“Development of OpenHAL, a wireless network component for Linux, can now resume unfettered after months of legal uncertainty. OpenHAL allows people with wireless cards based on technology from Atheros Communications, Inc. to connect to networks using solely free and open source software. Earlier this year, allegations were made that OpenHAL might include material that infringed the copyright of Atheros’ proprietary HAL software. The Linux Wireless developers asked the Software Freedom Law Center to investigate these rumors, and SFLC agreed to help on a pro-bono basis.”
“Dave…Dave…what are you doing? Why are you removing those chips?”
“Looking for wireless code, OpenHAL”
“Help me, Dave. Everything is looking dark… fuzzy… proprietary…”
—–
Couldn’t resist.
I think that it have been more appropriate to ask someone completely uninvolved with either open-source software or Atheros Communications to perform this audit.
As the SFLC is a legal organization whose stated goal is to help proliferate copyleft software, asking their opinion in whether or not it’s okay to infringe upon a company’s copyrights seems to me like the answer would be predetermined, with only supporting evidence looked for.
As much as I am a Free Software enthusiast, I would agree on that. However, the SFLC would be _one_ place I would get advice, because they are experts on this kind of issue. But, as you say, I would also ask a more neutral source.
We all read way too much journalism. Look, when you have legal issues, you hire counsel experienced in the field, and they work for you. They’re not neutral, and they’re not supposed to be. Their job is to analyze the situation and provide sound legal advice.
In this case, one of the foremost firms in free software IP law advised the developers of OpenHAL that they are in solid legal standing and can continue their work without any significant risk of legal action. They could be disbarred for providing unsound advice to their clients.
That’s the difference between lawyers and analysts. Analysts are the ones pretending to be neutral and blatantly distorting the evidence to fit their agendas. Lawyers make no such pretense, and their recommendations are held to a higher standard.
When the Yankee Group opines on the legality of various free software projects, that’s the time to be cynical.
Thanks for the distinction – that was well put!
“””
As the SFLC is a legal organization whose stated goal is to help proliferate copyleft software, asking their opinion in whether or not it’s okay to infringe upon a company’s copyrights seems to me like the answer would be predetermined, with only supporting evidence looked for.
“””
No. SFLC knows that what a court of law decides is the thing that matters. Not what they (the SFLC) say. Since they are interested in the *long term* welfare of FOSS, it makes no sense for them to be dishonest in that way. In fact, I imagine that they would be more inclined to err on the side of caution.
Edited 2007-07-31 15:58
“The OpenHAL developers can now continue development with legal clarity,” said Karen Sandler, an attorney at SFLC. “We thank Atheros for granting us confidential access to its proprietary HAL source code for purposes of the review. We join Atheros in encouraging developers to avoid proprietary code in their work, using clean room approaches like the techniques used in the development of OpenHAL.”
Something tells me that SFLC did all the right things.
asking their opinion in whether or not it’s okay to infringe upon a company’s copyrights
“So when did you stop beating your wife” – the a above is a statement of that sort.
The SFLC was not asked if it is OK to infringe on a company’s copyrights. It was asked to give a legal opinion on whether or not a company’s copyrights had been infringed. I don’t think anyone should dispute the the legal expertise in software matters or the the principled ethics of the SFLC.
Furthermore since Moglen and the SFLC lawyers are GPL supporters, it is in their interest to prevent any software copyright infringement. The GPL depends on the Bern convention and copyright law for its enforcement.
Furthermore since Moglen and the SFLC lawyers are GPL supporters, it is in their interest to prevent any software copyright infringement.
Exactly. People always assume that GPL promoters hate copyright, but that is the opposite of reality. If copyrights are being infringed all over the place then the GPL will become worthless.
Wouldn’t they just do the “Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison” Test? I don’t think that’s an “opinion”.
FTA: “SFLC subsequently conducted a confidential audit, carefully comparing OpenHAL to Atheros’ proprietary HAL code.”
Edited 2007-07-31 17:19
These kinds of statements are very inflammatory. Perhaps you are not a native English speaker, in which case it is understandable. Otherwise, to suggest that they were checking out whether or not is was “okay to infringe upon a company’s copyrights” is a combination of “begging the questions”, “ad hominem” and “straw man” logical fallacies all rolled into one.
that makes no sense..
what you are saying, is that its bad to ask a person that wants guns to be legal, if its bad to shoot people.
Just because someone wants to be allowed to have a gun, doesent mean they want to allow shooting people…
“””
Just because someone wants to be allowed to have a gun, doesent mean they want to allow shooting people…
“””
Off-topic, but… I find myself wondering what the purpose of having a gun is. It seems like the purpose must have something to do with being able to shoot *something* with it. If not people, then… animals? Or maybe… just in case one decides that shooting a human being might be justified? For protection, maybe?
