12.19.11
New Richard Stallman Interview (Updated: WebM Version)
[via]
Update: WebM version…
width="640"
height="477"
controls="controls"
preload="auto"
data-setup="">
12.06.11
CarrierIQ Exposes the Flaws of “Best Tool for the Job” Pragmatism
The Best Tool For Freedom is a Free Tool
Two friends have a good chat about free software at OSCON.
The CarrierIQ issue, even if it is part of an organized campaign to smear and ruin Android [2], is showing people the dangers of using non free software. Even one piece of non free software can betray users, so mostly free, “pragmatic” systems can be just as bad as regular non free systems. The free software community should capitalize on this awareness to change people’s attitudes towards their devices so that they will reject non free software in the future. Software freedom must be complete for users to have real conrtol and privacy.
Richard Stallman wrote an extensive review of Android back in September. It lists all of the parts of available phones that can be used maliciously against users, which surprisingly include the radio control firmware. The conclusion was unequivocal, “Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free-software portable phone, but there is a long way to go. … While any computing system might have bugs, these devices might be bugs.”
When the CarrierIQ scandal broke, Mr. Stallman was not surprised. His comment was,
The root cause of this problem is that the users don’t control the software on these phones. So if they didn’t put in this surveillance package [Carrier IQ], they would put in some other. The users’ only protection against malicious features (surveillance, intentional restrictions, and back doors) is to insist on free software.
Anyone in the Open Source community who’s surprised should think hard about what the Free Software Society has been telling them. About four years ago at a “Web 2.0″ meeting, Eben Moglen urged the Tim O’Reilly and the Open Source community to quit, “wasting time promoting commercial products.” O’Reilly was sad that Moglen did not want to talk about protecting people’s data on other people’s computers in “the cloud,” but CarrierIQ makes it plain that those rights and protections are meaningless if the user is stripped of privacy by malware in their pocket. It might have been useful ten years ago to hide scary talk about freedom from big companies like IBM. It worked, thanks, but talk about “best tool for the job” and “pragmatic” mixes of free and non free software should now be considered counter productive and the results dangerous.
There are community alternatives to carrier issued Android. Stallman mentions Replicant, a 100% free software replacement for Android. There is also a less careful distribution called CyanogenMod that is focused on performance and includes non free software from Google and perhaps device drivers. Jeff Hoogland, the founder of Bodhi GNU/Linux, is working on Debian for cell phones and we can be sure many others are as well. In the mean time, if you must have a smart phone, it might as well be Android because there is no chance a phone from Apple or Microsoft will be liberated, but don’t expect it to be a Freedom Box the community really wants [2 and don't trust it until it's really free.
Sadly, US law is mostly a hindrance. Senator Al Franklin had some very pointed questions about possible violations of law for the company and a lawsuit has been launched against the guilty parties - Apple, HTC, Samsung, Motorola, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Carrier IQ. That's good but it will be difficult to prove what actually happened, and the free software community can do better. Like Vista and Windows 7, CarrierIQ establishes encrypted communications to hide the data transmitted. It would be better to have free software on your cell phone, so the FSF has petitioned the Librarian of Congress for a DMCA Exemption Without that, it may be against US law for people to replace the software on their phones or even to delete CarrierIQ malware.
The lack of freedom in cell phones is not a natural state but is unlikely to end without changes and enforcement of US law. Android has emerged as the top cell phone OS because it is free software and creates a productive commons for the odd hundred companies that must cooperate to make a cell phoneThe obnoxious US patent system has allowed Microsoft and Apple to practice judicial extortion that should have been blocked by US anti-trust and racketeering laws[1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Spectrum licensing itself is a technically obsolete and harmful practice but the FCC could demand adherence to technical standards, demand the publication of technical standards required to operate phones, and forbid practices such as phone locking as the price carriers pay for spectrum as it transitions to open spectrum.
We are in this hole because a long running propaganda campaign by non free software owners has played down ethical issues while convincing people that they are helpless. Billions of dollars in propaganda spending still drown out the basic truth of the situation and non free software use remains prevalent even among people who have every reason to fear spying by the rich and powerful. CarrierIQ gives us a good chance to fix that.
