Linus may have it wrong on digital rights management, but it’s the vague wording and confusing concepts – like what is meant by a ‘derivative work’ – that is causing the real headaches over the next General Public License. A representative of the Free Software Foundation, leading the effort around GPL 3.0, said that Linux creator Linus Torvalds had ‘misread’ the license’s provisional terms.
Just my 2 cents, but for me the GPLv3 is undesirable, at least as presently drafted. The GPLv2 needs updating, for sure, but the GPLv3 is anti-business and very divisive. An example of that is the way it is being used to split off the kernel and then put undue pressure on Linus Torvalds to agree to a draft document without ado. I’m not impressed at the number of relative nobodies who are now jumping up claiming that Mr Torvalds is mistaken in some way, which appears to mean they can’t handle the notion that he does not agree with them.
The fundamental miscalculation of the GPLv3 is that open source can go it alone, without support. I don’t think it can. There is also an element here of biting the hand that feeds. Corporations and institutions have made a huge contribution to open source and to Linux (they are not the same thing, of course), but that isn’t likely to continue at the same pace if they are made to feel unwelcome and find obstacles put in their path.
What will happen to Linux? A desktop that slips further and further away from what ordinary users really want, and a server side that increasingly offers only “cheap as chips – never mind the quality just look at the price”. Either is a lousy place to be and a world away from aspiring to real engineering excellence, the only thing that will guarantee long-term success. So the question to ask is, Will GPLv3 hinder or help achieving that success?
How exactly is the GPL v3 less business friendly? (you didn’t argue at all about this)
It still maintains the basic freedom to use the software for any purpose, which is what a business needs in the first place.
If the plan is to use GPL software to do things that go against the basic ideas behind the FSF then you’ll have a problem with version 3, but that’s expected (it is the GNU GPL after all). One could say that even version 2 of the GPL is not “business friendly” – Microsoft for example certainly thinks so. But in fact the GPL is not friendly to business that restrict the use of the software in one way or another.
Just my 2 cents, but for me the GPLv3 is undesirable, at least as presently drafted
It’s undesirable to thiefs, control freaks and copyright infringers only.
The GPLv2 needs updating, for sure, but the GPLv3 is anti-business and very divisive
I say it’s not. It’s not even out yet. But the trolls and astroturfers like you are are out already.
An example of that is the way it is being used to split off the kernel and then put undue pressure on Linus Torvalds to agree to a draft document without ado
Who is doing that exactly ? Again, it’s not even out yet, and there is still no splitting effect.
I’m not impressed at the number of relative nobodies who are now jumping up claiming that Mr Torvalds is mistaken in some way, which appears to mean they can’t handle the notion that he does not agree with them
A lot of people who are not nobodies disagreed and continue to disagree with Linus. A lot of them have been proven right, and Linus changed his mind. Linus is not a god that is always right you know !
The fundamental miscalculation of the GPLv3 is that open source can go it alone, without support
It’s not. I only saw zealots say that, but they never come with an explanation as to why this is the case.
GPL is there to protect freedom of the code, nowhere does it read about support.
Corporations and institutions have made a huge contribution to open source and to Linux (they are not the same thing, of course), but that isn’t likely to continue at the same pace if they are made to feel unwelcome and find obstacles put in their path
This is BS. The purpose of the GPL has not changed. There is a way to shut off Free code through DRM, and GPLv3 address that, that’s all. Corporations and institutions that want to shut off Free code are not welcome, and never were. You sound like those are the companies that helped FOSS. They are not.
What will happen to Linux? A desktop that slips further and further away from what ordinary users really want, and a server side that increasingly offers only “cheap as chips – never mind the quality just look at the price”
I still wonder what made you come to this conclusion … You sound like trolls from the 20th century.
Either is a lousy place to be and a world away from aspiring to real engineering excellence, the only thing that will guarantee long-term success
yeah right. What was your point ?
So the question to ask is, Will GPLv3 hinder or help achieving that success?
No, your question is just a waste of time. You sound again like a troll.
The ACTION to take now is to participate with critical mind in the GPLv3 drafting, so that it comes out good. When it is out, then you will be able to ask yourself such useless questions.
If the GPL’s wording is so vague and complicated that a reasonably competent developer can only understand it with the aid of a lawyer, it is TOO complex.
