Slashdot Mirror
Perens Looks For Payback for Open Source
A reader writes "Bruce Perens is rounding up luminaries including Brian Behlendorf and Laurence Lessig to meet IBM, HP (where he now works) and other companies that have made money from Open Software. Perens says he wants them to give up patent rights for some of their software. I'd say fat chance, but HP is bankrolling the meeting, which will follow LinuxWorld. See the story here."
Wind River starts bankrolling FreeBSD programmers. In 2 years the keepers of FreeBSD coders got 21 million.
VA linux and RedHat have stock evaluations that are heading for $0.
Looks like RMS's desire of the GPL to keep code worthless is happening. And RMS doesn't want the GPL to be called open source.
GPL has no economic value. BSD code DOES have value.
Marx wrote about the workers taking the control of the means of production out of the hands of the bourgeoisie.
Computer programmers are the bourgeoisie.
Ironically, MS and Apple spend a lot of money making computers accessible to the working class. The FSF and OSS movements are taking that work and throwing it away because of ideological differences which are irrelevant to the common man. By doing this they are promulgating the idea of a technological bourgeoisie, rather than helping to destroy it.
So in a sense, MS and Apple are better Marxists than Stallman ever will be.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Each year IBMers submit thousands of invention disclosures. They go through an internal review process and only the best get chosen. Even then, some disclosures which are really original don't get filed as patents - if for instance, they are in an area not considered crucial to IBM, or perhaps only make sense in an IBM implementation and not in a competitor's implementation. All of these disclosures get published to protect IBM from patent infringement litigation at some future point in time.
My point is, IBM may have many patents, but they are crucial to IBM's business. So long as the company contributes (and it certainly does ! Jikes, jfs, kernel-stuff etc) why should it be forced to contribute in some other fashion ? Even if it doesn't contribute there is no reason to force it to do so.
oh by the way, IBM doesn't speak for me and I don't speak for IBM although I am employed by 'em.
IBM Rep: Thank you, Bruce, for giving us the opportunity to reiterate our commitment to Open Source. Last year we gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Linux development, and this year we plan to invest one billion dollars towards it. We've agreed to port Linux to all of our platforms and we've ported DB2 as well as a ton of other software to Linux. Our commitment to Linux is unequalled in the industry.
Perens: Well, that's nice, but that doesn't count. You see, what I'm talking about is --
IBM Rep: Wait a minute, that doesn't count?
Perens: Yes, you see, that's Open Source you're supporting, not Free Software.
IBM Rep: Are we at the right meeting?
H/P Rep: Yeah, Jim, but Bruce wants to talk about patents --
IBM Rep: Bruce, are you talking about Linux?
Perens: Well, GNU/Linux is a part of it, but --
IBM Rep: Guhnew Linux? We work with Red Hat, are they a competitor to Red Hat?
Perens: No, Red Hat sells that software.
IBM Rep: So they're a partner?
HP Rep: Jim, let me explain. You're actually providing free software to sell your hardware.
IBM Rep: How could it be free if we've given them over twice their market cap to develop it?
HP Rep: Well it was the basis of developing Linux.
IBM Rep: So somebody developed this before Linux and now they want paid for it?
Perens: No, they don't want to be paid. They just want you to give up some of your ability to get paid.
IBM Rep: Are they insane?
(pause)
Perens: Well I represent the Free Software community, and I thnk I can speak for them.
IBM Rep: Really. Before IBM committed to doing anything with Linux, I was told that the community would love us for using it. Now we use it more than anyone else.
Perens: Well Free Software was there before you developed it, it just wasn't adapted by business.
IBM Rep: And we helped it get adapted and we're it's strongest advocates.
Perens: I think so.
IBM Rep: So? Does the community love us?
Perens: Well not really. It isn't enough to use the software, to port it to different platforms, to encourage its use and to give an incredible amount of money to develop it further. You also have to give up some of your ability to make money in the future.
(long pause)
IBM Rep: Folks, I've just gotten paged and there's an emergency we have to take care of.
Perens: But I haven't gotten to the patent part yet.
IBM Rep: Sorry, gotta run.