10.14.11
The Free Software Foundation Takes Action Against Microsoft’s Abuses With UEFI
Summary: The largest Free/libre software advocacy group issues a formal statement and call for action against Microsoft’s TiVoization push
ON SEVERAL occasions before we mentioned the situation with regards to UEFI for Vista 8 [1, 2, 3] and we are gratified to see the FSF getting involved because it has a lot of influence, so it can make things happen. From its formal statement:
Microsoft has announced that if computer makers wish to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called “Secure Boot.” Secure Boot is designed to protect against malware by preventing computers from loading unauthorized binary programs when booting. In practice, this means that computers implementing it won’t boot unauthorized operating systems — including initially authorized systems that have been modified without being re-approved.
Please go ahead and sign the statement.
This just helps show that the FSF was right all along about TiVoization. It had insight and foresight. Speaking of the FSF, its founder Richard Stallman has just told me that “My feelings regarding Jobs are about his work, not about him personally. What I said about Jobs was about his work.” This is worth clarifying for all those who took his words out of context (and we chose not to feed these by doing an article about it). █
07.18.11
Concerns About GNU and the FSF
Summary: Corporations like Google and IBM should do more to keep the FSF strong
AS a longtime supporter and strong advocate of Free/libre software (not just a GNU/Linux supporter), I must confess my worries about the FSF, which a few months ago lost its top man and has since then not been so prominent in Identi.ca (at least the !fsf group) and not blogged so much, either. This does not necessarily mean less development activity in GNU or less exposure for the GPL. All it means is that, based on several data points, it seems safe to say that the FSF was getting more exposure last year and the year before that, maybe further back too.
“It is a sort of sharing maximalism.”The FSF is essential not just as an education effort but also as the steward of some of the best software licences out there — those that ensure dissemination of work and knowledge. It is a sort of sharing maximalism.
Companies that care about software developers should support the FSF to ensure it stays strong. The past year’s contributions to the FSF were lower than before (based on a trusted source) and in the age of kill switches, DRM and software patents we really need groups like the FSF doing their thing. Techrights was never supported financially (except from my own pocket and the pocket of our generous host) and we do not expect to, either. Recently, Ad Bard shut its network down (that was about 3 weeks ago), so Free software-friendly adverts do not exist here either. We are not asking for handouts, but this post is intended to remind large companies like Google and IBM to keep the FSF strong. To them, becoming patrons of groups like the FSF is just slush funds — money that can make big difference to a lot of people, including those companies’ own employees. █
05.31.11
Linus Torvalds Reiterates His Hatred of Software Patents
[Deliberate use of the word "hatred" because Microsoft criticism is not "Microsoft hatred" (loaded term [1, 2, 3) as he once called it.]
“It’s certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does [...] Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousands of really ‘fundamental’ patents [...] The fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection.”
–Linus Torvalds, 2007
Summary: Defense of Torvalds’ stance on patents and criticism of the spineless ‘Guardian’, which has become preoccupied and entangled with bizarre corporate agenda
IT HAS got to be hard for Torvalds to speak out. When he criticises Microsoft or Apple technologies, then the Wintel press portrays him as a basher, as someone who is immature and disrespectful. When he announced Linux 3.0 Microsoft Jack decided to go with a rather malicious headline and spin that negatively, as expected. When he speaks out against software patents Microsoft Florian repeats his smears of the funding sources of the Linux Foundation (which have the same inclination as many of the FSF’s funders) and other Microsoft boosters point to Torvalds’ patents that are not software patents and were acquired on behalf of an old employer of his. Linus Torvalds does not advocate software patenting and he never caved and got lured into it. “Muchas patentes son totalmente ridículas” says a new headline from Argentina (in Spanish), which basically quotes Mr. Torvalds. It is abundantly clear what his position is and nevertheless, Microsoft apologists for the most part wish to distort this fact. Likewise, some detractors of Techrights tried to portray yours truly as an apologist or hypocrite on the subject of software patents because some people in my field — not myself — are pursuing patents. I do not publicly attack other people my field or even my colleagues, but I do attack the practice of patenting in general. To expect Torvalds to attack his paymaster IBM in public is unreasonable. He probably knows IBM's stance and just being paid by IBM (like the FSF is) does not mean he inherits the same principles. There is some serious distortion of views these days, sometimes being the fault of lawyers who try to make it seem like their views are the views of programmers. Likewise, news which professes to be a watchdog has in fact become the rich men’s attack dog.
