Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Red Hat Software Businesses Government The Courts News

RedHat Starts "Open Source Now" Fund 240

Posted by Hemos from the fight-for-the-right-to-code dept.
celston23 writes "According to this article (near bottom), RedHat is intending to use their Open Source Now Fund to support open-source (GPL) developers who are sued for copyright infringement. Might be used during the SCO legal battle."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RedHat Starts "Open Source Now" Fund More

RedHat Starts "Open Source Now" Fund

Comments Filter:
  • Great. I hope IBM uses some of its Billion dollars on Linux that it had previously pledged. Also, I hope that companies in the market for Unix remember that their is HP-UX, Solaris, AIX and others as well as Linux...no need for SCO (some crappy old) Unix
    • You're uh... not paying attention to this with much detail are you?

      HP-UX, Solaris, and AIX are all licensed by SCO. They're each companies individual modifications to the original AT&T/Bell Labs UNIX code, compiled and distributed to the users. They do not provide the source code with these operating systems, as the license of the source code is non-transferable.

      Linux and *BSD are unique in that they are open source and not based on System V source code at all.

  • Has been mentioned before (Score:5, Informative)

    by ldm ( 676254 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:09PM (#6688547)
    This is awfully familiar [slashdot.org], don't you think? [yahoo.com] (again, near the bottom)

    • Re:Has been mentioned before (Score:5, Funny)

      by saskwach ( 589702 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:46PM (#6688845) Homepage Journal
      It's from the department-of-redundancy department.

    • Re:Has been mentioned before (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bigjocker ( 113512 ) * on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:51PM (#6688885) Homepage
      Can you tell the difference between these two?:

      opensourcenow@redhat.com
      www.redhat.com/opensou rcenow

      In the older articles the Open Source Now fund had been anounced, but it was just an email address that I bet has been banged pretty hard the past few days (I know I used it and got no response back).

      Now we get the whole "Open Source Now" movement with complete web-site and instructions to participate, but since nobody here RTFA we get 100s of comments calling for a dupe.

      Really, if anybody wants to help in this hole issue just click the link and donate something.
      • Can you tell the difference between these two?:

        opensourcenow@redhat.com
        www.redhat.com/opensourcenow

        I didn't know they were giving parts of the MCSE exams today...
        Umm Ok
        1.) One is an email address, and one is the URL for a website.

        Whew, these MS exams are tough!
      • Well... given the fact that Open Source Now [redhat.com] is a community for OSS advocacy focusing on education of the populace about OSS, and in fact has nothing to do with the OSN Fund, nor does it contain any useful information about donating to the fund, but only links to how to join the OSN Community.

        Before you criticize people for not RTFA... maybe you should actually RT Fucking A!!!

        Now, I agree with you that this is not a dupe, in fact it's a whole lot of nothing. The link submitted by celston23 has nothing to

      • Really, if anybody wants to help in this hole issue just click the link and donate something.

        Well, first I RTFA, and then I poked around the web site because I have been looking for a way to donate to RH's OSS defense fund. Please provide the link that I'm obviously overlooking. In the meantime, I've donated a few bucks to the SCO bounty hunt [pinkfairies.org]. It looks like it will have the same effect.

  • Free Karma? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gumpish ( 682245 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:10PM (#6688555) Journal
    Might be used during the SCO legal battle.

    Wow. So RedHat gets free karma for creating an ostensibly altruistic fund to defend developers who release GPL software, then they turn around and say "Well, we release GPL code. We'll be taking our money back now, KTHXBYE"

    Very interesting...

    • So what? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bigjocker ( 113512 ) *
      I don't care if they use my donations to counter sue SCO. The Open SOurce Now fund is a charity, and they can help Red Hat if they please.

