Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Red Hat Software Businesses

Red Hat Helps Fund EFF 87

Posted by CmdrTaco from the cool-move-guys dept.
DAldredge sent us linkage to a ZD Net article that talks about Red Hat announcing that it would be sending the EFF [?] $70k to help with the defense in fair use and reverse engineering cases, specifically like the recent DeCSS hoopla. Update: 05/22 12:30 by CT : Marc Ewing wrote in to tell us that this $ actually came from the Red Hat Center, started by him and Bob Young.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Hat Helps Fund EFF More

Red Hat Helps Fund EFF

Comments Filter:
  • It is, however, more than than RedHat's total profit. And that's what matters to a company.
  • You make it seem that Red Hat is the only company that can suffer from DMCA's application. There are
    plenty of other companies (and not only Linux distros) and individuals who should be involved in financial
    support.

    If every company would give 0.002% of their worth it should be sufficient.
  • RedHat may not be doing this out of the goodness of their heart, but they are doing it none the less. The encryption that exists on DVDs is perhaps the most pathetic I've ever encountered. Not just from a security and algorithm point of view, but also from a business point of view.

    Maybe companies selling DVD titles should put a disclaimer in at the bottom of their checkout pages saying "Warning: If you do not live in the United States, please import a DVD player from there, otherwise you will not be able to legally view it."

    Why they hell should I have to buy another DVD player to view the DVDs I PAID for just because I happen to live outside the region? RedHat's actions should be commended as may draw some very necessary attention to this issue and the stupid laws regarding it.

  • Though Slashdot seem a bit coy about it (maybe for good reason): the RIAA are suing Superpimp Software [superpimp.org], the guy(s) who make the Pan newsreader for Gnome, because, ummm, it decodes attachments. They want them to remove the program's MIME decoding capabilities because you can trade MP3s that way. The RIAA's final out-of-court offer was for Superpimp comply, they refused, and Andover are putting up money for the defence.

    C'mon, guys, surely this is a story! :-)

  • Notice the article! (Score:3)

    by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @12:36PM (#1057750)
    This article is amazing, this guy Lemos really "gets it". Not only does he know that DeCSS is NOT about piracy at all but about playing, he informs that the Evil DVD group want to force people to watch ads before they see the main menu.

    I'm not sure how influential this ZD's investor site is, but this is definately very good press that goes towards people with money.

    -- iCEBaLM
  • I can understand why more companies don't see themselves donating amounts of money to free speech organizations such as the EFF, etc. As a company, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to think that maybe one day they could be on the opposite side of the EFF, fighting for copyrig reasons while their money fights against them. Copyright laws in this day in age, like the DMCA, can infringe on our free speech rights that we've cherished for so long, leaving a company in an akward position, to protect their copyright and go against the EFF or to risk a lawsuit by shareholders. Kudos to RedHat, and I hope more companies step forward in the near future.

  • Re:Good (Score:3)

    by EricEldred ( 175470 ) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @02:08PM (#1057752) Homepage

    when's microsoft going to donate money

    I believe that Microsoft does have a financial interest in opposing the DMCA. In fact, many corporations are adversely affected by the DMCA and should support challenges to it.

    For example, the zdnet story [zdnet.com] on the DMCA hearings at Stanford said this: "In January, Streambox found itself on the pointy end of the legal stick when a federal judge granted RealNetworks Inc. a preliminary injunction blocking Streambox's distribution of software used to capture and save RealAudio and RealVideo streams." [i.e., StreamboxVCR]

    Microsoft is a big investor in Streambox. Streambox allows users to convert from Real format to Windows Media format. The DMCA stands in the way of both user freedom and Microsoft's freedom to license its format and compatible programs.

    Microsoft or anyone else can join or donate to EFF through mailto:membership@eff.org [mailto].

  • Enlightned self interest (Score:3)

    by webster ( 22696 ) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @12:47PM (#1057753)
    While this act by Red Hat may ultimately be self serving, it is at least enlightened self interest. Considering how rare enlightenment of any kind is getting to be, I think that they should be commended. By and large, and certainly for the short term, the interests of Red Hat coincide with the interests of the Linux community. The stronger we are, the stronger they are. The stronger they are, the stronger we are. While that may change some time in the future, it seems to be the case right now.

