Eben talks about "When Software is in Everything: Future Liability Nightmares Free Software Helps Avoid" to the Scottish Society for Computers and Law (SSCL) in Edinburgh, Scotland on June 30. Karen and Bradley introduce the talk to listeners.
Running time: 00:52:06.
Show Notes
Segment 0
The transcript of Eben's speech is available on our website.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled en banc, in October of 2008. That decision is available here(5:12).
Bradley reminds listeners and Karen that the Court of Appeals decision was discussed on the oggcast with Scott Peterson in Episode 0x01: The Engineer and the Lawyer. (6:33)
The transcript from the Supreme Court oral argument from November is available here. You can hear UCLA law students reading the transcript aloud on the IP Colloquium blog. (10:56)
The Bilski decision was published on the last day of the Supreme Court's term. (11:10)
The "slip opinion", which Dan reads from, is available on the Supreme Court's website here. (15:02)
Stare decisis is the principle by which legal precedent is established.(16:31)
You can read the text of Section 101 on the patent office's website.(31:14)
Aaron and Bradley discussed the Supreme Court patent history, including the Benson and Flook cases, on the oggcast in Episode 0x18: Re Bilski’s Briefs. (31:50)
Bradley, Dan and Karen all looked up the definition of pellucid. (44:45)
Dan talks about the book Patent Failure by James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer. (55:51)
Dan recommends that Breyer's opinion, which is the last few pages of the decision publication, is the place to go if you want to only read a few pages of the opinions. (1:00:30)
Bradley discusses the difference between i.e. and e.g. (1:04:30)
Karen and Bradley briefly talk about waiting for the Bilski case to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Running time: 08:39.
Show Notes
Segment 0 (00:35)
SFLC's office was under construction so Bradley and Karen were in different places, which is why Karen sounds like she is underwater. Producer Dan made it sound a lot better than the original audio! (01:02)
Karen, Bradley and Aaron talk about SFLC's motion for default judgment against Westinghouse Digital Electronics, a defendant in the ongoing lawsuit concerning GPL violations of BusyBox.
Running time: 38:15.
Show Notes
Segment 0 (00:33)
Bradley quoted from Act I Scene II of Hamlet, in which he once played Bernardo in a college production. Karen never played Bernardo (01:02)
The Bilski decision once again did not come out this week. The Supreme Court publishes all decisions on its website. The SCOTUS blog provides up to date information about the court schedule, including a live blog on the mornings when decisions are announced.(03:03)
Karen thinks that Aaron and Bradley do not know that the cake is a lie. (03:54)
SFLC filed a motion in the Southern District of New York against Westinghouse Digital Electronics, a defendant in the ongoing lawsuit concerning GPL violations of BusyBox. (05:10)
The original complaint in the ongoing case can be found here. (08:05)
The motion for default judgment or summary judgment can be found here. (09:00)
Karen mentioned Serving Sara, so we provide the obligatory IMDB link. Other sources for how service should be provided would probably be more reliable. (15:30)
Sewer service, as described by Aaron, is invalid service. Or you can use google, but that will mostly teach you about sewers and their maintenance. (18:46)
Karen and Bradley play Dan Ravicher's speech from a conference held by Freedom to Innovate South Africa (FTISA) in Pretoria on software patents.
Running time: 52:51.
Show Notes
Segment 0 (00:33)
Karen and Bradley thank listeners for providing ideas for future episodes. (01:05)
Dan Ravicher, our “elusive” guest, is the Legal Director of SFLC. (02:40)
The Bilski decision did not come out this week. The Supreme Court publishes all decisions on its website. The SCOTUS blog provides up to date information about the court schedule, including a live blog on the mornings when decisions are announced.(03:34)
Karen mentioned Patent Absurdity, a short movie that features Dan (Karen's also interviewed). (06:21)
Bradley and Karen discuss whether or not proprietary software is
“evil”, mention the new documentary film about patents, and
discuss briefly new non-profit filing requirements.
Bradley and Karen discuss the obligations and details of serving on a
Board of Directors of a not-for-profit organization. Following that,
they briefly discuss The Open Source Business Conference and
LibrePlanet conference.
Running time: 01:00:18.
Show Notes
Segment 0 (00:31)
Bradley mentioned the older RFC 822 but, probably
meant RFC 821 could not
remember that RFC
2821 is the RFC that supersedes it. (02:14)
Aaron, Karen and Bradley discuss issues around the public domain and
how it relates to copyright in general and copyrights on software in
particular.