      Is not the point of this whole issue fight against the FUDfest from SCO? And who are the ones that have _legally_ answered. There are the folks from Germany and Australia, but from the big folks (who will ultimately be the ones that can solve this whole issue, as has been said before, this is not a matter of justice but of money) we only have RedHat and IBM (for now) tak

  • Why not just relinquish SCO's license (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bigattichouse ( 527527 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:11PM (#6688560) Homepage
    All ye kernel authors, instead of trying to fight SCO, just give them a deadline to license your kernel submissions, provide them a separate "binary only license" on top of the GPL license, and charge them $10 for every license they sell that includes your intellectual property. If they don't pay up, then cancel their license to use your part of the kernel.
    • That's absurd. You've already licensed the software to them under the terms of the GPL. If you could just say "Oh, we changed our minds", then what's the point of the GPL?
      • Well, in SCO's terms, there is NO point to the GPL. So if they play by those rules, they must pay by those rules. I disagree with doing this since all of these steps are absurd and anti-cooperative, but in the anal-retentive legal world of SCO IP, they would have to comply.
        • The opposite of crazy is still crazy.
        • ...the anal-retentive legal world of SCO IP, they would have to comply.

          SCO is not anal-retentive, SCO is lead by a bunch of shrewd scam artists. The only people that might be anal-retentive are the ignorant corporate customers that don't know any better and the ignorant stockholders that are still buying SCO shares.

          If you really think that spreading more FUD on the subject will help those ignorant fools make more rational decisions. Go ahead and do it. Personally, I think FUD on top FUD will only confu

      • Re:Why not just relinquish SCO's license (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Frac ( 27516 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:34PM (#6688752)
        That's absurd. You've already licensed the software to them under the terms of the GPL. If you could just say "Oh, we changed our minds", then what's the point of the GPL?

        SCO is not really obeying the terms of GPL. So either SCO can choose to obey the GPL, agree to a different license, or infringe the copyright of the kernel contributors and risk getting sued.

      • Re:Why not just relinquish SCO's license (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Ktulu_03 ( 668300 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:38PM (#6688784) Journal
        Linus owns the copyright to the word "Linux", right? Could he revoke their right to use the word "Linux" in any of their products?

        I apologize if this is already well-known information.

        • no. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mattdm ( 1931 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @03:00PM (#6688970) Homepage
          You can't copyright names. They're covered by trademarks. And it is totally within the bounds of fair use to call something by its name. The canonical example: I don't have to call it "that long race we have in Boston on Patriots' Day every year" just because the Boston Athletic Association owns the trademark "Boston Marathon". Likewise, if SCO is actually referring to Linux, they can call it that.

          This is a good thing.

          And this comes up on /. so often that it occurs to me that I've probably just been trolled, hard. Oh well.
          • In a non commercial context yes. However if a company such as say, ABC Bank wanted to use the "Boston Marathon" in an advertising campaign they could be sued by the Athletic association becuase it is a trademark, and they would first need to obtain the right to use "Boston Marathon". As stated on the BAA Site:

            "Boston Marathon, B.A.A. Marathon, and the B.A.A. Unicorn logo are registered trademarks of the Boston Athletic Association. Use of these trademarks without written permission from the Boston Athlet
      • SCO is the one saying that IBM's counter suit is a "distraction away from the real issues", which are "IBM's flawed business model" ... and specifically mentions that it is IBM's use of the GPL license, which "IBM should back away from".

        So the GPL means nothing to SCO. So they need a new license from kernel developers. They obviously don't "agree" with the GPL. The GPL states that you do not have to agree with it, since you have not signed it. And the GPL continues that if you do not agree to the GPL
    • I know that they're breaking the terms of the GPL, but wouldn't you be as well?
      • You still own all copyrights to your work under the GPL, and can "multi-license" your own work (provided it is not based on GPL'ed work).. so if you built a driver for some such video card and it was completely your own, you could "dual-license" it.. the customer would choose the license. if SCO don't like the GPL license - they can choose the other one, where you fleece the crap out of them.
    • Not that your ideas is possible under the GPL license, but that is a really funny idea. Do to SCO exactly what they are doing to the rest of the Linux community.. HA!