    Anyone who thinks Red Hat could become another Microsoft does not understand much about Microsoft. The mindset that got them where they are today did not evolve from benevolence. It was there from day one. Red Hat at least started as a group of people trying to do good things. Even if they are eventually seduced by the dark side, the fact that they started their jouney in the light will help keep them from ultimate darkness (to mix a few literary metaphors).


    Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation
  • Bill Gates can give 1 Gig $ to fund foreign immunizations (and nuff respect to him for doing so), but the thing is, that money is "cute" and non-controversial. It is a hand out that doesn't make any statements about changing the system

    Read this [nytimes.com] NYT article. The system of relentless profiteering and patent monopolies by drug companies, to the great demise of people in 3rd world countries, is a system in dire need of change. It is no less important, and in my mind, far more important than RedHat giving 50k to the EFF.

  • Check out Super Pimp Soft [superpimp.org]'s fight with the RIAA over their right to include a binary attachment decoder in their news software.

    The EFF turned down SuperPimpSoft, but Andover's attorneys came and saved the day.

    ========================
    63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
    ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
  • There was extreme sarcasm used in my "Criticism" reply to the article...I was trying to portray what the media does...

  • Good press for DeCSS (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...the program DeCSS, which allows users to play DVDs without adhering to the license terms ... Those terms require, for example, the playing of a special track on DVD containing ads and previews Look it doesn't say DeCSS is a device to hack round copy protection. It makes DeCSS look like it is a legitimate tool, and it presents it as something that non-tech people would under stand and sympathise with. This might be the most postive artical about DeCSS presented yet. I think the "Get round previews" is a rather strong PR point for our side. Now I know how to explain this to my nongeek freands.
  • I say "hey, if RH wants to donate 70K for a good cause, then cudos to them...

    Being able to rip DVD's and watch them from your HD is a fairly small and trivial thing.

    The outcome of this particular soap opera is what is important. While you can sit back and think "Hey, I don't need DVD ripping... screw 'em." The truth is, this really isn't about DVD's in the long run. It's about the way the FSF, and the EFF will be FORCED to do business in the future.

    Red Hat, by sending 70k, which is actually a substantial amount of $$, is saying "Look, we need to curb this legal bs before it gets out of hand. Here's some dough, good luck. Sure, they get PR out of it, but they could make a simple 2k$ news statement about how they're "rooting" for the EFF, and get the same thing.

    And who knows, maybe their donation will spawn others. Anyone know of a "Help the EFF" fund?

    krystal_blade
  • If more companies like Red Hat would contribute more money to organizations like the EFF and the Censorware Project, those orgs. could help spread the word and inform people about Internet censorship. Knowledge may be power, but a little money doesn't hurt either...

    Speaking as a co-founder of Censorware Project (now retired) and a professional programmer:

    Heck, all I ever wanted was enough public and legal support so that I didn't lose my career and life's savings to a censorware lawsuit (and a little respect). Couldn't get it.

    Censorware Project doesn't take donations. But if anyone wants to start giving me 70K chunks of money to start another anti-censorware organization (and lawyers, don't forget the lawyers, lots of lawyers), let's talk :-).

  • I found it very weird that they won't let you add DVD-ROM drives because of that. Reading DVD data discs IS supported under linux and it's a legitimate reason people would want a drive.
  • Is that true? When I read it on thier web site, I took it as a joke -- after all, uudecode has been a feature of news readers for many years.

    I'd really like some confirmation on this...

  • I thought it was a joke...isn't it? UUD has been a feature in newsreaders for many years. Pan _does_ look interesting, and has some special features for handling binaries. I'll probably give it a try now that I'm reminded of it again.

    If the RIAA really is suing SuperPimp can someone confirm it and post the news here?

  • I know its a troll but, still...

    Reverse engineering deprives manufacturers of revenue for innovation.

    Presumably by creating a market for their hardware. They must be gutted, what with all those extra sales reducing revenue.

    For example, Gnome and Kde desktops ripoffs of the Windows interface.

    Or are they ripoffs of the Mac that MS copied?

    Or maybe they're ripoffs of the Xerox machines that Apple copied, that MS copied.

    Or maybe they're ripoffs of the 14 other computer systems that Xerox say influenced them, that Apple copied, that MS copied (badly).

    Or maybe in the real world this is how progress is made: not by preventing others from improving your ideas by sitting on them until they rot.

    I assume that you are irritated daily by the sight of petrol-driven cars which are just ripoffs of the proper steam-driven devices of your youth.