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/
IBM
Director of Licensing
North Castle Drive
Armonk, New York 10504-1785
General patent or technology licensing questions can be sent via E-mail to licensng@us.ibm.com.
DCMonkey
To all who think IBM isn't making money on Linux....
IBM S/390 sales have increased because of Linux S/390. Also, in order to take advantage of Linux on S/390 properly, you must purchase VM.. a proprietary closed source operating system with large license fees.
Never work? Who knows. I try to avoid predicting the ultimate future of human cultural development.
Matt
They don't care what you do with their code, unless you take that right away from others. Ending IP would end the need for the GPL. As long as IP laws are around, someone else can take code I worked on, and use it in a freedom-limitting fashion, unless I've protected it with the GPL. Then I know that the user's freedom is always protected. Freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. It means that you can do whatever you want except limit someone else's freedom, which is exactly what the GPL does (it has some additional restrictions, but those are to keep the freedom enforceable under current IP laws)
Engineering and the Ultimate
IBM's _are_ from open source, at least a lot of them. They said so themselves. The ability to run Linux on the S/390 has rejuvinated sales of that product. Especially in Japan, now a whole server farm can be run in one small section of floor space, rather than taking up multiple buildings. In addition, the power savings are enormous. It is estimated that replacing a room full of suns with an S/390 running lots of copies of Linux will save you $250,000/year in electricity alone. Not to mention the management costs. Large companies _are_ buying S/390s to run linux on them.
RHAT is doing just fine. VA isn't doing too shabby, they just spread themselves too thin (never trust stock prices. The stock prices for tech companies are always stupid because investors know crap about tech).
Also, you said If you could lose all your patents in unrelated fields becuase you dabbled in Open Source, who's going to risk it?. Where did you come up with a statement like that? How are companies using open source losing patents in unrelated fields?
Engineering and the Ultimate
there is such an outpouring of extreme negative reaction here!
Nobody is forcing anyone to or demanding that anyone relinquish their software patents. Bruce is merely assembling some highly respected scientists in the field to explain why they think software patents are wrong and bad for the industry and ask that they release them.
Jesus, you'd think they were demanding their first-born children at gunpoint by the way some of you are reacting.
The Free Software movement seeks to end the quaint fallacy of "intellectual property".
My, this is revolutionary! Be sure to let us know when the constitutional convention is held to repeal the US Constitution, Article I Section 8 .
You know, I can admire someone with the noble goal of making a no-strings attached OS available to whoever wants it, and I love to help out where I can. But when you go over the top with crap like this you just end up making all of us look like fscking idiots.
Collectivism will never work outside of military dictatorships and oppressed peasants - it's a nice fantasy but fails to consider one small detail: the reality of human nature.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Fact a) Russia was forced, rather unnaturally, into communism.
Fact b) Russia is now turning back to capitalism.
Facts a and b are not a disproof of theory a. Marx said 'Capitalism will naturally evolve into communism', not 'forced communism won't evolve into capitalism'. In fact, if someone says that 'If X, then Y will turn into Z.', and Z turns into Y without X, you can sometimes take that as partial vindiction of the theory. Example: 'If I answer the phone, when it's ringing, I won't get a dial tone.' if it's not rigning, you probably will get a dial tone, but you know this, and so stated it in your theory.
Marx knew communism wouldn't work if forced. He said it many times. Guess what? He was right. Guess what else? All sort of companies and whatnot have started pooling their resources in orser to work better. OSS is the farthest effort of this, but it happens all over the place. Companies have found out they can work together, even if they compete, and produce things cheaper. That's exactly what Marx was talking about.
Unions are also an example of this. In a union, you'll have many different groups of people, who are directly competing with each other, but work together for a common good.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The amount of money involved is negligeable to a large organization, and the PR and potential precedent-setting benefits are substantial. Expect other companies to make backing contributions Really Soon Now.
I don't want to live in the cruel, twiseted world you describe. That's why I work to make things better. Maybe you really believe that the world can't be made a better place but I am not going to sit around while everything goes to hell in a handcart around me.