GPL 3 should be MORE and not LESS developer friendly in this regard; GPL 2 is bad enough.
If the GPL’s wording is so vague and complicated that a reasonably competent developer can only understand it with the aid of a lawyer, it is TOO complex
No, you’re wrong. The purpose of the license is not to be compiled, sth which is in the field of the developer. Its purpose is to be valuable in a court or other legal system, which is the field of a lawyer.
And as long as it is enough to keep lawyers of MS at bay, you can be sure it is NOT too complex.
If it was, these lawyers would have found a loophole pretty quick.
By your words, no license is good for any developer, except GPLv2 and other simple OSS licenses like BSDL.
GPL 3 should be MORE and not LESS developer friendly in this regard; GPL 2 is bad enough
You’re completely wrong.
GPL 2 and 3 are developer friendly, but you can’t measure that by the wording, which is made for legal system.
Only the lawyer or people with good understanding of the law can explain this to the developer.
GPL is one of the first license that actually succeeded in its purpose, is completely legal, and is easy to understand by non lawyer people. Try reading proprietary licenses before saying nonsense.
You misunderstand.
I don’t have a problem with the size of the document or the intent to create a legally sound license that embodies the principles of free software.
The problem I have is the FSF insisting on using vague language that is open for interpretation and easily misunderstood by the laity.
Why can’t the FSF just spell out EXACTLY what they mean in the license, rather than creating a document that leaves them the responsibility of interpreting it for the masses? Remember, that responsibility only lasts as long as the GPL isn’t tried in court. Then, the courts will decide for all of us AND the FSF what the GPL means. Just make things clear in the first place.
I don’t care if the GPL must be a 200+ page document just so long I can understand it.
Amen, Reverend
Anyway, FSF is aware of the length and clarification issues. And they have sort of hinted they would so something about it with GPL v3.
No doubt things could be made much clearer, so the rest of us could understand it AND explain it to those who don’t understand.
Ookaze: No, you’re wrong. The purpose of the license is not to be compiled, sth which is in the field of the developer. Its purpose is to be valuable in a court or other legal system, which is the field of a lawyer.
Yes and no. It’s purpose is to protect the work of one or more developers while giving certain rights to the “users” of their “product”. If the developers can’t understand the license, then they don’t know what rights they have kept to themselves and what rights they have given to and restrictions they have placed on their “users”. In turn, if the “users” can’t understand it, then they don’t know what rights and restrictions they have. Or in other words… “No one knows whats going on besides the lawyer, yet everyone is bound. So the lawyer is king.”
Also… The choice of license is the domain of the members of the project. The acceptance of the license is the domain of the users. Neither party necessarily has a lawyer to “assist” them at any moment in time.
(On a side note… You can make a complex license simpler, by having a FAQ which spells out the license in simpler terms. However, this FAQ will only have in it what people choose to put in it and it is not legally binding. So if you can’t understand license, you still won’t know exactly what you agreed to, but it does help.)
Ookaze: Try reading proprietary licenses before saying nonsense.
Depends on the license. All of the ones I can think of right off hand are actually fairly simple, if you bother to read through the whole thing.
But then something to keep in mind is that generally, proprietary licenses are not standardized. (Though they generally have similar terms.) As a result a small developer can write their own simpler license and not have to worry (generally) about how it interacts with the other licenses. (They have to worry about the legality of it, but the interactions are not as important and they can do their own thing.) In addition large companies no doubt have their own lawyers, so they can easily craft a license to suit their needs.
This is not the case with Open Source/Free Software. Licenses are “standardized” (for the most part) and the interplay between the licenses is important, since one project frequently links with and otherwise works with a number of other projects and the licenses often influence this linking as well as other things. In addition a license has an effect on any modifications to a project made by another person.
However… This standardization does have an additional side effect. There are not as many licenses which need to be understood for open source/free software and as a result that does provide an excuse to allow such licenses to become more complicated.
(BTW… I’m not saying that the GPLv3 is hard to understand.)
(EDIT: Corrected a couple minor typos.)
Edited 2006-02-16 08:14
Yes and no. It’s purpose is to protect the work of one or more developers while giving certain rights to the “users” of their “product”
I disagree partially. Its purpose is to keep the code free, that’s all. Copyright is already protecting the work of developers.
