Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix GUI KDE

John Terpstra on Challenges to Free Software 112

Posted by michael from the you-want-to-fight dept.
Telex4 writes "Anyone who has read John Terpstra's article on Groklaw about Intellectual Property (IP) rights will be interested to read an interview I did recently with John at KDE's World Summit. We talked about what IP means to the free software community, how we can drive GNU/Linux adoption, and how he thinks the IT market will change in coming years. He gives us a lot to think about in terms of what more we should be doing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

John Terpstra on Challenges to Free Software More

John Terpstra on Challenges to Free Software

Comments Filter:

  • Change (Score:5, Interesting)

    by StevenHenderson ( 806391 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `nosrednehevets'> on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:02PM (#10151850)
    He gives us a lot to think about in terms of what more we should be doing.

    Are we supposed to impose change on others? Is it just me, or are the most sweeping changes just gradually accepted - especially when current ideas need to be totally re-thought (i.e. Open vs. Closed Source)?

    • Re:Change (Score:5, Insightful)

      by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:15PM (#10151995)
      There's a difference between imposition and advocacy. People can make (and have made) the case for free software in places where they have influence. They don't have to cram these ideas down anyone's throats; gradual acceptance will come when the software lives up to the advocacy.

      • Re:Change (Score:3, Insightful)

        by StevenHenderson ( 806391 )
        Very well said. I guess that I am just speaking from the viewpoint of someone not in a position of power/influence - one where advocacy would be a viable option. And I agree that in time, people will warm up to new/superior ideas. You can see this in the slow, but steady swing of Firefox users.

  • There is really only ONE challenge to free softwar (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:03PM (#10151856)

    Software that pays me to use it. Other than that, I'll stick with the free stuff.

  • The First Person (Score:5, Funny)

    by pete-classic ( 75983 ) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:03PM (#10151860) Homepage Journal
    The first person who says OSS when he means FS in this thread gets my metaphorical foot up his avatar ass.

    -Peter

    • Re:The First Person (Score:4, Funny)

      by rozz ( 766975 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:08PM (#10151907)
      and the second only gets modded as "redundant" ? ... not fair

    • Re:The First Person (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Um, welcome to /. RMS?

    • Re:The First Person (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:24PM (#10152076)
      Actually, it's quite insightful. The two are really at odds philosophically. Despite the fact that they're both backed by non-profit organizations (one CA, one MA), there are differences. The FSF (the guys behind the Free Software trademark) is more academically oriented, and the OSF (the guys behind the Open Source trademark) is more commercially oriented)

      While there is much overlap, at least compared to proprietary, being aware of the significant differences between Free Software, Open Source Software, and Shared Source software.

      • There is no Free Software trademark. That's not a metaphysical statement, like "there is no spoon."

        The advocates of ``open source software'' tried to make it a trademark, saying this would enable them to prevent misuse. This initiative was later dropped, the term being too descriptive to qualify as a trademark; thus, the legal status of ``open source'' is the same as that of ``free software'': there is no legal constraint on using it. I have heard reports of a number of companies' calling software packag

  • IP out of hand (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scaaven ( 783465 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:04PM (#10151866)
    These days IP has spun out of control I think (in the patent office at least). You can get patents for things that are so common sense it's ridiculous. I liked on the Tonight Show when Dave Chapelle said he ran into this rich white guy, and when he asked how he got rich, the guy responded, "My family owns the patent for fire"

    • Re:IP out of hand (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      How is IP out of hand? I love the royalties I get from suing people who abuse my patent that "provides a method for AC to post messages on the Internet about the most ridiculous example of IP infringement."

      My Rolls Royce can be more expensive than your Toyota.
    • >You can get patents for things that are so common sense

      Why don't you patent those common sense things that haven't been patented yet and not charge any royalties for their use?

  • trending toward open (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dirvish ( 574948 ) <dirvish@foundMONETnews.com minus painter> on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:05PM (#10151882) Homepage Journal
    If IP law continues the way it is Free Software will be the only alternative for consumers. Businesses are treating their customers like criminals and these customers will only take it for so long. People are becoming aware of the draconian approach to IP and they are beginning to reject it in favor of more open solutions.

