Lawrence Lessig Elected to FSF Board of Directors 168
Free Software Foundation writes "Stanford Professor Lawrence Lessig was elected to the Free Software Foundation's Board of Directors on March 28, 2004.
With Eben Moglen, the two most prominent academic legal minds on the subject of copyleft licensing now both serve as Directors of the Foundation.
Professor Lessig's involvement will undoubtedly give a major boost to the FSF's ongoing efforts to neutralize legal threats to software freedom.
The official announcement is here."
Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
>This november, we will elect someone president, but won't know who for months before the legal battle ends.
Eh? Surely Diebold already know the result.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
This announcement is the first time I've seen a list of the board members. By whom was he elected?
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Informative)
The FSF shareholders.
Any other rose (Score:4, Funny)
I get nothing from the new guy. 'cept maybe "Less sig, more post"? On that note, I depart.
Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, his ideas are only effective within the walls of academia. He could actually enact through judicial activism many of the concepts and principles that he believes in if he were an actual judge.
Which begs the question, why would an obviously talented legal thinker be passed over time and again for judicial appointments?
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that he's just too liberal for the current conservative regime. I am a big fan of Lessig as well even though I usually vote Republican. I've read two of Lessig's books and while I might disagree with him on other things, he's dead right when it comes to intellectual property and presents a very informed opinion that I think most sane non RIAA or MPAA tainted peop
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:4, Interesting)
If I was an aspiring legal type, I'd probably clerk for just about any appellate level judge that would take me. The experience would be too good to pass up.
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, he claims to be liberal in Free Culture.
Hm, where does he claim that? I can't find anything that says he's a liberal, but I may be missing it.
If I was an aspiring legal type, I'd probably clerk for just about any appellate level judge that would take me. The experience would be too good to pass up.
I don't know many former clerks that weren't at least sympathetic to the views of their judges. A reason may be that judges don't often pick clerks that appear
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, we are discussing Lessig so I don't think this is offtopic. But to each his own.
You are right, there is no sentence in the book that says, "I am a liberal" but it is implied a few times. However, I remember it being insinuated several times in the book, but in the preface (page xiv) he says: If we understood his change, I believe we would resist it. Not "we" on the Left or "you" on the Right, but we who have no stake ... This l
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:2)
You're probably right, but it could also mean that he assumes his reader to be left leaning and not say anything in particular about his personal beliefs.
Re:Those who can do, those who can't - IN AUDIO (Score:3, Informative)
fwiw, you might check out the streaming archive [turnstyle.org] that I've been putting together...
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:1)
I also think this is an encouraging trend. That justices choose to surround themselves with people who will qu
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:3, Interesting)
The original, overall point I was trying to make was that being "conservative" or "liberal" has nothing to do with one's thoughts on the state of intellectual property laws today. That point I'll stand by.
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:1)
And on this point I will agree with you and so would Lessig. He goes to great lengths in Free Culture to point out the Left and Right reasons why you should agree with him on IP.
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop right there. That's not right. Judicial activism should not exist in any direction, even on viewpoints we agree on. Judicial activism is where a judge ignores the law and just rules based on how they wish the law was. That's wrong.
If you want him writing laws... send him to Congress.
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:2)
Then there's at least 20,000 people [google.com] using the term incorrectly, since this recent example was based on a (state) constitutional argument.
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:2)
Then there's at least 20,000 people using the term incorrectly
No, they're using the term correctly. They're complaining that the MA Supreme Court engaged in judicial activism, implying that what the court did was wrong.
Most of that first google page was links to conservative publications, who obviously think the ruling was wrong. I saw one liberal page, but even that one was saying that although the ruling was great, judicial activism is still bad.