Running time: 00:58:13.
Show Notes
Segment 0 (00:36)
Aaron, Bradley, and Karen consider Aaron's status as a
“special host”. Bradley wondered if that meant Aaron hosted a
parasite. (Aaron subsequently got sick two days after recording, and is now playing the role of a biological “special host”.)
Bradley joked that copyright never expires in the USA due to
retroactive extensions enacted by Congress. Aaron noted the Sony
Bono 1998 Copyright Extension Act was the most recent act to do
this. (05:47, 06:28)
Public domain dedications are relatively easy in the USA, but moral
rights issues in European jurisdictions make public domain
dedications difficult. (17:19)
The Berne
Convention respects the issue of public domain, insofar as
something definitely in the public domain in one country doesn't fall
under copyright restrictions in other countries, but doesn't do much
more than that regarding public domain. (17:30)
Creative Commons wrote CC0 to attempt to
harmonize public domain dedication around the world. (18:53)
Bradley pointed out that the “WTFPL” license FAQ
points out that it exists in part because of difficulties in putting
things in the public domain in some jurisdictions. (25:36)
Bradley encouraged use of \textsc{} in LaTeX instead of
writing in all caps, but laments that lawyers he's talked to about it
can't be convinced. (34:30)
Black's Law Dictionary says public domain is the rule;
intellectual property is the exception. Bradley lamented that he
wishes that were actually true. (35:17)
Karen mentioned the slides of her talk would be on the SFLC
website. (14:20)
Trademark rights originate when you use a certain name and/or
logo. (15:30)
You have to use the mark “in commerce” (though for a
short period of time you can file for registration with
“intent to use”); to have the mark; however, the rules
and lingo seem a bit “old fashioned” when focused on online
publication and distribution of free software. (16:30)
The most obvious benefit of registering a trademark is that
registration is clear notice that the mark is being used, and creates a
presumption of notice and ownership. (18:15)
The Madrid Protocol is
a treaty that helps people who have registered trademarks in one
country to easily obtain registrations in other countries. (27:05)
Trademarks are indefinite. A trademark can be kept as long as you
maintain it and continue to use it. Copyrights, by contrast, are
supposed to be limited by how long they can be held (but in reality
don't seem to be, due to copyright extension lobby). (37:15)
Karen recommends that Free Software projects adopt explicit
trademark policies that explicitly permit all the types of uses that
the project wants to permit. (47:13)
Trademark implies some sort of quality control; “naked
licensing” refers to giving a license without monitoring
quality. (48:50)
Trademark policy statements can be good tools to help handle
“naked licensing” issues. (52:10)
Karen and Bradley welcome Laura Moy, who joins them in studio to
discuss the issues of software freedom with medical devices.
Running time: 00:50:54.
Show Notes
Segment 0 (00:32)
Bradley missed the opportunity to point out the classic “man
in the street” interview has a Latin phrase to describe it, vox populi. Bradley
could not find a definitive link that describes the origins of the
“man in the street” interview, but did find references to
it in the 1950s, and therefore it predates the origin date mentioned on
the show (02:02)
Some medical heart devices have a wireless interface. (08:14)
Karen and Bradley discuss an update on the Google Books Settlement,
some follow up from 0x1F regarding feedback on the mobile phones show,
and discuss Karen's
new position as General Counsel.
In the last show, we forgot to mention the Mer project, which is trying to
build a fully Free Software system for the N900 and related
devices. (07:02)
Bradley mentioned that there is a #replicant IRC channel on
irc.freenode.net (26:56), and a Replicant
mailing list. (27:32)
We briefly discussed Symbian
and that fact that someday it's supposed to be fully freed. However,
Bradley mentioned that the governance
is fully corporate
controlled and they don't even have a working build that can be
installed on a modern phone using Free Software yet. (31:10)
Richard
Fontana, who is an Open Source Licensing and Patent Counsel at Red Hat.
Richard Fontana is an Open Source Licensing and Paten Counsel at Red
Hat. (01:44)
Fontana and Bradley discussed at length the “folk
wisdom” about LGPLv2 that
differs from the letter of the terms, and how it compares to LGPLv3.
Specifically, the text in LGPLv2§3
that reads:
To do this, you must alter all the notices
that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU
General Public License, version 2, instead of to this
License.
