Bruce Perens

I often get emails from well-meaning people who are passing along warnings that were passed to them by a friend. While some of these messages are true, some are not, and that is why you should NEVER pass along ANY email that encourages you to do so.

One of the most recent was about a virus masquerading as a FedEx shipment notification.

If you pass along an email that actually happens to be true, you are also likely to pass along one that has some unsavory motive behind it. It might be that someone is attempting to get you and others to do something that makes you more vulnerable in some way.

Many messages are not actively harmful, but are created by net dweebs who get their rocks off by seeing a million people do some silly thing that they advised them to do in a pass-around message on the internet. Every time they see their message come back through some network of total strangers, it entertains them.

Real experts, regardless of the topic, will never ask you to pass along a warning in email, because they are aware of how important it is that people only get such information from a reliable source.

Most of these messages refer to some safety or security issue, but one of the most famous of them urged people to send postcards to a dying boy. Years after the boy recovered, he was still getting thousands of postcards and it was a hardship to his family and even the post office. My favorite is the Kidney Stealing Hoax.

So, next time you see one of those pass-around emails, please refrain, no matter how well-meaning it seems.

It's easy to legislate a preference for Open Source, and difficult to implement a level playing field upon which Open Source and proprietary software could compete fairly. Thus, a number of governments have enacted the preference as an easy-to-legislate way of solving the problem, but I submit not optimally. Having a preference gives proprietary software an opening to portray themselves as the "injured party", when the reality is that historically there has been a preference for proprietary software in both legislation and internal process of government purchasers, and this still exists today.

What would we need to implement a level playing field for Open Source and proprietary software to compete fairly?

No Software Patenting

Software patents discriminate against Open Source because Open Source developers do not themselves collect royalties for their copyright rights, and thus can't pass royalties on to patent holders. In general, software patents encourage litigation rather than innovation, as can be shown by the tremendous amount of innovation in Open Source today, which operates without the collection of royalties.

Open Standards, or at least Publicly Documented Formats and Protocols

Historically, proprietary software vendors have used incompatibility to limit the options of their customers: Once you've installed an important but non-interoperable product, its incompatibility limits what other products you may buy to those that implement the proprietary format or protocol. To change direction, a customer must replace all software, taking so much time and money that few ever try.

Open Standards are best, but they take time to develop. Governments should prefer the use of Open Standards that can be implemented by both proprietary and Open Source software. They should require that the file formats and intercommunication protocols of the software they buy be publicly documented, and available for anyone to use without royalties or discriminatory licensing. An insistence on documentation and the applicable rights allows innovation to take place more quickly than if vendors were required to wait for the completion of a standard, but there is no excuse for gratuitous use of new formats and protocols when appropriate Open Standards already exist.

Equal Representation, and Visibility of Lobbying

It's been obvious, whenever I talk with government, that there's a well-staffed Microsoft lobbying organization nearby, as well as intermediaries who act for them like CompTIA. Against them, there's been a low or no-budget representation for Open Source, sometimes just me all alone. And of course the proprietary software companies can afford more advertising and they create lavish events to promote themselves.

To level out this situation, and many others, we need required public reporting of all lobbying, including the parties present, the time and duration of the meeting, and the topics discussed. The general public should be able to see that information on the internet with no more than a day's delay, if they are to have a chance to offset the effect of the deep-pockets lobbyists.

In addition, there needs to be legislation protecting and promoting the access of the less-grandly-funded to those in government who have or will receive other lobbies, so that there can be balance of representation.

Evaluation

It should not be permissible for a government purchase decision to fail to evaluate Open Source alternatives, even if there is no preference for such alternatives.

 

Once we have implemented these provisions for fairness, a direct preference for Open Source would not be necessary. I believe that Open Source will win a majority of software acquisition decisions on a fair playing field.

With the rise of internet-connected alarms, VoIP, webcams, etc., it is becoming common for a 911 dispatcher to receive a call for an emergency outside of that dispatcher's area. The National Emergency Number Association provides information to 911 dispatchers on how to contact the proper emergency responders for other areas. They're based on Open Source software, primarily Drupal. They're quite proud of it. See their brag page.

Netflix has already had a million-dollar contest to develop optimization for a page that suggests films to its users based on their previous orders. They've aborted a second contest due to concerns of customer data privacy. But they're ignoring a really crucial shortcoming in their site that would make it much more optimal: who are you selecting movies for?

Whenever I visit their site, it offers me Movies with a Strong Female Lead. Sorry, Netflix, that's my wife Valerie. Romantic comedies too. And then there's Feel Good Family and Children's Films. Uh, that's Stanley. And believe it or not, Valerie and I don't always watch Stanley's films with him, and I might not watch the chick flicks with Valerie. Some of these are delivered online, too, so they aren't ever in our mailed-DVD queue.

So, why doesn't Netflix recognize that many families that purchase an account are actually ordering for at least two different customer groups? Valerie doesn't really need to see the same screen that I do, but currently she doesn't have any other options as we both use the same login.

Feel free to send the Million my way, Netflix. :-)

I've written about the conclusion of Jacobsen v. Katzer, including my participation as an expert witness.

Here's my testimony.

I've enjoyed writing for Datamation. They got a good audience for my articles, and they paid for them. I generally write at the paid publication level, which I hope is somewhat above the level you'd expect from a blogger.

Unfortunately, Datamation's new owner won't revert articles to authors after a time. This means that I can't use the articles in a book, or on my own web site. That's not acceptable.