    Manufacters have a right to protect their intellectual property rights with features which thwart attempts to reverse engineer or to copy without authorization.

    Never confuse a bad law with a right.

    TWW

  • Andover is actually supporting the PAN newsreader, because the RIAA don't like the ability to decode files from newsgroups ;-)

    http://www.superpimp.org [superpimp.org]

    --
    "Trying is the first step towards failure."
  • "Well, that would largely depend on the company's purpose for being which is to answer to shareholders, not the community. The directors may be personally very likeable people, and in fact sincerely nice people, but being nice is not their job."

    And so we have the following situation: Company X commits an immoral activity. It is not the responsibility of the company directors because their obligation to the shareholder obliged them to approve the profit spinning yet immoral activity. It is not the responsibility of the shareholders because they "may not... know much about it outside financial statements..." and (b) didn't make the decision and (c) can be anonymous. So we have a system which obliges people to commit immoral and destructive activity for what reason? I'm starting to agree with Katz. :)
  • Odd how the RIAA isn't harrassing AOL/Netscape and Microsoft, both of whom make newsreaders (which are far more widely used than Pan) which seamlessly decode binary attachments. It's time for the FTC to start looking into the RIAA, and it's time for the rest of us to consider a class-action suit against them.

    This harrassment with lawyers is too much.

    -Michael
  • It's time for the FTC to start looking into the RIAA, and it's time for the rest of us to consider a class-action suit against them.

    You're a couple years late...they already got their hand slapped for being in the cookie jar [ftc.gov]. Click the .sig for more juicy links.

    "The FTC estimates that U.S. consumers may have paid as much as $480 million more than they should have for CDs and other music because of these policies over the last three years. These
    settlements will eliminate these policies and should help restore much-needed competition to the retail music market, consisting of $15 billion in annual sales. Today's news should be sweet music to the ears of all CD purchasers," said Chairman Robert Pitofsky."

    That's not sweet music to my ears, that smells like bullshit to my nose.

    But that's o.k. they are listening..

    "These agreements will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until June 9, after which the Commission will decide whether to make them final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580."
    --
  • Hey, I just wanted to say that VA has been doing a lot, dedicating a number of it's employees time to the DVD case. (Mine, Don Marti, etc) and covering travel for working with the NY lawyers. Don't think I'm saying that RH's contribution isn't way cool and really great to see, I just wanted to post about what VA has done in response to your question.

    That said, you should join EFF if you can, the T-Shirt is nice, but an EFF membership goes a lot farther.

    Chris DiBona
    VA Linux Systems
    --
    Grant Chair, Linux Int.
    Pres, SVLUG

  • Right on.
    They're putting their money where their mouth is.

    All in all, I think they're making the transition from free (beer) software company to for profit company with their integrity intact.

    ---CONFLICT!!---

  • Re:That's nice, but $70,000 is nothing... (Score:5)

    by weave ( 48069 ) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @11:36AM (#1057770) Journal
    RedHat may have a large market valuation, but you can't draw a check on that amount without selling off more of the company, and if they start giving away all of their liquid capital, you'll see investors dump RHAT like mad and then "it won't be worth dick."

    Look at how many copies of RedHat Deluxe they have to sell to get $70,000 (not accounting for packaging expenses) to get a better handle on their generosity.

    Besides, no one said it was the last gift and no one should expect RedHat to fund it all. Other companies whose business revolves around"free software" should be chipping in as well.

    I say, "Bravo Redhat."

  • Probono.net [probono.net] is a clearinghouse and resource collection for lawyers doing public interest work. I hope this means they will be adding "defense of fair use and free software" alongside their more traditional pro bono categories.

    -- Fight copyright predators and the DMCA: visit Openlaw [harvard.edu]! --

  • Not that I think this is the case BUT when anyone donates money and they make it known it's for one reason: A prospective tax break. The truly philantropic are anonymous.

  • Personally, I feel that the best way these smaller companies could contribute the most to the Linux community is to do their job well and at a reasonable price. As an end user, being able to find resources that are easily available and affordable are extremely helpful.

    That being said, I do commend companies such as Red Hat which are smart enough to know that while funding such projects may seem like good PR in the short run, they will also benefit from the efforts of these individuals as well in the long run.

  • No, it is necessary! The law is too complex for developers to understand. You guys are smart, I won't try to take that away from you, but I admit I don't know how to program, so why can't you admit that you don't know the first damn thing about law practice?