    • Re:trending toward open (Score:4, Insightful)

      by over_exposed ( 623791 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:09PM (#10151914) Homepage
      I'm not nearly as optimistic as you. Granted, SOME people are becoming aware of the problem... Most of them just bend over and take it in the pooper because A) they don't know any better and B) even if they did, they don't think could do anything about it. Society is not as intelligent as we would all like to believe. Remember, 50% of people out there are dumber than average.
      • It is actually a good thing that the sheep your talking about, ie consumers are that way when you think about it though. It will make the transition to OSS all the more easy. Bear with me for a second.

        Change at least when it comes to saying No to licensing costs, vendor lockin, and proprietary IP encumbered technologies is happening at a pretty good clip in the business world. Large business are Very much aware of the benefits to OSS and that has in turn filtered down to the SMB. OSS has become hugely popu

  • FLOSS like the enlightenment/reformation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposer@alum. m i t.edu> on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:07PM (#10151898) Homepage

    Terpstra's comparison of FLOSS to the Enlightenment and Reformation and of the negative reaction on the part of parts of the software and media industries to the reaction of the Church is interesting and I think well taken. We should remember that some countries in effect have still to undergo the Englightenment, that even in countries that did, many people remain who hold irrational and antiscientific views, and that in some countries the Counter-reformation was successful. The FLOSS movement is important for freedom and for technological progress, but precisely because it is important, its opponents will work hard to suppress it, and they may succeed.

    • We should remember that some countries in effect have still to undergo the Englightenment, that even in countries that did, many people remain who hold irrational and antiscientific views, and that in some countries the Counter-reformation was successful.

      Some countries are even undergoing an Unenglightenment. Sadly and very dangerously, USA is in that process with it's corporate controlled media that are essensially mouthpieces for state propaganda. Just look at the Bush administration long string of l

  • Warez (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:12PM (#10151950)
    Don't mod me down, I'm serious ... the warez scene is the biggest contributer making software free (in the financial sense), and it's healthy for the industry. Seriously, what percentage of the apps on your Windows machine did you pay for, inclusing the OS itself? I'm about 50%, mostly games. But more software stimulates the industry, and what we use at home is what we want to use at work - and there's where the real money is, in the corporate world. The software publishers know this too, which is why it is so easy to find keygens for MS and other popular products ... people know Windows and Photoshop because they pirated them at home, and they want to use it at work where businesses won't pirate software. That is also the reason why game software has such annoying copy protection you don't see elsewhere, a "free" copy doesn't help sell 100 corporate licenses. Unless you work someplace where they do install games at every desktop, then please tell me where to send a resume.

    • Re:Warez (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:18PM (#10152020)
      " Seriously, what percentage of the apps on your Windows machine did you pay for, inclusing the OS itself?"

      100%. But then I learned that taking things without permission is wrong when I was in preschool.

      • Re:Warez (Score:3, Funny)

        by smclean ( 521851 )
        I hope you don't have any FOSS apps on your windows machine. If you do, whoever got you to pay for them scammed you.

        Sorry, couldn't resist. This is Slashdot, after all.

        • "I hope you don't have any FOSS apps on your windows machine."

          Let me rephrase. 100% of the time I payed what the vendor or author asked.

      • Re:Warez (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ahsile ( 187881 )
        I learned that being a bully was bad in preschool too, but a lot of the publishing houses don't seem to understand this. Forcing us to pay outrageous prices for software that's not worth it. I'm not saying that we should go an eye for an eye; stealing for a "reason" is still stealing... but why should we sit and take it from the big guys when they're not playing fair?

        That's where I see Free Software fitting in. Eventually everybody is going to get tired of all bending over we do. It's already started happe

        • Re:Warez (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:29PM (#10152132)
          "I learned that being a bully was bad in preschool too, but a lot of the publishing houses don't seem to understand this. Forcing us to pay outrageous prices for software that's not worth it. I'm not saying that we should go an eye for an eye; stealing for a "reason" is still stealing... but why should we sit and take it from the big guys when they're not playing fair?"

          Then you dont buy the software. However you ALSO dont pirate it. If someone is charging more then you want to pay for a service you are not entitled to the service without payment. Seems rahter simple to me.

          • Then you dont buy the software. However you ALSO dont pirate it. If someone is charging more then you want to pay for a service you are not entitled to the service without payment. Seems rahter simple to me.

