Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix Announcements Government The Courts News

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawrence Lessig Elected to FSF Board of Directors

Comments Filter:
  • Huh? (Score:4, Informative)

    by damiam ( 409504 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @07:57PM (#8855027)
    Lessig was elected two weeks ago and no one knew until today? How does that work out?
    • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)

      by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @08:19PM (#8855245)
      That's nothing. This november, we will elect someone president, but won't know who for months before the legal battle ends.
      • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)

        by Rogerborg ( 306625 )

        >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.

    • Lessig was elected two weeks ago and no one knew until today?

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "This announcement is the first time I've seen a list of the board members. By whom was he elected?"

        The FSF shareholders.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @07:57PM (#8855030)
    I still think that Eben Moglen sounds like the beginning of that Def Leppard song.

    I get nothing from the new guy. 'cept maybe "Less sig, more post"? On that note, I depart.

  • by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @07:58PM (#8855031) Homepage Journal
    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.

    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?
    • Which begs the question, why would an obviously talented legal thinker be passed over time and again for judicial appointments?

      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
      • by odin53 ( 207172 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @08:09PM (#8855148)
        It has nothing to do with whether he's politically liberal or conservative. Note that he clerked for both Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit and Justice Scalia of the SCOTUS, two very NOT liberal judges; not the actions of a generally politically liberal person.
        • by vrtladept ( 674792 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @08:21PM (#8855262) Journal
          Well, he claims to be liberal in Free Culture [free-culture.cc].

          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.

          • Okay, this is probably way OT, but...

            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
            • Okay, this is probably way OT, but.

              Well, we are discussing Lessig so I don't think this is offtopic. But to each his own.

              ... where does he claim that?

              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

          • "Well, he claims to be liberal in Free Culture."

            fwiw, you might check out the streaming archive [turnstyle.org] that I've been putting together...

        • You're right on saying that it's not because he's liberal or conservative, however clerking for someone doesn't automatically ascribe you to their political/judicial way of thinking. Rhenquist, not exactly a 9th circuit kinda judge, clerked for Robert Jackson, an FDR appointee. A SC clerkship is such a great job that you'd be a fool to reject it because you didn't always agree with legal decisions.

          I also think this is an encouraging trend. That justices choose to surround themselves with people who will qu
    • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @08:14PM (#8855192)
      He could actually enact through judicial activism...

      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.
      • Judicial activism is where a judge ignores the law and just rules based on how they wish the law was. That's wrong.
        It's not necessarily wrong; there are state and federal constitutions, to protect the populace from bad laws. The ability of the judicial branch to overturn unconstitutional laws is an important part of "checks and balances."
        • Judicial activism has nothing to do with unconstitutional laws. It has to do with a judge considering a law "wrong" or "harsh" even though it _IS_ Constitutional.
          • Judicial activism has nothing to do with unconstitutional laws. It has to do with a judge considering a law "wrong" or "harsh" even though it _IS_ Constitutional.

            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.

            • "Judicial activism" is a term that is frequently misused, usually for some political end. The way I understand it, judicial activism is for a judge to rule on a case with disregard for the commands of valid laws. Ruling a law to be invalid because it is preempted by a superior law is not activism, but an integral part of a judge's job.
            • 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

        • Calling a law unconstitutional is simply ruling a law invalid because the supreme law of the USA is the Constitution as ammended and it says something contradictory to that law.

          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
          • Depending on what your viewpoint is, any interpretation of the Constitution and our laws that is not literal to the word of the text could be perceived as judicial activism.

            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.
            • 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.

      • Judicial activism is where a judge ignores the law and just rules based on how they wish the law was. That's wrong.

        Legally wrong, but not necessarily morally wrong. If the law is unjust, then it is morally correct to override or ignore the law.

      • So according to this interpretation an American woman wanting abortion in the US has no real guarantee of that 'right', because it's a judicially-imposed extension of the right to privacy.

        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
      • 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.

        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

    • Which begs the question, why would an obviously talented legal thinker be passed over time and again for judicial appointments?

      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.

    • 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

      • Your contention is that copyrights only harm culture, apparently because they limit the ability for a person to experience it. If that were true, your comparison to the 1830s slavery conflict would be appropriate.

        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
    • Have you ever heard of Eldred, the case he argued? Or Creative Commons? Or any of the other cases and organizations he's involved with? It's strange that you picked Lessig, when he does so much in the way of organization building and lawmaking--and for those of you who don't understand our system of government, laws are passed by legislatures and then interpreted through the courts, which means Lessig's litigation is of huge importance.

      Can we also please dispense with the idea that those that can't do,
    • Which begs the question, why would an obviously talented legal thinker be passed over time and again for judicial appointments?

      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
  • by re-Verse ( 121709 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @07:58PM (#8855045) Homepage Journal
    My hats off to Anybody who can find a way to score a +5 Funny off of this article.
    • I was thinking the same thing... but now you have challenged my honor!

      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...

      ... I got nothin'...
    • 1) ???
      2) +5, Funny
      3) Profit!!
    • ...a beowulf cluster of self-fulfilling /. posts.

      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
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @08:04PM (#8855101)
    They want their mindnumbingly boring story back.
  • This is great, because it means that Lessig and Moblen can continue to work on creating the legal framework for free software. In many ways this is more important than the software itself.

    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.

    • In many ways this is more important than the software itself.