      • Re:Why not just relinquish SCO's license (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jrumney ( 197329 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:44PM (#6688827)
        It is very possible to do this under the GPL. The key wording is on top of the GPL. The developers' contributions would still be available to everybody (including SCO) under the GPL, but if SCO wants to relicense them in a non-GPL compatible way, they absolutely must get a seperate license on top of the GPL that allows this from every kernel developer.
    • Bad idea. Doing so would require admidting the Linux kernel contains infinging SCO code. That's probably what SCO was counting on when they left the kernel source on their ftp. It would add legitamacy to thier claims and help pump their company's value. Linus has the right idea here: it's just a contract dispute, ignore it and move along.
    • Do that, and you're playing their game.

  • Unfortunate but needed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kethinov ( 636034 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:11PM (#6688564) Homepage Journal
    Open Source's greatest feature and worst flaw is that it's free and open. Because there's next to no profit in it, software authors have next to no protection from getting sued. So in order to protect things like Linux from SCO, there needs to be some kind of a fund like this. Again, unfortunate but true.

    • Re:Unfortunate but needed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda@nOSpAM.etoyoc.com> on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:42PM (#6688808) Homepage Journal
      I was always under the impression that you could not be sued for not doing something wrong. Creative works have long had a special protection in our legal system.

      It is a true travisty that people believe you need millions of dollars to defend yourself against a frivilous lawsuit. An understanding of the law, a stack of envelopes, and occasionally plane fare are more than enough.

      Now the legal games that lawyers play is another issue entirely. The delays, the frivilous filings, the mountains of paperwork, hyperbole, press leaks, etc. That is what you are actually paying a lawyer for these days.

      • I agree. This whole SCO issue is total shit. Simply put, Linux is open source. Any claim to the code that's in the Linux kernel is immaterial because Linux has been released under the GPL. If it's GPL'd, too damn bad SCO.

        That's what I'd tell the SCO if I were a judge. Then I'd throw their case out of court.
        • Thank god you are not the judge, because you've put the cart before the horse. SCO's claim (most likely BS) is that IBM improperly put copyrighted code in Linux. Therefore, the GPL cannot apply to that code.

          I think the case is still bogus, but for a completely different reason.

      • Re:Unfortunate but needed (Score:5, Informative)

        by Ian Wolf ( 171633 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @03:02PM (#6688991) Homepage
        Sorry, having worked as a paralegal for three years, "An understanding of the law, a stack of envelopes, and occasionally plane fare are more than enough" is rarely enough.

        As a defendant you *MUST* pay the costs of a stenographer for any depositions and you can rarely get a witness in without them being properly deposed. Also, expert witnesses are rarely free. You normally have to pay for those. Then there is the cost of multiple plane tickets, if the trial is out of your area. Plus board, meals, etc. Then there are the amount of money you spend at Kinko's. Its downright amazing how many hundreds or thousands of dollars you can spend just on making copies of briefs, depositions, and interrogatories which you MUST pay yourself. There are many hidden costs involved in even a minor case.

        The delays, the frivilous filings, the mountains of paperwork, hyperbole, press leaks, etc. That is what you are actually paying a lawyer for these days.

        That's like saying I only pay my sysadmin to backup some files, reset my password, post on slashdot, and forget to apply patches. hmmm... Then again, I guess some places do pay their sysadmins to do just that.
        • As a defendant you *MUST* pay the costs of a stenographer for any depositions

          I've been reading slashdot too long, I read that as "...the costs of a steganographer..." and wondered what use encrypting something into an image file would have in a courtroom. :)

    • Open Source's greatest feature and worst flaw is that it's free and open. Because there's next to no profit in it, software authors have next to no protection from getting sued.

      And if I create a piece of proprietary software, I'm somehow magically protected?

      This is not an open vs. closed issue. It is a big guy vs. little guy issue.

      • And if I create a piece of proprietary software, I'm somehow magically protected?

        If Linux wasn't open source and it actually DID contain SCO's code, no one would know because it'd be closed source. No way to prove it, no way to tell. But SCO goes poking around in the open source Linux kernel, finds something they think is their's, and starts a big mess.