            I never said you should go out and pirate anything. I don't have a single piece of pirated software on my PC at home. If I can't find a comparable piece of free software, I will buy it if I need. I'm not always estatic with free/open source solutions, but I can always try and contribute back to make th
          • ...music/video. If it is of value to you, then pay for it. If they are charging too high a price (in your eyes) then don't buy it. Also don't try to obtain it for free.

      • Re:Warez (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        > "Seriously, what percentage of the apps on your Windows machine did you pay for..."

        > 100%.

        +1 Funny

      • I learned that taking things without permission is wrong when I was in preschool.

        Even before preschool, I was taught to share. It's a key part of what makes us civilised human beings. Note that it's not the *taking* of things without permission that's wrong, it's the *depriving* another of something they have. If this truly is to be an "ownership society" in the information age, we need to recognise the fundamental difference between tangible property and information.

        • And when are you going to recognize the extreme effort and cost that goes into the creation of this "information"? Seems that you don't give anything value unless you can touch it and it can't be duplicated.

      • I learned that denying people an inherently sharable commodity was hoarding and selfish. So when I brought something to school, I had to bring enough to share. Later when I learned about computers, I learned that it's unusual to "take" data; typically data is copied, not moved, from one computer to another. Still later, when I read more about the history of various media businesses, I learned that they got started doing what today they call "piracy" [montana.edu] (even though, ironically, that term in the illicit copy

      • I learned that neither the world nor myself was that simple, around that same time. Probably explains the key differences in our views.

        The key point of the AC was that crackable software may be a capitalistic strategy. This is certainly possible and I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Humans go for the cheap the world over (as you implied here 10092606 [slashdot.org]). I don't think we're the only one's who have noticed.
        • I agree, people will take the cheaper of two choices if all else is equal. However, I have first hand experience that piracy DOES effect the software developer. I wrote a HTML editor a few years back called Net Weasel. To date, millions of downloads, thousands of active users asking for support, one crack for my nag screen and zero registrations. So after spending a lot of time and money making a product that people like and use, I got no money back. Now I have to explain to each person asking me why I dont

          • I have first hand experience that piracy DOES effect [sic]the software developer

            Oh, you're a sailor are you? Either that, or you're just demonstrating the kind of simplistic thinking [gnu.org] that tries to use pejorative language to muddy the issues.

          • If you had chosen to release your program as Free Software, under the GPL, then you would be far more likely to get donations and contributions from many people as well as job offerings and other goods.

            If you had millions of users, then you could easily sell ad-space for your download site, and make some decent money as well, just from a few thousands hits per day.

            In conclusion, if you had chosen to release your software with the public's good in mind (GPL) instead of only your own, you would end up bette
            • if you had chosen to release your software with the public's good in mind

              Isn't that just a little naive? You imply that if he thought of the public's good they in turn would think of him in kind, but that is patently false and everyone knows it. Most people, even most people here on /. still think in terms of "free as in beer", the larger issue is completely lost on the typical "consumer", who just wants to get something for nothing.
              • I had justified that with the explanations:

                Release of Free Software attracts far more contributors that contribute back

                Free Software is thus greater valued and attracs more hits for your site - allowing selling of ad-space

                The attention raised by Free Software pays back with job offers and more likeliness of monetary contributions (Which do happen, ask the larger/more successful sourceforge projects).

                • contributors != the public

                  95% of the public doesn't code. If you meant to say "contributors" (ie, other developers) instead of "the public", then I'll agree with that.
      • Copying and taking are not the same thing...

        All my life I have learned that copying is very useful and mostly good. I don't think copying should require permission, and therefore I don't wait for it :-)
      • Since one is not taking any "thing" by making a digital copy, how does your preschool knowledge apply?

    • Don't mod me down, I'm serious ... the warez scene is the biggest contributer making software free (in the financial sense), and it's healthy for the industry. Seriously, what percentage of the apps on your Windows machine did you pay for, inclusing the OS itself?

      I don't have any cracked software on my wife's Windows 2000 Pro machine, including the OS itself. And the games I play there I've either paid for, or are open source (NetHack, mainly).

      My guess that you are just a leach. When was the last ti

    • Well, for starters, we aren't talking primarily in the financial sense. We really are talking about free in the libre sense. It just happens that free code in the libre sense is innately available for free in the financial sense the second someone choses to distribute it that way.

