Disqus - Latest Comments for Mark Blafkin

Re: iPatents?

Mark Blafkin — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:25:13 -0000

Tim, thanks for taking the time to read my post, I just wish you had taken a little time read some history before you responded. Your arguments are part of the mythology of your Free Software, anti-patent crowd, so I guess I'll forgive you for not taking the time to question the faith. To help in your deprogramming, however, I offer a few bits of history at the ACT Blog from someone who was actually alive and conscious during the 1980s.

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » GPL 3.0: v. (for Vendetta)

Mark Blafkin — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:25:49 -0000

Tim, Have you even read the GPL? Versions 1, 2, or 3? I'm actually amazed that you're even trying to continue arguing this point.

The FSF and the GPL itself actively attempt to limit collaboration between proprietary and free software communities. As you'll find in the article previously mentioned, Mr. Stallman says that it is better for GNU/Linux to not support video cards rather than include a proprietary binary.

In fact, the entire basis of the GPL is to frustrate cooperation between the immoral proprietary software guys and free software. The viral nature of the GPL (if you use code and integrate or build upon it, your code must become GPL) is designed to prevent that cooperation because it will lessen the freedom of the free software itself.

And, yes, it is hypocritical if you define freedom in the way that Libertarian's define freedom, but not if you believe in the FSF version of freedom. When they say "freedom," they don't mean freedom in the sense that we mean it, Tim. It is four things and four things only... Those four issues trump all other definitions/aspects of freedom that you and I may hold. So, they would see no hypocrisy in preventing users from the freedom of using proprietary software, because the proprietary software is enslaving them anyway (if you buy the logic).

Finally, here is your answer: we have NO hostility to Free Software developers adding whatever terms they want to their software. They can make every user wear purple muumuu's on Thursday's if they want. It is their right. They are free to do it and enforce it. Whether anyone would use it afterward, whether it may harm the uptake of Free Software in the future... those are the questions we are addressing.

Re: Blafkin on the GPL and Proprietary Software

Mark Blafkin — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:30:46 -0000

I really need to stop taking weekends off from blogging, and clear my Monday meeting schedule.

Tim, you are missing the forest for the trees. Yes, there isn't anything in the GPL that prevents distribution of the proprietary video card drivers alongside free software. But, doesn't it seem odd to you that Linux has to distribute separate binaries for the drivers? In the Windows, Mac, Unix operating system INTEGRATE those drivers directly into the OS. Why doesn't Linux? Because the GPL specifically forbids it!

I'm late to this thread, so I decided to provide a more detailed response over at the ACT Blog

Actually, it is Crosbie who seems to have the best understanding of the GPL, the FSF, and their raison d'etre. He gave a perfect description of the reasoning and effect of the GPL when he tried to explain how a "license that nullifies your privilege of being able to suspend the liberty of the public, is actually FREER than one that gives you 'freedom' to bind the manacles of copyright and patent upon your fellow men." Tim, read and learn.

I don't share the beliefs of the FSF like Crosbie, but I think they have every right to hold them and advocate for them. Our only point at ACT is that the new GPL in particular may limit the adoption of free/open source software in the future. For Richard Stallman, ideology comes before business success. I'm just not sure the same goes for IBM, Red Hat, and others more pragmatic voices.

Re: GPL v.3 - I Care Because Markets Care

Mark Blafkin — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:25:09 -0000

Since Braden is off doing real work today, I think I'll step in to this one.

Yes, ACT is an education and advocacy organization that represents more than 3000 companies world wide. One of those companies is Microsoft.

It is perfectly reasonable to look at funding sources to help understand what issues we follow and why we may take our positions. HOWEVER, it is ridiculous to dismiss our arguments simply on that fact alone (which is what enigma would seemingly like to do).

This is supposed to be a forum based on solid facts and reason. Ad hominem attacks have no place here. If you're going to question our facts or our reasoning, question them. Just saying "Microsoft gives you money, therefore you must be wrong" is the adult equivalent of "Don't listen to him, he's got girl cooties!!" If we were just asserting that the "GPLv3 kills Puppies" without backing it up with facts or logic, the role of our supporters would be an important factor. But, I think everyone can agree that isn't the case.

Richard also makes a great point...it's particularly egregious for someone hiding behind a pseudonym to be making ad hominem attacks.

Re: GPL v.3 - I Care Because Markets Care

Mark Blafkin — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:18:36 -0000

Doug, it seems that there was a misunderstanding there. Braden did not intend to imply that he was completely "analytically removed" from the situation, merely that he was not part of the crowds who are in violent disagreement. That is why he said: "I’m less visceral and more analytically removed (not to imply that others aren’t analytical)." For him, it isn't about ideology, it's about reason. He comes at this with a legal and business background (others at ACT are from the programmer ranks).

If you've met Braden, you'd realize he's not visceral about anything. He's got this whole dispassionate, libertarian-zen thing going on. And, no amount of money in the world would turn him into a Richard Stallman or a Steve Ballmer.

Perhaps I also misunderstood enigma's intentions with his post. However, given what Braden wrote and quoted, I'm not sure that our relationship with Microsoft really provides any insight into the value of analysis.

Finally Doug, thanks for the advice. I believe we already are well down that path, as we do disclose on our website and in our press releases who are supporters are. One addition, however, is that many of our members (both small and large) use both the proprietary and open source licenses for their software. Microsoft and other primarily proprietary software companies, don't care about the future of the GPL nearly as much as these guys do.

Re: Free Software and the Big Picture

Mark Blafkin — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:12:17 -0000

You ask me to look closely at what you wrote, but can't be bothered to do the same for me?

I have never been so poorly paraphrased in my life. How on earth did you get:

"Mark Blafkin concedes I’m right that the GPL respects the freedom of users to choose whether to use proprietary software alongside free software."

from this???

"There isn't anything in the GPLv2 or current drafts of version 3 that actively prevents free software distributors from shipping proprietary binaries alongside free software. Unfortunately, Tim is missing the forest for the trees.

In the Mac, Windows, Unix and all non-free software operating systems, many proprietary video and audio card drivers are seemlessly integrated into the software. Free Software distributors are forced to ship them as separate binaries (if their moral compass even allows them to do so), which is a klugey solution at best. And why are they forced to do this? Because the GPL demands it. It prevents the integration of proprietary and open source code. If you are a believer in the Free Software cause, this is sacrifice you're willing to make, but for the rest of the world... well, we just want things to work.

The GPL is designed to PREVENT users from choosing whether to use proprietary software alongside free software. The only way to integrate proprietary software with free software is to make the proprietary software FREE."

The only thing I conceded is that there is a loophole (that Stallman hasn't found a way to close yet) in the GPL that allows distributors to ship proprietary binaries on the same CD as free software, but they can't be part of the same program/system. The GPL is designed to make it as difficult possible (and GPLv3 more so) to run both proprietary and free software at the same time. If you believe in the Free Software creedo, that is fine. It is an all or nothing ideology. The FSF and Stallman in particular have no interest in making it easy or giving you the freedom to run proprietary software alongside free software. If you thought proprietary software was evil, you wouldn't want it to integrate either.