If the developers can’t understand the license, then they don’t know what rights they have kept to themselves and what rights they have given to and restrictions they have placed on their “users”
In case of the GPL, this is different. What the FSF wants to do is pretty clear, everybody understands it. The GPL is just a legal way to enforce that : keep the code and its improvements free to use, modify and execute to everyone. There is no mystery in that. GPLv2 enforced that pretty well, and showed FSF can be trusted. GPLv3 is just an update.
Only people with an agenda don’t want to understand the clear purpose of GPL.
In turn, if the “users” can’t understand it, then they don’t know what rights and restrictions they have. Or in other words… “No one knows whats going on besides the lawyer, yet everyone is bound. So the lawyer is king”
Wrong, and the FSF goes out of its way to explain to you what you can and can’t do on their site.
I know no other license author that do that.
Depends on the license. All of the ones I can think of right off hand are actually fairly simple, if you bother to read through the whole thing
Did you notice that what you say is contradictory ? If the license has to be so long, sure enough that’s not because it’s simple. In Europe, they wanted us to vote for a constitution of thousands of pages. Nobody could read it entirely or understand it, that’s the same for a license. People won’t read pages of legal matters, like all proprietary licenses I’ve seen have. If you can’t read it, you can’t understand it, so it’s not simple.
But then something to keep in mind is that generally, proprietary licenses are not standardized
You are right. It just adds to complexity. You are also forced to buy the products before reading the license most of the time. Nevertheless, I agree with most of what you said there.
Ookaze: Its purpose is to keep the code free, that’s all. Copyright is already protecting the work of developers.
The problem is that different people have different definitions of “free” and different ideas of what they want people to be able to do with their code. They also have different things that they believe can and can’t work within their markets. (Now… Generally this isn’t too complicated, but it still applies.) For example, some people believe in the “BSD definition of free” and not in the “GPL definition of free”.
Of course, if thats the case they should be going with a BSD-like license (or whatever they believe in) and not bothering with the GPL, however, that’s not always possible. They may be called to work on a project that for some reason “requires” some sort of GPL-like license and be trying to decide which version of the GPL better matches their project.
Since they do not agree with the essence of the FSF’s mission, they may not want the latest GPL license, simply because it is too “restrictive” (by their definition of course). However, they can only tell this if they can understand the license.
Granted… They can always refer to a FAQ. But the FAQ isn’t the license.
Ookaze: In case of the GPL, this is different. What the FSF wants to do is pretty clear, everybody understands it.
I have to agree for the most part, but not entirely. I don’t agree that everybody understands it, simply because I don’t think everybody takes the time to stop and read what they have on their website or have said in numerous interviews. (And also reading all of that would take a serious amount of time and so I wouldn’t expect everyone to do so.) But yes… It is pretty easy to understand how they interpret things and what they want in the end.
The only real problem I can see is three groups of people: 1) Those who are not familiar with the FSF and their mission. They will not have had any prior experience with them, so we can expect more confusion. 2) Those who are largely aligned with the ideas of the FSF, but not entirely. 3) Those who feel they “can’t” make use of certain things. The details of the license matter to these people.
Ookaze: Only people with an agenda don’t want to understand the clear purpose of GPL.
Some people also get confused. Like it or not these people exist.
Ookaze: Wrong, and the FSF goes out of its way to explain to you what you can and can’t do on their site.
Earlier you said that proprietary licenses are complicated. A lot (not all and I’m not sure of the percentage) basicly say the same thing over and over again, “You may not copy and distribute this program. We are not responsible should your computer explode or some other disaster befall you while you are executing this program.” Etc…
Considering the part of “do not copy” is generally the most common and often times (not sure of the percentage) the most important part of the license and considering that this is drilled into users over and over again, you would think the general idea of a number of proprietary licenses would be understood.
It’s the specifics which are important to a lot people. For example, with some proprietary games you are not allowed to copy and distribute the game, however, you are sometimes allowed to distribute “lite” versions of the game to others for strictly multiplayer purposes. In addition, some academic licenses, allow (limited and sometimes unlimited) distribution to students and faculty.
Some people who didn’t agree with (or for some reason didn’t understand) the scope of the FSF’s mission may not agree with all the terms in the GPLv3. A few people for some reason may not be able to use it due to other unfortunate legal entanglements. Now this doesn’t mean that they don’t agree with or can’t use the GPLv2 or the LGPL. But the details matter.