Grr
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
REALLY?!? I wonder why... is there anything on the web about it? JT
Marx himself said it would never be necessary to force Communism in place of Capitalism, Capitalism would evolve into Communism naturally.
Go to your nearest Communist Manifesto and grep for revolution.
Now lets look for "evolve" and "evolution" (be careful, evolution is just revolution without the 'r'...)
It looks like Communists want revolution ~12 times more than evolution. As a matter of fact, violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat is a basic tenent of Communism. From The Communist Manifesto (emphasis is mine):
I'm all for companies protecting their *products* (ie: Microsoft is free to protect Windows), but strong against companies blocking others simply because they were there first. Okay... give 'em some monopoly time to enjoy (as a reward for innovating) but I think that, in the software economy, you need to let others in sooner.
/.. When it first started, /. was unique and original. Now go out and look at all the clones. But wait... they all do the same thing, but they each do it in slightly different ways. These 'differences' allow end-users to find the one program that suits their entire needs. Imagine if /. were a company that had patented its' software. Then, as a prudent company would, defended against all the clones (assuming they were awarded the patent). Suddenly any site that wants to do a forum has to license from /. and they all end up looking the same.
Take a website like
By removing software patents (or expiring them faster) the market-place opens and allows more choice and better products for consumers. Competition creates this because companies try to one-up each other with different features. Each serves its' own unique consumer base and each has its' niche. Without this open market, software becomes stale, bland, and digs itself into obsolecance.
The biggest problem with Windows is not that it's a crappy program - far from it. Windows 95, for instance, was a good thing when early 586's dominated the consumer scene. Now with faster and more powerful computers, Windows 95 is not optimized for this power - and does not exploit newer features. Microsoft tries to keep pace with the industry by patching it and pushing it into new areas, but the old Windows becomes stale. Oh shit.. I was supposed to make a point.. umm.. err... ok... here goes...
Microsoft not too long ago said something like "Linux is bad for competition" (or something like that). Actually, I think the growth of "other os's" comes from people wanting choice. What if Microsoft had obtained a patent on "computer operating systems" (not too far off if yout think about it... 1988ish... get a patent for DOS... although there WOULD be a lot of prior art). Could you imagine if your only choice was Windows? Ugh. Oh well.
(* break out the Metallica good/bad voice *)
Choice = GOOD.
Patents = BAD.
Patents are like unions... they used to be good... but we need to think if we *really* need them anymore - or can the market handle itself.
Microsoft should be against patents or they are hipocrits (sp?). I'd like to know their stance on s/w patents - given their "freedom to innovate" propaganda.
Sigh... Life sucks...
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
There are two sides to this story:
.GIF compression patent and the Amazon 1-click patnet really hurt the end-user in that they restrict otehr sites from implementing useful features. Yes, in a perfect world companies would not take software patents.
;-)
(1) Free software developer believes that s/w patents are silly and companies should relinquish them. Pulling a Microsoft-ish move, the community leaders pressure companies by asking for compensation for their work.
(2) Companies that have built business models on open-source / free (pick one) software should be able to conduct their business so long as they don't violate the software licences (GPL et. al.) they have agreed to.
Of course s/w patents are silly, but attacking the companies is (IMHO) the wrong way to go. You need to lobby the government and show them how silly they are. Or even suggest a reasonable alternative - such as shortening the period of patents to meet the increasing momentum of the industry. Tell them WHY 8 years (or whatever) is too long.
Things like the
We need a perminant solution - not a temporary hack. The patent office needs to catch up to modern methods - and that 'aint gonna happen if you do an end-run around them.
Links to anyone actually doing this? Lobbying the government? I know of the searches for prior-art, but I'm looking for stuff that tries to nail the gov't to the wall.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
They don't really care what you do with their code, AS LONG AS you don't resell it AND prevent others from distributing it for less (e.g. nothing).
How hard is this concept to comprehend?
I think opening up the s/w patents to ease innovation (and open source s/w) is a good idea and very worthwhile. I hope IBM and HP, etc., are willing to participate.