It's not the fact that the question was constitutio
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:3, Insightful)
Judicial activism is something beyond that, when a judge makes a twisted ruling that's likely to be appealed because it's not grounded in any law at all... simply "legislating from the bench". That's really exposing a weakness in our government, that a judge has to really-really-really screw up to lose their job. Bad judges are hard
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:2)
As long as laws are written that are vague, interpretations of their meaning will be made by judges, for better and for worse. The solution is to write better laws that address the specifics.
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:2)
The solution is to write better laws that address the specifics.
So long as laws are written in a human language, the solution will be to have judges, who according to accepted methodologies, deem to intepret the "will of the legislature." This is so even where a statute is specific to the point of agony. Law is not an engineering problem.
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:2)
Legally wrong, but not necessarily morally wrong. If the law is unjust, then it is morally correct to override or ignore the law.
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:2)
Bit black-and-white, wouldn't you say?
Keep in mind that in the Anglo-American model of jurisprudence, where judges have been effectively cowed by the parliament (Congress), they demonstrate notoriously dino attitudes (England being perhaps the best example of this). Where they explicitly have been unleashed, they have sh
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:2)
It depends on who you ask. Some people believe that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and when congress passes a law that violates the constitution, the courts have the responsibility to overturn the law. This concept is known as judicial review. Often, this
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Because the people who appoint judges (especially to high courts like the circuit courts and the Supreme Court) aren't interested in appointing people who can think. They're interested in appointing people who are likely to rule in favor of their corporate masters no matter how strong the argument against them is.
... and Lessig Doesn't (Score:1)
I think Lessig is one of the foremost thinkers when it comes to modern intellectual property law. His thoughts are, of course, more evolutionary than revolutionary and closer to the mainstream concepts of IP rights and responsibilities than many of us are aware. His ideas have great impact on the way many of us think about IP law.
Nope, you are wrong. Lessig is an intellectual coward at best. 150 years ago Lessig would have been called a cooperationalist - you know, one of those morally shallow enligh
Re:... and Lessig Doesn't (Score:1)
However, in my opinion, copyrights, when applied appropriately, can extend culture. When combined with an appropriate business model(which isn't the way the RIAA/MPAA are handling things), they can simultaneously help artists continue to produce, while exposing everyone else to their work.
The a
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:1)
Can we also please dispense with the idea that those that can't do,
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:2)
Anyone? Anyone got an answer?
Nope, didn't think so. Just the usual Slashdot "Oh yeah? Well, shaddup."
Re:Those who can do, those who can't... (Score:2)
I was going to guess if Dean or some of the other presidential candidates who appeared as guests on Lessig's blog (and who've since dropped out of the race) won the election they'd put Lessig in their administration somewhere, appointed him to head the FCC, or as you say made him a judge. Maybe if some supporters of those candidates who've since gotten in line in support of Kerr
Re:Losing streak? (Score:2)
So really, I think he's realizing that he's better off lobbying lawmakers than trying cases right now... the reason why he's losing so many cases is because the laws keep getting worse.
I just can't do it but.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I just can't do it but.. (Score:2, Funny)
attempt 1:Yeah, but does he run Linux?
attempt 2:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of him!
attempt 3:I for one welcome our new FSF Overlords...
Re:I just can't do it but.. (Score:2)
No, it's not funny, but the fact that it's moderated as +5, Funny is funny, and thus the comment as a whole is funny, and should be moderated as such. See? It's recursive meta-humour, but you might have a hard time understanding it.
-Rob
Re:I just can't do it but.. (Score:2, Funny)
2) +5, Funny
3) Profit!!
Re:I just can't do it but.. (Score:2)
1. Read article
2. Post comment
3. ???
4. +5, Funny
Step 1 is optional.
-a
Imagine... (Score:2)
From: http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/lawyers.html [gnu.org]
A man went to a brain store to get some brain for dinner. He sees a sign remarking on the quality of proffesional brain offerred at this particular brain store. So he asks the butcher:
"How much for Engineer brain?"
"3 dollars an ounce."
"How much for Computer Scientist brain?"
"4 dollars an ounce."
