Informed Licensing

With Version 1.9.3, Ruby Gets 2-Clause BSD License

2011-10-13T00:28:42Z

Ruby, the amazing “user-friendly” programming language from Japan, is breaking new ground with the release of version 1.9.3.

A Brief History of Ruby

The Ruby programming language has been around for many years (and many versions), but it hadn’t accomplished significant adoption in the west until version 1.8 with the advent of Ruby on Rails, as well as getting included with Apple’s Mac OS X operating system. Over the past several years, Ruby’s use in the United States has blossomed (and continues to expand). However, one of the many complaints regarding Ruby is its speed. It is an interpreted language, and like many interpreted languages, its not about to break and land speed records.

Still, with various optimizations, Ruby (and its famous framework Ruby on Rails), is widely used for many substantial and large web applications.

When I started using Ruby in earnest, Ruby 1.9 was in its alpha stages, but lured by the prospect of speed, I dove right in. Unfortunately, I found that there are many significant differences between 1.8 and 1.9 besides stability and speed. Much has been done to smooth the differences between the two versions since then, but 1.9 remains a rapidly advancing branch. I use the term advancing because the API has become much more stable, but the branch continues to be refined at an impressive clip.

The Future of Ruby

As of 1.9.2, Ruby 1.9 is an amazing piece of work (as is the next generation of Rails - version 3). There is, however, one part that remains quite slow in version 1.9.x (slower even than 1.8?) - file loading.

For Rails 3, this is a problem! It can take much longer for a development installation of Rails to start on 1.9.1 or 1.9.2 than on Ruby 1.8.

Thankfully, this is reportedly getting repaired in 1.9.3 While I was reading that wonderful news, I also happened upon some other earth shattering new:

Ruby 1.9.3 is licensed under a joint 2-clause BSD license instead of the GPLv2.

That probably won’t mean much to most of its users, but for the Ruby development community - its huge. Why? It means that there will likely be more corporate interest in Ruby. Corporations will now be able to modify Ruby, make distributable, compiled binaries of Ruby, and not be required to release their modifications as would be required under the GPLv2. Will we see more “optimized” versions of Ruby like the Ruby Enterprise Edition? I bet we will. Probably a private version from ActiveState as well.

For a variety of reasons, I believe this bodes well for Ruby as a programming language. It will expand the audience of business consumers, and as such will create demand for more Ruby developers.

Welcome to Leisure World, Whoops I Meant Legal World

2010-12-05T18:34:31Z

The Washington Post has published an interesting article concerning Leisure World, a seniors community in Montgomery County. This is a big place! Apparently it houses around 8,500 residents.

The interesting part is that they are being asked by the developer of the community, RRLH, to pay a licensing fee for the use of the name “Leisure World” forty years after the community was built.

They might have a case, but I doubt Leisure World will agree. Based on some quotes in the article, it sounds like they’ll simply change their name. I have to agree with their sentiments. Besides the fact that they’ve operated freely for forty years, the community is established and is operating successfully, and in all likelihood just doesn’t need to associate itself with any brand.

What do you think?

Google / YouTube Win Against Viacom

2010-06-23T23:15:43Z

This is big news! News agencies are reporting that Google / YouTube has won in their fight against Viacom!

Viacom was (perhaps still is through appeals?) suing YouTube for copyright infringement with ginormous liabilities claimed.

An Essay Collection from Cory Doctorow

2010-04-19T18:44:25Z

Cory Doctorow is publishing a collection of essays about technology, creativity, copyright and the future of the future. The collection is called "Content".

A Patent on Existing Reality

2010-03-31T04:16:25Z

The New York Times is reporting a story about how a judge, Robert W. Sweet, in New York ruled against the validity of a patent on the human genome.

I agree with the ruling, because the fact of the matter is that the intellectual property not only already existed in concept, but existed in reality, as part of the human genome.

Certainly, the company which researched and identified the genes in question have ventured into unchartered territory in the context of research, but they did not invent or create that territory.

