Blaise Alleyne 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (334)

• On the post: Canadian Telcos Appoint Ex-Cabinet Ministers To Their Boards

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2011 @ 11:08pm

  Re: f-that

  It definitely can be a cop out. But two examples of where it's relevant:
  
  1. As I understand it, Stockwell Day isn't technically doing anything illegal. He's not a lobbyist. But, he's advising lobbyists on their government relations strategies. The rules against lobbying are pretty weak if you can avoid falling afoul of the law by just removing yourself one-level from the lobbying.
  
  But, I mean, Day's website says this:

  "Stockwell Day Connex is not a lobbying firm. Further, in consultation with Canada?s Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and subject to the Government of Canada Accountability Act and the Conflict of Interest Act, neither Stockwell Day nor Stockwell Day Connex will provide ?insider? information on any matters related to Cabinet discussions, files or decisions, past or pending."

  To the extent that's actually true, if the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner says things are okay? The system is set up in such a way that this sort of thing isn't considered a big deal, even though it may well should be.
  
  2. WIND Mobile had to get into the lobbying game to stay alive in Canada. They've faced legal challenges around Canadian ownership requirements, have had to lobby the government to get auction rules that will let new entrants into the market, etc. So far, IMHO, WIND has used virtually all of its lobbying ability to do things that are good for consumers, but the fact that they have to play the game and drive truckloads of cash up to Parliament Hill? That's a problem with the system.
  
  
  But yeah, otherwise, I agree -- even if the system is broken, that wouldn't excuse behaviour that's actually corrupt. That would be a total cop out. But there's a lot of behaviour that isn't corrupt, but isn't really beneficial either, which is tied to more systemic problems.

• On the post: Portuguese Politicians Want To Make Creative Commons Illegal

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 09 May, 2011 @ 08:52am

  What about software?

  What effect would this have on free software licenses, like the GNU GPL or Apache or BSD licenses? How would that effect the use of Linux-based operating systems, like Android or many web servers, or other popular free software like Firefox, Chrome, WordPress... ? While this sounds insane enough for cultural works, it seems even more monumentally stupid when it comes to free and open source software, which relies on licenses that waive most of these rights at the centre of a lot of collaborative and commercial software development...

• On the post: Grooveshark Wants To Judge Your Soul

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2010 @ 10:32pm

  Re: Lulz

  "That this was reported by somebody named “Dante”."

  
  
  Ha! Didn't even catch that... :)

• On the post: Grooveshark Wants To Judge Your Soul

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2010 @ 10:32pm

  Re:

  "I suppose it's 3D parties as opposed to 2D parties inhabiting the flatworld who are placing these cookies and other tracking devices."

  
  
  I was wondering about that one too... couldn't tell if that's some uncommon short-hand I've never seen or yet another typo... they do use both 3d and 3rd in the policy. Oh, Grooveshark.

• On the post: Ontario Premier Says Cellphones In Class Could Be Useful

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2010 @ 01:04pm

  Re:

  "I cant find the edit button and I swear I spaced that stuff out. I don't know why its a giant wall of text :("
  
  Your comment might have been set to HTML instead of Plain Text? Plain Text automatically spaces lines when you do, with HTML you have to make the spacing explicit in HTML.
  
  Good points though.

• On the post: Ontario Premier Says Cellphones In Class Could Be Useful

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2010 @ 10:41am

  Re:

  A significant part of my thinking that didn't make it into the post: "I can't believe I'm defending Dalton McGuinty..."

• On the post: Ontario Premier Says Cellphones In Class Could Be Useful

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2010 @ 10:40am

  Re: There is zero NEED for cell phones in school class rooms.

  "There is zero NEED for cell phones in school class rooms. You are there to pay attention to the teacher; not texting or making phone calls. After all passing notes in classes is a no-no too."

  
  
  What Ron said. Plus, this really has less to do with "cell phones" and more to do with mobile, handheld computers (even though McGuinty still calls them cell phones).

• On the post: Lawsuit Averted As WordPress and Thesis Settle Differences Over Themes And The GPL

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 28 Jul, 2010 @ 06:52am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the GPL is dead, it just does not know it yet

  Bradley Kuhn isn't speaking on behalf of the FSF in that post, but I think he's opinion is shared by folks at the FSF (and he has been a volunteer, Executive Director, and now he's on the board).
  
  

  Of course, but my point is that if the software is public domain, I don't have to release the source code at all, like I would if it were GPL.

  
  
  Yes, but the FSF still considers public domain software and non-copyleft (e.g. MIT, BSD, or Apache licensed) software to be free software, even though there's no legal requirement for people to release the source code. The source code must be available for software to be consider free, but it doesn't have to be a requirement of the license for the software to be considered free.
  