Glyn Moody, who used to write for the now-Gates-funded Guardian (which is promoting patents, even in Europe), has had enough of that. Not only does he show that Gates is a hypocrite but he also shows that the Gates-funded Guardian has lost its way. To quote:
That’s what Bill Gates said in 1991. He changed his mind, of course, when he realised that Microsoft could use its huge wealth to acquire vast numbers of software patents and deploy them as a weapon to crush or tax competitors. Granting software patents in the UK would simply allow that strategy to be applied here. It would be insanity to hand over such a huge advantage to the well-funded, established US software houses in this way.
That’s why the Hargreaves report was quite correct that the status quo must be preserved: to do anything else would probably spell the end of the UK software industry as we know it.
If the errors of the article are easy enough to rebut, there remains one more troubling issue: why on earth is the Guardian running it? At least the attack on open source that it published last week was flagged up in the headline as a comment piece – that’s fair enough. But the current post in the Guardian Technology Blog has no such heading. The author’s background is given at the foot of the piece, but a naïve reader would still assume that his views are shared by the Guardian. Are they? Does the Guardian really believe that the UK should emulate the US and allow software patents? If so, what on earth is it the guardian of, these days – intellectual monopolies?
I have occasionally read The Guardian since I was a teenager, even on this PDA on which I am typing this blog post. This publication is no longer to be treated as defender of the people. Many publications perished because of the Internet; The Guardian is now surviving in rich men’s pockets. It is no way to be credible. It’s more like controlled opposition, depending on who pays.
One of Gates’ boosters, Heim, wrote that “Cooper, the journalism professor, finds it “laughable” when media claim Gates money doesn’t influence their coverage.”
“It would be naive to believe big-money foundations don’t play the same game that corporations and other special interests do,” wrote Cooper. Since Gates owns a lot of key outlets and uses them to seed his propaganda, we should not expect much resentment against patents coming from these sources. Gates adores patents, it’s what he is all about and what he invests his money in.
In order for GNU/Linux to ‘win’ software patents must die. Do not expect those in power to want software patents to vanish. Protectionism supports and increases the power of those already in power. This includes patent bullies like Steve Ballmer. █
‘A fund manager from one of Microsoft’s largest shareholder’s reportedly told Reuters, “Bill Gates is a ruthless capitalist. If he wanted to, he’d walk Ballmer to the door himself”.’ [Four days ago]
02.18.11
FSF Explains Why Software Patents Are Bad While OIN Grows Stronger
Melbourne at night
Summary: Churchill Club Great Debate on software patents ends; Rackspace joins the OIN; Australian reviews patentable subject matter and New Zealand wrestles with the “embedded” software loophole
As expected, a public debate took place to discuss the patentability of software and the FSF was there. No matter where we check [1, 2, 3], a video of this debate is not published yet. Paul Krill of InfoWorld has a new report about it, which he summarised as follows:
Free Software Foundation argues that software patents infringe on individual expression and present a roadblock to innovation
Meanwhile, the OIN keeps growing (Rackspace has just joined), so there is at least some reassurance that patent attacks on GNU/Linux will have a deterrent.
Further down, in the southern hemisphere, there is also some interesting progress regarding patents. There is an Australian “Review of Patentable Subject Matter” and “sadly,” explains Glyn Moody, this “doesn’t do anything about software patents, gene patents.” Recently, gene patents were questioned in Australia. There is also this from New Zealand:
The NZ Open Source Society has given what it calls “qualified support” to the draft IPONZ guideline on the patentability of inventions containing embedded computer programs.
“There is a fog of misinformation around software patents and the IPONZ guideline,” says Don Christie, NZOSS government liaison officer, in a statement.