Nevertheless, it strikes me as beating around the bush. The real issue is really that s/w patents are nonsense. Bruce Lehman (US lawyer, and former USPTO head) instituted s/w patents at society's expense and despite vocal opposition. The real issue is to get rid of s/w patents altogether.
Since that's hard to do, thanks to Bruce Lehman, I'd say this Perens approach is as good a step as any. Just don't lose sight of the real disease (s/w patents) while treating the symptoms (legal red tape and blockaded innovation).
= Joe =
P.s., isn't it amazing what one stupid person can inflict on countless others? Monopolies just feed on power, and so do government appointees apparently.
The Free Software movement seeks to end the quaint fallacy of "intellectual property".
Right... that's why they really don't care what you do with their code.
Oh, no, really they bitch and moan unless you release stuff under the GPL.
They don't really care about getting rid of IP, or they wouldn't harp on their rediculous, freedom-limiting license.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I would say it's upto the software publishers to ask this not him. He does not speak for all people who develop open source software. And many companies do give back, they return code back to the community.
This is why stuff like the GPL will never work in the corporate world imho. GPL is about politics not software.
this space for rent
First, Bruce Perens no longer claims to be affiliated with "Open Source" software.
But when it's convenient to him, he reminds people that "He wrote the Open Source Definition", or that he "co-founded the Open Source Initiative."
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I'm just pointing out that it's not truthful to say "First, Bruce Perens no longer claims to be affiliated with "Open Source" software.", because he does exactly that, from time to time.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
siri
Female Prison Rape in NY
Making money is not evil, nor will it ever be.
Company X states that patents A, B, ... will be licensed at no-cost to anyone whose code using those patents is covered by any of the free/open-source licenses FooL, BarL, ...
Something like this would pull a major thorn out of the community's paw - the threat of legal action for independent rediscovery of patented algorithms.
A company that did this could still use its patents to beat up on other closed-source companies - they would just be saying they don't want to use the same tactics against open-source projects.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
What money is being lost by licensing some of your IP openly? Especially for a big companies like HP and IBM, they have portfolios that cover thousands and thousands of things they will never exploit commercially.
.sig: Now legally binding!
I don't mean for this to sound like a troll, but AFAIK nobody is making "fat profits" from open source (with the possible exception of spindoctor firms sucking away investment dollars). Companies who focus on open source technologies don't seem to be doing well at all.
Too bad they can't sell their patents for operating capital ;)
Mmm... sacrilicious bananas.
WTF??!!!
That can't be right? How the hell does them using Open Source software mean that they should now be giving something? Does this mean I have to give something too? WTF?! Hey, I hate software patents as much as the next guy, but this just isn't right.
Sigs are awesome huh?
bah they did'nt have a marketable product :)
Thats kinda like asking microsoft to compensate Apple for all the ingenuity they stole from them :)
hahaa
phil left. thats what.
Let's just say I don't take the tagline seriously:
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
When did we stop doing this "for the love of proramming"? Could it be when our shares of VALinux and RedHat plunged? It's open source, no fucking strings attached, and that's the way it should stay.
When are the countless developers who contribute going to profit from this, even if it comes to pass? How are the people beyond those scare few at the top of the pyramid going to get compensation out of this... or are Perens et al planning on paying their devoted followers in Bananas?
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
What's really happening is as follows:
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
Period.
That is their number one goal. Anything they contribute for the good of the community is, sadly, to ease the conscious of the execs from making all that money.
The reason that they (probably) won't release the patens is because these are considered an asset of the company. The shareholders usually don't like it when the company gives away its assets.
I have been to many bankruptcy sales where trademarks, patents and other IP were up for sale with all the desks and computers.
Nice thought, but the submitter had it right with "fat chance."
-----
And I suppose you erase from your resume any accomplishments you're no longer actively pursuing.
Here's why. Anyone who wants to make money from technology that involves software -- be it a large corporation or an individual developer -- is constantly threatened by the possibility that someone will come out with a GPLed equivalent of his product. It's not anywhere near as hard to come up with the GPLed copy as it is to come up with the original, which may have required millions or even billions of dollars in R&D! Once you can see how a company implemented a solution, it's trivial to copy its painstakingly developed techniques and carefully researched design decisions in a GPLed product, destroying the market and preventing the developer from even breaking even on development costs.