Viacom's Lawsuit Against YouTube

2010-03-19T21:10:24Z

I've heard much about Rupert Murdoch's angst towards Google for quite some time, but for some reason the lawsuit against Google and YouTube had escaped my attention until recently.

What boggles my mind is this important paragraph which is posted on the YouTube Blog post about the lawsuit:

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

I'm not a lawyer, but I get the feeling that actions like those described in that paragraph might even be considered fraudulent in some jurisdictions, especially in light of the following statement, a little further in the blog post:

In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

This story reminds me of a friend of mine who works in music promotion. His firm was paid by a record distribution company in the US to promote a band, and was given instruction (and permission) to offer free downloads of one song recorded by the band. Pretty soon after he setup the download, the UK region offices served him (and his hosting company) with a cease and desist order.

What lunacy!

My Old Notes About Registering a Copyright for Code

2010-01-10T20:23:24Z

Software is a literary form, it is registered using form TX.

Trade Secrets

Include a cover letter, a picture of a screen display, and 20 pages (first 10 and last 10) with no blackouts.

Cover Letter:

To Whom it May Concern,

Enclosed is the copyright registration form TX for a software program entitled "Software Title". This computer program contains trade secrets and therefore the deposit includes the first 10 and last 10 pages of the code without any sections blacked out. The computer program in its entirity is over X pages long. Included in the deposit are critical and unique components of the code significant enough to identify.

No Trade Secrets

Include 50 pages of the code with no blackouts.

Github Projects Without Licenses

2009-12-26T22:24:43Z

I'm having a great time with Github. They've done an incredibly nice job making it easier than ever to share code and collaborate with other people working on similar projects.

I'd previously read complaints about not knowing which project was the farthest upstream, but I haven't had a problem with that. Most project forks list the original it was forked from.

The problem I'm encountering has to do with licenses, or lack thereof. I'll find a cool project, fork it, and only then realize that the author hasn't included a license! I then delete my fork and message the author about whether or not they plan to specify a license. Some developers seem to think that simply by making their code available to others, they are releasing it into the world of open source software. While I'm not a lawyer and nothing on this site constitutes legal advice, for software to be legally copied, it needs to be licensed.

While reflecting upon this, I'm surprised that Github allows people to host their code on the site for free just by letting other people see it. If the code isn't licensed properly, there could be problems with that. It might fit in OK with the safe harbor agreements in the DMCA, but who knows?

pfSense Gitorious Installation

2009-12-18T22:09:57Z

I'm a pfSense user, and I'm getting more and more into Git.

After setting up my Github.com account, I just realized that Gitorious.com offers something similar, and is also an open source project itself! I should have realized this earlier, as pfSense is using a self-hosted gitorious install for their RCS sub-domain.

Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, there appears to be two big problems.

They are using the Gitorious logo on all the pages. The Gitorious logo is CC Attribution licensed.

They also removed the "Powered by Gitorious" logo / link. While that's not specifically a requirement per the Affero GPL License - pfSense is required to provide a link to the source.

It disappointing to see an open source project infringing upon another open source project license. Hopefully they will fix this soon, or explain why they aren't subject to the terms of the Gitorious licenses.

UPDATE: I should have thought twice about writing that last sentence because the pfSense crew have really done a superb job with their project and are definitely committed to open source. True to form, Scott Ullrich (who I believe is the pfSense project leader) read this post and explained how the situation came to be and some plans to honor the Affero GPL.

I really wish the Affero GPL had a better name, but in my opinion its the best license out there for web applications that would benefit from global collaboration - I use it for most of the web applications I develop.

Font Licensing

2009-12-10T05:05:13Z

I just learned that there is some controversy regarding the use of open source fonts - and not just the usual fear, uncertainty and dread-mongering which sometimes accompanies GPL licensing. The argument is a little more surprising to me.

Some say that if an author, writer, or creator uses or embeds a GPL licensed font in a document they write, the written work is subject to the linking clause of the GPL, causing it to also be licensed under the GPL.

I have no idea how lawful or enforceable that supposition is, but I have to admit the argument is reasonable to me, and the implications are thought provoking. One comment I read online brought up the topic of corporate documents - what a complicated situation!