I had a very, very good friend, years ago, who felt like that. I told him (and told him!) that most people who get shot are shot with their own gun. He told me that he wanted one because there are lots of crazos out there and that it was best to be prepared.
He ended up getting murdered by a guy he had befriended, who got him out alone on a disused farm and shot him… with his own gun, which the guy had pilfered from his dresser drawer.
Edited 2007-07-31 23:03
well, what if one just wants a gun because one thinks it looks good? one wants to practise shooting for friendly competition, the possibilities are endless.
the point is, that just because someone wishes to have a gun, doesent mean the wish to shoot people, or wish others to shoot people, or wish anyone to shoot people, or think its right to shoot people.
“””
well, what if one just wants a gun because one thinks it looks good? one wants to practise shooting for friendly competition, the possibilities are endless.
“””
A replica would work just fine for your first example. A BB gun would work fine for the second.
The point is that some people seem to insist upon the deadly kind… for some reason.
The question is still “why?”.
Self-defense. In a society where self-defense is criminal only criminals defend themselves.
If everybody had a gun and knew how to use them criminality would virtually disappear.
The many killings on campuses can only happen because the People have been robbed of its right to self-defense. If the students knew how to handle a gun the killer would be dead with 15 bullets in his back before he finished pulling his gun.
On the other hand you would have lots of “could be a killer” being shot, sports fans’ riots becoming a bloodshed, discussions on pubs ending with someone drawing a gun…
I don’t know about you, but I don’t trust people enough to support the idea of giving them guns.
Edited 2007-08-01 14:15
I wrote:
If everybody had a gun and knew how to use them criminality would virtually disappear.
Did you read the part “and knew how to use them” ?? I don’t think so!
People would NOT use their gun BECAUSE they would know that everybody ELSE would know how to use THEIR guns.
Your opinion has been proven to be a logical fallacy. Your scenario ONLY happens when people DON’T know how to use a weapon properly. That’s why you see people being shot by insane students.
Fine. And I don’t trust the authorities to protect me. It has failed us constantly – just look at the campus killers (and it’s in plural, unfortunately). Nor do I trust you. With that kind of opinion you are dangerous to society.
I don’t trust anybody to defend but myself. I am entitled to self-defense. The government cannot oppress an armed people.
“””
That’s why you see people being shot by insane students.
“””
Questions. What percentage of shootings are conducted by insane students? If guns were illegal, would they have had ready access to a gun at such time as they decided, on a day on which they were particularly overwrought, that it would be a good idea to go out and shoot a bunch of people? Where has Icchi’s opinion been proved to be a logical fallacy? Where has your opinion been vindicated?
And please. I thought you would be above taking advantage of the fact that the media sensationalizes “news”. Campus killings are dwarfed by the far larger number of accidental killings. And are, themselves, an example of why ready access to guns contributes to the incidence of “impulse killing” by emotionally stressed individuals.
I know you want to talk about some sort of wild west fantasy world, where Aunt Ida knows how to handle a gun. But I’d prefer to talk about the real world. You know. The one that we have to live in.
“People would NOT use their gun BECAUSE they would know that everybody ELSE would know how to use THEIR guns.”
Knowing that you could get kicked or even killed doesn’t stop people from getting into stupid fights. You are assuming that everyone would stay calmed and rational on any situation.
“Your opinion has been proven to be a logical fallacy.”
Show proof.
“Nor do I trust you.”
I wouldn’t trust me either if I had a gun.
Say a drunk driver runs over my family right in front of me: I just cannot guarantee I wouldn’t shoot him. Do you think that if I was so blinded by anger I would care if anyone else has a gun?
“””
I wouldn’t trust me either if I had a gun.
“””
People who feel that putting a great deal of killing power into the hands of millions or billions of individuals (egg beaters aside), to be used as they see fit at the moment, seem like a greater threat to society than pretty much anyone I can think of.
People who want guns want them because they want them. And their stated reasons seem never to make sense. But it is their unstated reasons that worry me so.
“””
Self-defense. In a society where self-defense is criminal only criminals defend themselves.
“””
Yeah, that’s what my friend tried to “explain” to me before he was murdered with his own gun.
But even if what you say is true, I doubt we have within an order of magnitude of campus killings compared to accidental shootings which would not have occurred if people hadn’t had the guns lying around in the first place.
Not to mention that having a gun conveniently at hand makes it easier for emotionally distressed people to do something rash, and of a criminal nature, so I’m not at all sure that even killings by criminals is suppressed by the availability of guns.
You are NOT reading what I’m writing.
I specifically wrote they should have the guns IF they knew how to use them.
If people are being shot with their own guns, they definitely DID NOT know how to use them properly. Use includes proper storing of weapons. If a person can take your gun you didn’t store it correctly.