  

  "Where I'm really waiting for someone to demonstrate I'm wrong is to show how enforcement of the GPL and similar licenses doesn't depend at all for any of its strength upon copyright law."

  
  
  You're not going to be proven wrong there, because all of the strength of the GPL does come from copyright. But what I'm arguing, and what Bradley Kuhn explains, is that GPL enforcement is only a tactic, not a goal. That is, having a way to reverse copyright and create requirements for freedom is a clever hack on a broken system. But, there are other ways to make the source code available. Kuhn suggests that source be registered with a copyright registration, and then released to the public when copyright expires (assuming a reasonable time frame were adopted).
  
  But, there are also social tools and practices that can be used to make source code available. We can already see how that's done with permissive non-copyleft licenses. Often, the reasons to contribute source code are social or practical. Apple and Google both contribute to WebKit, because they want it to be strong for Safari and Chromium.
  
  Now, clearly, there are problems still from a free software perspective, as both companies bundle up that free code into proprietary browsers. But you can see how a more reasonable copyright law could solve some of the problems. Apple's model would still present a challenge, whereas Safari is a proprietary browser built on an free software rendering enginer. But Chromium, which is free software, gets packaged up by Google as Chrome, which is not free software. But the code is essentially the same, minus the branding and the license. With a more reasonable copyright law, Chrome's license becomes even less of an issue from the perspective of free software.
  
  I'm not saying that I know how the challenge would be overcome... but there are ways to create positive incentives for companies to share source code, even companies that are extremely proprietary like Apple, or companies that want to built proprietary products off the free base, like Google. The GPL takes advantage of copyright to create a strong legal incentive, but there could be other innovative ways to create incentives without depending on copyright.
  
  Another social way might be with consumer pressure (though, it's a bit of a pipe dream now). For example, I don't think many people would buy a screwdriver from Home Depot if it came with a ridiculous EULA, could only be used with Home Depot screws, and you weren't allowed to switch the bits yourself... people just wouldn't be stupid enough to give away their freedom to use their own tools like that. Generally, they'd buy a screw driver they could own. The FSF tries to explain the value of software freedom in that sense too. For a business, there are practical benefits to controlling your own tools, to have a selection of vendors that can provide support or a wide range of developers you could hire to improve the software. For an individual, there can be benefits to "owning" (i.e. being in control) of software rather than just licensing it as well.
  
  I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's a positive re-enforcement approach that's possible too. The GPL gets its power fully from copyright, but there are other ways to encourage people to release source code, and the weakening of the GPL would be a small trade for a more reasonable copyright law.
  
  (Sorry for the length and rambling nature of the comment... hope I'm making sense!)

• On the post: Lawsuit Averted As WordPress and Thesis Settle Differences Over Themes And The GPL

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 28 Jul, 2010 @ 06:24am

  Re: There are two arguments here

  "First of all there is the legal argument and I am quite surprised that Techdirt didn't call out Matt Mullenweg's general efforts to expand the definition of a derivative work. Many experts have given strong legal arguments that plugins are not derivative works at all. And these certainly are by no means "novel legal arguments." It really is a stretch to legally justify the Software Freedom Law Center's opinion that combining in memory constitutes a new copyrightable work that falls under the legal definition of a derivative work. You certainly cannot distribute the memory contents to another person and this combining has been done by the end user. Sure the Thesis theme has some other issues that do make it a possible copyright violation, but that did not even come up until later in the discussion."

  
  
  Agreed that the interesting legal arguments around the main quesiton -- are themes subject to the GPL? -- were buried. I was trying to keep the post on a level of a decent summary, without getting too deep into the legalities. I could have done a better job of highlighting the legitimate legal opinions that aren't in agreement with the SFLC. Pearson's reliance on those arguments was kind of lame, given that he'd subclassed and copied from the WordPress codebase.
  
  

  "The separate issue here is one of a moral responsibility to the free software community. The moral responsibility specifically is that if you build upon open and free software you should in turn make your software open and free as well. The problem is that the moral arguments are often used to justify the legal arguments but that just doesn't work and it confuses the whole matter.
  
  Mullenweg really just needs to admit that the legal argument is weak (or is at least highly arguable) and focus on the moral responsibility. It's much harder for someone to argue the moral responsibility end of it, especially when the entire open source community supports it."

  
  
  I'm not sure what to think of the legal arguments. I think there is a huge amount of grey area. It likely would depend on a specific analysis of the code of any given theme... though, I think it's unlikely that the PHP code in many themes is that separable, or written entirely from scratch (as opposed to derived from another GPLed WordPress theme). But there are lots of legal challenges that could be made around interoperability and fair use.
  