      Second, free software isn't just for *nix. My Windows partition is well stocked with FS/OSS software for the ultimate in cross platform compatibility. Pirating MS Office makes less sense when OpenOffice is freely available legally
      • I not only don't waste my money on crap games, I don't waste my time on them either.

        Good thing you qualified that statement with "crap", otherwise I'd have to assume that you meant ALL games are a waste of time, which is fucking narrow-minded, elitist viewpoint.

        "Wasting" time doing something that makes YOU happy -like playing "crappy" games- is NOT wasted time. Every waking moment of your life doesn't have to be spent alternating between being a productive citizen and 'good wholesome traditional family

        • Good thing you qualified that statement with "crap"

          Which I did.

          The dozen or three hours a week I spend playing good games (computer or otherwise) are a delight and ain't nobody's business but my own.

          KFG
    • I agree, it's in the interest of the business to get you hooked on their products at home. But as far as only going after the corporate dollar, that's not so - once you got really hooked, they will go after your home dollar too - see mandatory registration for Win XP, per computer at home.
    • IMO warez is papering over the real issue: a short-term solution that perpetuates the long-term problem.

      Just as you describe, warez feeds addictions to proprietary software. And I do not think propreitary (shrinkwrapped) is healthy for the industry in the long-term.

      If the same effort had instead been spent on a Software Libre replacement, we could have had more free (monetary cost) AND legal alternatives.
      1. Seriously, what percentage of the apps on your Windows machine did you pay for, inclusing the OS itself?

      Currently? ^ 100%. Just because I don't think it is worth it doesn't mean that I feel justified in taking it.

      That said, I do make one exception;

      1. ^ - If the program is something I might want, I have no problems getting a copy to try it out. Except for kicking the tires for a couple hours, I don't keep it.

      I've had people give me audio CDs and DVDs too...I take them, not to insult the person, and

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:17PM (#10152015)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Until we remember that an idea can be passed from one person to another without diminishing the value of the original idea, like the flame of a candle lighting other candles, the open-source community will have problems communicating with the rest of the world and amongst themselves.

      Ideas don't pass so much like candle flames as virii. There are sometimes mutations (for better or worse) as they pass from host to host. Current IP law seems pretty messed up in that one can patent a mutation of an already

    • Re:We Need New (GNU?) Vocabulary (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Having value is not a requirement of something to be property. To be property, it has to have the ability to be owned, possessed, controlled. Whether or not it has any value is irrelevant to its state as property.

      • To be property, it has to have the ability to be owned, possessed, controlled.

        Well then, since ideas can no longer be "controlled" because of the web, then I guess by your own definition that there is no such thing as "intellectual Property".

        :)

    • The term intellectual capital has been proposed, as it conveys the fact that ideas have value while at the same time don't imply that property rights apply.

      Of course, calling people who break into computers "crackers" has also been proposed, and we all know how successful that's been.
    • Creativity is not, as the article implies, a finite resource.

      Every playright a Shakespeare and every poet a Dante. Not in the real world.

      • Every playright a Shakespeare and every poet a Dante.

        I thought that was just a question of enough bananas [faqs.org], dude!

      • You're conflating terms: When the grandparent said "Creativity is not a finite resource," he meant that information is not a finite resource: it can be duplicated at a cost too small to measure. He did not mean that all people are infinitely creative nor capable of producing equal quality of work.

        But I'm sure there's no way you could have figured that out on your own.
    • While I tend to agree with you, getting rid of intellectual property laws isn't going to solve the problem. Companies want to keep their ideas and implementations secret, and without copyright and patent laws, will still find ways to keep their stuff secret.

      If you think this is nonsense, then consider that EULAs are *not* based on copyright law, but on contract law. Copyright law could be abolished tomorrow and every EULA in the land would still be valid.

      • Re:We Need New (GNU?) Vocabulary (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        EULAs are based entirely on legal handwaving and wishful thinking. The fact that an EULA gives you no consideration at all, just a subset of rights you already have [cornell.edu] as the owner of a shiny plastic disc, is enough to prove that. Never mind the many ways they blatantly defy the Fair Use, First Sale, and Idea/Expression doctrines of copyright law.

        Think about it. If you, as the owner of a CD, have no right to load and execute the contents of that CD on your computer, then how could you ever legally run set

    • Because the fact is, ideas are not like property.

