David Canton – For the London Free Press – February 11, 2006

UPDATE - Feb 16 – See below for an email sent by Richard Stallman that clarifies that while he launched the Free Software Movement, he does not favour the concept of open source.

Read this on Canoe

The GPL — perhaps the best known open source software licence — is being rewritten.

The concept of “open source” software was first put forward about 20 years ago by computer programmer Richard Stallman. It began as a philosophical notion that software should be distributed in a form that allows it to be modified by its users.

This means the source code — or human readable code — is distributed along with the object code — or computer readable code. Most open source software is free or low cost. It is improved and modified by a bevy of users, rather than employees of the creator.

Businesses using open source software as part of their software offerings have to be careful how they use it, since they may be required to provide their own source code.

The General Public Licence (GPL) is one of dozens of open-source licences, so it is crucial for the actual licence that accompanies any source code be read and understood.

The GPL reads as much as a manifesto as a licence. It is “intended to guarantee (the user’s) freedom to share and change free software — to ensure the software is free for all its users.”

“Free software” in this context is not necessarily meant to be free of charge. Rather it is free from restrictions on distribution and modification.

Most software licences place restrictions on the user to prevent the unauthorised distribution or modification of the program. The GPL encourages the modification and distribution of software.

In January, the Free Software Foundation began the process of updating the General Public Licence. Stallman and Free Software Foundation counsel Eben Moglen have begun a process of public debate and revision they hope will culminate in a GPL 3.0 in early 2007.

Stallman and Moglen have definite ideas about where they want the GPL to go in its next revision. Moglen calls the new version “an evolution representing catching up to 15 years of history (in which) technology . . . (and the) environment of free software changed for the better and the legal environment changed for the worse.”

They hope to address two main issues with the new GPL.

In 1991, the GPL was considered forward-thinking when it included provisions addressing patent law. Today, many complain these provisions are outdated. Stallman and Moglen are hoping to revise the patent provisions to ensure patent law cannot be used to restrict a user’s rights of distribution and modification of open source software.

The second key area deals with digital rights management. They anticipate the new GPL will limit the use of DRM in conjunction with open- source software.

An example is the increased use of TiVo in the U.S. TiVo, which allows viewers to record and watch television programs on demand, runs on a Linux core. Linux is one of the stalwarts of the open source community.

The TiVo system includes a digital rights management component that records every key-stroke that a user makes, thus tracking their viewing activity.

Moglen says TiVo just barely complied with the GPL 2.0 and thinks it unlikely it will be able to comply with the digital rights management provisions in GPL 3.0.

Linux may not, however, be subject to GPL 3.0. Linux creator Linus Torvalds is not happy with the proposed GPL 3.0 and says Linux is governed by version 2.0, not by any later version.

The draft GPL 3.0 can be found on the Free Software Foundation’s website at gplv3.fsf.org .

““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““

E-mail from Richard Stallman:

Your Feb 11 article inaccurately credited me with the “concept of open source”–a concept I do not favor. In 1983 I launched the Free Software Movement, a social movement to establish for computer users the freedom to redistribute and change the software they use. I wrote the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) to defend the freedom of all users for the programs we developed for the GNU operating system (gnu.org).

GNU today is used with the kernel Linux, in the GNU+Linux combination.
The developers of Linux will decide whether Linux will use GNU GPL version 3, but we will certainly use it for the many GNU components in the GNU+Linux system.

The concept of “open source” was formulated in 1998 by those who wished to replace the ethical values of the Free Software Movement with purely practical values. They are entitled to their views, but please do not label us and our work with their slogan.

Sincerely

Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (fsf.org)

All sorts of interesting new products are being pitched at the Demo conference – ranging from instant ice cream to dinosaur robots to instant book publishing.

These links are to some coverage, including how to pitch your product – a skill everyone trying to sell a new product needs to master.

Wired article

Techdirt post on how to present

Cnet article

The US Senate is now having hearings into the issue of network neutrality aka a two-tiered Internet.

Many telcos and cable cos want to be able to charge for traffic priority, or prioritize their own traffic, or charge businesses like Google for traffic.

There has been a lot of press on this issue recently – most of it critical of the idea – and for good reason.

Techdirt says the Internet simply doesn’t exist without network neutrality, and it would amount to: killing off what makes the internet useful… which allows them (they think) to go back their older business model which is clearly under attack from the internet.