"How much for lawyer brain?"
"100 dollars an ounce."
"Why is lawyer brain so much more?"
"Do you know how
CSPAN called (Score:5, Funny)
legal framework for free software (Score:1, Insightful)
This can only serve to strengthen the GPL, particularly as version 3 nears completion, with stronger protections of freedom. All of our hard work is for nothing if Microsoft can steal our code with impugnity.
Re:legal framework for free software (Score:1)
That's the sad part. Licensing becoming more important than the thing being licensed.
All of our hard work is for nothing if Microsoft can steal our code with impugnity.
How do you know that they haven't already???
Probably won't help in the long run... (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps. But remember that he was on the losing side of the Supreme Court case against the Copyright Term Extension Act.
It certainly can't hurt to get all the assistance we can, so I'm pleased that he's been elected to the FSF Board, but let's not kid ourselves: we're very likely to lose the intellectual property fight -- there are far too many large corporations that are in favor of draconian and one-sided (favorable to them) intellectual property laws, and everyone that matters, including the Supreme Court, favors the large corporations.
Interestingly enough, those very laws are exactly what will keep Microsoft in their monopoly position.
Re:Probably won't help in the long run... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have some sage advice for FSF, I suggest you write it on the back of a cheque and send it to them. (whether you do this or not - and whether you give up or not, they'll keep fighting for your freedom.)
how lessig lost the big one (Score:5, Interesting)
Here, in Lessigs style, is an anecdote (from the 80's) : A Microsoft sales rep messed up a 1.5million dollar deal - so the rep is called in to Gates' office and he says to Gates' "I guess I'm fired, yeh?", Gate's replies: "What? you just learned a big lesson and we footed a 1.5million dollar bill for that lesson - there's no way I'm gonna fire and have some other company gain that experience you just gained."
Lessig is a good smart guy, and FSF/GNU have been doing the impossible for 20+ years now. Lessig lost a failed a big test, there'll be other tests, and he'll try again because he cares about the subject matter.
(yes, this is my second time replying to the parent, the first reply was knee-jerk. This post is hopefully more considered - or at the least, it's longer.)
(bleh, this post needs more thinking, but I should go do something else instead.)
Re:how lessig lost the big one (Score:3, Insightful)
(You can Google Eldred v. Ashcro
Re:how lessig lost the big one (Score:1)
Next big opportunity he gets, he better win or he has to leave the leadership to someone else.
Pardonne
Lessig's latest book available free online (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lessig's latest book available free online (Score:1)
I disagree (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think of Lessig as an absolutist like Stallman, he's an intellectual and academic, and academics generally spend too much time thinking and analyzing to have such a black-and-white view of the world. He's taken a stand to protect the very existence of concepts like the public domain. Yes, Creative Commons offers more flexibility in licensing format than the FSF offerings, but that's done in the domain that Lessig knows. I'd love to see the FSF become as warm and fuzzy and accepting as Creative Commons is, and I have no reason to believe that Lessig won't help with that process.
Re:I disagree (Score:2)
The FSF as an organization takes a dim view of non-free software; one would think that joining its board is sufficient evidence of his approval of this viewpoint. Or is that not enough evidence for you?
Guilt by association??? (Score:1, Interesting)
So, um... yeah; that would be "not enough evidence" for me. Can you cite a specific quote by Lessig in support of limiting copyright holders' rights over how they l
Re:I disagree (Score:2)
> Can you point to where he discourages people from using non-FSF licenses
Sure! Published software should be free software. To make it free software, you need to release it under a free software license. [fsf.org]
Unless you think he's joining the FSF to bring it down from the inside?