      I know this, you know this, and even they know this -- but the fact is that those with the most money & power, or aspirations for such, want to treat information as an artificially scarce 'thing' because there's more profit to be had in controlling an infinite "supply" of VERY OLD WORK.

      Assume for a moment that everyone on earth had EVERY need and want in their lives taken care of (by nanotech, AI, robots, spacehab, virtual realestate, whatever) ... do

    • Because the fact is, ideas are not like property ... unlike material property, intellectual property is not governed by economic principles of scarcity

      Let me see if I understand: IP shouldn't have the same protections as physical property because it cannot be made scarce? OK? Did I understand what you meant?

      I have a ranch which sits on top of easily extractable oil. I have a small, portable refinery that I built which produces gasoline/diesel etc from that oil for my own use. I have no intention of sell

      • No, you don't understand.

        Tangible: By chance, you happen to have discovered (and bought the additional mineral rights to) a high concentration of STILL PHYSICALLY SCARCE energy in the form of HydroCarbons under your government-protected 3D wedge of the Earth. Putting aside the fairness of dogeatdog "finders, keepers!" hoarding, you have the right to own it ALL in a capitalist society.

        Intangible: The molecular structure of "your" hydrocarbons. You can't claim to own C3H8 for example. You can't even claim

      • Let me see if I understand: IP shouldn't have the same protections as physical property because it cannot be made scarce? OK? Did I understand what you meant?

        Yes. In economic parlance, it's not an excludable good.

        Are you then justified in coming onto my land to take oil for free as long as you don't reduce it below the amount I would use in my lifetime? After all it really won't make any difference to me, and if I didn't see you do it, I'd probably never notice.

        No, that analogy is flawed, for t

    • Especially if it entails a considerable amount of work. For example, if I think I know of a way to implement a database that is 2 orders of magnitude faster than any current database. What's in it for me?

      I'm not speaking hypothetically. I've put a fair amount of non-trivial ideas in the public domain so far and it has not done me a bit of good.

  • John needs to rethink what will reshape the market (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thpr ( 786837 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:21PM (#10152043)
    "There will be a fundamental reshaping of the market, which can only come from the bottom up, i.e. from the free software community and from small companies".

    "The two most important strategies we must adopt are to encourage and adhere to open standards, which undermine big IP oriented business' ability to monopolise and dominate the marketplace.

    I think John misses the point over what makes some companies dominate and why open source won't help small business.

    John doesn't have the same defintion of domination and the definition of "fundamental reshaping" as everyone else. Open source software has been VERY successful in the building blocks of software. GNU/Linux as an operating system; Eclipse as an IDE, MySQL as a database.

    However, there are niche applications where the open source investment will be slow, painful, and probably not pan out. If you think open source will unseat AutoCAD, don't hold your breath. It may happen, but it won't be this decade. And Adobe Photoshop STILL dominates in image processing, even though GIMP is rather useful.

    Domination (especially due to IP) is also a relative term. Microsoft can be seen to dominate the OS and "office" market today; those are prime targets of OS software. But IBM has a huge IP portfolio - is one of the large companies 'appear[ing] to support open source' and yet has a lot less to lose (on a relative scale to Microsoft). Even if IBM's software group (DB2, Lotus Notes, et al.) took it in the teeth from open source, is that going to have a (negative) impact on IBM Global Services? Will it not be the same dominating behemoth it is today?

    The "fundamental reshaping" of the market will come when technology becomes pervasive, reliable, and easy enough to use that the Fortune 500 doesn't NEED to call IBM Global Services any more. Until then, someone has to put everything together, and open source reducing the procurement cost isn't going to change that. Solve the reliability and ease of use problems for small business and you WILL win in the marketplace - whether or not you're open source.

  • John Terpstra is a dork (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sorry mod me down if you must, but I cannot respect anyone who
    publishes in his own name, a book that is just the Samba-Unofficial-HOWTO. Did he give the royalties to the samba team that made the howto possible or pocket the cash?
    I believe this man also had a long history as a SCO employee and would not be surprised if he still worked for them.

    • Get your facts right! (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It is not called the "Samba-Unofficial-HOWTO". Its name is "The Official Samba-3 HOWTO Collection and Reference Guide".

      John didnt "publish" it. It was Prentice-Hall PTR [vernstok.nl] who published it (ISBN: 0-13-145355-6) as a printed book at first.