Finally, here is the biggest problem with your logical gymnastics on the OpenOffce issue. You state:

Stallman objects to integrating free and proprietary software, because it runs the risk of undermining users’ freedoms. But he’s never objected to interoperability between free and proprietary software.

What you're missing is that achieving interoperability with proprietary software OFTEN requires the USE of proprietary software. DVD player software is just one instance that requires the use of properietary code to achieve interop. It is the reason while you will NEVER see a Free Software version of a legal DVD player. And yes, he has objected to the creation of any Free Software that includes DRM technology...and interoperability is often a function of being able to use/read DRM. Even if you hate DRM, you must admit that it is a form of interoperability that Stallman is clearly against.

Re: Free Software and the Big Picture

Mark Blafkin — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:33:11 -0000

Steve, I am NOT condemning the GPL. I was merely trying to correct Tim's misunderstanding of the way the GPL works and his inaccurate assertion that the GPL does not effectively force the FSF ideology on its users.

Proprietary, Open Source , and Free Software developers (the only exception being those using BSD and Public Domain licenses) put restrictions on how you can use their software. They have every right to do so.

Re: Free Software and the Big Picture

Mark Blafkin — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:25:16 -0000

That's great, Doug! Too bad you're not the arbiter of what is legal and what is not legal :-)

But, I'm sure you get my point.

Re: The TSA Metastasizes

Mark Blafkin — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:59:03 -0000

My personal favorite is when they tell you you can't bring those little reusable shampoo bottles on the plane, but you can bring mini bottles of brand name shampoo....because somehow, that's just safer.

Re: No Economics

Mark Blafkin — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:00:44 -0000

I think Bob has an important point, but makes the mistake of trying stretch it to apply to the entire industry.

Personally, I think the music industry is poised for major overhaul as most here suggest. It is filled with layers upon layers of parasitic middlemen getting fat on the work of the actual creators.

The Internet and the various new distribution technologies it enables, give artists an amazing ability to cut out the middlemen. Following the success in travel and trading industries, musicians are poised to grab more control over their futures than they had during the past 50 years.

So, I suggest the real lesson might not be that "all recorded music should be given away," but that "artists must use technology to remove the middlemen and then choose their own model."

As Bob suggests, hungry twenty-something artists that are just interested in making the music they love and couch surfing can and are giving away their recording for free...more power to them! They can follow that model toward ascetic stardom.

However, Bob is too busy making his "you old people just don't understand" point, to the more complex reality.

While there are a lot of single, hungy, and ideological twenty something artists out there, there are many more that aren't. There are a lot of great artists that have kids and mortgages and need a way to pay for them. It may not be through CD or download sales, but why should that option be precluded?

If Jack White wants to stop touring and spend more time at home with his wife and kids, I want him to have a way to support them. If that means selling copies of the new Icky Thump then I'm all for it!

In the end, Bob needs to recognize that most of those artists he's talking about will eventually grow up. They aren't Peter Pan. And if they have to choose between their art and supporting their families, drug habits, what-have-you, well...those are difficult choices I hope they aren't forced to make.

Re: Loopholes

Mark Blafkin — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:30:13 -0000

Oh Tim... there you go again! You're awfully punchy this afternoon.

You got me. I may have misused the term "loophole." I bow before your superior use of Dictionary.com.

Let me try to explain it differently. The GPL is written to protect Stallman's Four Freedoms. Section 2b of the GPL is specifically designed to prevent distribution of GPL programs that integrate non-free code into GPL code, because this would inherently limit the users freedoms.
Section 2b says that you can copy and distribute GPL programs provided that:

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Think about it this way. This provision essentially says that you can't distribute cakes that have proprietary milk and GPL eggs in them. It doesn't, however, prevent the distribution of a box that includes that proprietary milk, GPL eggs, BSD flour, Apache sugar, and specific directions on how to turn them into a cake. That ability is protected by the provision that you cite.

However, does that practice (i.e. The shipping of separate proprietary video drivers with Ubuntu Linux with the intent of mixing them together on the end machine) really fit within the spirit of the GPL and its Four Freedoms?

No Way! How do I know that? Because Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen have said it over and over again. Here are just a few examples:

In a 2006 CNET article, Eben Moglen said very specifically that:

If the kernel's terms were unambiguously GPL, which they are apparently not, (proprietary drivers) would be forbidden.

In addition, Stallman told an interviewer that:

To "argue" in favor of adding non-free software in GNU/Linux distros is almost superfluous, since that's what nearly all of them have already done. This reflects the general spinelessness of our community. Most of its members have never heard the philosophy of
freedom and community which motivated the GNU Project to build the community, and most care more about convenience than freedom.

In his piece on Free Software after 20 years, Stallman wrote that:

Today we have a large community of users who run GNU, Linux and other free software. Thousands of people would like to extend this, and have adopted the goal of convincing more computer users to "use free software". But what does it mean to "use free software"? Does that mean escaping from proprietary software, or merely installing free programs alongside it? Are we aiming to lead people to freedom, or just introduce them to our work? In other words, are we working for freedom, or have we replaced that goal with the shallow goal of popularity?

The GPL explicitly allows the distributors to ship separate binaries on the same CD that include GPL and proprietary software. The fact that some distributors use that to create a cake for the end user is clearly something Stallman did NOT intend. Call it what you will, but it still sounds like a loophole to me.

Re: Felten on DRM and Security through Obscurity

Mark Blafkin — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:07:17 -0000

Ah, but it seems you've stumbled onto one of the biggest misconceptions about DRM: that is designed to be unbreakable.

You're right, it's inherently unprotectable when it is up against professional researchers and hackers. But, that isn't the point of DRM.

As even the AA's admit, DRM is about keeping honest people honest. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to create a speedbump that will limit the amount of copying and distribution done by everyday consumers. It won't stop professional hackers or criminals, because it isn't designed to stop them.

Re: Loopholes

Mark Blafkin — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:54:50 -0000

Wow, you remind me of my ex-girlfriend. No matter what I say, you only hear what you want to hear, and refuse to ever admit when you're wrong.

What part of Eben Moglen's legal opinion that, "If the kernel's terms were unambiguously GPL, which they are apparently not, (proprietary drivers) would be forbidden" do you not understand?

Let me try to explain it like a computer program:

IF Program = 100% GPL

THEN No Proprietary Code Allowed

GOTO IF

REPEAT

Please excuse my syntax, it's been awhile.

Perhaps the problem is that you don't really understand the word "collaboration." As defined by Dictionary.com:

To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort.

This is about working together on a single effort like a novel, not slapping together a couple of random short stories into collection. Interoperability is a completely different concept too, so please stop trying to conflate them.