  But, even the SFLC said the GPL wouldn't apply to JavaScript or CSS, which does make a theme fairly useless in many ways, hence the continued WordPress.com policy of only promoting commercial themes that are 100% GPL (which implicitly acknowledge that fact that there's nothing wrong with selling GPL code, even if some in the community don't quite get that—there's nothing unethical about making money off free software, I think the accusations were around profiting from a potential license violation).
  
  I agree that there's a moral, and a pragmatic and social argument to be made for encouraging fully GPL themes and extensions. I support the WordPress.com policy to only endorse GPL code, and other project websites, like drupal.org, do the same. It's better for the health of the ecosystem if extensions to the platform provide the same freedoms of the platform itself, otherwise you can run into lock-in at the plugin/theme level, for example. So, even if the legal argument for themes being subject to the GPL is weak (and at best with the SFLC's opinion, it still only applies to the PHP), there are other reasons to apply social and business pressure to theme (and plugin) developers to go GPL.
  
  Good call. The legal and moral/social arguments could be better separated. I don't think anyone representative of WordPress.com is suggesting that it's bad to make money from themes though, they even list commercial themes as long as they're 100% GPL.

• On the post: Lawsuit Averted As WordPress and Thesis Settle Differences Over Themes And The GPL

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2010 @ 11:31am

  Re: Opinions and Facts

  Thanks for sharing that link, hadn't seen that post. The author doesn't really address the extent to which Thesis had copied WordPress code until the comments, but there are a lot of important arguments in the post.

• On the post: Lawsuit Averted As WordPress and Thesis Settle Differences Over Themes And The GPL

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2010 @ 11:18am

  Re: Re: Re: the GPL is dead, it just does not know it yet

  If I understand correctly, the FSF's objectives for software would be impossible without copyright.
  
  I urge you to read Bradley Kuhn:
  http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html
  
  

  "copyleft is merely a tool that diffuses the proprietary copyright weaponry... But, if it were possible to really consider reduction in copyright control over software, then I don't know of a single GPL proponent who wouldn't want to bilaterally reduce copyright's scope for software."

  
  
  Copyleft is a jujitsu move. Though jujitsu depends on using the force of your opponent against him, it doesn't mean that you want your opponent to attack you.

• On the post: Lawsuit Averted As WordPress and Thesis Settle Differences Over Themes And The GPL

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2010 @ 07:56am

  Re: the GPL is dead, it just does not know it yet

  Which means if the GPL destroys copyright it destroys itself, and yes, then people will just make it proprietary and ignore the GPL.

  
  
  I don't get the argument that since the GPL relies on copyright it can't do a good job of undermining overly restrive copyright. It's just a means to an end, while copyright law is out of whack. It's not necessary at all for free software, just often a useful tactic while restrictive copyright is the default.
  
  Bradley Kuhn debunks this better than I: http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/04/10/gpl-not-end-in-itself.html
  
  And the GPL is a hack (I didn't say "hack job"), but so is the Apache license. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, as far as removing the barriers of restrictive copyright go.
  
  And other licenses being more popular than the GPL? Do you have anything to back that up?

• On the post: Lawsuit Averted As WordPress and Thesis Settle Differences Over Themes And The GPL

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2010 @ 07:41am

  Re: Re: tow the wordpress line

  Well, first, where does anyone say that "building something that operates in a WordPress environment" is subject to the GPL? You need to be distributing the software before the GPL's source code requirements kick in (i.e. it's not AGPL, so you build whatevdr you want on top of WordPress on your own servers without having to share it). And Automattic does this, they have services like Akismet and Gravatar which, if I recall correctly, are not GPL. Clearly, the belief isn't that anything operating in a WP environment is subject to the GPL, but rather that anything building off the WP codebase -- like a theme or plugin -- is subject to the GPL.
  
  Second, distributing non-GPL themes (I assume that's what you meant) and extensions harm WP in the sense that WP is built on software freedom; it was born from the ability to fork a codebase, and relies on that freedom to develop and grow. Non-free extensions to WP are corrosive to an environment of software freedom, because you start hitting dead ends, or getting non-free dependencies that would thwart the ability for users to practically exercise their freedoms. But, except in cases like that of Chris publicly claiming that WP's license doesn't apply to him (but his license should apply to everyone else), legal action would be a lot more divisive.
  
  The fact that they haven't sued anyone isn't evidence that proprietary themes aren't harmful, it's just evidence that they're using proportional means. Legal action should be a last resort.
  
  I think the claim that they resort to public shaming too quickly is more relevant, because some developers just might not understand the requirements of the GPL. Any examples, outside of Thesis, that you can point to of WordPress being too quick to put public pressure on devs (i.e. before doing so privately)?