I think this is simple. Anyone connecting to the Internet should be charged for that connection. We may pay more for more bandwidth, but essentially we pay for the “pipe”. For whatever services we use the Internet for, including TV, phone, searching – we should pay whatever the service provider we choose charges, which in many cases is nothing. If the provider of the “pipe” wants to offer those services, thats great – but they must compete on the same level playing field as others.

Read the Techdirt post

Read an earlier post of mine

Michael Geist points to examples around the world where user rights are being balanced with creator rights – including expanded fair use, and questioning the merits of DRM.

Its good to see all lawmakers are not blindly following the
entertainment industry lobby, but rather are looking at things from a broader perspective.

Hopefully the new Canadian government is paying attention.

Read Michael’s post

David Canton – for the London Free Press – February 4th, 2006

Read this on Canoe

American and British viewers will be able to watch Internet video streams of events at the Turin Winter Olympics. Canadians will not.

The BBC will offer its broadband customers five channels showing simulcast BBC television coverage, plus “all the best bits on demand.”

In the U.S., NBC will post video clips of events only for U.S. viewers. These clips will be available after the event has finished.

In Canada, the CBC will not offer any video clips of events on its website. Internet coverage will be limited to schedules and written pieces.

The allocation of Internet broadcast licences reflects the way the International Olympic Committee has acknowledged the Internet’s growing importance.

At the 2000 Games in Sydney, the IOC imposed a blanket prohibition on any Internet video of events, claiming the television audience was more than 3.7 billion people, while the Internet audience was only 20 million.

The IOC was also concerned that allowing any video over the Internet with worldwide access would undermine the broadcast rights it grants on a county-by-country basis.

The same prohibitions were in place at the 2002 Salt Lake City Games. The IOC felt the effect of the Internet, however, when the Sale-Pelletier figure skating controversy resulted in a flood of e-mail to the television networks and the IOC.

Entire discussion forums and chat rooms were devoted to the issue and the IOC’s reaction. Viewers’ reactions over the Internet played a significant role in the IOC’s move to review the judges’ decision.

The IOC offered Internet licences to broadcasters for the 2004 Athens Games. The BBC and other European broadcasters offered simulcast coverage, while NBC offered video recap clips.

Now the IOC has embraced the Internet wholeheartedly.

Athletes in Turin will have Internet access throughout the residences. Media points will be set up where athletes will be able to get immediate results. A custom network has been implemented where broadcasters will have instant access to information via touch screens.

Things may change in Canada at the next round of Olympics. Sun Media reported last year that for the first time, Internet video streaming and wireless rights were part of the negotiations for Olympic broadcast rights in Canada for the Beijing (2008) and Vancouver (2010) Games.

This raises an issue the IOC may not yet fully grasp. The broadcast rights licences for Beijing and Vancouver were negotiated in 2005. This means that by the Vancouver Games, broadcasters will be bound to a licence agreement that is five years old.

In terms of the Internet, five years is a lifetime. In the five years since the Turin licence was negotiated, for example, we have seen the rise of wireless video and podcasting.

Thanks to David Fraser’s Privacy Law Blog for pointing to the Ontario Privacy Commissioner’s fact sheet entitled Secure Destruction of Personal Information.

As David puts it: Learn it. Live it. Love it.

Read David’s post

Read the fact sheet

Wired News has an article entitled E-Discovery Is Big Business that talks about the growing number of businesses that specialize in assisting lawyers with electronic discovery. They sort through data files to feret out documents relevant to the case at hand.

This trend has been slower to catch on in Canada than in the US, but it is being used here as well. A litigation colleague of mine tells me our firm routinely does e-discovery on certain cases (especially class actions), and has used firms like Kroll with great success.

Read the Wired News article

An Ontario man who sold counterfeit copies of popular software has been sentenced to jail, and must pay a 6 figure fine.

This shows the RCMP and the Crown take this crime as seriously as the software vendors.

Read more detail in an ITBusiness.ca article

That’s the title of a new book that is critical of several US broadband providers. It says they promised to deliver 45 Mbs residential services by 2006 in return for higher rates and various tax concessions.

So the claim is they have been already paid to provide services we don’t have – yet at the same time pressure is being brought by certain ISP’s to get large volume traffic generators (like Google) to pay extra.

Read an article about the book on muniwireless

Read an earlier post of mine on traffic shaping