Please try re-reading my reply, especially the cake analogy again, because I think is really instructive. If you take the time to try to understand, you're surely realize that the GPL not only prevents Microsoft from expropriating GPL code (which is great and it is clearly one goal of the license), but it ALSO makes it very difficult for collaborative projects that include both GPL and non-GPL code. Perhaps you should take this conversation up with Eben Moglen, I'm sure he would set you straight.

Re: Loopholes

Mark Blafkin — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:02:08 -0000

Braden, thanks for toning down the debate and getting us back on track.

Tim, I think you’re absolutely right that we’re now just debating the meaning of "collaboration." Which is probably the reason we've been talking past each other for the past couple weeks.

I think your description of the types of collaboration allowed/not allowed are generally accurate, but I would offer a few addendums, etc, that I believe are important. You also got me thinking about some things I missed in our earlier discussion.

In other words, the only types of "collaboration" it restricts are the ones that involve companies putting other peoples' code into their products without permission.

I think that is generally right, but with a few important exceptions:

<ol><li>Free Software developers cannot integrate proprietary code (even with consent) into their software. This level of integration isn't always necessary, as we've discussed various workarounds, but there are many scenarios where this would be really helpful. One of the key areas of criticism for Linux and other Free Software programs is usability. You can't have Apple-type hit-the-power-button-and-create-a-video simplicity with a mixed source product (including GPL). Your point that "It does not restrict forms of collaboration that involve incorporating proprietary software into a free software product and releasing the whole thing under the GPL" is accurate, but the important part of the sentence is "releasing the whole thing under the GPL" which means that the proprietary code isn't proprietary anymore. So the consent of the proprietary developer must go beyond licensing the code to the Free Software developer and into giving up his rights to keep that code proprietary.</li>
<li>The restrictions of the GPL DEFINITELY don't prevent interoperability ("work better together") between FS and Proprietary, but they do limit some avenues. For proprietary formats, protocols, and technologies, GPL developers are often forced to reverse engineer rather than simply licensing reusable code. Since some of these things can also be covered by software patents (whether you believe in them or not, they still exist), the new patent language could limit some efforts at interop with those technologies. </li>
<li>The ingredients+directions in a box strategy works both ways. Microsoft could ship GPL binaries in a separate directory from Windows (and for all I know they already do) and then give user the directions for integrating them on their home/business computers. I doubt many GPL developers really want Microsoft using their code in anyway, but this is allowed under the GPL. </li></ol>

Actually, your point about dual-licensing schemes (ie MySQL, etc) is a really important one that I hadn't thought about in relationship to our discussion. Proprietary developers can go to a developer of GPL-based code and license their technology under an alternative proprietary license (if the GPL developer is interested in providing one). This would allow the proprietary developer to integrate that (formerly GPL) code seamlessly into their proprietary software package. Unfortuantely, I'm not sure this is an avenue that would be open to those creating GPL-based products.

There are a couple points, however, where you're a bit further off the mark.

The GPL gives Linus Torvalds and his fellow kernel developers the option of restricting the use of proprietary drivers in the Linux kernel, but if they want to permit proprietary drivers, there's nothing that Eben Moglen and Richard Stallman can do about it, because they're not parties to the contract.

The GPL technically is a copyright license, not a contract (although there are questions, especially in v3 if it would hold up as a license). Therefore you're interpretation is wrong; Stallman and Moglen don't need to be either the licensee or the licensor. It is Stallman and Moglen who have all the power in this equation. The FSF can (and has) file lawsuits against firms that it believes are misusing GPL code, even if they are not the copyright holder. In the end, the courts will be the final arbiter of who is right.

Second, I think you misunderstand why the FSF is pissed at Tivo. Tivo does provide all the changes to Linux it makes for use on the Tivo machine in accordance with the GPL. The Tivoization problem is a different thing entirely. As explained on Wikipedia:

So while TiVo has complied with the GPL v.2 requirement to release the source code for others to modify, any modified software will not run on TiVo's hardware.

So, the problem for Stallman and the FSF with Tivo, is that users can't hack the source code and run it on the Tivo hardware. For me, this seems more of an ideological point than a practical one of protecting the commons. Tivo does give back to the commons in accordance with the GPLv2. But, their business model is such that they are selling a service to you and subsidizing the hardware. It is similar to the game console markets (both Playstation and XBox are sold at big losses to Sony and MS). The anti-Tivo provision, therefore, would preclude this kind of business model for GPLv3 software. It may not be a terrible thing, but the embedded devices market was a very promising area for open source software.

Look forward to your thoughts on these issues, Tim. Glad we figured out we're a lot closer to agreement than the rhetoric would suggest too.

Re: Loopholes

Mark Blafkin — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:00:25 -0000

Enigma,

I have never said that the FSF is anti-Freedom. I have pointed out that that the FSF has a very specific definition of "freedom" (the Four Freedoms, 0-3), which not everyone would agree with. I've never tried to interpret the Four Freedoms in anyway other than in which they were written.

To be perfectly honest, I can't think of a single thing I've written, which the FSF would actually disagree with. Perhaps there are a couple words issues, but my facts are all well researched and backed up with the links.

I know it's odd for a blogger-type, but I actually spend a lot of time researching before I write. I want to make sure that I have my facts right and backed up with actual references before heading into the lions den. I know that people like you will always look skeptically at what I write, because of where I work. That is your right, and it wise to understand the point of view of author. But it isn't wise or productive to argue that "Mark says the sky is blue, therefore it must be purple" simply because of where I work.

If you want to refute my facts or arguments, do so with your own. I take the time to understand the subject before I write and back up my arguments. I would really appreciate it if you would do the same. Don't just fall back to calling me a "Microsoft Shill."

Re: Loopholes

Mark Blafkin — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:08:24 -0000

First, let me say that I don't object to the GPL. I don't subscribe the FSF's ideology, but I certainly understand the purpose of the GPL and its merits. At the same time, I think it comes with significant limtations. It's great for some projects, but not all.

I don't think you're assertion that "if you add free software to a proprietary product, the free parts cease to be free" is really accurate. Unless you're making the ideological point that any concessiont to proprietary software is to relinquish your freedom, that is. Most proprietary licenses do not have the reciporical nature of the GPL that could/would force a change in the license of software that shipped with it. In fact, Apple does integrate BSD code as the basis for its new operating system and this hasn't changed that BSD code into proprietary code.

On the issue of code reuse, I think that is a fair point (although both could integrate with some open source licenses).

Just looked up the DLink example I was thinking about, and it was actually the gpl-violations.org project (a FSF-related org) that sued DLink over violations of the GPL in a German court.
http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/09/24/12...

I'm pretty sure that that the FSF itself has also threatened or launched lawsuits against violators in the past too. Will do some more looking around in the morning, but if anyone else has examples feel free to toss the out.

Re: Loopholes

Mark Blafkin — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:29:22 -0000

Enigma, thanks for your very substantive comment. I'm on the verge of passing out tonight and want to give it the response it deserves, so I'll get back to you on all the points tomorrow.