    What you need to understand is that the average Slashdot reader thinks that he is Really Smart(tm), because he knows how to install Linux, write a PERL script, etc. Most of the readers tend to believe that they have crude computer skills which are better than some of the population, that they know more than EVERYBODY about EVERYTHING. The whole DeCSS/Napster fiascos are a perfect example, where the typical Slashdotter - despite having absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the entertainment industry - thinks fit to gauge the entire future of the how media should be consumed for all time. The readers believe because they understand the technical workings of a system, they somehow have the right to dictate how it will be used. This is somewhat akin to someone believing that we should bomb Sierra Leone, because he understands how a nuclear reaction works.

    I've always wondered if other professions were similarly elitist. Do doctors sit around and talk about how stupid the non-doctors are, and how people are so stupid that they can't even figure out how to cure cancer, so they have to pay big bucks to doctors? Or is this pheonomenon unique among computer people?

  • Why is it that everytime some big company gives some money to a worthy cause, people start with this "It's nothing compared to their total value" junk. Christ, it's still $70k. I bet the EFF was thrilled to get that check. If nothing else, $70k is a years salary for 2 or 3 secretarial staff.

    As of Friday's close, RHAT had a valuation of almost $3,000,000,000

    And you think they've just got that in cash lying around? Yes, RH has an interest in seeing the open source movement continue lawsuit free, but that doesn't mean they should dump half their companies value into the defense fund. Right now, they're barely making a profit, if they are making profit at all (don't have RH's quarterly report in front of me).
  • This is yet another case of the RIAA being boneheaded. Thanks for the info, I hadn't heard of this one yet. So if they are going after this why aren't they going after MS outlook, and all the other newsreaders that can decode MIME attachments. Jeez.

    Seems like the standard, were going after you because you can't stand up for your self so we're sure you'll just roll over when our lawyer sends you a nasty letter. It doesn't matter if we're right or wrong, lets see who's left standing after our Mack truck rolls over your tricycle.
  • I've always wanted to see something like this happen. Individuals don't have the credibility and financial resources to fight large legal battles, but if more organizations like Red Hat get involved, it could really make a difference. For instance, it would be damn hard for the MPAA to call Red Hat a group of 1337 hAx0r d00dz trying to pirate movies.

    I think it would be cool for these linux companies which have gotten rich through Free Software to establish a dedicated Free Software legal defense fund, or something like that. This fund would be used to fight legal battles that threaten the Free Software community. In addition to being a good ethical thing to do, it would get them buttloads of good PR and could actually help them take care of their own selfish business interests.

    Take care,

    Steve


    ========
    Stephen C. VanDahm
  • Legal stuff gets kinda fuzzy. Most likely they are preparing a more longwinded story (more than the usual quote with a link), and it's taking time to sort out all of the facts. I'm sure they will post it in due time.

    When I first saw your post I thought it was a joke. I remembered the advanced features from the bottom of this page [superpimp.org], and I thought yours was something simular. This is very sad-there going after these guys because they didnt think they could afford lawyers.

    I wonder if they can get support from microsoft. Doesn't IE have a news reader that decodes binaries.

    john
  • If you looked down the page, they linked to 2600 and called it something very different. They mentioned an IPO, but nothing related to sales or products. In other words, it's a normal open source project with a webmaster that likes having fun.
  • Well firstly they're doing the right thing, aren't they? So the question becomes, "why is this the exception, rather than the rule?" IMHO, the reason why "free-software-based" companies like Redhat will have to do the right thing is that their target market is perfectly willing to boycott (or support) them on the basis of their actions. If Redhat came out and supported Metallica (as a stupid example), how many users would they lose? Redhat are doing things the easy way, listening to the people so as to avoid negative consumer feedback. Hence they have a motive to "do the right thing", without having to be a moral agent. Which is important, as the community should decide moral issues, not corporations. More power to them!
  • Absolutely. I went to the computer science training camp for the top contestants in the USA Computing Olympiad (USACO) when I was in high school (it's the equivalent of the olympiads in math, physcics, etc.) and the whole thing, including our airfare there and all expenses, was covered by USENIX. What great people!