Use of a gun includes being capable of hitting your target, being capable of storing it safely, being capable of not abusing the gun etc.
If you don’t understand that you are not wise enough to even discuss this subject.
If people have weapon “lying around” they don’t know how to use weapon properly. You obviously don’t have a license for a weapon (I might add that the Colt C7 is quite nice
and no, I’m not storing anyone at home) – if you had you’d know better.
Error: Illogical statement encountered. Emotionally distressed people are capable of killing with any tool. Any tool is a weapon. The number of killings made by “emotionally distressed people” are next to nothing compared with killings made by criminals. We know that discussion from Denmark and weapons carried by members of the (very well-trained) Home Guard (National Guard is more correct). Fact is that criminals don’t care about the law and always have easy access to weapons. They use them to kill law-abiding persons who don’t have weapons. People who are emotionally distressed and want to kill can always find a weapon. No matter what you do to prevent it.
Try again with a real argument please.
Two observations and a question:
You keep wanting to talk about a sort of wild west fantasy world where everyone knows how to handle a gun. I prefer to talk about the real world.
Your argument that egg beaters and rolling pins can be just as deadly as guns is completely absurd, unconvincing, and would actually be funny if it were not such a serious matter.
If egg beaters and rolling pins are as effective as killing machines as are guns, why can’t you just use those to defend yourself?
This is just so wrong on so many levels.
Firstly, “copyleft” software, or GPL software, is itself copyrighted software, and it depends for its continued existence and strength on the existence of copyright law and on people abiding by it.
Secondly, the whole idea of “open source” is to publish your own work, but not allow others to take it and use your for their profit. It relies on copyright law to ensure that. It also means that it is absolutely silly to copy someone else’s work, pretend it is your own, then publish it as open source for all the world to see. That is just madness. Open source software is in fact the LEAST likely of all software to in fact be a copy of something else.
Finally, it is in the interest of the SFLC to denounce something that is actually a copy of proprietary work but published as Open Source, since such a denouncement of any “black sheep” would bolster the credibility of the vast bulk of open source software that was in fact original work.
Observation: Many people have a confused notion of what copyright protects.
If I write an original work which had “Jack and Jill run up the hill” … I can copyright that if I want.
If later, someone else writes: “Jack and Jill run up the hill” … I can sue them for damages if I want.
If later, someone else writes: “John and Joan run up the hill” … I can sue them for damages if I want, since that is just an obscured copy of my original.
If later, someone else writes: “One day while playing in a field, a young boy named Jake and a girl named Julie ascended a small rise” … well, good luck to them but I think my version is way, way snappier.
Another observation: It is actually far more likely (when you think about it in terms of liklihood to get caught) for a closed-source piece of code to be a copy of something originally open source than the other way around.
Edited 2007-08-01 03:09
OpenHAL was originally developed for OpenBSD by Reyk Floeter, and was only later ported to Linux. It is not just “a wireless networking component for Linux”.
Let’s give credit where credit is due.
Indeed, GNU/Linux isn’t the only free OS in town.
Edited 2007-07-31 18:07
“””
Indeed, GNU/Linux isn’t the only free OS in town.
“””
I take issue with that.
Xorg/Apache/Samba/MySQL/Sun/PostgreSQL/GNU/Mozilla Corp/PSF/Linux is not the only free OS in town.
That’s just an intermediate form of the logical conclusion of what happens when everyone tries to use the name of the current most popular free OS as a *BILLBOARD*.
It’s ugly. Just like the proliferation of real billboards in the countryside is ugly.
It’s true that Linux is just a kernel. It’s debatable that the FSF is the top or second to top contributor to FOSS.
If we want to change the name of “Linux” the OS, GNU/Linux is absolutely the wrong way to go. Why not just come up with something catchy that does not favor anyone, or look like a big, ugly, freaking *BILLBOARD*.
Yes. I’m a bit off-topic and a bit over the top since even if we all came to an agreement here (fat chance!) the rest of the FOSS world would not know or care.
But it *would* be nice to do away with this whole tomato/tomahto/potato/potahto thing once and for all with something that we could all be happy with. (Famous last words!)
I hereby end my rant. And good day to you all… if you should choose to. If you would prefer to have a bad day, or some other kind of day, that’s fine, too. Have fun. But only if you want to. 😉
Ok, it was a generalization but I didn’t and still don’t see the point of being excessively specific. Hell I use FreeBSD.
If you must know I only put GNU/Linux because people always seem to have to restate the fact that Linux itself is just a kernel and not an OS… WHO FREAKIN CARES! We all know exactly what the person(s) are talking about.