I definitely agree with you that SuSe is getting really good. Have you used Ubuntu? What's your experience there? Personally, I'm excited about experimenting with their new distros once I get Morgan to clean off one of our old PCs.

I do want to make sure you know that I make a distinction between Apple usability and Windows usability, especially when it comes to first use. The Apple experience is nearly seamless, like plugging in a telephone, it just works. Rare that you ever have to download drivers (because they control all the hardware). That is something that you'll always have difficulty reaching with mixed source solutions because you need to do at least some setup at the start (Microsoft, well, they have other issues in this area). Not a problem for you and me, but grandma... well, she still wants it to work like the yellow rotary dial she had in the 60s.

Re: Loopholes

Mark Blafkin — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:47:30 -0000

Enigma,

Sorry, this day is getting away from me, but wanted to get back to you. Tim, you’re next…

I agree wholeheartedly that the open source operating systems are getting closer and closer to being as user-friendly as Windows or OSX. I know your pain re: XP and device drivers. But, the point I was trying to make yesterday was about out of the box usability (think the Mac vs PC ads). Apple has created a really amazing out-of-the-box experience that everyone wishes they could replicate. They do it through tight control of the system components of course, but the result is pretty close to just "plug it in and use it." When you setup your computer w/ SuSE, you still needed to "set it up" especially if you wanted to use proprietary components. Right?

There are ways around the problems by using the gray areas of the GPL or using the LGPL. Dell and others shipping Linux-based PCs obviously have spent an awful lot of time figure out the legal issues. I don't own one of these PCs, however, so I can't tell you for sure how close they've gotten to an Apple-like experience... but I'm skeptical. As the OLPC situation is proving, even minor segments of proprietary code in the shipping product can be problematic. http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/286/

You also said that In particular I agree with Tim's observation that the situation with the GPL and the MS EULA is symetrical. I would like to here you respond to that.

Here is what I wrote back to Tim last night:

I don't think you're assertion that "if you add free software to a proprietary product, the free parts cease to be free" is really accurate. Unless you're making the ideological point that any concession to proprietary software is to relinquish your freedom, that is. Most proprietary licenses do not have the reciprocal nature of the GPL that could/would force a change in the license of software that shipped with it. In fact, Apple does integrate BSD code as the basis for its new operating system and this hasn't changed that BSD code into proprietary code.

To go further, I can see how on first glance they seem symmetrical. However, there are some significant differences. As Larry Rosen summed up the GPL bargain in his book Open Source Licensing, "You may have this free software on condition hat any derivative works that you create from it and distribute must be licensed under the same license." Proprietary licenses do not typically have this reciprocity clause nor do they guarantee sublicensibility. Proprietary software like Windows and OSX ship under EULA’s that do not override the licenses of the open source software that is included. Apache, BSD, and other open source licenses allow this kind of combination, but protect that code form irrevocably being pulled out of the commons (although the BSD and some others do not protect derivative works).

You next bit was:

I would be very interested to hear your remarks on my following observation, that all that the FSF is trying to do with the GPL 3.0 is prevent software that is part of the GPL commons from being stolen. Theft is a serious crime, and that is basically what TIVO has done, steal from the GPL commons without giving back. With that being said, I don't see why anyone would expect the FSF to do anything different than to try to plug the REAL loopholes in the GPL 2, to prevent the theft of code from the GPL commons.

It is completely understandable that the FSF would try to use the GPLv3 to prevent theft from the commons, but that is not what the Tivo provision is about. It is often misunderstood, so I understand your confusion on the matter. Here is what I wrote the Tim last night. Please let me know if you still have questions after reading it.

Tivo does provide all the changes to Linux it makes for use on the Tivo machine in accordance with the GPL. The Tivoization problem is a different thing entirely. As explained on Wikipedia:

So while TiVo has complied with the GPL v.2 requirement to release the source code for others to modify, any modified software will not run on TiVo's hardware.

So, the problem for Stallman and the FSF with Tivo, is that users can't hack the source code and run it on the Tivo hardware. For me, this seems more of an ideological point than a practical one of protecting the commons. Tivo does give back to the commons in accordance with the GPLv2. But, their business model is such that they are selling a service to you and subsidizing the hardware. It is similar to the game console markets (both Playstation and XBox are sold at big losses to Sony and MS). The anti-Tivo provision, therefore, would preclude this kind of business model for GPLv3 software. It may not be a terrible thing, but the embedded devices market was a very promising area for open source software.

You also wrote that:

I think the reason that Microsoft is so upset is that the GPL is a lever which is in the process of radically demonetizing certain portions of the software industry. It is a classical example of Schumpeterian creative destruction. In such a process, almost everyone benefits, from the lower cost of the product. There will be one loser though, the particular businesses that are the target of the crative destruction. It just so happens that the shrink-wrapped software manufacturering is being destroyed in this process. Of course they will complain and ask for all sorts of special favors, as they go down. But go down they will.

Interesting theory. Personally, I think that the software industry is evolving toward a hybrid-licensing reality where licensing decisions are made based on business case, not by ideology. The days of all proprietary software are over (nor were they ever really here), but I’m not sold on an all Free Software world either. We are all aware of the potential tragedy of the commons… I see both models surviving for a very long time. But in the near term, open source licensing will only become more important as we head toward some level of equilibrium. But, this sounds like the makings of a much longer post.

In particular I agree with Tim's observation that the situation with the GPL and the MS EULA is symetrical. I would like to here you respond to that."

Re: Loopholes

Mark Blafkin — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:33:19 -0000

Yes, Enigma, I said that or something similar:

"The GPL is designed to force anyone who uses that software to accept the ideology of the FSF either for moral or pragmatic reasons."

But, that does not say that the FSF is anti-freedom.

You would agree that the GPL is the embodiment of the "Four Freedoms" ideology of Stallman and the Free Software Foundation in a software license, would you not?

Therefore using the GPL requires you to submit to that ideology, either because you believe in it (as a Free Software advocate) or you are using it for pragmatic reasons (the open source community, etc).

The FSF and I don't agree on what the definition of Freedom is, therefore it is difficult for me to say they are anti-Freedom. That said, I wouldn't say they are entirely pro-Freedom in my mind either. The GPL places restrictions on what you can do with the software, just like proprietary licenses do. They are different restrictions, but restrictions nonetheless.

Re: Loopholes

Mark Blafkin — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:32:38 -0000

OK, Tim. Here are a few responses to your questions. You asked:

In this case the BSD code is transformed into non-free software in the process, is it not?

I reponded to this point in my comment to enigma (see above). Proprietary licenses do not inherently change the licenses of the underlying code. The GPL does. Apple does keep the kernel under the BSD license that can be downladed and run separately, it is called the Darwin project. I believe under the BSD terms, Apple could take the code and put release it under a full proprietary license, but they don’t have to and seem to have chosen not to. If the code they were borrowing was under the Apache license, they would be forced to keep it and modfications to it open, but they could still ship it under one EULA. So, no, it does not self-evidently cause a change in the license of the software that is shipped with it.