The vast majority of the patents in New Zealand (also alleged software patents in New Zealand) are not owned by companies from New Zealand but by large companies mostly from the United States. So clearly the benefit of this type of patent system is not New Zealand’s benefit. There is this new article that quotes different statistics from the United States:
You hear it all the time from our political and economic leaders – small business is the engine of the U.S. economy. Of the nation’s 26.8 million businesses, some 99.9 percent of them have fewer than 500 employees, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
In addition to driving the economy, small business is the source of a big share of the nation’s innovation. For example, 98 percent of telecommunications patents and 97 percent of software patents are issued to companies of 500 or fewer companies, according to a U.S. Small Business Administration study.
The innovation cannot be measured and enumerated in terms of patents, but the point the author is trying to make is that small businesses need government protection. As we know too well, patents are beneficial to large companies that can always counter-sue small companies (bar patent trolls); the same can apply to nations by saying that only large countries with a ton of patents (and some filed overseas) would likely benefit from the collective, worldwide patent system, which is a system of exclusion and protectionism (protecting those already in power, under the umbrella of WIPO and WTO). The US Chamber Of Commerce — like the ICC (lobby for large multinationals) — has released a 2011 IP Policy Agenda just now (amid huge scandals that are covered widely, such as spying on family members of Chamber Of Commerce critics so as to scare and silence them). The fight against patents excess is often a fight against sheer greed, as demonstrated even in the days of Edison — a now-glorified businessman who bullied people using patents he did not deserve. █
02.05.11
Free Software Foundation’s Statement on Microsoft/Novell/CPTN Patent Attack Against Software Freedom
Hartmut Pilch (FFII founder) and Richard Stallman (FSF founder)
Summary: Novell’s despicable ammunition gift to Microsoft is challenged by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FSF issues a statement on the subject
HERE are some of our recent posts about CPTN, which is part of Microsoft’s anti-Linux strategy judging by common sense.
- Microsoft Patent Cartel (CPTN) Dodges German Federal Cartel Office
- Microsoft-run Patent Cartel Retreats Following Formal Complaint, But Why? (Updated)
- CPTN Shows Microsoft Becoming a Patent Agitator Like Kodak, Whose Time is Long Gone
- Benjamin Orndorff From Microsoft/Gates and Ellis Represents the CTPN Patents Cartel
- OIN is Very Different From CPTN and UNIX Risk is Revisited
- In Defence of OIN and Android
- SCO, CPTN, and UNIX
- From UNIX Battles to .NET Battles
Yesterday we wrote about intervention from the DoJ and now there is a statement from the Free Software Foundation (FSF). It starts as follow:
A couple of weeks ago, we posted the OSI and FSF’s joint position statement to the US Department of Justice about Novell’s proposal to sell its patents to the newly-formed CPTN Holdings. Yesterday we learned that the DOJ has sent a “Second Letter” to both companies, asking them to provide more information about the deal.
For future reference, the statement from Brett Smith is added below in full. █
US Department of Justice Investigating Novell/CPTN Deal Further
A couple of weeks ago, we posted the OSI and FSF’s joint position statement to the US Department of Justice about Novell’s proposal to sell its patents to the newly-formed CPTN Holdings. Yesterday we learned that the DOJ has sent a “Second Letter” to both companies, asking them to provide more information about the deal.
We’re heartened to see that the DOJ is taking this issue seriously. When proprietary software companies attack free software with patents, that can be anticompetitive activity. The DOJ is right to investigate and ensure that won’t be a problem with this deal, and they’re setting good precedent for investigating future acquisitions.
CPTN Holdings was formed jointly by Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and EMC for the express purpose of buying Novell’s patents. We’re very concerned that CPTN Holdings will attack free software with those patents. That’s the simplest explanation for why these competitors cooperated for this one specific acquisition. We expect the DOJ to get complete answers about CPTN’s intentions before they approve any sale. Their follow-up letter represents the first step in that process.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license (or later version)
02.02.11
ES: La Fundación de Free Software FSF Desafia las Patentes de Software Mientras que Microsoft las Utiliza para Extorsionar a GNU/Linux
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Los productos de Microsoft no tienen futuro, por lo que la empresa está utilizando las patentes como una forma de impuesto sobre su competencia que está ganando.
