"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."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-08
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.
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
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
Member since:2007-01-18
"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.
Member since:2005-11-02
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.
Member since:2005-10-13
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.
Member since:2006-09-08
Member since:2005-07-06
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.
Member since:2006-03-23
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
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
Member since:2007-02-17
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.
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
Member since:
2007-02-22
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.