I think you also misunderstood my "ideological point." I said:

I don't think you're assertion that "if you add free software to a proprietary product, the free parts cease to be free" is really accurate. Unless you're making the ideological point that any concessiont to proprietary software is to relinquish your freedom, that is.

I turns out that your assertion was inaccurate, so you weren’t making the truly "ideological point" that I thought you were making. That point would have been the point that Stallman was making to the Open Office team - that any reliance on proprietary code is to concede your freedom even if all the actual code is GPL.

The FSF lawsuits.

I’m going to do something a little wild for this forum. I’m going to admit that I was wrong. Hopefully, it will set an example for these discussions in the future.

The FSF must be either a licensee or licensor in order to initiate a lawsuit. My sh*thouse law degree is showing its worth…but we both seem to have the problem from time to time.

HOWEVER, while I was technically wrong on that part, my larger point still stands. The GPL claims to be a copyright license, not a contract, and Linus does not have the level of control that you suggest. You wrote that:

But that illustrates an important fact about the GPL: the ultimate power to decide how strictly to interpret its terms is ultimately up to software developers, not the FSF. The GPL gives Linus Torvalds and his fellow kernel developers the option of restricting the use of proprietary drivers in the Linux kernel, but if they want to permit proprietary drivers, there's nothing that Eben Moglen and Richard Stallman can do about it, because they're not parties to the contract.

First, the FSF is one of the largest copyright holders in a standard Linux distribution. Not only from things developed by Stallman, but other bits of code that have been signed over to the Free Software Foundation. So, in most cases regarding Linux, the FSF can sue. Mainly, however, they seem content on just threatening to sue as they did against Linksys and Cisco.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html

Second, the GPL does not really give developers the "option" of permitting proprietary drivers. The GPL is just not clear in this area (thus all the debate) and the lack of clarity has created some flexibilty for interpretation. This is reinforced by the fact that it has yet to be fully tested legally in the US. Courts could remove that gray area. And the FSF can bring a case in court that will affect ALL GPL code, not just the code they own.

Third, the FSF controls the GPL. If they want to officially clear that up, they can make changes in the next version. Of course Linus has already modified the GPL license for the kernel to remove the automatic upgrade clause, so that won’t automatically create a problem… but it could.

So, the point is: the GPL doesn’t put all the power in the hands of individual software developers as you suggest. The FSF still retains a great deal of power over how the license is interpreted and how GPL software can integrate/interoperate with proprietary software.

Re: Loopholes

Mark Blafkin — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:11:23 -0000

Enigma,

I didn't mean that those who sign up for the license must joing the Free Software cause, and I didn't meant to say that with the word "accept." It is also why I said for "practical or ideological" reasons.

The exciting thing I see in the future is that large for-profit companies will see the benefit of coming together and creating GPL software. But that is really a process that has been occuring in the economy for a long time. It is just the extension of standards making behavior, which has served many industrial sectors well. The GPL is the eans for hardware manufacturers to create certain software, as a standard, and then get on withh the business of selling hardware, that users, using those standards, can use.

I would argue this is already happening, particularly in regards to Linux. Massive companies like IBM, Sun, and HP have been participating in the effort to improve and evolve the Linux OS. There are definitely parallels to the standards process in this regards.

However, I would suggest that this is not a one-size-fits-all strategy. For-profit companies work together when it makes sense... generally when they need combined resources or when they don't look at the technology as a competitive differentiator. If the companies are working on really innovative, R&D; intensive stuff, it is much harder to make a business case for simply sharing that work with their competitors. Free-rider problems could kill off long-term investment in new technology.

One interesting area that is discussed in the EC FLOSS study is the idea that non IT companies will come together to mutually fund systems development. This is interesting but also limited. A few of my colleagues used to run custom software development shops, with government and large private sector clients (AmEx, etc.). In the private sector, even these companies looked at their software systems as potential competitive differentiators for lowering their costs, improving efficiencies, etc. So, there isn't always a reason for even non-IT compaines to come together on projects.

Re: The Pirate Bay in the LA Times

Mark Blafkin — Tue, 01 May 2007 14:52:42 -0000

Interesting article, Tim. I wasn't aware of the way the MPAA was just summarizing the study... good to know.

However, your reasoning on the political fallout I think is a bit off. The US would have many avenues of recourse if Sweden really went to the Pirates. In fact the European Union would likely have to take action against Sweden themselves, as I believe the kind of policy you are implying would go against aspects of the TRIPS agreement.

Re: The Pirate Bay in the LA Times

Mark Blafkin — Wed, 02 May 2007 10:51:30 -0000

Rick, your comment came out just fine. In easily readable formatted bits of text.

I do not underestimate you or your party. Knowing a little about the relevant laws, conventions, and treaties, I was just correcting Tim's analysis of how the dispute might go down. The US would not be the only party agrieved and as a member of the European Union, Sweden has certain responibilties in the world of IP and trade that would also be a challenge.

To be honest, I would be fascinated to hear how you plan to make it work legally. If you are able to share your thoughts on the matter I would love to hear them.

Re: The Law Is an Ass

Mark Blafkin — Sun, 06 May 2007 23:50:19 -0000

Tim, Tim, Tim...you really do have a tremendous ability to miss my point. Perhaps it is my fault, I'll try to improve my clarity in future posts, but I'm guessing it has more to do with your need for a straw man to beat.

My point is that the "policy story" related to the DCMA is NOT the real story. The really interesting story here is the "business story" about Web2.0 (although I completely agree with Mike T's point about the lack of a coherent definition for that term). For my purposes, I'm using Web2.0 to refer to sites that rely on user-generated content.

My point is the same one that Richard Komen made over at Silicon Valley Watcher: this episode demonstrates the downsides of the user-generated content business model. For the people at Digg and other Web2.0 companies, this is not about some ivory tower mental masturbation. They have businesses to run, shareholders to protect, and kids to feed.

Ignore the fact that you don't AGREE with the law in question. For the executives running Digg, they spent last week staring into the business end of a gun. They could either risk their business at the hands of lawsuits or pissing off the activists in their user base. They really didn't have a choice in the end. They choose to give in to the mob because that buys them another day...if they hadn't Digg would have already been dead.

This is a lesson that other Web2.0 companies and their investors will have to learn from.

Re: The Digg Incident Was Nothing LIke the Boston Tea Party

Mark Blafkin — Mon, 07 May 2007 11:21:14 -0000

Enigma said "digg took a courageous stand, just like 2600 did in the linking to de CSS."

Not really. I'll give you 2600. They were a tiny little hacker pub that stood on principle. Digg, on the other hand, did nothing of the sort. Digg was merely coerced by the activist member base. They had a choice to kill the company on the spot (members threatened to leave the site if the company didn't bow to their demands) or buy a few months and fight it out in court. Like any sensible business, they chose to buy themselves a few months.

And I for one throw the BS flag on your "I'm just like Gary Kasparov" assertion. Give me a break! He is a truly inspiring individual, but I doubt he would agree your efforts are really in the same league.