    The bus came by and I got on
    That's when it all began
    There was cowboy Neal
    At the wheel
    Of a bus to never-ever land
  • I wish all the companies in the free software movement make donations like RedHat. No matter the amount of money they contribute, or the point behind these donations. What really matters is that they give back something (money or anything else) to the community. While the Linux movement continues growing up, with more companies joining to the "cause", i don't see the same number of companies giving back what they get from us, because the users, the linux users, are the beginning and the end of this OS.
  • The FSF is who you turn to for support, if you turned over copyright to the FSF.

    They don't have legal standing to go after any GPL violation, unless they own the copyright.
  • I completly agree, maybe its time to back up the open source rhetoric with real acts of support and activism. With the press Linux tends to get it could really turn the world on its ear.

    Then again how often do you see an piece or mention of the EFF in the mainstream media? Collusion between industry and the press in the Land of the Free? Nawww.

  • Re:Good (Score:4)

    by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @03:35PM (#1057785)
    All the time, but they prefer to be called Lobbyists and Mr. Congressman.

  • I've always wondered if other professions were similarly elitist.

    Thousands of conversations across american suburbia go something like this:

    "Mom, my teacher hates me!"
    "No Suzy, your teacher does not hate you."

    Hundreds of other conversations across american suburbia go something like this:

    "Suzy... sometimes I hate that kid."

    Oh, and if you ever break a computer in some way, don't say "oops". Say "there". Any doctor can tell you that.

    As for the police, just get a scanner and listen for yourself :)

  • Re:Red Hat's only way to stay alive (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    However, UCITA allows proprietary software publishers to non-negotiably impose use restrictions that effectively bypass the DMCA. A developer relying on the DMCA provisions to do reverse engineering would have to be prepared (and well enough funded) to prove in court that the DMCA provision was a "fundamental public policy" whose enforcement "clearly outweighed" enforcement of the contrary term in the click-wrap contract "agreement". Red Hat should also join the fight against UCITA.

  • No... (Score:1)

    by Frodo ( 1221 )
    No, this is not a story. I submitted it (and others did too, I suppose) and it got rejected.
  • ...or maybe I just haven't spent enough time in front of Slashdot to get the joke :-)
  • OK the money may not be breaking the RedHat budget. They may be doing it for the publicity and to get the support of the community. The point is they are helping. More important than their money is their name. The fact that RedHat are putting their name behind it is a very important point. I bet the people they are supporting are not complaining about them doing it for the press. Congrats RedHat.

    "Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember

  • Yes! (Score:1)

    by Frodo ( 1221 )
    Oh, now I see why... Seems I could use a little more sleep - starting to be too naive :)
  • certainly not, I would never use the word "freakin'". "Fucken" is my trademark.
  • I think this is another example of Red Hat trying to give something back to the community they came out of. Good for them. And I hope some of the other free software companies follow their example.

  • It's about time... (Score:4)

    by shaldannon ( 752 ) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @10:59AM (#1057794) Homepage
    ...for one of the big companies making money to put some back for something like legal defense. Now what about VA? Andover? Penguin? etc.?

    I contributed to the DeCSS cause by buying a T-Shirt [copyleft.net] with the decss_descramble code on it. It's nice to see someone with deeper pockets helping out too.


    Who am I?
    Why am here?
    Where is the chocolate?
  • ZDNet has an excellent article [zdnet.com] on the copyright cartels. It's very well written.

    On another note, Red Hat has been pretty quiet about the MPAA/RIAA/napster/wrapster brouhaha lately. It's good to see them weigh in!

    --
    "Give him head?" ... "Be a beacon?"

    "One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft Ad
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I'm very happy to read that Red Hat, a company which produces an easy-to-use Linux distribution (Open-Sourced, of course), is helping to preserve our freedoms and rights online by helping to fund the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). This is certainly a positive development in the fight against online censorship.

    The free-speech-online movement needs all the financial support it can get. Conservative groups who threaten to censor the 'net are lavishly funded (like the Christian Coalition) and thus have more lobbying power than the EFF does. Red Hat, a well-recognized Linux company, is definitely doing the right thing by supporting the Foundation.

    If more companies like Red Hat would contribute more money to organizations like the EFF and the Censorware Project, those orgs. could help spread the word and inform people about Internet censorship. Knowledge may be power, but a little money doesn't hurt either...



    awkwardone

  • USENIX Donations (Score:5)

    by FigWig ( 10981 ) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @11:02AM (#1057799) Homepage
    Another organization that has been important in the computing community is USENIX [usenix.org]. I haven't seen them get any attention on slashdot, but they donated [usenix.org] US$100,000 to EFF to help fight the DeCSS case as well as cryptography cases.