Deletomn: Depends on the license. All of the ones I can think of right off hand are actually fairly simple, if you bother to read through the whole thing.
Ookaze: Did you notice that what you say is contradictory ? If the license has to be so long, sure enough that’s not because it’s simple.
No it’s not. What matters is what it says and how it says it, not the length. You could write an epic “Dick runs” novel filled with easy to understand sentences, all similar in difficulty to “Dick runs” or “Dick loves Jane”. And yet the novel could be 1,000 pages. Even though the story is simple, how many people do you think would stop to read the whole thing? I think almost no one would. The reason has nothing to do with complexity. It has to do with boredom. (As a side note… I think the whole point of how some of these legal documents are written is to try to bore you out of your mind before reach the important part(s).)
Complexity depends on the grammatical structures, words, and just plain style not the length. Granted you CAN use length to add to complexity, by having say the first term relate somehow with the last term, which is 100 pages away, but generally they could have easily placed the two terms together or done something else to resolve the situation. Hence length does not automatically equate to complexity.
Ookaze: People won’t read pages of legal matters, like all proprietary licenses I’ve seen have. If you can’t read it, you can’t understand it, so it’s not simple.
Won’t is not the same thing as can’t.
In a perfect world you would be right. Unfortunately, in this world any license that a non-lawyer can easily comprehend has about 1000 loopholes in it that a lawyer could take advantage of. Meaning it would be useless.
Recommended viewing is Orson Wells’ take on Kafka:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057427/
The anti-DRM provisions of the current proposed GPL v3 were put in there to prohibit exactly what Tivo does (only Tivo signed kernels will run on Tivo hardware). Linus doesn’t think it is appropriate use a software license to restrict hardware manufactures from doing this. Feel free to disagree with him on this point, but he seems to understand perfectly well what is at stake.
That said, there does appear to be something of a grey-area surrounding certain security architectures where it’s not exactly clear how or even if the proposed anti-DRM provisions of GPL v3 will apply.
cr8dle2grave:
No, Linus has it perfectly correct
The anti-DRM provisions of the current proposed GPL v3 were put in there to prohibit exactly what Tivo does (only Tivo signed kernels will run on Tivo hardware).
This was in an earlier article, wasn’t it? If it’s accurate, then I find Linus’ reasoning difficult to fathom — I am left wondering why he didn’t put Linux under the BSD license (or similar), since this seems to be more where his sympathies lie.
However I seem to also recall he was quoted as saying something like “developers would have to give their DRM keys away”. And (unless I’m reading too much into this) I think he’s mistaken there. If I understand correctly, the developers would have to supply a DRM key that allows sufficient access for the GPL applications they DRMed to function normally, but it wouldn’t have to be the key(s) that they use themselves.
This being the case, developers would be able to offer a limited access key for free/GPL use, which provided access to only the features that their DRMed GPL software used. And they would also be able to notify users whether an application was signed by them or with a publicly available key. (These seem like important points to me.)
happycamper:
the gpl license should be direct and simple like the BSD license.
The BSD license is an implication of public domain with a copyright notice and disclaimer stuck on it.* ‘Public domain’ is defined variously in tomes of law worldwide. The GPL is an actual license. 😛
* The copyright notice is there in case people don’t know who the author is. The disclaimer is there in case people do know who the author is.
> The anti-DRM provisions of the current proposed GPL v3 were put in there to prohibit exactly what Tivo does (only Tivo signed kernels will run on Tivo hardware).
I find [the] reasoning [that this prohibition is undesirable] difficult to fathom — I am left wondering why he didn’t put Linux under the BSD license (or similar), since this seems to be more where his sympathies lie.
I don’t really think so: I think he does want to force people who derive from linux (like tivo) to give back any code improvements, which is not required by the BSD license.
That you can’t run your own home-rolled linux on the devices tivo sells doesn’t matter, and I agree that companies should be able to do that. What counts is that they “give back” source code changes, not that they create entirely “open” applications – though that would be nice and I would certainly be more inclined to buy a product that is open in that sense.
I’m not sure if GPLv3 prohibits tivo-like structures though.