If you really cared about Free Speech you would be in Egypt protesting the government's detainment of bloggers. You would be in front of Congress protesting every time they bring up aspects of the Patriot Act. Heck I would even respect you more if you were in front of the offices of Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft protesting their relationships with the Chinese government. But instead you're spending your time complaining about the fact you can't make free copies of Legally Blond 2 for all your friends...I'm sorry, but Mr. Kasparov would not be proud.

Re: The Law Is an Ass

Mark Blafkin — Mon, 07 May 2007 11:48:22 -0000

My question is: if your interpretation is correct, doesn't it bother you that the DMCA—by your own admission—effectively makes Web 2.0-stye businesses illegal? It's not like Digg's users are violating laws left and right. I don't remember seeing pirated content, child pornography, or random peoples' credit card numbers on Digg's front page. So if Digg is making a good-faith effort to comply with the law, and they aren't profiting from piracy, shouldn't that be sufficient to shield it from liability?

Tim, I do not believe the DMCA makes those businesses illegal at all. If Digg was making a good-faith effort to comply with the law, then they should be shielded from liability. That is what they were trying to do (and I think would have been protected based on their actions). However, the DMCA-activist wing of their user base threatened to leave if they didn't stop their "good-faith" efforts.

The interesting aspect of this story is just how fragile Web2.0 businesses really are. When a company's value is based entirely on its userbase (not on its product), they have to do anything they can to protect that asset. Given that Gen X and Gen Y audiences are not slavishly married to brands for life (despite their love of brands) and Web2.0 companies rarely have radically different feature sets from their competitors, they will have to follow every whim of their users. Even if it means effectively breaking the law and opening themselves up to business-ending lawsuits.

Re: A Brief Note on Ad Hominem Attacks on the TLF

Mark Blafkin — Tue, 08 May 2007 11:45:26 -0000

Amen, Brother.

Re: Microsoft’s Shell Game

Mark Blafkin — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:52:48 -0000

I'm willing to grant you that many software patents are BS and probably won't hold up in the post KSR-decision world (thankfully), BUT even if 50% the patents in questions are solid... that's a lot of patents. Moreover, it's not like MS is the only one saying that these patents exist and read on aspects of Linux. PubPat did a study a few years ago that listed about 283 patents that were potentially infringed by Linux. So, let's not pretend like we don't think MS has a case here. You can argue around the edges about the number, but you have to admit that there are likely more than one defensible patent that reads on Linux.

As for the "It's just like SCO" claim, you know that's false . See above AND note that MS has shared the exact details of which patents are being infringed with ALL the companies they've approached about the licensing deal. Those companies aren't making deals based simply on FUD, they are making judgements based on the actual code and patents in question.

Re: Microsoft’s Shell Game

Mark Blafkin — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:42:32 -0000

Actually, no Gary. This is not about accusations on the part of PubPat. PubPat is a nonprofit third party, that if anything, is a defender of Linux and gets a lot of its funding from FLOSS sources. So, I would not put them in the realm of accusers.

Re: Microsoft’s Shell Game

Mark Blafkin — Mon, 14 May 2007 14:37:55 -0000

Agreed Tim. Horacio's comments are definitely an overstatement. Many individual developers may not know what patents they are or are not infringing with the code they write. I am guessing the point he was trying to make, however, was a more confined one. Basically, that many of the commercial developers that are distributing Linux and other FLOSS code probably are aware of the patents (or could be aware if they wanted to be). It's untenable to suggest in the midst of filing thousands of software/hardware patents every year that IBM doesn't have the resources to look into what it may or may not be infringing.

I do think you're overstating the policy problem too. It would never result in an individual developer having to review every patent before writing a single line of code. It's not like BMW reviews every patent before it starts designing a car. Oracle doesn't review every patent before writing a new functionality for its database software. And, most importantly, in the open source world the responsibility wouldn't really fall in the hands of the indidvidual developers but with the companies that distribute the work or use it to due their patent due diligence.

Re: Microsoft’s Shell Game

Mark Blafkin — Mon, 14 May 2007 15:36:43 -0000

Doug, as far as I know MS has not demanded NDAs. Do you know differently? We're talking about patents which are public domain anyway, not trade secrets and copyrighted code, which are often held secret to begin with.

More importantly, if your version holds true then SCO showed IBM the code/etc. and IBM decided to fight it. The difference here is that Microsoft is showing the code to companies and they are choosing to license it.

Re: Microsoft’s Shell Game

Mark Blafkin — Mon, 14 May 2007 16:51:58 -0000

Tim, you make an important point, but in an overbroad sort of way. I completely agree that the patent system has some problems particularly in the way that it has handled software and related patents. Restrictions on prior art, limited knowedge among examiners, and a dangerous willfullness standard have created a system that accepts way too many poor quality patents and creates counterproductive incentives. I don't think the system is working correctly today either.

Where we differ is on the solution to the problem. I believe the answer is to improve quality, lower the number of patents, and change the incentive structure to encourage developers to use the system as it was intended. I believe that the patent system can work for the software industry, and will only become more important in a future where open source and proprietary software coexist.

I've started a series of posts on this subject over at the ACT Blog.

Re: The Be Very Afraid Tour

Mark Blafkin — Wed, 16 May 2007 16:14:19 -0000

I would argue that the Free Software and anti-patent partisans have done MORE than Microsoft ever could to spread FUD about Microsoft's patents. Their belief that Microsoft is pure unadulterated evil leads them to wild delusions about the malevolent intentions behind every move Microsoft makes. If MS really has the intention of creating FUD, the FSF and Microsoft conspiracy theorists are enablers and promoters of the cause. For them to then feign resentment and surprise at Microsoft's announcement, reeks of hypocrisy...among other things.

Re: The Be Very Afraid Tour

Mark Blafkin — Wed, 16 May 2007 16:14:37 -0000

Re: The Be Very Afraid Tour

Mark Blafkin — Wed, 16 May 2007 17:06:41 -0000

Oh Tim, don't fall into the FSF FUD machine! You're too smart for that.

No, I actually do not believe that Microsoft is "plainly hinting" or outright saying they will sue "people who develop and use free software." Companies that are raking in cash as a result of free software that infringes on MIcrosofts patents (or MS says infringes),however, would be right to see this as a "hint."

I believe they said that have no intention of suing anyone in the Fortune piece, and they really have no incentive to. As for individual developers, I believe they would be covered by the non-assertion provision that came out of the Novell deal.

It is a clever strategy, however, to gin up the base by saying "Microsoft is going to sue for working on the Samba project at night." The Microsoft paranoids will immediately believe it despite the fact that it makes no logical sense at all.

Re: The Be Very Afraid Tour

Mark Blafkin — Wed, 16 May 2007 19:05:33 -0000

Tim, come on...you used the term "people" suggesting individual developers working on the projects at night, for free. It is a nice rhetorical trick, but it is totally innacurate. IBM, RedHat, etc. don't make appealing victims, so it's better to make it seems like Microsoft has poor defenseless individuals and small companies in its sights. Not likely as I'm sure you're aware. There is no incentive for Microsoft to sue them individually. It's not like the RIAA who wants to send a message to individuals.