  • i feel that rh and va linux are only "big" linux companies that are investing back into free software community. i have never seen penguin computing or any other linux companies contributing back to the community.....
  • This is good news.

    We need more companys to start sending money to the EFF. The more money they have, the better off we all are.

  • This isn't "just" philanthropy (Score:3)

    by Glowing Fish ( 155236 ) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @11:58AM (#1057802) Homepage

    While 50K is a relativly trivial amount, it is not the money that is the important thing. Bill Gates can give 1 Gig $ to fund foreign immunizations (and nuff respect to him for doing so), but the thing is, that money is "cute" and non-controversial. It is a hand out that doesn't make any statements about changing the system.

    Red Hat throwing their support behind the EFF makes a statement that they aren't about just business as usual. They are willing to throw money behind something controversial, and to say that a major company believes that the right to free speech is still important.

    Although I still think if some of these companies could fight for something like a living wage and the end of the police state, rather then just the right to rip DVD's, but it's a start.

  • A good thing but... (Score:3)

    by Skuto ( 171945 ) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @11:05AM (#1057803) Homepage
    This is a good thing, and Red Hat deserves credit for this, but I'd really like to see one day is a more global way of providing legal support for free/open source developers.

    Reverse engineering is one side of the story, but there are others too. Pursuing violations of your copyleft for example. As a small developer, whom do you turn to for your legal assistance? I don't think most developers can afford to pay lawyers if they see their licenses violated.

    If you use a GNU license, you can theoretically call the FSF for support. Theoretically that is, because things tend to get complicated if you didn't sign over your copyright, which is what most people do.

    And if you use another sort of free license, you're totally in your own...

    It would be nice to have some kind of organistion, funded by companies like Red Hat, to turn to.

    Would it be feasible? I don't know.

    --
    GCP
  • It's very possible for companies to do good things
    that don't directly support them. Certainly, there
    may or may not be other motives (e.g. gaining
    mindshare, or similar), but presenting things as
    if companies are only capable of evil or neutral
    acts is highly inaccurate.
  • The DMCA has specific provisions allowing reverse engineering; also
    there are other laws ensuring the legality of reverse engineering.
  • Anytime you got a corporation, any corporation, donating money to organizations for supposedly philanthropic causes, you basically have a situation where money is being used to integrate a potential threat under the corporate umbrella

    That is the most bollocks of a sweeping statement I have read in a while.

    This should not be seen as a good thing, at most it is simple bribery with a twist of PR believed only by fools.

    And that is a bullshit statement.

    Granted, sadly, most corporations are narrowly self-interested - in large part because of a narrow conception of the concept of fiducery duty on the part of their directors.

    But there are quite some number of companies that donate to good causes, from which they can expect little or no return, and without any PR fanfare. Mine is a case in point; donates more than 1% of pre-tax profit to ActionAid. I doubt we'll get any commissions for websites from sub-saharan villagers not /.ers. It is merely the least we can do.

    Companies are run by people, some of whom remember they are part of a community, and grasp the fact that they have the capacity to undertake random acts of kindness. Not all company directors are bitter, twisted, fuckwitted ACs.

  • I wonder if Redhat will get negative criticism for helping fund the Writer/Editor of 2600 Magazine. Being that Hackers are those evil insubordinate people who launch DDos attacks on Yahoo and Ebay?
  • Penguin Computing will most likely not support the whole DeCSS case (atleast not in the near future). When you go to configure a system they give you the option of adding a DVD-ROM drive, but when you click on the link for more info (here [penguincomputing.com]), they give you this bit of info:

    "Please note: There is currently no support under Linux for watching DVD movies."

    Maybe they want to support it, but they are afraid of lawsuits.

  • The RIAA's final offer is that they will drop the suit only if we unbundle Pan's attachment decoder from the newsreader. SuperPimpSoft is unwilling to do this: the attachment decoder is seamlessly integrated into Pan and cannot be removed.

    I dunno, it sounds like a joke to me :P

    Seems a lot like microsoft and the DOJ. Besides, all they'd have to do is point at EVERY OTHER news reader in existence that does the SAME thing to prove their point.
  • Yes, but they can't really touch that money. People are always saying the same thing about Bill Gates, "Oh, he's just so rich--he's valued at $90 Billion! [or whatever it happens to be this week]". In reality, of course, MS would go downhill pretty quickly if he tried to take all that out.