Re:I disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
free vs. unfree is a line in the sand, we could spend time debating it, or we could just use the GPL. The G is for General - there was an EmacsPL, a GCC-PL, etc. But RMS realised that it would be nice for other people to be able to share code between projects, so he made a General license for all software. If you use it, your software can be integrated with other peoples software easier - a
Re:I disagree (Score:2)
Re:I disagree (Score:1)
You have your lawyers all mixed up. You're thinking of judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, of the MS anti-trust case. Judge Jackson penned the "findings of fact" [usdoj.gov] document. No connection to Lawrence Lessig.
The big battle for free software... (Score:5, Insightful)
But the one area where proprietary software really has had free software outclassed is in legal muscle. Of course, some companies (Novell, IBM, HP for a few) have supported free software because they stand to benefit from it. But free software needs as many sharp legal experts as it can get--that will support free software for the sake of free software. It's nice to see that this is happening.
Re:The big battle for free software... (Score:1)
Their big case regards Linux. While "a rising tide affects all boats"--meaning a win for Linux would support FOSS in general--I don't see them picking up lawsuit after lawsuit just so they can win the FOSS Nice Guy of the Year award. They, like any corporation, support free software because it is profitable for them to do so. A
So... (Score:3, Funny)
Addition to the board loss to the effort? (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn, misread that subject line (Score:2)
I'm wondering what this adds to the FSF. Sure, Larry's a good fit, but I don't see that he's better value to the FSF on their board than he is off their board acting as a third party commentator. The FSF already has a capable lawyer on the board. If it was the availability of an additional opinion they ne
Re:Damn, misread that subject line (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Damn, misread that subject line (Score:2)
Then he needs to get off it, because he obviously hasn't done any good there.
Should Copyright Even Exist? (Score:2, Interesting)
Because my article is written for, and widely read by music downloaders, I think this section may be the first introduction most p2p users get to the notion that there is a legitimate reason to consider the elimination of copyright: the reason being that the ability to
Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? (Score:2)
Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? (Score:2)
Redistribution of binaries, of course, would be quite feasible.
Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? (Score:2)
That would just make everything effectively BSD-licensed, which will still be a great win for Free Software. Copyleft (GPL) is a weapon against misuse of copyright. If copyright no longer exists, the existence of that weapon is no longer an issue.
Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? (Score:2)
I still can't agree. The reason BSD-licensing has value at all is because of intent -- because peole that BSD-license their software do so because they want to release the source. So, I don't have to distribute the source, but I do anyway.
If a closed-source ve
Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? (Score:2)
Yes, but suddenly those closed-source programs can be freely duplicated and freely reverse-engineered. They will be competing with open-source program which will have a tremendous advantage in acceptance. The massive duplication of the closed-source programs will make it effectively impossible to generate revenue through their sale. The cycle of upgrades and bugfixes for closed-source software will grind to a halt, while the open-source software continues to be maintained.
Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? (Score:2)
Why, that's a good point! Microsoft could take all of the FSF's work, build on top of it, sell the binaries, and we could all get the modified source from them because, uh, ummm... what's the last bit, again?
Re:Should Copyright Even Exist? (Score:2)
Just to clarify my position, I am not anti-copyright - just anti the indefinite extension of copyright. The only point I was making was that without copyright law, the GPL would not be necessary. Your argument doesn't work anyway since "all of the FSF's work" exists p
Thank you for your support. (Score:1, Offtopic)
The Operative Phrase (Score:1, Troll)
When I see some SUCCESS, I'll applaud.
Re:Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Evidently spoken by someone who uses free software like it was some kind of naturally happening thing...
If not for the FSF, and Eblen amd RMS and the other, you might be posting your drivel with some non-free software, because some corporation would have managed to squash free software in order to grab more marketshare.
I wish people like you were less ingrate and remembered whom you owe having the choice of running free software in the first place to.
Re:Please... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
So really, he's much more moderate than RMS, so having him on the board should likely make the FSF a little more Congress-friendly.
Re:Please... (Score:3, Informative)
Not true; Lessig clerked for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court, and for Richard Posner on the Seventh Circuit.