TECHRIGHTS cubre las patentes de software más que casi cualquier sitio que se centra en libre/software de código abierto. La cuestión de las patentes de software debe ser ampliamente reconocida como la barrera # 1 a la adopción de GNU/Linux y las muchas demandas de patentes en contra de Android – entre ellos varias de Microsoft y sus aliados – aporta pruebas concretas de ello. La FSF pronto participará en un debate centrado en las patentes en el Club de Churchill (que recientemente ha celebrado un debate Wikileaks). El sitio web de la FSF informa a los seguidores de este evento[https://www.fsf.org/events/churchill-club-patent-panel]:
FSF operaciones Mananger John Sullivan y el ingeniero de cumplimiento de licencias Brett Smith estarán en una mesa redonda en el Churchill Club para argumentar en contra de las patentes de software.
Para aquellos que ven las patentes de software sólo como una amenaza potencial, uno debe recordar acerca de como Microsoft se beneficia de Linux a través de compañías como Novell, LG, Samsung y otros. Cuando uno compra Linux de estas compañías, Microsoft es pagado por ello. Esto se está convirtiendo en una vaca de efectivo más para el MONOPOLISTA y como indica Tim[http://openbytes.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/microsofts-online-woes-living-off-patents-and-office/], pueda competir con Microsoft Office como el “producto” N º 1 de la empresa:
Hoy estoy estudiando las cifras de producción que supuestamente muestran la cantidad de dinero que Microsoft está perdiendo on line y me hago la siguiente pregunta sobre la base de esas cifras, son sólo Office y las patentes que están en mantenimiento vivo a Microsoft?
Hemos traído a colación el tema en el programa TechBytes, así que pensé que sería bueno para la elaboración de algunas de las fuentes que utilizamos para esa sección en particular.
[...]
En mi opinión, Microsoft tiene muy poco que ofrecer. Han crecido tanto, que el mantenimiento de sí mismos con los productos que hacen ya no es viable. Para mí no es ninguna sorpresa que Microsoft tratará de conseguir los ingresos procedentes de sus maniobras de patentes. En el pasado he hecho predicciones, una de las cuales se Ballmer no estaría para mediados del 2011, también dije que, aunque Microsoft no simplemente cierre sus puertas, creo que el Microsoft del futuro será mucho más pequeño y humilde comparado con el inflado monstruo que hoy es. Lo que me preocupa son los productos/empresas que caerán con él, ya que trata desesperadamente de mantener su posición de poder a toda costa.
Una forma de Microsoft para extender aún más sus patentes y empujarlos a GNU/Linux dispositivos y distribuciones sería Mono[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Mono], que sigue siendo intruso en Ubuntu[http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/01/natty-sound-menu-adds-playlist-support/], incluyendo partes de mono que Microsoft considera no cubiertos por la “Promesa” a la Comunidad (como si Microsoft hubiera alguna vez honrado sus “promesas”)[http://techrights.org/2009/07/17/fsf-vs-microsoft-community-promises/]. Para citar un artículo de noticias de un sitio que es apática hacia los temas de Mono[http://techrights.org/2011/01/12/complementary-to-mono/] (parte del denominado “lobby Mono”[http://techrights.org/2011/01/23/mono-bullies-rename/]: “El menú de sonido de Ubuntu 11.04 Alfa ve el regreso de apoyo a la lista de reproducción – una manera fácil de tener acceso a su línea de pista favorita -ups en Banshee sin tener que abrir la aplicación en sí. ”
Esta es la intrusión de mono que esta pasando en los paneles en Ubuntu. Los problemas asociados con Banshee de Novell fueron anteriormente cubiertos en:
* Banshee (MCP-excluida trampa de Mono) todavía no está en Ubuntu, todavía hay tiempo para detenerlo[http://techrights.org/2010/11/05/banshee-disinformation/]