• On the post: Lawsuit Averted As WordPress and Thesis Settle Differences Over Themes And The GPL

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2010 @ 07:21am

  Re: Re: Re:

  "Matt from WordPress and Chris from DIYThemes (Thesis) have been sniping at each other since WordPress took the legally untested stance that all themes should be released GPL 3 years ago."

  
  
  Legally untested, maybe, but pretty widely agreed upon by legal experts who work with free software licenss. If Chris really thought it was such a flimsy legal argument, what difference would it make that he was subclassing or copying and pasting WordPress code?
  
  And WordPress isn't alone in taking that stance. Everything on drupal.org must be GPL, including modules and themes, for example. And, I think it's a good idea that, even if only the PHP portion of WP themes are likely to technically be required to be GPL, WP only endorses themes that are fully GPL. That way you know you have the freedoms to study, use, modify and redistribute everything from wordpress.org, rather than having to pluck out proprietary parts of a theme from DIYThemes or someone.
  
  Really, if Chris doesn't want to be work with the GPL or building on free software, why is he in the business of making WordPress themes? It seems odd to blame WordPress for putting pressure on people to use the license that's helped to make WordPress so successful.
  
  Though, maybe I haven't witnessed much of the public bashing. I guess, depending on how they go about shaming devs in violation, well, there might be better ways to do it (i.e. privately before publicly...). I'm not involved enough in the community to know much about those methods.

• On the post: How ASCAP And BMI Are Harming Up-And-Coming Singers

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 15 Jun, 2010 @ 11:55am

  Re: BMI & ASCAP

  "If those venues really cared about the arts, and really appreciated what artists and musicians bring to their locales, then they would be sure to help cultivate a society that is supportive of the arts. That is - a society that is not hesitant whatsoever to cough up a few bucks to support open mics, performing musicians. Venues can pay their BMI & ASCAP fees out of a percentage of those proceeds."

  
  
  What percentage of those ASCAP/BMI fees actually goes to musicians playing at open mics?
  
  Of the money that goes to artists (and I know how little of it there often is—I play at these venues), why should that be paid out to collection societies to be distributed to artists with the most airplay, as opposed to given directly to the local musicians who are actually performing?

• On the post: Canadian DMCA Introduced; Digital Lock Provision Trumps Any And All User Rights

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2010 @ 11:47am

  Re:

  "unlike the us, the canadian constitution doesnt suggest absolutely unlimited free speech rights, and as such, limiting "fair dealing" does not violate any rights."

  
  
  Man, do your research.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCH_Canadian_Ltd._v._Law_Society_of_Upper_Canada#Fair_dealing
  
  The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that: "The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user's right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users' interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively."
  
  The digital lock provisions in Bill C-32 would undo any fair dealing exceptions. Mike's not imposing a U.S. mentality, he's just point out what's common sense, and what current Canadian law and the Canadian Supreme Court have affirmed.

• On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2010 @ 11:55am

  Re: Re:

  I don't think your morals are compromised. I use all kinds of proprietary crap, like the Mac and Flash software I used to make "Sita" in the first place. As a consumer, I often choose convenience - it's what we consumers do!
  
  As an artist ("content creator") I was given an unusual opportunity to endorse or refuse DRM'ed distribution of "Sita." You're not in that situation at all.

  
  
  I think your decision not to accept DRM was heroic, but I'm not sure I follow you here. How do you distinguish between an endorsement of creation tools (Mac / Flash) and an endorsement of distribution tools (Netflix with DRM)?
  
  Aren't you making a statement as an artist and a creator?and not just a consumer?in terms of what tools you endorse or refuse in creating your art? Why is it only distribution that poses a challenge?

• On the post: Google Sued For Using The Term 'Gadgets'; Tiny Company Afraid People Will Think They Support Google

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2010 @ 10:08pm

  Inspector Gadget

  Go, go gadget lawsuit!

• On the post: Cablevision Buying Blogs… Will It Lock Them Up Behind A Paywall Too?

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2010 @ 03:17pm

  Torontoist

  Bah, I'm a big fan of the Torontoist. Though, I could see those guys forking the blog before they'd write behind a paywall...

• On the post: Irish Collection Society Wants Hotels To Pay Performance Fees For Music Played In Guest Rooms

  

  Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2010 @ 08:33pm

  Re: Re: Public?

  "The hotel is the one offering rooms to "the public" and including entertainment in the package. That's why it's being called a "public performance".

  
  
  Blockbuster makes videos available to the public to rent, but does that make watching a movie in your basement a public performance? Record stores sell CDs to the public, but does that make listening to a purchased CD a public performance? And what about the car example? Should auto makers pay royalties because they sell cars to the public with entertainment systems in them?
  
  It's not a matter of who the customers are. The question of public performance should have to do with the nature of the actual performance.

Next >>