My articles often are derived from my strategic consulting work - with the customer name and specifics carefully removed. I must own them, because I don't want to be in the situation of having my consulting work be considered "derivative" of some article when it's actually the other way around.

So, I'm looking for a new online publisher who is willing to pay for writing, and will revert rights appropriately. Most of my articles get Slashdotted, so it's a good deal for the publisher.

Interested? email bruce at perens dot com, or call 510-904-3064.

Statement on Busybox Lawsuits

Bruce Perens

I am the creator of the Busybox program which is currently subject to lawsuits brought by Mr. Erik Andersen and the Software Freedom Law Center, and which was subject to previous suits brought by SFLC, Mr. Andersen and Mr. Robert Landley.

First, I'd like to point out that I'm not represented in these lawsuits, and that the parties and the Software Freedom Law Center have never attempted to contact me with regard to them. As far as I am aware, and under advice of various attorneys, I still hold an interest in Busybox through both content and compilation copyrights. As present Busybox development is a direct continuation of my original work on the project, much of the current code base is a derivative work of my copyrighted code.

The basic claim of the lawsuits is that the GPL license terms must be followed by all parties that distribute works containing GPL software. I support this claim. The GPL terms are simple and are complied with by many companies. For example, see the distribution of source code by SONY at http://products.sel.sony.com/opensource/ . This straightforward distribution of the source code embedded in hundreds of their television models and other products doesn't appear to cause them any hardship.

Busybox does not endanger the proprietary software of any company that makes the most trivial effort to comply with its license. Such software need only be placed in a separate executable file from Busybox, and will thus be insulated from any license obligations of Busybox. These companies are obligated to distribute the Busybox source code, not their own source code, and to provide the Busybox license statement where appropriate. Thus, companies don't fall out of compliance with the GPL license on the busybox software unless they fail to exercise the slightest bit of due diligence, and then fail to respond appropriately when contacted by copyright holders who seek to remedy the situation. It is only after protracted failure to respond that non-compliant parties are pursued for damages.

In short, nobody violates the Busybox license (or indeed any Free Software license) for a smart reason.

Unfortunately, all of this is confusing my strategic consulting customers. Thus, I will offer them a waiver of my interest where appropriate. I will also offer a waiver to those companies that use my assistance in coming in to compliance with the Busybox license, at my usual consulting rate for that assistance rather than "damages" related to my copyright, regardless of their past or present infringement.

I  have some complaints regarding Mr. Andersen, Mr. Landley, and the Software Freedom Law Center.

SFLC, which is supposed to represent Free Software developers without charge and without prejudice, seems to have been selective in which of the Busybox developers it chooses to represent, and has in the past been either guarded or hostile in its correspondence when contacted by other developers of the Busybox program.

The version 0.60.3 of Busybox upon which Mr. Andersen claims copyright registration in the lawsuits is to a great extent my own work and that of other developers. I am not party to the registration. It is not at all clear that Mr. Andersen holds a majority interest in that work.

Mr. Andersen, his past employers and Mr. Landley appear to have removed some of the copyright statements of other Busybox developers, and appear to have altered license statements, in apparent violation of various laws. Mr. Landley once claimed that all of my contribution had been completely removed from the Busybox program, using a misinterpretation of Judge Walker's methods for identifying non-literal copying to justify his claim. As far as I'm aware, he was incorrect.

Much as other Busybox developers wish to support the general cause of getting companies to comply with simple Free Software Licenses, some of the other developers and I are becoming annoyed with Mr. Andersen and Mr. Landley's apparent violation of our own rights, and SFLC's treatment of our interest. We have held off, to date, to avoid confusing issues, but our patience is limited.

Bruce Perens

Ex employees of Monta Vista, the embedded Linux company, are telling me that they are being paid $0 for the sale of their company to Cavium Networks while USD$44 Million goes to the holders of three series of preferred stock. CEO Jim Ready and another executive are taking parachute payments and either retention or severance payments to the tune of 1 to 2 Million a piece in addition to anything they make from holdings in the preferred rounds.

I wasn't aware that Monta Vista went bankrupt, and a merger or purchase of a company isn't a liquidation, so I'm not at all clear how they can pay only the preferred stockholders. The employees need a good securities attorney.

Here are some articles I've written on Open Source and Business:

• How many Open Source Licenses do you Need?
  
• Combining GPL and Proprietary Software
  
• A Vertical Market Seeks Open Standards
  
• Is Open Source Capitalist or Communist?
  
• A Big Change for Open Source
  

A "security" company called "cenzic" claims that Firefox has 44% of web browser security vulnerabilities while Microsoft Internet Explorer has only 15%. But their report offers no substantiation: just a pie chart which we are to take on faith and not a shred of data regarding how they arrived at the figures. Want to bet that Microsoft sponsored the report?

What is even more irksome is that Slashdot founder Rob Malda gave this the headline "Firefox Most Vulnerable Browser, Safari Close" - which makes it sound like a fact - when even a brief look at the report would have told him the company had nothing to back up their claim. Rob should know better. Most of the Slashdot readers who bothered to post a comment were able to conclude quickly enough that the report had no substance.

The Olswang law firm will be holding an Open Source Summit in London on 1-December-2009. Bruce Perens will keynote. Mr. Perens reprises his keynote appearance at the first such summit in 2007. The summit will be held from 8:30 AM to 11 AM. For an invitation, email sophie.lang at olswang dot com

There seems to be an epidemic of fake flash memory, sold at flea markets, on eBay, etc. SOSFakeFlash has a ton of information.