Re: The Be Very Afraid Tour

Mark Blafkin — Thu, 17 May 2007 11:27:55 -0000

Enigma, please forgive my rhetorical flourish, but it was fun wasn't it? But, come on...

your hysterical denunciations of FSF call your own level headness into question.

says the guy who was calling me a proto-fascist just a few short days ago:-)

I do apologize, however, because I didn't mean to attribute those delusions to the FSF in particular (although the correlation is probably pretty high given their belief that proprietary software is immoral in itself), but many Free Software and Open Source community members. You know the type that fill up the Slashdot with conspiracy theorys and "Bill Gates is a @ss!" rhetoric. Unfortunately there are a lot of them out there. Just follow the responses to Bill Hilf's recent post and this story about how the history of Port 25.

Enigma, I did not call you a raving lunatic. You clearly are not, even when you get all worked up and write things you clearly don't mean. There are many in the Free Software community, however, whose judgement is clouded when the subject of Microsoft is involved.

Re: Eminent Domain, Software Patents, and Central Planning

Mark Blafkin — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:17:08 -0000

“A real estate developer shouldn’t have to consult his city’s “master plan” before renovating an old house.”

However, he should have to consult the owner of the land before he starts building on it.

Tim, I think you have this analogy backwards, sideways, and even a bit upside down. As I wrote over at the The ACT Blog, the real parallel is between your friends in the anti-patent camp and these Soviet-style city planners.

Like the city players, the anti-patent forces also have a vision for a better neighborhood (software industry). It is beautiful: paved in gold, based on sharing and sharing alike, and devoid of any nasty software patents.

It’s such a beautiful vision, and the software industry now is so awful and blighted, they believe it justifies nuking the entire system of software patents.

They chant:

“Who cares about the thousands of companies around the world that own software patents!”

“We are smarter and can use those ideas better! I don’t care who owns them, let’s take them!”

“If we don’t have to worry about the property rights of others, just think of all the amazing things we could create!”

Re: Eminent Domain and Software Patents Again

Mark Blafkin — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:32:13 -0000

Mark Blafkin is confused about my analogy between eminent domain and software patents, which probably means I didn’t explain the analogy very clearly. So let me see if I can be more explicit.

You made your analogy very clearly the first time, actually. Rather than make it more explicit this time, you completely changed it. The first time you tried to put lawyers at the center of your evil patent conspiracy, making it all about their self-importance:

It seems to me that the attitudes of patent lawyers to the software industry are strikingly similar to the attitudes of city council members toward real estate developers. Patent lawyers are absolutely horrified at the idea that we would just let programmers write any kind of software they wanted without hiring a patent lawyer first.

This time, you at least drop the straw man of the lawyer-conspiracy, but create an equally fictitious scenario with a company (in this case Verizon) at the center:

Now, a company like Verizon will go to the patent office and say, in effect, “We would like to develop a new VoIP application. But we’re only willing to do so if you give us control over all development of VoIP applications like ours. We don’t want to worry about some other company building a competing product that we didn’t plan for.”

For someone who writes about patents as much as you do, I'm sure you're aware that the above paragraph has no basis in reality. No patenter goes into the patent office and makes a bargain with the PTO about market competition. In fact, the big flaw in your little example is that Verizon would have already had to INVENT their VOIP technology before they even walked into the doors of the PTO. They can't go into the PTO and threaten NOT to invent it unless they get a patent first. I know you have a bee in your bonnet about Verizon and its VOIP patents, but if you think they are using it anti-competitively, well that’s what competition law is for. But, are you seriously suggesting that we should ban all patents simply because some firms may use them to undermine the public good? Should we ban all guns simply because some people may use them to kill innocent children? If that's your argument, fine... but own up to it.

You know all this and should be a little more honest about it, rather than trying to simply create a bogeyman out of the patent system. I'm sure it helps your hit counts, but it does nothing to promote educated dialogue.

In reality, the decision to invest in new technologies is predicated on a belief that the investor will receive a return on that investment. That investment can represent the time spent by the individual inventor, 5 million in venture capital, an allocation of corporate/government R&D funds to a specific project, or a $100 million IPO. Since we live in a capitalistic economy, that return is usually in the form of capital (although in some cases like Free Software it could be "credit" or "community participation," and some inventors are simply just driven).

So the ability to patent and protect the inventions of a company or an individual (Yes, Jim... people get patents too) often play an important role in whether investment is made in developing them. That bargain may be with the inventor’s husband or her VC, but the ability to patent and protect the invention in the future(if it turns out to work and be new and nonobvious) is often an important aspect of the decision-making process to invest on the front end.

Is the patent system working optimally to promote inventions in the software space?? Heck no! You’re right that are serious issues regarding the breadth of some claims and the overlapping nature of others. But is that really a reason that for scrapping the whole thing as you often suggest? If so, we should scrap the entire system of land ownership in any town where there are disputes over plot boundaries. Or any city where the city hall where the records aren’t easily accessible…

Re: Newtonian Physics: All Wrong!

Mark Blafkin — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:35:49 -0000

So, Vyas, Michael, Chris, etc. are saying is that Newtonian Physics are a great way of predicting approximate outcomes, but not really a way of better understanding our universe. So, I guess the real question is what you want physics to do for you. If it is applied science, then you're right. It works... mostly. If you are looking for the true understanding of our universe and how and why it works the way it does... that's where things start falling apart.

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » First Sale and the Software Industry

Mark Blafkin — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:43:57 -0000

Tim is also glossing over the most important point. Free software depends on "license agreements" as much if not more than Ballmer and Co. By my reading, if the courts were to fully subscribe to the ideas of Fred VL and Tim, the entire Copy Left movement would be crippled. They would not be able to impose any of the limitations on use/redistribution that are contained in the various versions of the GPL. The proprietary software industry can probably survive without shrinkwrap licensing as Tim suggests, but I don't see how the Open Source/Free Software communities can survive under the legal framework that Tim is espousing.

Re: Is Chen Shoufu China’s Dmitri Sklyarov?

Mark Blafkin — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:29:29 -0000

Umm...you guys are kidding, right?

We're talking about China here, and you're debating this as if EFF's analysis of EULAs and "reasonable copyright law" are in any way relevant to the situation. It's an interesting discussion and Carme and Tim make good points (with more software development being supported by advertising, this could be an important issue), but let's be clear about the actual case being discussed.

As the NYT noted recently, China supposedly has Free Speech rights too, but that hasn't stopped them from simply calling it "providing state secrets to foreign entities."

Given the actual situation in China, I doubt very seriously that "this arrest should increase awareness in China of the threats that overly-restrictive copyright law can pose to programmers’ freedom."

To paraphrase the famous line from Chinatown..."Forget it Tim, It's China. It's China."