    70k ain't bad...

  • I've done a lot of work in the medical industry... believe it or not, Doctors are way worse than programmers when it comes to believing they are smarter than everyone (they usually are) and more knowledgeable about everything than everyone (they usually aren't).

    If I had a nickle for everytime a doctor offered to help me design "the ultimate medical system" that only he knew how to design -- for only a small cut of the company -- I would be richer than Gates.


    --

  • According to their January 14, 2000 Form 10-Q, [sec.gov] the Red Hat cookie jar held the following on November 30, 1999:

    Cash and cash equivalents $11,997,157
    Short-term investments $7,630,705
    Total assets (including the foregoing, and a good deal else) $110,297,650

  • If more companies like Red Hat would contribute more money to organizations like the EFF and the Censorware Project, those orgs. could help spread the word and inform people about Internet censorship. Knowledge may be power, but a little money doesn't hurt either...

    I appreciate the mention, but we don't take donations from any one, we are entirely self-funded. And we don't even have T-shirts.

    Then again, if Red Hat were to force $70K on us .... ;-)

  • Re:Good (Score:2)

    by jsm ( 5728 )
    Not to mention Presidential candidates.
  • Here's the EFF's [eff.org] files on the DVD cases [eff.org].
  • Is this good news?

  • Red Hat's only way to stay alive (Score:5)

    by WNight ( 23683 ) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @11:14AM (#1057817) Homepage
    They know they've got the support this sort of thing or MS will simply use the UCITA/DMCA to kill all other OSes.

    Until now we've been able to reverse engineer file systems and protocols, products like SAMBA are examples of what "we" have done with this.

    But if the UCITA and DMCA are used to prevent reverse engineering, products like that won't just be impossible to write, but if we did, they'd be illegal. The only hope of any other OS vendor is to squash those laws before they become too broadly applied.

    All MS needs to do under the DMCA is put a routine in the networking to check for valid serial numbers, then it becomes copy protection and even if we were able to get around UCITA restrictions (by doing it out of the USA) on reverse engineering, a compatible network protocol would break their copy protection and thus be illegal similar to DeCSS. (Or what the MPAA says about DeCSS.)

    It's good to see RedHat join the fight.

  • Red Hat is not a moral agent (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Red Hat is not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Anytime you got a corporation, any corporation, donating money to organizations for supposedly philanthropic causes, you basically have a situation where money is being used to integrate a potential threat under the corporate umbrella. Corporations, whether they are Red Hat or Mobil Oil are not now nor have they ever been moral agents, nor do they exist to make the world a better place to live. They exist only for profit and and answer only to their shareholders. They are not "persons", and have never been "persons" no matter how the law has been twisted to see them as such. This should not be seen as a good thing, at most it is simple bribery with a twist of PR believed only by fools.
  • Thanks for the heads up on this. It caused me to get off my butt and finally join USENIX.

  • Good (Score:4)

    by BMIComp ( 87596 ) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @11:15AM (#1057820)
    It's good to see Redhat donate money to a cause that they believe in. So, when's microsoft going to donate money to common crooks?
  • FYI, IAAL, and a very successful one who has built a strong practice defending the rights of software developers

    Thank you.

    Also, since I enjoy reading informed positions, I'd be interested in listening to some of your thoughts in these forums. Most everyone here on /. is a sysadmin, programmer, or HotGrits (tm) dood...

    It's truly interesting to hear diverse points of view - especially from someone who is a subject matter expert in a field that matters a lot to many of us (whether we like it or not).

    -jerdenn

  • It is true that RedHat has their own interests at heart; however, in this case, what is in their interest is also good for the community. RedHat depends on the community for software and other services, and to the extent that the development community loses interest in making Free Software (due to possible legal punishment) their business suffers.

    It would be very bad for RedHat if Samba were deemed illegal to distribute (as stated earlier). Furthermore, if DeCSS can win in court, RedHat would be able to VERY happy to distribute a free, open DVD player with the OS (it would be a real coup).

    So yes, they are looking after themselves. But they depend on the community more than most businesses (other than as end purchasers), so their actions help protect that community.
  • RedHat is a company born in the spirit of freedom, to make a big splash in the stock market, get rich overnight, and then give back to the cause of freedom where it counts.

    They won't be the last.

    Don't dis my rant here, mark my words more Linux friendly companies will prove true to the cause.