        Furthermore, if it was closed source and sold and SCO DID find out their code was in it somehow, Linux would be making money because, of course, it was

        • You're missing my point.

          A software product being closed source does not necessarily mean you will have the money to fight lawsuits. Nor does a software product being open mean that you won't (think Redhat).

          As for "not knowing because it's closed source", that doesn't seem to be helping Microsoft defend themselves does it?

          Just like if SCO tried this crap on Apple, Apple would have more money to defend itself in court.

          Like I said, the issue is how much money you have. You do realize that Apple's pr

  • OSN???? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cranst0n ( 617823 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:12PM (#6688569) Journal
    Why not just call it...

    Save Open Source (SOS)?

    • Re:OSN???? (Score:4, Funny)

      by WhytTiger ( 595699 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:27PM (#6688697)
      I think a better name would be Save Creative Openness (SCO)... obviously that abbreviation won't be in use for much longer

    • ahem (Score:5, Funny)

      by asv108 ( 141455 ) <asvNO@SPAMivoss.com> on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:44PM (#6688824) Homepage Journal
      The FSF, will say it should be SFS (Save Free Software), but you can use your orginal name as long as you put a GNU/ in front of it.

    • Re:OSN???? (Score:3, Funny)

      by saskwach ( 589702 )
      Or...Serenity Now.
      Owls Swoop Nightly?
      Our Saviour...Nah.
      Ornery Software Nerds...
      Oh well, Silly Name.

  • EFF? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:12PM (#6688574)
    Why is this necessary when we have the EFF?

    • Re:EFF? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gherald ( 682277 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:23PM (#6688661) Journal
      Why is this necessary when we have the EFF?

      The EFF is much more broad.

      RedHat is only concerned with Linux and the GPL, plus they want the publicity.

  • Lobbying? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by raistphrk ( 203742 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:13PM (#6688578)
    Perhaps they could also use some of this fund, or another one, to start lobbying for less restrictive copyright laws? Even better, lobbying for legal recognition of the GPL would be a better goal. If the GPL is codified into law as an enforcable license, absurd lawsuits would carry far less weight in a court.

    Of course, given the current makeup of the Congress, it would be more likely to see the GPL invalidated in national legislation than supported.

  • 503C status? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hayzeus ( 596826 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:17PM (#6688606) Homepage
    I may have missed this on the home page, but is OSN a 503C non-profit?

  • Sco Fund (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:17PM (#6688610) Homepage
    I don't think it will be needed in the main case as IBM will pull SCO under with the length of the trial. They have much deeper pockets. However for the little folks that will be good. Also hope they EFF get in on it and all works out nicely

    Rus

    • Re:Sco Fund (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BFKrew ( 650321 )
      IBM do have far greater resources than SCO and can afford to drag this through the courts.

      However, it needs to be established if SCO have a case (I don't think they do) and if so, the offending code needs either replacing or paying for - resolving in some way.

      If this ends up with IBM winning through greater financial resource, I don't think the matter will have been answered... afterall, when will the next company make similar charges? What happens if a larger beast than SCO makes the charge?

      Buryin

  • Forgive my possible naievity (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BFKrew ( 650321 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:20PM (#6688635)
    But do Red Hat know something that possibly the greater community do not?

    If there has been no infringement then logically there would be no need for this fund as, again logically, it could be demonstrated in every court that Linux doesn't contain any SCO material.

    I guess that this is not just for the SCO charges, but maybe for other similar charges from other companies who may, sometime in the future, level the same accusations.

    Maybe I am well off track here, but surely it would be of better use to the community for SuSE, IBM etc to also put into the pot.... I guess the interest gained alone from such a pot would be huge if it is to protect people from charges similar to SCO which I will guess will end up costing millions.

    I really hope this can be finally be put to rest sometime soon, as this kind of 'war chest building' does not inspire confidence. I have said before that whilst these charges, counter charges and now this warchest it is going to make those who are looking at migrating someway towards Linux a little concerned.

    • "If there has been no infringement then logically there would be no need for this fund as, again logically, it could be demonstrated in every court that Linux doesn't contain any SCO material."