Re: Kozinski on Copyright

Mark Blafkin — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:35:43 -0000

I think it is easy to agree with Lessig et al on this, but I am puzzled by Kozinski's suggestion that:

for instance, when you say someone has a Barbie personality, it describes something without having to go into a thousand details. But Mattel, the inventor of Barbie, hates it. People who own those trademarks and copyrights want to control the way people communicate, and they have the ear of Congress right now.

I'm not a lawyer nor a judge, but my understanding is that company's MUST complain and take legal action if people start using their trademarked brands as verbs or as a non-proper noun. If they don't, they can lose their trademark on the term and all of a sudden Hasbro can start shipping "Barbie" dolls. It often seems silly or mean-spirited when Google sends it lawyers to stop "Google" from being used as a verb in a dictionary, but it is side effect of trademark law - not an attempt to "control the way people communicate."
If there are any trademark attorneys in the audience, please let me know if my understanding is correct.

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » Google Endorses Speed-based Prioritization - What About Net Neutrality?

Mark Blafkin — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:24:02 -0000

Tim, I think you might want to rethink your argument for Gogo only using traffic shaping techniques that simply carve up the bandwidth into equal portions for every user. While seemingly 'democratic,' it would likely be an incredibly inefficient use of bandwidth. In fact, just read anything Google or NAF has ever written about spectrum, whitespace, and the need for unlicensed spectrum and you'll get the idea.
Unless you're going to create an entire market system for trading spectrum from one passenger to another on flights, this would be an incredibly inefficient use of the spectrum.

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » Cerf on managing networks & the need for industry discussion

Mark Blafkin — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:37:29 -0000

Amen. These things are nearly always better handled within the industry rather than by bureaucrats. I need to give more thought as to what kind of body (ad hoc or institutional) would best be able to manage these debates however. The Internet Society could be a good lead. There are a lot of fabulous people over at the Internet Society, like my friend Frederic Donck, who has a lot of experience as negotiator in technology policy areas.

On another note: I'm relative outsider to the NN debate, so this may be a dumb question. Has anyone discussed botnets in the context of NN?

If ISPs are prohibited from throttling any specific application or type of application, would that unnecessarily limit the ability of ISPs to play an important role in responding to DDOS attacks? Do people think that the current legislative proposals have loopholes big enough to allow ISPs to react to bot net attacks when they see some of the infected machines on their own network? Could a black hat use existing P2P or other technologies to launch an attack that an ISP would be legally bound NOT to stop?

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » Why Google Is a Media Company

Mark Blafkin — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:39:45 -0000

Adam: Couldn't agree more with you and David on this issue. To further the case, however, I suggest simply comparing the NYT to Blogger (as I did in a comment to David's original piece):

The NYTimes produces its daily paper by:

1. Paying a set of reporters to follow beats and write stories.
2. Accepting the contributions of unpaid writers (op-eds and LTEs) who are looking to simply express an opinion or raise their profile.
3. Selling the audience for those articles to advertisers

Blogger works essentially the same way:
1. Some bloggers are paid a percentage of ad revenue they bring in via adwords.
2. Some bloggers are just giving away their content to express opinions, etc.
3. Blogger sells the audience for these blogs to its advertisers.

To argue that Google is NOT a media company simply because its model for getting/paying for audience-grabbing content is different than the NYT is completely nonsensical. Google has come up with a model for a media company that drastically reduces its costs for content production and broadcast network are looking to follow suit (see Reality TV). If you were to follow the logic of the dissenters, NBC would cease to be a Media Company if it operated as a public access channel with advertising around the best content...

In the end, Google is an powerful competitor to media companies precisely because it pays so little for its audience attracting content. It doesn’t have to deal with unions, or strikes, or health care, or minimum wage. Essentially, its creative talent are ALL independent contractors that are working either for free or for a portion of the advertising revenue they help Google generate. If the NYT could get away with that, they would be in a lot better financial shape.

Re: Enough anti-iPhone rants… just get another phone!

Mark Blafkin — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:16:16 -0000

@whoami - Actually there are MANY compelling arguments for why "that requiring authorization from a single party to
run applications would be a good thing."

1. It increases trust/security of the platform. Individuals DON'T need to decide what applications they feel are trustworthy enough to put on their phones. Apple here acts as a type of gatekeeper that at least gives a basic review of the applications in its store to make ensure that they aren't inherently nefarious in nature...and if they have a hidden problem, Apple reserves the kill switch if they find out the apps are creating problems.

2. It increases the stability of the platform. The vast majority of crashes on systems are not caused by flaws in the operating system, but poorly coded programs that run on top of them. If Apple can certify that the programs in the store properly use the iPhone APIs and don't crash incessantly, then the iPhone users will be able to rely on their phones more than they can rely on their general purpose computers.

As said by many people above, the biggest problem with geek class is assuming that their priorities mirror the priorities of the masses. Most of us would gladly give up a little hackability for stability and security and not having to do an hour of research on a program for potential security concerns before installing it.

PS-Adam, Skyfire is awesome. Still a little buggy, but essentially a clone of the iPhone experience. It even works great with my MotoQ9 without touch capabilities.

Re: Wedding Phtography and Copyright Release

Mark Blafkin — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:13:18 -0000

Having just gone through this myself, I think you'll find that the wedding photography industry if full of options at different price levels and pricing models. A lot of photographers still follow the old practice of charging slightly less per/hour but then retaining all the control over the pictures and their printing of them. Some, like the one I chose, charge you more per hour but are willing to give you DVDs filled with TIFs and RAW images that you have full control over (minus his/her ability to reuse for his/her own marketing usually). You can also usually negotiate with a photographer on the details if you really like his/her work.

In the end, however, there are a lot of choices out there. If you don't like the deal one is giving you...go find a different one. In the end you don't have the right to define your photographer's business model, but you do have the right to choose someone different if you're not happy with their practices.

From a non-IP perspective, however, I highly recommend that you focus first on the quality of work and reputation, and second on the rights you have to the pictures. If you have a thousand blurry, dark, and useless pictures in the end, who cares if you can reprint them in the next Cato corporate brochure??

Re: Steve Jobs is posing

Mark Blafkin — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:44:58 -0000

Good post, but I would argue that Jobs is not trying to emulate the Google "Good Guy" image. Apple invented the Good Guy Tech Company image (yes, that is hyperbole but you get the point). Apple has long been looked at as a good guy: super innovative, fun, and wronged by a world that is focused on cost rather than coolness and innovation.

This is an attempt to get a little bit of that back. The recording industry realized that Apple has become too powerful in the music industry and is trying to limit the company's pricing power. To remedy the situationthey brought their concerns to European Regulators, and as Felten suggests, European antitrust regulators have no compunctions about rushing in to force a mandatory license/steal the IP of a dominant company. Strangely enough, the recording companies have been successful at turning little ole' Apple into the bad guy.

Anyone who thinks any of this is about consumer welfare is kidding themselves. This is a battle for power between to a supplier and a distributor.