The Free Software Foundation says: “Font licensing is a complex issue which needs serious consideration”. I agree!

And there is a font exception for GPL licenses as well, which as far as I can tell is somewhat well accepted in the typography world:

“As a special exception, if you create a document which uses this font, and embed this font or unaltered portions of this font into the document, this font does not by itself cause the resulting document to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the document might be covered by the GNU General Public License. If you modify this font, you may extend this exception to your version of the font, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.”

http://www.docunext.com/wiki/Font_Licensing

Fixout.net Infringing on My Copyrights

2009-11-14T02:37:26Z

This reminds me of Retrevo infringing upon my copyrights.

Its disappointing to me that Google indexes this junk, and then even allows the publishers to put adsense on it.

Google's response to their management of these infringements is further disappointing:

http://adsense.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=9894

And fixout.net's "disclaimer" is pathetic:

Disclaimer: The search results above is from search engines without any change. This site is not have any responsible for the content of the search results above.

Whois fixout.net? Your guess is as good as mine:

Domain Name: FIXOUT.NET 

Registrant:
    N/a
    Best First        (bestfirstroar@yahoo.com)
    Tegal
    Tegal
    Jawa Tengah,11111
    ID
    Tel. +62.888888

Creation Date: 22-May-2008  
Expiration Date: 22-May-2010

Domain servers in listed order:
    ns1481.hostgator.com
    ns1482.hostgator.com


Administrative Contact:
    N/a
    Best First        (bestfirstroar@yahoo.com)
    Tegal
    Tegal
    Jawa Tengah,11111
    ID
    Tel. +62.888888

Technical Contact:
    N/a
    Best First        (bestfirstroar@yahoo.com)
    Tegal
    Tegal
    Jawa Tengah,11111
    ID
    Tel. +62.888888

Billing Contact:
    N/a
    Best First        (bestfirstroar@yahoo.com)
    Tegal
    Tegal
    Jawa Tengah,11111
    ID
    Tel. +62.888888

Status:ACTIVE

The Limits of Patents

2009-11-10T18:23:19Z

The recent buzz over court involvement into what is patentable and what is not patentable has caught my attention, and its concerning to me that the question is even up for review.

Like many legal components, patents are incredibly useful and valuable tools, but they can also be abused. In my opinion, its unfortunate that their abuse gets much more attention than their utility and value.

It would be reassuring to think that abuse of patent law would be punishable, but I doubt that would be realistic, or even effective preventative measure. If abuse of patent law were punishable, its possible that the punishments would be abused as well!

Its important to note that egregious abuses of law in general are punishable, but again, the news headlines dramatize the lawyers, lawsuits, and lawmakers that "walk the line" of legal abuse.

As a next step in my train of thought on this matter, I think I will research legal ethics, and if they are involved with patents at all.

ZFS and NetApp Patent Lawsuit

2009-10-29T07:57:56Z

This is definitely a lawsuit I want to keep up-to-date with:

ZFS versus NetAPP Lawsuit Page at Sun.com

Independent Contractors Work-for-Hire Agreement

2009-10-10T04:53:26Z

I'm looking to hire some freelance writers so I searched through my files to find the usual independent contractors agreement I use only to not be able to find it.

I'm sure its on a backup somewhere, and in the worst case scenario I could scan one of the executed hard copies I have.

In the meantime, I drafted one up quick to get started with a new writer. I made sure to cover the work-for-hire work product and consideration factors, as I believe those to be very important for any agreement involving intellectual property.

Even open source software foundations require code contributors to assign copyright before accepting any code!

Yes, Ralph Lauren, Criticism is Fair Use

2009-10-08T19:33:33Z

A friend of mine on Facebook shared this story about a blog post concerning a Ralph Lauren advertisement. I found it a compelling story because it features some things I'm interested in:

The depiction of slender women in media and advertising
Potential or alleged digital manipulation of "realistic" photography
Fair-use exclusions to copyright claims and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

In my experience, BoingBoing publishes interesting and legitimate points of view. This is no exception.