… I think he [Linus] does want to force people who derive from linux (like tivo) to give back any code improvements, …
That you can’t run your own home-rolled linux on the devices tivo sells doesn’t matter, and I agree that companies should be able to do that. …
Ok, yes, if Tivo has made some useful modifications that can be back-ported to the original program, then they are giving something back.
But since only Tivo can run the program on the boxes they sell, they’re benefiting from someone else’s program, while creating barriers to stop others (including the original authors) from enjoying the same benefits. Yes, Tivo designed the boxes, but someone else wrote the code (excluding Tivo’s modifications of course).
It worries me that Linux might eventually end up like BSD, i.e. 90-something% of computers run BSD code — embedded in MS Windows — and rather than benefiting people’s freedom, it only benefits Microsoft’s pockets. With DRMed PCs lurking on the horizon, I think the GPL3 may help to avoid a slippery slope.
The anti-DRM provisions of the current proposed GPL v3 were put in there to prohibit exactly what Tivo does (only Tivo signed kernels will run on Tivo hardware)
I disagree. People with an agenda always try to make the issue difficult to understand, but it’s actually fairly simple:
The FSF wants the code to be free and to improve and stay free, and the license is only the legal way to enforce that.
It’s as simple as that, everyone can understand that. Only thiefs, greedy, amoral, … people don’t want to understand it, but even a child can understand a concept so simple. To put that in legal words is more difficult.
So, Tivo can DRM every GPL code they want, the GPLv3 draft NEVER prohibited that they do it. They just ask then, that you provides ways to the one who paid his Tivo to get the code easily without being prosecuted like a terrorist. This is to prevents things like what PearPC thieves (not PearPC, the thieves I don’t remember the name) have done I think.
Linus doesn’t think it is appropriate use a software license to restrict hardware manufactures from doing this
But it is appropriate to force them to give the source if they distribute GPL modified code ? This does not make sense. To me, this is another case of Linux being mistaken. It’s irrelevant anyway, Linux already said that the Linux kernel would stay GPLv2. I don’t understand why people want to use that as a case to disparage GPLv3. Or rather, I know only one group of people who would do that, I already cited them. And I think GPLv3 is already in good shape even though FSF people said some areas need to be clarified. Because the enemy of GPL are already running scared and it’s still just a draft.
Feel free to disagree with him on this point, but he seems to understand perfectly well what is at stake
I don’t think so, and lots of people disagree with him, but he has the right to say no to GPLv3.
The way I interpretted Linus’ comments was that he feels a “software” licence such as the GPL is not the place to impose restrictions on hardware. For instance, the Tivo debacle: The GPL exists to say that if Tivo takes the linux kernel and changes THE CODE they must release that code. Why then once that code is compiled are they not allowed to encrypt it? The DRM provisions of GPLv3 are over stepping their bounds.
Tivo made some hardware that wasn’t under the GPL and part of the hardware requirements was an encrypted kernel. That’s their right to do so. The GPL doesn’t protect the use of hardware, only the code. I think that was Linus’ point, and he thinks the GPL should stay that way.
If we can apply these new provisions of giving up keys when “distributing” encrypted kernels to Tivo, what is to stop someone demanding my private key if I send (or distribute) a kernel in an encrypted e-mail? Can’t see why I would, but would the new GPL cover that too? A bad analogy perhaps but my point remains the same.
Do we want the GPL to try to protect the freedoms we think we are entitled to? Or should it stick to software? Personally I’d be happy to see it stick to software.
If we can apply these new provisions of giving up keys when “distributing” encrypted kernels to Tivo, what is to stop someone demanding my private key if I send (or distribute) a kernel in an encrypted e-mail?
As I understand it, the GPL3 draft doesn’t impose a requirement to distribute the same specific key you use, but rather to distribute _some_ key (if necessary) that gives others the same ability to run, distribute and modify the program that you enjoy as a result of agreeing to the license.
If you distribute the Linux kernel in an e-mail, encrypted using your private key, anyone else can modify the kernel and distribute it just as well in an e-mail using any other key (or, in fact, no key at all). So there is certainly no requirement for you to disclose your private key in that case.
And if it worries you, no one could force anyone else to disclose a key even in a real licensing breach. Rather there may be a cease-and-desist order to prevent future breach of copyright, and a suit for past breach of copyright (although GPL copyright holders generally don’t seem to bother about the latter).