      John didnt do this "in his own name". He acted, alongside Jelmer R. Vernooij as one of two editors. And both their role as editors is clearly named on the envolope and inside the printed book.

      John and Jelmer acted with the consent of the Samba Team when doing this work.

    • Did he give the royalties to the samba team that made the howto possible or pocket the cash?

      I make money supporting and developing for SQL Server -- but I don't give any money to Microsoft. Guess I'm not worthy of respect. This guy did a ton of work with Samba, read some documentation that already existed, and wrote a farily comprehensive guide to getting Samba set up in a business environment. He deserved to be compensated for his work.

      Now, I agree it would be admirable of him to donate at least s
    • Who is modding up these anonymous smears?

      I know this is slashdot where no one reads the articles, but at least if you were going to smear a guy read the first couple pages of his work.

      He is listed as an editor of TOSHARG, first of all, and did a huge amount of work adding content and making the thing into a book instead of just a bunch of HOWTO pages. In addition the entire contents of the book is available from samba.org, you idiot.

      Not only is The Official Samba HOWTO and Reference Guide available from
    • I think Mr Terpstra has done a very good job in helping a great number of people resolve their issues with Samba
      If you look at the Samba users list you will find he has helped a number of people with there problems.
      Plus the last time I looked, it was the Official-Samba-Howto and he was the author.
      I do not besmirch Terpstra for any amount of money he made on those books. Even the copies I bought. This is one of the thankless and difficult tasks involved in computer applications, dealing with the users.
    • When I met John Terpstra at the Southern California Linux Expo, I bought the book and had him sign it. He was wearing a Caldera jacket that I asked about. He smiled at me and said "I'm actually trying to sell it, would you like to buy it?" We shared a good laugh.

      John Terpstra working for SCO is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard of. Did you foget that Samba shot back at SCO [theinquirer.net] for being such pricks and hypocrites?

  • Yeah I wanna fight. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ahfoo ( 223186 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:26PM (#10152108) Journal
    IP is not a problem for him - in fact he challenges the software community who reject the term IP to provide a better way of describing in cogent terms the very substance of creative thinking that is embodied in free software

    I'll be happy to take a swing at this one. Actually, it might not be a swing though. I guess you could call it a duck, but it's still a fight tactic. My position would be that a replacement term is unnecessary.
    This sounds a lot like the argument that without copyright law there would be no GPL. Just because that is true does not make it meaningful. It's quite a silly thing to say. Yes, it's true that without copyright law there would be no GPL, but without a copyright there would be no need for a GPL.
    So, this mission to find a replacement term for intellectual property is totally unnecessary. You can call an idea, an idea. Likewise you can call software, software. There's no need to come up with a replacement for the phrase "intellectual property."
    • I'd add that coding definitively seems to be his stronger side.
      Some parts of the article are BS.

      From the article: "The consequences of intellectual property action" laments how IP protection will drive the technology out of the U.S.

      If anything, the consequences of intellectual property action is that everyone will start using OSS _sooner_than they would otherwise - for example, in countries without IP protection people use Windows for free, so there's less incentive to change.
      Commercial software developer

  • Great. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by suso ( 153703 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:28PM (#10152121) Journal
    He talks a lot about supporting small and medium sized business. I think that is important too, which is why suso.org is going to be expanding to do OSS support specifically for small and medium sized business. But I think there needs to be a lot more support businesses around the world. Say, at least one for every city bigger than 50k people.

    I think that a lot of businesses still want local support and get frustrated with "national based support" and are not making the switch because there is not much local support for Linux.

    With the opening up our support business, I'm going to put together some information on how other businesses can get started on this. A central respository for everyone on how to get an OSS/Linux support business going would be really helpful to OSS.

    Anyone else interested?

  • It's interesting that what John perceives as a lack of focus I perceive as merely a more diffuse / different focus. John speaks as if the goal of FOSS is business adoption and we're not doing a very good job. I question the first premise.

    One of the things that makes FOSS so good is that the only people who code it are people with a need for, and thus an understanding of, a specific solution for a specific problem. Linux is not in the business of telling businesses what they need and then providing it.

  • Make it easy to migrate (Score:4, Interesting)

    by baggins2002 ( 654972 ) on Friday September 03, 2004 @02:33PM (#10152167) Journal
    I agree with Mr Terpstra that migration from closed source technology to open source technology should be simplified

    How about we start with migration of Win NT domain controllers to Samba domain controllers.

