Dear All,
For those of you who are interested please find below the rather
unapologetic response from the author of the article in Webtechniques, and
my response to his response. I would like to thank those of you who
contacted me offering your support.
Yours...
--
Ricardo Gladwell, Web Developer
Demon Internet, Westhumble House,
Dorking Business Park, Dorking. RH4 1HJ
Tel: +44 (01306) 732 356
Mobile: +44 (07779) 841 444
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Trachtman [mailto:michael@eloquence.com]
> > Sent: 19 March 2001 05:53
> > To: Gladwell, Ricardo
> > Cc: Al Williams
> > Subject: RE: Ethics of Circumventing OS
> >
> >
> > Ricardo,
> >
> > Thanks for your comments. I enjoyed reading them. Of course, I see
> > your point. I'm not sure that I agree that using Open
> Source Software
> > is unethical in the way I describe. I'm not qualified to
> judge ethics.
> >
> > However, I think that there is a slight difference between legally
> > working around Open Source limitations and working around
> > other copyright
> > limitations,
> > in that in one case somebody loses money and in the other
> > not. I'm sure
> > that
> > web techniques would not publish an article for
> circumventing anything
> > in an illegal way. I disagree that "the profits belong to the
> > open-source movement", as the "open source movement" does
> not (in most
> > cases)
> > claim or ask for any profit.
> >
> > The real truth is, of course, that I wrote the article for
> > fun. The topic
> > of the month was "legal issues", and I wanted to write an
> > article about
> > using CORBA to bridge Java and C instead of JNI. In order to match
> > the article with the monthly topic, I came up with this idea,
> > of using CORBA to circumvent Open Source restrictions. I
> don't really
> > know if the idea works from a legal perspective. Who knows !!
> >
> > In any case, what I was trying to do was to have fun. And
> the creation
> > of controversy is fun in any case. So, thanks for adding to the
> > controversy.
> > Of course, if you want to cancel your subscription, that is
> your priv.
> > However, since it is a fun and educational magazine, I don't
> > suggest it.
> > And besides, the magzine is like Open Source software. It
> is available
> > for free both in print and on the web. Without serious "open source
> > restrictions". And, if you want to write an article on how to
> > work around
> > any "copyright restrictions" that might apply to Web Techniques
> > (such as making deep links to content and other such "controversial"
> > issues),
> > it's possible that Web Techniques would publish it. Who knows.
> >
> > So, in the meantime, just enjoy the fun. It's not all that serious.
> >
> > Most warmly..
> > .. Michael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gladwell, Ricardo
> Sent: 19 March 2001 10:57
> To: 'Michael Trachtman'
> Cc: 'alw(a)al-williams.com'; 'editors(a)webtechniques.com'
> Subject: RE: Ethics of Circumventing OS
>
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> Thank you for your informative reply to my email. I also
> enjoyed reading your comments. However, while you claim to
> see my 'point' the body of your email would seem to
> demonstrate otherwise.
>
> Your first point that you are in no position to 'judge
> ethics' leaves me slightly concerned: surely, as mature
> adults, we are all responsible for judging the ethics of our
> own actions.
>
> You also claim, in defence of you article, that Webtechniques
> is 'open-source'. While I agree that articles from this
> publication are free (as in 'free beer') to view on the
> Internet, I do not imagine that Webtechnique's publisher's
> would be particularly happy if other people began to
> completely reprint all their articles on their own web sites.
> Or, worse still, publish them in their own, printed
> magazines. In that sense they are not free (as in 'free
> speech'). Perhaps this distinction escaped you attention when
> you wrote your article.
>
> You also tell me in your reply that 'in one case somebody
> loses money' (if a copyright workaround is found for
> commercial software) 'and in the other not' (if the procedure
> detailed in your article is followed). It would seem to me
> that this argument is completely flawed and the reverse is
> true. Copyright law and copyleft licensing are there to
> prevent other people from profiting from your work and, in
> both the cases you mention, profits from work done go to
> people who did not earn them.
>
> Your final defence is that it was 'all for fun' and that you
> wanted to 'create controversy'. I've heard that one before
> and perhaps the editors might feel that a 'bit of fun and
> controversy' should be reserved for the online forums, news
> groups and chat rooms with the rest of the troll posts,
> leaving Webtechniques for more useful, informative and
> 'funnier' articles. It is unfortunate that this bit of fun
> cost Webtechniques a subscription, and possibly more
> considering the supportive responses I have received from
> posting my letter.
>
> Besides, your intentions are irrelevant - I'm not interested
> in why you wrote the article, only that you did write it. As
> far as any open-source developer is concerned the profits
> from circumventing copyleft belong to the open-source
> community and not private individuals.
>
> It is worth noting that there have never been any legal cases
> enforcing copyleft - in fact, I do not consider that copyleft
> was ever designed to be upheld in a court of law. Rather, I
> believe copyleft was created to make a point about the
> hypocrisy of copyright - a point that you have unconsciously
> demonstrated with your article. As I mentioned in my last
> email, you would never dream of publishing an article
> demonstrating a 'legal' method of circumventing, say,
> Microsoft's copyright restrictions for fear of (extreme)
> legal reprisals. You do so for open-source community only
> because you know legal reprisals will not be forthcoming. And
> what could be more hypocritical and unethical than that?
>
> Yours sincerely...
>
> --
> Ricardo Gladwell, Web Developer
> Demon Internet, Westhumble House,
> Dorking Business Park, Dorking. RH4 1HJ
> Tel: +44 (01306) 732 356
> Mobile: +44 (07779) 841 444