      You still need $$$ to pay the lawyers so you can "demonstrate in every court."

    • Re:Forgive my possible naievity (Score:5, Informative)

      by MAXOMENOS ( 9802 ) <mike@mikesmYEATS ... n.com minus poet> on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:23PM (#6688662) Homepage
      If there has been no infringement then logically there would be no need for this fund as, again logically, it could be demonstrated in every court that Linux doesn't contain any SCO material.

      This is a non-sequitur. The simple fact is that it is going to cost money -- a lot of money -- in order to prove that Linux doesn't contain any SCO material. Lawyers need to be paid, witnesses need to be briefed, exhibits need to be made, etc. All that takes cash, regardless of the merits of the case.

      • What happens if there IS code in Linux that SCO own? So far, everything I've read on Slashdot says there isn't and I have not read any posts that ask the 'what if...'

        If it can be shown that there is an infringment in the code, in any court, then it will make for an interesting case.

        In any event, is there anything other than the IBM financial power that could stop this type of case again? Playing Devil's Advocate, what would happen if (say) Microsoft backed SCO against IBM?

        A lot of questions here, b
        • SCO is very well shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to disribute linux with full knowledge that their code is in there. that means SCO's code is GPLed, unless the courts throw out the GPL. in that case all hell will break loose

        • Re:Forgive my possible naievity (Score:5, Informative)

          by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:55PM (#6688912) Homepage
          Yeah. What if?

          If there is SCO code improperly copied by IBM into Linux, then...
          • IBM will have to pay for SCO's damages. (SCO has never sold an "enterprise" version of Unix. SO what are SCO's damages?)
          • SCO will have to claim that they did not know what they were distributing for eight years under the GPL. (Counteragrument is that they either knew or should have known)
          • SCO can NOT claim damages from end users. Liability does not attach to end users.
          • SCO could try to claim damages from distributers, such as Red Hat. But SCO's copyright registration has occured way too late to claim anything but actual damages. Red Hat is not guilty of willful infringement. In fact Red Hat has tried to cure the infringement by finding out exactly what is infringing so that they can remove it.
          • There are no trade secrets at issue.
          • There are no patents at issue.
          • There are no trademarks at issue.
          • There is possibly a copyright issue.
          • You cannot claim damages when you help create the damage: still offer Linux source for downloads.
          • You cannot claim damages when you help create the damage: not allow anyone to cure the infringement.

          So just what would happen? IBM might have to cure the infringement and pay whatever damages that SCO can proove. Even in the worst possible outcome, this will be a bump in the road for Linux. In fact, the FUD is doing much more damage than a successful SCO outcome could possibly do.
          • Let me add more to my previous post.

            Even in the event of a successful outcome for SCO....
            • SCO is still infringing four of IBM's patents. All of SCO's current products infringe. So an injunction by IBM will cut off ALL OF SCO's REVENUE! A preliminary injunction would have this effect immediately, before SCO ever gets to trial.
            • Patent infringement lawsuits are expensive to defend. You must either (1) proove you don't infringe, or (2) proove the patent is invalid. Either requires lots of expensive
        • What happens if there IS code in Linux that SCO own? So far, everything I've read on Slashdot says there isn't and I have not read any posts that ask the 'what if...'

          The question has not been asked because the answer has been stated already. If there is SCO code, then it will be cut out and replaced, as soon as SCO identifys the offending bits.

          Right now SCO is saying, "You have something of mine in your house, but I am not going to tell you what or where it is, because then you might return it to me. I

    • Yes, you're naive (Score:3, Informative)

      by El ( 94934 )
      The fact that you haven't harmed me doesn't do anything to stop me from filing a lawsuit against you! Sure, I won't prevail in court, but in the meantime it will cost you big bucks in legal fees! Trust me.. I was sued for $500,000 by somebody who subsequently dropped the suit, but not before I'd spent over $1000 on lawyers to respond to her claims. (If you don't respond, they automatically win.) And of course, she claimed to be transigent, which means the court waived all filing fees, and her attorney was w

  • Mixed feelings. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stephenry ( 648792 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:22PM (#6688659)
    Though it's great that somebody is willing to step up and offer legal protection to Linux, the kind that Microsoft are readily willing for the lack thereof. How will this help?

