Linux and free art tools

A non-free Linux won't happen.

SCO have produced no evidence, and unless there's some reality-bending legal kryptonite in the old BSD settlement, they are looking increasingly desperate. If they do ever produce evidence that they own the code that Novell also claims ownership of, and evidence that IBM copied that code into Linux, the offending code will be removed from Linux in a matter of hours. Their code claims so far were been disproved once people changed the font they hid their presentation in back from a Greek font to an ASCII one. I don't think SCO knew what to do with themselves when IBM chose to fight rather than just buy them up…

What this case *has* highlighted is how IP risk in GPL-licensed works is passed on. This can be tackled with *general* insurance, rather than the single-vendor indemnification some vendors are now offering. This will increase costs slightly but not to the hundreds of dollars SCO claim to want.

It's also highlighted that the advantages of Free software go beyond it's usual cheapness. Linux isn't costless, if you download it over the internet you pay for electricity and ISP time. It's important aspect is its *freedom* as defined by the FSF, and that is being defended rigorously. I pay for Darwin when I buy MacOSX, and I'm happy that the source being Open has advantages over it being Closed that make it worth more than the hidden security black-hole of Microsoft's code. If I could get Illustrator's source code under an Open Source license I'd frankly wet myself and I'd upgrade for the first time in almost a decade. * But I'm writing my own Free vector editor to make sure I can have the source code and modify it however I want (http://www.robmyers.org/minara).

If SCO move the case to a parallel universe where their arguments have merit, and they win, and Linux isn't fixed, and people get sued, and monkeys fly out of my butt, we can fall back to BSD, Darwin, HURD or one of the many other free UN*X-like operating systems available with all the APIs you're used to. Your ISP probably already uses BSD, and BSD settled a lawsuit from SCO's ancestors out of court some time ago. **

I second your recommendation of Groklaw. It's a brilliant application of Open Source methods to a non-software project, and a real eye-opener. And the SCO license, for something they don't own and that if they claim to own they're breaking the license they distribute much of their own software under, is always good for a laugh. :-)

- Rob.

* - Yes, I understand how FOSS licences work. I'm not trying to misrepresent the fact that if Illustrator were open you could get the code for no cost, I'm trying to emphasise that being able to get the code *adds value* and supporting this is worthwhile.

** - BSD could have won, but for some strange reason they added a couple of copyright headers to a couple of source files instead and everyone went home.

On Thursday, February 05, 2004, at 10:51AM, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:

>Considering the fact that there have often been discussions on the list
>regarding the tools used to create digital art and their cost, I'm a bit
>surprised that there hasn't been any discussion about the whole
>SCO/IBM/Linux issue. I feel that Linux and the whole Open Source concept
>is an extremely important issue to the internet and software based arts
>(so I almost understand why they got that Golden Nica a few years ago). I
>wonder if anyone has considered the potential impact that a non-free Linux
>might have on the field. I know for one that I wouldn't be doing what I'm
>doing now if it weren't for Open Source and Linux, hosting prices would
>probably go up and being bound to proprietary software would seriously
>limit various possibilities for experimentation.
>
>If you have no idea what I'm talking about, here are a couple of websites
>on the issue:
>
>http://www.groklaw.net
>http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html
>
>Pall
>–
>Pall Thayer
>artist/teacher
>http://www.this.is/pallit
>http://130.208.220.190/
>http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
>http://130.208.220.190/panse
>
>
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

> A non-free Linux won't happen.

I agree, just think this whole thing should've generated some discussion on
this list some time ago. PS. Did you happen to see Harvards webcast of Darl
McBride speaking to Harvard Law and a bunch of MIT students the other day?
Brilliant. I wonder what sort of situation Mr. McBride thought he was
entering into when he accepted the offer to speak. It was quite obvious that
he wasn't exactly prepared for a roomfull of long-time Linux users.

>
> SCO have produced no evidence, and unless there's some reality-bending
legal kryptonite in the old BSD settlement, they are looking increasingly
desperate. If they do ever produce evidence that they own the code that
Novell also claims ownership of, and evidence that IBM copied that code into
Linux, the offending code will be removed from Linux in a matter of hours.
Their code claims so far were been disproved once people changed the font
they hid their presentation in back from a Greek font to an ASCII one. I
don't think SCO knew what to do with themselves when IBM chose to fight
rather than just buy them up…
>
> What this case *has* highlighted is how IP risk in GPL-licensed works is
passed on. This can be tackled with *general* insurance, rather than the
single-vendor indemnification some vendors are now offering. This will
increase costs slightly but not to the hundreds of dollars SCO claim to
want.
>
> It's also highlighted that the advantages of Free software go beyond it's
usual cheapness. Linux isn't costless, if you download it over the internet
you pay for electricity and ISP time. It's important aspect is its *freedom*
as defined by the FSF, and that is being defended rigorously. I pay for
Darwin when I buy MacOSX, and I'm happy that the source being Open has
advantages over it being Closed that make it worth more than the hidden
security black-hole of Microsoft's code. If I could get Illustrator's source
code under an Open Source license I'd frankly wet myself and I'd upgrade for
the first time in almost a decade. * But I'm writing my own Free vector
editor to make sure I can have the source code and modify it however I want
(http://www.robmyers.org/minara).
>
> If SCO move the case to a parallel universe where their arguments have
merit, and they win, and Linux isn't fixed, and people get sued, and monkeys
fly out of my butt, we can fall back to BSD, Darwin, HURD or one of the many
other free UN*X-like operating systems available with all the APIs you're
used to. Your ISP probably already uses BSD, and BSD settled a lawsuit from
SCO's ancestors out of court some time ago. **
>
> I second your recommendation of Groklaw. It's a brilliant application of
Open Source methods to a non-software project, and a real eye-opener. And
the SCO license, for something they don't own and that if they claim to own
they're breaking the license they distribute much of their own software
under, is always good for a laugh. :-)
>
> - Rob.
>
> * - Yes, I understand how FOSS licences work. I'm not trying to
misrepresent the fact that if Illustrator were open you could get the code
for no cost, I'm trying to emphasise that being able to get the code *adds
value* and supporting this is worthwhile.
>
> ** - BSD could have won, but for some strange reason they added a couple
of copyright headers to a couple of source files instead and everyone went
home.
>
> On Thursday, February 05, 2004, at 10:51AM, Pall Thayer
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Considering the fact that there have often been discussions on the list
> >regarding the tools used to create digital art and their cost, I'm a bit
> >surprised that there hasn't been any discussion about the whole
> >SCO/IBM/Linux issue. I feel that Linux and the whole Open Source concept
> >is an extremely important issue to the internet and software based arts
> >(so I almost understand why they got that Golden Nica a few years ago). I
> >wonder if anyone has considered the potential impact that a non-free
Linux
> >might have on the field. I know for one that I wouldn't be doing what I'm
> >doing now if it weren't for Open Source and Linux, hosting prices would
> >probably go up and being bound to proprietary software would seriously
> >limit various possibilities for experimentation.
> >
> >If you have no idea what I'm talking about, here are a couple of websites
> >on the issue:
> >
> >http://www.groklaw.net
> >http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html
> >
> >Pall
> >–
> >Pall Thayer
> >artist/teacher
> >http://www.this.is/pallit
> >http://130.208.220.190/
> >http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
> >http://130.208.220.190/panse
> >
> >
> >+
> >-> post: [email protected]
> >-> questions: [email protected]
> >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> >+
> >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> >
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php