for a couple of days and the second discussion draft was published along with explanatory texts and the first discussion drafts of the GNU Lesser General Public License. This was a couple of days ago – but still well worth reporting here.

The second discussion draft of the GNU General Public License version 3 was released on 2006 July 27, along with the first discussion draft of the GNU Lesser General Public License.

Read all about it!