    Take a look at SCO. For the last couple of months they have been spouting nonsense, slander and let's be honest FUD. In fact, in the face of the current IBM countersuit, they have the gall (read: stupidity) to launch another claim.

    Now, all this is quite illegal, as IBM's lawyers have pointed out, but has it stopped SCO? No, not until 2005, at least. Until that time, SCO can say and do as it more-or-less pleases, until an injunction anyways. They will nodoubt reep the rewards for there behaviour, but that doesn't stop the damage they're causing in the meantime, until the courts get around to dealing with it.

    Reason, let alone a cadre of Open Source Funded lawyers won't stop SCO. That's just the way it is.

    • Though it's great that somebody is willing to step up and offer legal protection to Linux, the kind that Microsoft are readily willing for the lack thereof. How will this help?

      until 2005... SCO can say and do as it more-or-less pleases

      Oh, RedHat's suit against SCO will definitely help. One of the most important things to note about SCO's suit against IBM is that Boies' law firm is doing it on a contingency basis, so it is costing SCO practically nothing. However, the RedHat suit is

  • Is Linux still free? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sean80 ( 567340 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:25PM (#6688680)
    Maybe I'll be flamebaited again for this.

    You know, back in the day, when I first came to Slashdot, Open Source was all about the free, wild and woolly creation of software, about freedom from The Man, and doing stuff because it was a Nerd Mountain and by goddamn we were going to climb it. I'm never sure if I should be happy or sad that companies such as Red Hat and Oracle are essentially hijacking the popularity of Linux. At the end of the day, is it about being on everybody's desktop or server, or is it about having written good code without a boss? Coding just for the sake of coding, fixing problems without having to beg marketing to let you do it.

    What do I say this? Well, I just can't bring myself to believe that Red Hat has the interests of the greater community at heart here. In my view, they are simply trying to protect their revenue stream. Without companies turning to Open Source, they simply don't have any customers.

    Maybe that's obvious, but I think amongst all of the support that this fund will have, it's at least good to have it said.

    • Also, can you buy the kind of publicity this type of offer will generate?

    • Re:Is Linux still free? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GoofyBoy ( 44399 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:42PM (#6688811) Journal
      Interesting point. I think it comes down to that different people will use Linux for their own purposes. You (I am assuming) want it to make really neat code that does something worthwhile/meaningful. I want it as a good platform to run Java code or a server.

      Once it gets into the hands of companies, they are going to have this legal/political/money crap Not that there is anything wrong with that, its just this is how they work.

      Just as long as Linux is freely available, open and people can get their hands deep into its ugly belly, just ignore all of this crap. Just as you would ignore how anyone else uses Linux for writing Java code or running servers.
    • This is an old debate, and really off-topic if you ask me. But whatever.

      Red Hat releases the source code. Red Hat is freely distributable. If you own Red Hat, and if you paid for it and everything, you have every right to turn around and redistribute it to whomever you want. THAT is what makes the GPL so useful.

      Yes, there are commercial interests in Linux. This is great, because it promotes exposure of the operating system. But still, you can go to kernel.org and download the latest kernel, you can go to

    • Free Software and Open Source are different. (Score:4, Informative)

      by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @07:37PM (#6690986) Homepage
      You know, back in the day, when I first came to Slashdot, Open Source was all about the free, wild and woolly creation of software, about freedom from The Man, and doing stuff because it was a Nerd Mountain and by goddamn we were going to climb it.

      Open Source was never about freedom, it was and is about pitching the Open Source development methodology primarily to businesses: when businesses share source code they ostensibly get better programs developed with less expense because they can tap a large community of programmers who are willing to work on their project for no fee. Open Source talks about the practical outcome of sharing source code, not the freedoms that make those practical ends possible.