    For over 2 years I have held off on upgrading our NT Servers to 2000 or 2003 Servers in hopes that we could migrate to Samba.

    But I have yet seen a simplification of these migration path, unless you use roaming profiles. I don't know that many places where roaming profiles are utilized.
    And in a small to medium size business where there are 25 to 100 computers, transfering profiles and file permissions can be very time comsuming and expensive.
    To take Mr Terpstra's example of an Access database, I would rather do that, Oh wait, I already did that, but it was actually a SQL Server to PostgreSQL.

    So I'm still waiting for a reasonable migration path from NT Server to Samba.

    • Re:Make it easy to migrate (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Why don't you just pay for a SAMBA consulant to do the job for you?
      • Why don't you just pay for a SAMBA consulant to do the job for you?


        We might, but one of the objectives here is to save money. Consultants can be expensive.
        Haven't seen a hell of a lot of consultants around here with much linux experience anyway
        The other problem is that there are 2 people in house that could migrate from Nt to 2000,2003.
        I think that the Owner may wonder why we are using software that doesn't appear to have in house expertise or requires outside support.
    • Actually I think you are blowing smoke up our asses. I have done 4 novell to samba migrations in the last year and all of them where rather easy. The first little bit of advise I can give you is to migrate into samba gradually, dont try to bang it in over night. Load a server and just start migrating, it just is not that hard. If it is too hard then just pay microsoft all the bucks and leave this stuff to the experts.

    • NT-Samba Migration (Score:3, Informative)

      by Proteus ( 1926 )
      So I'm still waiting for a reasonable migration path from NT Server to Samba.

      I've done a few of these. Migrating ACL's and file data is easy -- NT Server does have support for POSIX ACL's, and MS-based ACL's can be converted to POSIX by both Samba and NT.

      The only difficulty is cloning user data, which is incredibly simple if your PDC handles all user/group info. Samba can authenticate (and replicate) LDAP or even native NT directory information. If you move to Samba as a PDC, you replicate userdata

  • SCO (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just for your GEEWIZ collection. John worked at SCO while the whole IP lawsuits were going in full swing.
    • Wrong.

      He worked for SCO when it was still a good company and parted ways with them when it became apparent that it was no longer one.

      Now let's see if I can get the facts right... but the job he did when he was at SCO was in large part an open source evangelist. So you can see why he did not exactly fit in with the current management.

      Anyway, he is one of the good guys, and you are a tool for posting a smear anonymously and so is whoever modded you interesting.
  • One thing is certain in my eyes...unless IP laws are reworked there will be no commercial software market. Too many consumers are being treated like felons, at this rate free software will be the only alternative
    • One thing is certain in my eyes...unless IP laws are reworked there will be no commercial software market. Too many consumers are being treated like felons, at this rate free software will be the only alternative.

      People are accustomed to paying for goods and services and most expect a measure of distrust when anything of value changes hands. But that is part of the marketplace, part of the game, and they do not take it personally.

    • Actually, the current state of IP laws could even act as catalyst to increase adaption of FOSS by the masses, and (better yet) the principles they're based on. How? When consumers actually feel the effects of IP laws as negative.

      IP law is accepted by the public, because a) in many cases, they aren't/can't be fully enforced (example: warez/MP3), or b) the net effect is perceived as small, non-significant (like in the media player/music/movie content business).

      Free/Open Source remains largely 'under the r

  • One way to change things... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Yes, the Patent system has gotten way out of control. And, from the looks of things, Congress has been too well bribed to really care.

    So, what's the best way for a grass-roots effort to bring this sad situation to the forefront, so that it can't be ignored? How about overwhelming the Patent Office even more?

    That is, bring to Joe Sixpack's attention that he too can make big bucks via Patents - but in a way akin to the Internet Domain Name Rush of the late nineties.

    Teach people the process in a simplified

  • John asserts that software market leaders have spent the past thirty years in particular amassing vast portfolios of software patents, copyrights, trademarks and licensing deals. That a company should focus on IP is not a problem for him - in fact he challenges the software community who reject the term IP to provide a better way of describing in cogent terms the very substance of creative thinking that is embodied in free software - and that we as a community particularly treasure.

    Um, how about we call

Slashdot Top Deals

A bug in the hand is better than one as yet undetected.

Close