    This is where the revolution really starts :)

    - travoltus, pleased as punch today!
    ========================
    63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
    ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
  • All MS needs to do under the DMCA is put a routine in the networking to check for valid serial numbers, then it becomes copy protection and even if we were able to get around UCITA restrictions (by doing it out of the USA) on reverse engineering, a compatible network protocol would break their copy protection and thus be illegal similar to DeCSS. (Or what the MPAA says about DeCSS.)

    That would be bad! Fortunatly, I don't think they can do something like that. Assuming they appeal the Antitrust ruling, they'll be fighting the DOJ for years. Using such a serial number would simply be catastrophic for them.

  • Ok, so it's 50K. Now I'm wondering just how Red Hat determines how much to give. I mean, is there some kind of function key on an HP that you can use to calculate how much to donate? I thought this was the kind of thing that would show up in Edgar [sec.gov] for filings to the SEC, but I don't see expenditures for charitable contributions or the like.

  • I hate Anonomous Cowards. It's next to impossible to tell if they're being serious or sarcastic.

    No big surprise here, as their gnunix procuct contains so many reverse-engineered drivers and utilities.
    And the point is? Until recently, the notion of reverse engineering being "wrong" was considered abhorrent.

    If hardware manufacturers want RedHat to have drivers, then they would write drivers for Linux.
    Why? Writing drivers is a loss for hardware companies. Each programmer they pay to write drivers is $50-$100K per year they lose, just so people can use their hardware.

    Reverse engineering deprives manufacturers of revenue for innovation.
    How?

    Many standard features of RedHat and other gnunix distributions are reverse-engineered unix(tm) utilities or MIcrosoft Windows(R) interfaces.
    So? There's also a smattering of Plan 9 and several other systems as well as a few unique ideas.

    For example, Gnome and Kde desktops ripoffs of the Windows interface.
    And Windows ripped off the Macintosh interface. BeOS' GUI is virtually identical to most other GUIs. I'm not quite sure what your point is.

    Software piracy and reverse engineering are illegal.
    Software piracy is. Reverse engineering hasn't been until the DMCA, and most people feel that the DMCA should be considered "unconstitutional" and that it's a violation of basic rights.

    Manufacters have a right to protect their intellectual property rights with features which thwart attempts to reverse engineer or to copy without authorization.
    Yep. And others have the right to attempt to thwart procedures that prevent their ability to reverse engineer or make legally allowed personal copies for backup.

  • the Redmond response

  • ...though I am should it will help.

    By throwing their weight behind DeCSS, Red Hat are providing much needed credibility to the fight against the MPAA.

    As a profitable public company, generally well respected in the industry, their name behind the donation is probably more beneficial than the money itself.

    M@T
  • Umm, nothing at all wrong with ACs; nothing in my mail suggested there was. I did have a problem with the opinion of the AC in question, but ACs in general, I love 'em, each & every one; was one myself, once. Whats your point?
  • i feel that rh and va linux are only "big" linux companies that are investing back into free software community. i have never seen penguin computing or any other linux companies contributing back to the community.....

    My feeling is suse does quite alot too, paying kernel developers (aa, andi kleen), sponsoring reiser fs, working on xfree (Dirk Hondel is a vice-president of suse IIRC), helping with pppoe (they were the first incorporating the pppox kernel patches in their dist).
    I hope they will also fund the legal side of open source.
    Don't know about the others, though.

  • This is true. Superpimp.org is being sued by the RIAA! They can't afford their own legal defense since their first round of financing only yielded $8.36. Support superpimp.org!
  • What does that fund, one day in court?

    As of Friday's close, RHAT had a valuation of almost $3,000,000,000. What fraction of Red Hat's worth is threatened by the possibility of media cartels like the RIAA and MPAA locking free software out of content? How about the possibility of making reverse engineering illegal (no more SAMBA)?

    How much? 50%? 5%? 1%? 0.1%? Try 0.002% -- that's apparently Red Hat's estimate. Pretty generous, wouldn't you say?

    But for that 0.002% of their company, in return they get a gushy Slashdot article and lots of praise and "gosh, I'm so glad they're giving back to the community, I wish those other Linux companies would". There's a PR coup for you. Most companies would *jump* at the chance to have such an utterly positive article in Slashdot for a mere $70K.

Slashdot Top Deals

How come financial advisors never seem to be as wealthy as they claim they'll make you?

Close