      Freedom to share and modify programs was and is the message from the Free Software movement which started over a decade before the Open Source movement began. I recommend this essay [gnu.org] for an instructive look at the differences between the two movements. It was the Free Software Foundation that brought us the GNU General Public License which secures the freedoms to share and modify and the community the Open Source movement has leveraged to spread their message. The FSF did these things well before the Open Source movement got started. I'm grateful the Open Source Movement is bringing users to Free Software and encouraging use of the GNU GPL (one of many Free Software licenses), but let's not overstate what the Open Source Initiative did--adding a license to a list of approved licenses cannot compare with writing and defending [columbia.edu] the license [columbia.edu] (links to parts one and two of Eben Moglen's essay).

      I'm never sure if I should be happy or sad that companies such as Red Hat and Oracle are essentially hijacking the popularity of Linux.

      SCO FUD aside, is Oracle interested in what's in the Linux kernel, or were you referring to the GNU/Linux operating system [gnu.org]? I don't understand what you mean by "hijacking" here either--Red Hat has contributed a great deal to Linux and (as far as I know) all in accordance with the GPL. Everyone is free to study, share, and modify their contributions as well as the rest of the kernel.

  • perhaps some info (Score:3, Informative)

    by noldrin ( 635339 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:25PM (#6688688)
    I still don't see anywhere to donate money. The open source fund right now seems little more then redhat.

  • SCO, eh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:27PM (#6688699)
    It looks like this Open Source Now fund is getting more important every day:
    For immediate release:

    Smoking Crack Operation (NASCRACK: SCO) announced legal action against Microsoft Corporation for violating SCO intellectual property. The lawsuit comes on the heels of legal action targeting IBM, all the Fortune 500 companies, the governments of two world superpowers and six third world nations, millions of computer users worldwide, and God.

    "Microsoft is using underground hacker software called Linux," said SCO CEO Darl McBluff. "They are using Linux to develop operating system software, codenamed Microsoft Windows, which violates our intellectual property rights. Competition from Microsoft and other companies is eating away at our sales," McBluff said. "Die fuckers!!!"

    According to an SCO spokesperson, Linux violates SCO copyrights by using code developed, trademarked, copyrighted and patented by IBM. Microsoft Windows violates SCO's self-proclaimed right to eternal, perpetually increasing profits.

    Experts from the Gartner Group suggested that all users of Linux, Windows, IRIX, Plan-9, CP/M, Palm OS, OS/390, UNICOS, TOPS-20, Mac OS, DOS and OS/2 immediately pay SCO a nominal licensing fee of $699 for each instance of every process that executes on these operating systems, retroactive to 1960. SCO is offering a special accounting package to compute the daily licensing payment requirements and offers convenient financing options. "We suggest you pay up," McBluff said, commenting on the Gartner report, "or we will break your legs and burn down your homes and businesses."

    (I know we're only joking, but with SCO, it could happen!)

  • How can anyone say this is NOT a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bailout911 ( 143530 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:29PM (#6688716)
    Redhat doesn't HAVE to do this, and I'll wager it doesn't put "money in their pocket" as so many Redhat bashers seem to be obessed with mentioning. It's good PR, yes, but it's also good for the community.

    Redhat makes IMHO the BEST out-of-the box distro. You want something that just works (tm)? 95% of the time, you're talking about Redhat. Is it perfect? No, not by a long shot, but it amazes me the sheer number of people who attack Redhat just because they are the market leader. Remember kids, if it's popular, it must be crap!

    • Re:How can anyone say this is NOT a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FyRE666 ( 263011 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:45PM (#6688838) Homepage
      Well said. I'm also confused by all the RH bashing that takes place here. I run Gentoo and RH on various machines at home and work, and RH has been a great OS for me! True, it's a little bloated, and I don't use RPM at all due to its dependency problems, but the OS does work out of the box, and works well!