Conservative judges can, and do, hire liberal clerks, and vice versa. Scalia, in particular, is known for hiring liberal clerks regularly. Lessig wrote an article for The Industry Standard about why there's nothing odd about this [lessig.org].
Re:Please... (Score:1)
Re:Would you have sex with Commander Riker (Score:1)
Re:This is horrible (Score:3, Insightful)
Bzzzzt. Wrong. Why don't you read one of his books before you start accusing him of being the exact opposite of what he is.
An extremist is someone who believes themselves to be absolutely unquestion
Re:This is horrible (Score:2)
An extremist is someone who believes themselves to be absolutely unquestionably right, without considering the opinion of the opposition. Sounds like yourself. Just because Lessig is willing to look at both sides of the issue, which you obviously aren't capable of, doesn't mean he's a sellout to either side. He's simply willing to actualy expend some thought about the problem, instead of demanding one way or the other all the time.
Bullshit, I used to believe in copyrights stronger than anybody. It was
Re:This is horrible (Score:2)
You're obviously not a musician, writer, or artist.
Oh, and one more thing, I couldn't let this go by. I'm actually a musician, writer, artist, and a programmer. Logic wise, it wouldn't matter if I was none, but I am all - and because of that I see the crap related to copyrights first hand.
When people say that to me, what it means to me is that they can't think logically for themselves - so instead they try to probe into my personal life to see if there is some justification to blow me off, and thus
Re:This is horrible (Score:1)
This happened to me in one my discussions over copyright. He thought it was important to know my age and occupation in order to properly "frame" the questions I was asking. I tried to explain that those things were (and are) totally irrelevent and that the quest
Re:This is horrible (Score:1)
I knew he was going to say that because I've heard it so many times. The worst part is that for every artist and writer that copyrights benefit, there have got to be at least a thousand who the copyright system hasn't helped a bit or even screwed. The first time I was attacked like that, I found it so selfish and offensive that I didn't know what to say. Now, I find that the best solution is to call them on it like I did.
Re:This is horrible (Score:1)
Re:This is horrible (Score:2)
I attacked you like that because i'm a musician, and you're attacking my right to recieve compensation for my work. You're devaluing my work, deeming it unworthy of compensation. This is selfish and offensive to me.
I don't know about these people you think the 'copyright system' has screwed, explain and i'll respond.
Re:This is horrible (Score:1)
Re:This is horrible (Score:2)
Whether you use the word "protect" or "promote" in that sentence depends only on perspective. Per the constitution, the gole of copyright is to "promote" the arts and useful sciences. If you think they've gone too far and started to 'protect' publishers from, oh who knows what evil, then sure, that's your opinion. That's a problem of our copyright law, not a fundamental problem of the idea people should b
Re:This is horrible (Score:1)
Something tells me you're not Michael Jackson. That you'd likely be far better off going way out of your way to give away everything you create and encourage copying wherever possible, then develop a "following" who will buy shirts, signed items, and tickes to
Re:This is horrible (Score:2)
Yes because the movie, music, printing, and computer software don't work? How exactly do I go about telling if I really have a special right or not? I think I missed your point.
Something tells me you're not Michael Jackson. That you'd likely be far better off
Re:This is horrible (Score:2)
Re:This is horrible (Score:1)
Re:This is horrible (Score:2)
Now it's interesting you say "the right to mircoregulate how everyone on the planet uses a given piece of information". So it's just the "microregulation" we need to get rid of or prevent?
Guess who thinks similarly. Yep. Good ole Lawernce Lessig.
Re:This is horrible (Score:1)
Of course, NO artist would ever question the validity of copyright. Hogwash...poppycock...pish-posh...nonsense. Luckly, more and more artsts are realizing that the value is in the original, and that copies, if not completely worthless, are little more than free advertising. The only business that stands to lose is the publishing business. The copyright wars have always been the publishers(with gov't backing) against the public AND the artist. The publishe