The sticking point is that GPL v3 would force Tivo to distribute a key which allows users to run a modified kernel on Tivo hardware. Tivo already distributes all of their changes along with the source, just as they are required to do, but they do not want to allow users to run anything on Tivo hardware except a Tivo signed kernel. Since that requirement is enforced at the hardware level, Linus feels that it thereby oversteps the boundary between what it can reasonably require and what it cannot.
Perhaps he’s mistaken, and the GPL v3 would allow Tivo to continue doing as they’ve done all along, but I don’t think so. Everyone, including the FSF, seems to agree that Tivo’s DRM scheme wouldn’t be allowed under the new version of the GPL (assuming of course that Linux were relicensed to fall under GPL v3).
It’s as simple as that, everyone can understand that. Only thiefs, greedy, amoral, … people don’t want to understand it, but even a child can understand a concept so simple.
Understanding the simple explanation is simple. Verifying that the license indeed correctly corresponds to the simple explanation isn’t.
| Linus doesn’t think it is appropriate use a software license to restrict hardware manufactures from doing this
But it is appropriate to force them to give the source if they distribute GPL modified code? This does not make sense.
I’m not sure if that’s what Linus meant in this case, but anyway it makes perfect sense to me. I think people should be free to do anything with my code they want, even making money off it and building hardware exclusively for (their version of) it, as long as they contribute code improvements back to me.
I can imagine that there are other people who desire more (or less) protection, but that doesn’t mean this point of view doesn’t “make sense”.
Linux already said that the Linux kernel would stay GPLv2
Oh well. He might change his mind if the license is more properly and clearly explained and/or worded, for example.
That might or might not make a transition of the Linux kernel to GPLv3 feasible, but it would still have impact because Linus has earned respect for his opinions from many people.
The main error the writer makes is that he does not understand that a license doesn’t get to define what “derivative work” means. That is a term that is defined by copyright law, and it’s not up to the license text to teach the reader the law.
The second error that the writer makes is not realizing that the GPLv3 proposal is a draft. If there is unclear language that confuses people, there is plenty of time to clarify the language before the license becomes final.
The writer is correct about one thing: GPLv3 is choosing to be unfriendly to one particular type of business: businesses that want to use free software in locked-down devices that allow only the seller, and not the buyer, to change the code on the device.
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/15/tatu_ylonen_interview_rsa_2006/
An irrelevant response to this topic. The legal scapegoats companies need to have in order to avoid lawsuits from enraged, or just opportunistic, customers in case of security breaches has nothing to do with the GPL. Moreover, I’ve yet to see a case in which a software company was convicted of deliberate malpractice which caused a security breach. Besides, this false “accountability” will create undue stress on the developers and stifle innovation. No company will ever be able to cross-check EVERYTHING in a complex piece of software, hence bugs will always exist. If anything, articles such as this outline the fundamental weakness of the legal system to cope with relevant cases, not of the free software model to provide adequate software. What this article is essentially saying is “we all know that free software can be better, but we don’t care – all we need is a scapegoat in case things go wrong”.
GPLv3 will only affect DRM makers and if you want DRM makers to use your software then don’t license it under GPLv3, period.
Linus prolly want DRM makers use Linux w/o a problem, I woulnd’t mind eather.
so, GPLv3 will be only unpopular to DRM makers, in that way we will be able to see how much support gets the GPLv3 licensed software and realease that if its true that Commercial/Propetary vendors had put OSS where it is or it is where it is now thanks tou its own merits.
the gpl license should be direct and simple like the BSD license.
I’m more worried about the rumoured requirement that you include your private signing keys with the source. That can’t possibly be true?
http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/06/02/15/2141230.shtml?tid=147&t…
We asked Torvalds today if he would “feel differently about v3 of the GPL if it were made clear that only keys required to execute the code fall under the requirement for disclosure.”
Torvalds replied:
“No. And I understand the GPLv3 requirements quite well, thank you. When the FSF says that I mis-understood, they have their heads up their asses.
They have different goals than I do. I think it’s perfectly ok to have keys that are required for installation/running. I don’t think it has anything to do with source code.”
If the GPL license was too complex, vague or in-comprehenable for linus himself to understand,
how would anyone else be able to understand the
GPL licensing???
???
Anyone want to take a few months off and take
a class ( or two or thousands ) on licensing, laws,
patents, copyrights, etc.. ?