New Essay - "FOSS Licences Wars"

[Meir Kriheli]

On 09/02/2009 01:16 PM, geoffrey mendelson wrote:
> 
> On Sep 2, 2009, at 12:30 PM, Meir Kriheli wrote:
> 
>>
>> A company which shuts down websites (to let their PR keep rolling on
>> launch),
> 
> How about a citation? This is to vague to be anything but FUD without one.

ThinkSecret had to shutdown in exchange for keeping their sources
hidden. Those sources where under NDA - that's not ThinkSecret's problem
but Apple's, yet they were the one paying the price.

>> forces other to remove videos (wired),
> 
> That's simply wrong. Apple never forced Wired, they asked. They asked
> them to remove the video because it was a step by step tutorial on how
> to violate the Apple EULA. It was not a tutorial on how to install
> Darwin, a  FOSS operating system on your PC, but a full out install the
> parts that are proprietary too video.
> 

"You sure have nice website here, shame if something bad happened to
it". Apple's EULA (or anyone else's for that matter) is not law, but
their threat (backed by their very active legal department) sure was enough.

We've suffered from the same at whatsup.org.il. An Israeli hardware
company threatened us as one of our users wrote against their ethic an
behavior. Our options were either revealing his IP or being sued. After
consulting a known lawyer he advised us to delete the comment or fight a
lengthy battle which we can't afford, and he handled it for us against
the company, without his help (no charge) we've been in the mud.

Since then it happened again. One can bet same decision was forced on Wired.

> What that has to do with FOSS, I have no idea.
> 

A company which tries to present itself as FOSS friendly has no business
of NDAs, DRM, DMCA, legal bullying and lock ins. Sure you can do that
("But they need to make money"), just don't try to sell you're "Cool,
Hip and Theo de Raadt soul mate".

Someone who pretends to support FOSS can't be against open society.

They can't support gag orders just for a refund (looks like a standard
corporate procedure), How can a law/state even allow such actions ?

http://www.osnews.com/story/21937/

They can't support hiding information from the public to keep their
phony image, http://www.osnews.com/story/21878/ :

"KIRO 7 Consumer Investigator Amy Clancy worked for 7 months to try and
get her hands on the 800-page report by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission. She used the Freedom Of Information Act, but Apple's lawyers
kept on filing exemption after exemption, apparently trying to prevent
the report from going public. The report shows in great detail several
incident where iPods burst into flames and smoke, at times burning owners"


> 
>> uses the DMCA to hold
>> down a wiki site (just to keep a format hidden) and much more are no
>> supporters of FOSS.
> 
> I looked that up. The website in question had pages which suggested that
> a user circumvent a DRM method. Telling people how to circumvent DRM is
> a DMCA viloation, telling them should do it, but not how, may have been.

It wasn't about DRMor circumention at all , more about interfacing with
iPod and the iTunesDB. And they kept the pressure even when the pages
were removed. DMCA had nothing to do with it.

> The law was unclear. Instead of embroiling the EFF and Apple in a long
> and lengthy lawsuit, Apple decided to fold on the side of public
> "freedom". It could have gone the other way, and due to the cost may
> have bankrupted the EFF.
> 

Ain't that nice of Apple of letting the EFF linger on ? I must send a
Thank you letter to Mr. Jobs.

IIRC It's very simple. They've change the format, so the info on the
Wiki (which helped other devices/software sync with iTunes/iPod) wasn't
relevant anymore.

And they still keep using those tactics to lock their users and prevent
them from using anything else. Yep, very FOSS friendly:

http://www.osnews.com/story/21881

> IMHO Apple did the right thing in both cases, they moved to protect
> their intelectual property as was permitted by law (and may be required
> by securities law, being a publicy traded company) and when it came down
> to fighting the EFF in court, they left the EFF standing. It is
> important to note that there was no legal precident set by dropping the
> cases, it still is a gray area in the law, and someone else could (and
> possibly may have to) do it all over again.
> 
> The only victory for FOSS, if there was one at all, is Apple let the EFF
> live.
> 
>> The "obligation to stockholders" is a lame excuse (just like, "it's a
>> company, they need to make money") for keeping a fake "FOSS"/"Cool" mask.
> 
> 
> Why? They really do have both an ethical and a legal obligation to
> shareholders. It's the US, Meir, laws and ethics are different there
> than Israel.

You mean United Corporate of America ? The poster child of laws made for
and by the corporations ? looking for their interests instead of the
citizens ?

Mussolini said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism
because it is a merger of state and corporate power" - takes one to know
one.

> BTW, don't you do exactly that? Push FOSS/Cool and then charge customers
> for your services? Oh I forgot, you need to make money.
> 
> Geoff.
> 

I never said it was wrong to make money. Bet you can do better than the
last paragraph trying to twist it (and I'm sure you knew what i've meant).

--
Meir