      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???
  • by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @08:13PM (#8855177)
    Professor Lessig's involvement will undoubtedly give a major boost to the FSF's ongoing efforts to neutralize legal threats to software freedom.

    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.

    • yeh, let's give up.

      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.)
    • by ciaran_o_riordan ( 662132 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @08:54PM (#8855528) Homepage
      If you want more info about Lessig losing that big copyright case, you can read his account of it [legalaffairs.org]. (very interesting, it half reads like an apology.)

      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.)

      • It doesn't just read like an apology, it is an apology. Lessig states he misread the court and argued poorly. However, IMO the majority opinion was one of pragmatism (just another extension), a desire to "harmonize" with the EU's extension, and the belief that since Congress had been given the authority to set the limits, the Court should not intervene. The dissenting opinions by Stevens [copyright.gov] and Breyer [copyright.gov] are remarkable. They actually addressed the constitutional issues.

        (You can Google Eldred v. Ashcro

      • You make a fine point but the counter is also there. You don't want losers making your case.

        Next big opportunity he gets, he better win or he has to leave the leadership to someone else.

        Pardonne
  • by akratic ( 770961 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @08:14PM (#8855188)
    Lessig's latest book, Free Culture, is available online [free-culture.org] for free (both as in speech and as in beer). It was reviewed on Slashdot two weeks ago. I haven't read it yet, but I've read one of his earlier books, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, and thought it was excellent.
    • I have read Free Culture, I downloaded it for free, printed it at work, popped it into a three-ring binder and read it inside a week. This is the first book I have read of his, but I have listened to a speech [randomfoo.net] of his from the 2002 O.Reilly Open Source Conference and seen him in television interviews [techtv.com] from time to time. Lessig makes clear, convincing points - he has the gift of making complex issues understandable. He is respected and likeable, and will be a strong asset to FSF in the trials to come.
  • I disagree (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think Lawrence Lessig is a marginal person. Someone who is found to be biased against Microsoft in the court can not convince people that what he is saying is the truth. He offers non-commercial license on his site creative commons, but he discourages people from using that license, instead offers the FSF licenses which doesn't have any license that covers non-commercial use. That's very dishonest and assumes that the programmers are nothing but code monkeys producing code. Our code is also creative art a
    • Re:I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @09:00PM (#8855580)
      Can you point to where he discourages people from using non-FSF licenses, or tries to prevent people from licensing their code as they will? I generally think Lessig's arguments are pretty clear, and I am pretty sure he would acknowledge that code and speech are both different forms of expression, that deserve to be protected by *limited term* copyrights, and that authors should be allowed to make money off of their work, whether its code or books, with the caveat that they should also use licenses that contribute back to the community and to the public domain.


      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.

      • Can you point to where he discourages people from using non-FSF licenses, or tries to prevent people from licensing their code as they will?

        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?
        • by Anonymous Coward

          Can you point to where he discourages people from using non-FSF licenses, or tries to prevent people from licensing their code as they will?

          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?

          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

      • > 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?

    • > "This idea that everybody has to release his source under GPL or something complaint is getting to my nerves."

      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
      • You're missing the point. Not everyone agrees that a line in the sand is necessary. The GPL is a good idea, but my greatest objection to the FSF is their rejection of the idea that free and non-free software can coexist and each have their role to play. Hopefully Lessig will moderate their views.
    • "Someone who is found to be biased against Microsoft in the court"

      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.
  • by Jake Diamond ( 770429 ) <jdwhiteNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @08:21PM (#8855258)
    ...will be in the courts. We see it with Linux and SCO, and that won't be the last major court battle over free software. Free software (and open source, for those that worry about that distinction) has proven that it's up to snuff technically. And intelligent people can disagree over ease-of-use compared to commercial products.

    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.
  • So... (Score:3, Funny)

    by adamofgreyskull ( 640712 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @08:27PM (#8855309)
    ...do they like lawyers or not [gnu.org]? ;o)
  • by emtechs ( 770821 ) * on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @09:06PM (#8855627)
    Over the years Lessig has always been the goto guy for comments putting the FSF actions and announcements in a digestible context. Now that he is officially part of the organization he won't be able to provide an objective opinion. Is that a gain or a loss?
  • I misread it as "Lawrence Lessig Elected to EFF Board of Directors". I let rip a cheer as I imagined the EFF having somebody among their board who is capable of rational discussion. Alas it was not to be.

    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

  • In the section Should Copyright Even Exist? [goingware.com], part of Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads [goingware.com], I compare digital music to software, and introduce the reader to Richard Stallman, the GNU Manifesto, and the Free Software Movement.

    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

    • You realize, of course, that the elimination of copyright would make the GPL invalid as well don't you. That's right, the GPL is only valid because of the protections offered under copyright law, otherwise anyone could just disregaurd the General Public License.
      • And you realise of course that without copyright, the GPL would no longer be necessary? Anyone would be free to copy, modify and distribute anyone else's copyrighted work without having to ask permission or getting a license to do so.
        • Not really. The non-distribution of source would be an issue.

          Redistribution of binaries, of course, would be quite feasible.
          • 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.

            • 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.

              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
              • 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.

        • 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?

          • Here's another good point! Free software developers could take the source for Office, build on top of it, sell the binaries and Microsoft could all get the modified source from them because, er, can't remember the last bit. It works both ways.

            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
  • the FSF's ongoing EFFORTS to neutralize legal threats to software freedom.

    When I see some SUCCESS, I'll applaud.

Fast, cheap, good: pick two.

Working...