I understand what you mean though, infact I originally put “Indeed, Linux isn’t the only free OS in town.” but as you notice I did edit it a second after and placed a GNU/ in there in hopes that people wouldn’t get all stupid and specific on me… in all honesty being passionate about your OS of choice and then being overly picky about what its actually called drives me mad.
Heck, people refer to the various *BSD systems in so many different ways, but I never feel the need to correct them by stating “ummm excuse me but it’s actually called FreeBSD, not FBSD, not FREEBSD, and definitely not FREE BSD…”
To each his or her own.
Back on topic now please. No more of this nonsense
W00dst0ck,
I understand completely. I should have specifically stated that I was only appropriating your post as a soap box. 😉
Sincere apologies.
-Steve
Edited 2007-07-31 19:05
No worries, I didn’t take it personally at all. No need for apologies
.
Indeed, calling it OpenHAL is even silly, since it’s only Reyk who’s doing the coding, and it only works for Atheros’ hardware. It’s just the ath(4) hal, and it is expected to be merged into the ath driver in the long run.
Edited 2007-07-31 18:24
Everything out of OpenBSD is named Open<whatever>. See the precedents: OpenSSH, OpenCVS, OpenNTPd, OpenBGPd, and so forth. Hence, OpenHAL. It’s the OpenBSD version of the Atheros HAL.
And OpenBSD isn’t doing the porting to other systems, the other ones are being done by OpenBSD. This only leads to confusion, since OpenBSD isn’t in any way supporting the development of the codebase outside of OpenBSD.
From what I can tell, the OpenBSD devs haven’t been the ones involved in the porting of the other Open* apps to non-OpenBSD systems either, so what’s your point?
They make the code portable, but their primary focus is on making it work with OpenBSD. Outside groups then take the code and make it work on OS <whatever>. This is how it works with PF, OpenSSH, OpenNTPd, so why would OpenHAL be any different?
Edited 2007-07-31 21:52
You’re deeply mistaken. OpenBSD’s codebase is developed, then those Open* projects which OpenBSD is associated with add in the portability goop, but those people are still almost entirely OpenBSD developers. Darren Tucker, a major OpenSSH developer, is an OpenBSD developer, who took an OpenBSD-specific ntpd implementation and added some of the portability goop from OpenSSH to the code and got it working on other platforms. He’s an OpenBSD developer, who also does the portability work on OpenSSH and OpenNTPD.
Those outside groups are not outside groups if you really look at who’s doing the work. They act as a seperate team, but most all the work is still done by the same set of people who made the code for OpenBSD.
PF isn’t portable, it’s not standardized across releases of operating systems, there is no loadable kernel module or anything for other operating systems so people can use PF, the other BSDs simply take the codebase and port it over when they want to update to the most recent OpenBSD PF version, extremely different from what happens with the likes of OpenSSH.
Do you see what I am saying here? There is no OpenHAL project worked on by anyone from OpenBSD, or related to OpenBSD, Reyk actually stopped trying to get his HAL to work with Linux before working on OpenBSD.
Where OpenSSH is under the umbrella of OpenBSD, OpenHAL has absolutely sweet dick all to do with OpenBSD. It just uses code from OpenBSD.
“As the SFLC is a legal organization whose stated goal is to help proliferate copyleft software, asking their opinion in whether or not it’s okay to infringe upon a company’s copyrights seems to me like the answer would be predetermined, with only supporting evidence looked for.”
The SFLC is not being asked if it is okay to infringe upon someone else’s copyright. They are being asked whether any such infringements is taking place.
The SFLC would never tell anyone that infringing on someone’s copyright is okay, because it simply is asking to be sued.
If the OpenHAL team had used a regular law firm, they would have had to pay through the nose for this service but the SFLC provides it pro bono.
On a different note, Atheros seems to have behaved very decently and allowed access to source code for comparison.
I thought that the problem was not so much Atheros worried about their copyright, but about controlling access to the chipset hardware. With rogue software, the chipset could be operated in violation of FCC regulations, and Atheros could be in danger of losing their type acceptance.
Something tells me that if you were planning on violating electronics, communications, and probably a whole lot of other laws, you wouldn’t care much about adhering to copyright law in the first place.
I can’t infer what you’re suggesting from the original article. Source?
It isn’t in the article, but I have used MadWifi in the past. Here is their take on it:
http://madwifi.org/wiki/HAL
Hmmmm. I remember hearing about this a before, except back then it was called ar5k instead of OpenHAL.
“ANNOUNCE: SFLC helps developers assess ar5k (enabling free Atheros HAL)”, posted to LKML months back:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0611.1/2184.html:
And
OpenHAL is an open source implementation of Atheros HAL. It was originally written from Reyk Floeter for OpenBSD, known by the name “ar5k”.
( From http://madwifi.org/wiki/OpenHAL ).
Has SFLC just created a new press release based on old research, or is there actually something new here (besides the name) ?