(13:19, 15:24)
Fontana compared the legal interpretation and practices around Free
Software to the medieval “lex
mercatoria” (18:56)
Fontana pointed out that the lex mercatoria is, in some ways, the
basis of the Uniform
Commercial Code. (19:50)
Bradley discussed that developers tend to dislike CC-0 due to its
complexity because they prefer simpler (although perhaps less
effective) public domain dedications. (40:38)
Segment 2 (44:19)
Karen points out that license interpretation is often an exercise
in risk analysis. (45:02)
Karen talked about Sun's
2009-11-09 8K SEC filing that broke the story about
the European Commission raising questions about the Sun/Oracle
merger.(02:15)
Bradley thinks the proprietary relicensing business model that
Michael Widenius supports is on that has run its course and
probably should not be used anymore (20:54)
Segment 1 (22:16)
Bradley said that if it were up to him, all published and deployed
software in the world would be Free Software, and he wishes that the
European Commission would require that for the merger to go through,
but it's not their mandate to do such things. (23:50)
Bradley said if he could make a wish, that he'd wish the European
Commission would put the MySQL code base into a non-profit entity
chartered to never make MySQL proprietary, and to release it under
GPLv3-or-later. (25:45)
Bradley pointed out that it might be good if before that, Oracle
releases MySQL under GPLv3 to get the extra patent assurances, although
Karen points out Eben's letter raises the issue that there is an
implicit patent assurance from the GPLv2 release of MySQL
already. (26:01)
Bradley talked briefly off-topic about the file, Double
Indemnity. (26:30)
Bradley mentions Oracle's ownership of MySQL copyrights is
dangerous because Oracle's goal is to take away software freedom from
the world with regard to databases, by trying to get all users to
switch to proprietary databases, and that they are likely to use the
MySQL codebase toward this horrible mission. (29:40)
Bradley pointed out that any organization that isn't committing to
releasing all its software as Free Software is a dangerous place for
centralized copyright of a FLOSS codebase. (32:04)
Karen is skeptical about for-profit corporate control of Free
Software because they will always focus on shareholder value over
software freedom principles. (36:08)
Bradley pointed out that he believes the software freedom world
would be better off if Oracle had not ported their proprietary
databases to GNU/Linux. (38:00)
Bradley and Karen mentioned that the one year anniversary on
2009-11-11. (41:31)
Bradley and Karen let folks know that we are releasing the podcast
early so that folks traveling for the holiday in the USA can get it
early and listen to it while traveling.
Segment 1 (01:35)
Bradley mentioned PRI as well as NPR to be fair to Ira
Glass. (02:20)
Jeremy noted that the Active Directory support has been the most
easily implemented technical outcome of the EU agreement. (07:03)
Jeremy noted that the documentation from Microsoft received through
the EU has somewhat taken the fun out of development of Samba,
since network analysis is less necessary. (07:47)
Jeremy mentioned his colleague Tridge's very good article describing
the French
café technique of protocol analysis. (08:10)
Mike is the longest serving employee of Creative
Commons. (06:56)
CC-by-SA is the most popular Creative Commons license with the software
freedom crowd. (13:40)
CC-Attribution is another license type that
Mike mentioned (14:00)
Mike quoted from various sections of CC-by-SA to
make the point that there are methods to avoid misrepresentation
(19:15)
Mike pointed out fair use can even be used to misrepresent a
person's views, so prohibiting derivative works for that purpose
sometimes doesn't even help. (24:00)
Mike, Bradley and Karen discussed issues related to autonomo.us. (33:00)
Segment 2 (38:47)
Mike and Karen will follow up to discuss whether CC-By-SA would be a
better license for the Software Freedom Law Show or other works by lawyers. (39:20)
Bradley and Karen discuss the USA IRS Form
990, which non-profit donors can use to understand and check up on
the activities of charitable organizations in the USA.
Bradley mentioned GuideStar, which is a place you
can find Form 990s at no charge for non-profits in the USA. Bradley
noted that you have to sign up for an account to use their search, but
the 990 downloads are at no charge. (10:15)
Bradley mentioned that the Boost
Project, a member project of Conservancy, has has an annual
conference, the revenue from which appears on Line 2 of the
Conservancy's Form 990. (21:23)
Karen mentioned Form 990 Line 3 is usually large for 501(c)(6)
organizations, since most of their funds come from membership fees
(23:30)
Organizations have to file a form with the State or Commonwealth
where the organization is incorporated. (43:55)
New York has more requirements than many states and
commonwealths. New York organizations often need a limited review or
an audit by an accounting firm.
Conservancy made its New York State
FY 2008CHAR-500 (PDF) available as well (44:32)