* Canónica Probablemente pondra en Ubuntu GNU/Linux piezas Mono. No que Microsoft considere libre de Demandas[http://techrights.org/2010/10/30/dot-net-gnu-linux-community-promise/]
* Los usuarios de Ubuntu se aunan para impedir la entrada de Novell Banshee (y otras noticias de Mono)[http://techrights.org/2009/06/03/ubuntu-users-keep-banshee-out/]
* Microsoft financiado Media Player se convertira default Media Player de Ubuntu?[http://techrights.org/2009/04/29/banshee-warning-ubuntu/]
* Mono Advertencia: nuevos intentos para Inyectar Banshee en la edición de Ubuntu Netbook 10.10[http://techrights.org/2010/06/24/banshee-novell-and-une/]
* Novell/Microsoft ponen Mono Veneno (Banshee) en Ubuntu 10.10 NBE [http://techrights.org/2010/08/06/banshee-patent-liability-nbe/]
* La amenaza de Banshee Patentes se aferra en Ubuntu 10.10[http://techrights.org/2010/08/08/excluded-from-mcp-but-in-ubuntu/]
* Banshee es Novell, Mono, y “Prohibidas” patentes de software de Microsoft en OpenSUSE 11.3[http://techrights.org/2009/10/22/disinformation-about-banshee/]
* Los usuarios de OpenSuse vulnerables a una demanda de Microsoft Debido a Banshee[http://techrights.org/2010/07/22/potential-banshee-problem/]
* Fedora 13 Sustituye F-Spot (Mono) Con Shotwell (Vala), Meego Aún esta agravada por Mono[http://techrights.org/2010/05/29/shotwell-in-fedora/]
* ¿Qué Alfresco y Android pueden enseñar acerca de Ubuntu[http://techrights.org/2010/11/08/open-but-not-exactly-free/]
* La Defensa Mono engañada, Evita los hechos y recurren a Ataques Críticos lugar y personales[http://techrights.org/2010/11/11/mono-associated-risk/]
* Mala decisión hecha en Canonical en Cuanto a Media Player[http://techrights.org/2010/12/02/mono-based-banshee-in-ubuntu/]
* La Mentira de la Semana de Mono: Banshee de AttachMSFT es “Seguro”[http://techrights.org/2010/12/13/mono-lie-of-the-day/]
*. NET es la Píldora Patente Veneno de Microsoft dentro de cualquier distribución GNU/Linux con Mono[http://techrights.org/2010/12/15/discouragement-of-mono-truths/]
* Ahora es oficial: Banshee incluido en Ubuntu Por default[http://techrights.org/2011/01/07/novell-microsoft-swpats-entrenched/]
* Mantener Unity Libre de Mono[http://techrights.org/2011/01/24/api-tax-and-mono/]
* Los Boosters de Mono en Ubuntu Tienen Conflictos de Interés, LibreOffice en una situación semejante[http://techrights.org/2011/01/08/unwanted-novell-intrusions/]
Mono es, en parte desarrollado por Microsoft ahora. Que contiene código de Microsoft, con licencias de Microsoft. Esto no es un “regalo” – no más que hablado de regalos griegos. Cuidado con la nueva propaganda de la prensa de Microsoft[http://mcpmag.com/articles/2011/01/31/microsoft-reaching-out-on-open-source-interoperability.aspx], cortesía de Kurt Mackie, Microsoft refuerzo de hace mucho tiempo. Es todavía más engaño y mala dirección – algunas propaganda sobre “interoperabilidad” y no estándares abiertos, donde la interoperabilidad puede implicar también acuerdos de patentes como el de Novell. Los ejecutivos de Microsoft están tratando de difundir algunos caballos de Troya como Mono (. NET) y OOXML ya que no pudo abrazar la comunidad de software libre y no pudo hacer de sus formatos propietarios “estándar” (OOXML, por ejemplo, que es muy poco utilizada). A menos que o hasta que las patentes de software sean del todo vaporizadas, las API de Microsoft NO SON SEGURAS y es MEJOR EVITARLAS (a menos que nos acerquemos a ellas de forma pasiva, por ejemplo, Wine). █
“El peligro de las patentes en Mono viene de las patentes que sabemos Microsoft ha puesto en las bibliotecas que están fuera de la especificación de C# y por lo tanto no están cubiertos por ninguna promesa de no demandar. En efecto, Microsoft ha diseñado a traves de ellas, trampas explosivas contra nosotros.” -Richard Stallman
Many thanks to Eduardo Landaveri of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
