TODAY: Symposium on Current Trends in FOSS Movements

[Jeff Smith]

thanks for the report (& post to Groklaw).  Overall great
wrapup.  Did you get to the other talks?  

My comments below  (IANAL, recognize you're just reporting,
etc) -

--- Bill Sconce <sconce at in-spec-inc.com> wrote:

<snip>
> 
> It's encouraging that these messages (all of the messages
> at this
> conference, in fact) were being delivered to
> up-and-coming "IP" lawyers.

Yes, get the word out.
> 
> And to see Dan in action. His presentation contained the
> best-researched
> and most clearly delivered legal material at the
> conference (readily
> apparent even to this NAL). We're lucky that Free
> software has such an
> earnest, highly capable friend in the legal profession.
> Thanks, Dan!

Research & presentation - make them argue the facts.  Good
work.

> 
> 2. "Open Source Litigation, Past, Present and Future",
> Edmund J. Walsh,
> Wolf Greenfield & Sachs
> 
> Mr. Walsh directly addressed one of our favorite
> subjects, the SCO
> lawsuits. Prognosis? He quoted Judge Kimball, already
> known to Groklaw 
> readers, "...it is astonishing that SCO has not offered
> any competent
> evidence to create a disputed fact..." I gathered that he
> doesn't expect
> SCO to prevail.

Anyone think different?  (well, maybe SCO, but they're
toast )
> 
> He does, however, expect (beyond SCO) that "...some
> issues will almost
> certainly be resolved through litigation."
>


 
> 3. "Working with Open Source Software Compliance
> Management", Karen
> Copenhaver, Black Duck Software
> 
> Karen exhorted the gathered lawyers to appreciate that
> the number of
> "open source" licenses out there (hundreds) multiplied by
> the number
> of languages out there (English plus thousands) creates a
> Babel which
> the world is simply not going to put up with. A dynamic
> and convincing 
> speaker.

Sounds like the OSI point now - we need only a few general
licenses, not every company/developer creating YAMM (yet
another mod of MPL).

> 
> She pointed out the dangers (including a convincing use
> case) of 
> companies using Free software without taking care to
> track compliance
> with its license(s).  Valuable advice, since we want the
> GPL to be
> respected. (The company in question failed a
> due-diligence
> certification because management tried to stonewall with
> "We never
> use Free software" ... which turned out to be not true.)

Did she argue that they should track compliance & do
due-diligence on ALL their licenses?  Check what the BSA
can  do to you if you blow the commercial / proprietary
licenses.    No negative for FLOSS here.

> 
> 4. "Free Software and Beyond", Richard Stallman, lead
> developer, GNU
> Operating System
> 
> Freedom 0. The freedom to run the program, for any
> purpose.
> 
> Freedom 1. The freedom to study how the program works,
> and adapt it
> to your needs.
> 
> Freedom 2. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can
> help your
> neighbor.
> 
> Freedom 3. The freedom to improve the program, and
> release your
> improvements to the public, so that the whole community
> benefits.
> 
> As Professor William Hennessey, Chair of the "IP"
> Graduate Program,
> was introducing RMS to the audience he used the term
> "open source".
> RMS, standing in the wing, interrupted him, saying loudly
> and clearly,
> "I don't do open source". He said a lot of other things
> loudly and
> clearly too.

No matter what, RMS speaks loudly and passionately about
what he believes in.


> 
> _______________________
> Summary: the symposium was an all-day event, and Free
> software got
> both a clear exposition and a warm reception in the "IP"
> legal
> community. Groklaw readers would have enjoyed it and
> should feel
> encouraged.
> 
> -----------------------
> (*) I asked RMS to autograph a copy of the symposium
> program. He was
> willing to give an autograph, although not on the
> program, because of
> the title "SIPLA Symposium". RMS rejects the
> juxtaposition of words 
> suggested by "IP".

Good - I wish people would recognize that IP is an
oxymoron.  There's Trademark, Copyright, Patent, and Trade
Secret.  Each is different.  Don't treat them the same.

Note - IANAL, but IAAHB (I am a history buff).  Read the
founding fathers on this stuff.

jeff