      Redhat pay a lot of the main Linux coders, they offer their own training courses and they are currently the only Linux distri putting their money where their mouth is in the SCO case. In fact, I'll be buying and installing more RH systems to support them!
    • Actually, SuSe is probably better than RH in the "just works" department. But I do agree that this is a good thing. Certainly RH is doing it for their own interests, but it also helps the community.
    • Well, the problem I have with Redhat is that their core business is selling support for their distro. Unfortunately, this is really obvious from the way things are set up. Particularly, their GUI configuration tools do not always work, and when they fail, I have had trouble finding good documentation on how to make things work. I think this is intentional, they want people to purchase some support from them, so they create situations in which it is needed. I don't know what kind of hardware you are usin

  • In a related development (Score:5, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:34PM (#6688746)
    In a related development, SCO has filed separae lawsuits against the government of Turkey and the Vienna Boys Choir for having employed eunuchs in the past.

  • Addendum (Score:4, Funny)

    by tds67 ( 670584 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:35PM (#6688769)
    In its most recent earnings report, SCO reported declines in product and services revenues in the six months that ended in April, compared with the same period last year. Those declines, however, were offset by $8 million in...

    ...SCO executive stock sales.

  • This isn't news (Score:5, Informative)

    by pjack76 ( 682382 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @02:48PM (#6688861)
    This isn't news. There's no new info in the eetimes article, and that page at RedHat never contained information about the fund itself. The "Open Source Now" page is just an advocacy group apparently devoted to spotting laws that would prevent adoption of open source in government etc.

    This seems different (though related) to the "Open Source Now Fund", which would specifically target legal threats against Linux and related things, like the FSF does for GNU.

    I haven't been able to find any info on how to contribute to the fund. I spoke with many Red Hat people at Linux World about it, and they didn't know. I sent an email to opensourcenow@redhat.com, and they never replied. I've also been talking with Red Hat salesmen for the past week or two trying to put together a proposal, and they don't know either.

    What's the hold up Red Hat? TAKE MY MONEY DAMMIT.

    • Third time maybe (Score:2, Interesting)

      by bstadil ( 7110 )
      I agree with you. I have tried to send money for a while, but no luck. Maybe the third time Slashdot posts this story RH will have a Donation link ready.

  • A socialist site??? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by YoDave ( 184176 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @03:01PM (#6688977) Homepage
    With the FUD Microsoft and others spread about open source and the GPL being anti-american and bad for business, perhaps it isn't such a good idea for the site to look like it advocates socialism.

    Just my $0.02.
    • You mean:

      My esteemed members of the jury. After hearing those facts about the stolen code (in a more silent voice) which we could not provide in order (clears his throat) to save the secrets. (Speaks normaly again) When comparing them with the allegations you have heard from those people from RedHat, keep in mind that those people have a red hat as sign and rely on the work of people. 'From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.' (Shudders)

      Now, they have even started and are rel

  • "open-source (GPL)"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fweeky ( 41046 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @03:05PM (#6689018) Homepage
    GPL is Free Software(R) -- Open source is a conciderably wider target than that. A quick look over the site doesn't show anything GPL-specific, just Linux-specific. BSDers need love too!

  • The other thing we need.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @04:45PM (#6689878) Homepage
    Is a fund to help open source developers get a lawyer and go after people who are infringing on their copyrights.

    It's high time (the SCO case should have made this obvious) that we in the OS community quit acting like laws only work for companies and start going on the offensive against companies that are infringing on our copyrights. The fact that SCO continues to distribute the Linux kernel even though they've rejected the GPL, for example, means that they're violating copyright law. There is talk of Linux code in SCO's operating system.

    We need to start defending our IP. Perhaps the fund could specify that when you win, a percentage of the winnings go back into the fund.

    Michael
  • It seems to me that this thing could be self funding. If, for example, most of the major contributors to the Linux kernel were to offer a 50% stake in the awards in exchange for OSN handling the legal aspect, OSN could do copyright infringement settlements in cases like the Cisco Linux based routers that were being shipped without offering source code (I think it was Cisco), and full blown litigation with companies like SCO (who is continuing to distribute the Linux kernel in direct violation of the GPL).
  • Why do they insist on making that page look like something out of the communist revolution?

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close