Patents provide a defense against the GPL by providing the developer with a temporary monopoly on his or her invention, and thus a guarantee that he or she will be able to recoup his or her investment.
Would any rational company -- including IBM or HP -- give up its one defense against having its business undermined and the value of its hard work destroyed? Not a chance. What's more, Bruce Perens' expositions of the topic (see his presentation at the February 2000 LinuxWorld Expo) contain thinly veiled threats and intimations of blackmail. This won't go over well with anyone -- especially companies such as IBM and HP. I expect them to say, "Sorry, Bruce, but we won't be bullied. And now that we see that your true goal is to undermine and hurt us, we'll make an extra effort to beef up our patent portfolios."
In short, I think that Bruce's efforts will not only fail but backfire.
--Brett Glass
So, if there is no intellectual property, then I can do anything I want with any software, right? I can take emacs, modify it into a proprietary version, and sell my version without giving away the source code?
After all, it is the intellectual property laws that the GPL is making use of. If they are ever truly destroyed, then effectively all software is public domain. If you are right, RMS can save a lot of time by just releasing all FSF code as public domain instead of GPL.
I know the knee-jerk capitalists who don't understand Marxism will shriek
I guess I don't understand Marxism. Please provide me with some examples I can study. Exactly where in the world has Marxism ever been successfully tried? Where have the predictions of Marx ever come to pass?
For example, the U.S.S.R. had a system where a privileged elite ran the country with dictatorial powers; this system was called Communism, but I don't think Marx would say it was what he had in mind. Am I wrong, and that was a good example of Communism? Or is real Communism still in our future?
It's time for these companies to pay the piper.
Maybe you think so, but they will decide whether they want to pay or not. Free software is free. The companies that modified GPL code have released their modifications to the community; they have no obligation to do anything more than that.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Ok, so let's say you're cheating on your wife with your sister-in-law and her husband. Your wife doesn't know it, and your sister-in-law doesn't realize that you're screwing her husband on the side, too. All of a sudden, your wife says your family is going to be featured on the Jerry Springer Show. Ironically, your sister-in-law and her husband have plans to be out of town on the same day. What do you do?
The point is, if you know you're about to get screwed in a big way, why show up? This meeting is being announced as a "we're going to try to get you to fork over patents and thus some of your potential leverage for profit in the future, and make you feel horrible about it in front of thousands of people in the process" kind of meeting.
Who the Hell would show up for that?
Of course, Springer has a show every day--so there are plenty of stupid people...
--SC
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
The two above replies totally misunderstood the parent. He was quoting one of the "bad guys" in Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged is full of bits where the government passes laws so restrictive as to be parodies (but frighteningly realistic parodies) of laws passed in socialist countries. So what Mr. Monkey was saying was the guy learned his advocacy from the type of people Atlas Shrugged was arguing against.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
If it's companies that make money by providing Open Source software, it should be a sparsely attended meeting, unless they include all the companies that tried. I think Bruce is probably trying to present a value proposition that there are lots and lots of indirect economic benefits of using Open Source software, and that it's worth it for companies to spend money on Open Source because they'll make it back somehow. Or maybe he's trying to keep his name in the public eye, or both.
And I'm sure that his shifting position between two groundswell movements that have minor philosophical differences is going to greatly enhance his credibility while making a marginal economic proposition to some of the largest corporations in the world.
Finally we grind those money-grubbing capitalist lackeys beneath our boots, eh comrades? Eh?
Then they don't need to be patented anyway. 'Publishing them' establishes prior art.
I believe they patent them so they can then use patent bargaining in case they accidentally step on someone else's patents - so publishing them wouldn't achieve the same thing at all.
Legally I don't see any reason why they would have to give up their patents. Just because something contains a 'piece' of something else shouldn't make the whole patent null. As long as they didn't copyright that little 'piece' in question individually then they should have no problems.
The last thing we need is for IBM, HP, and other corporate "sponsors" of Linux to decide that they're tired of giving and giving - drivers for their hardware, research labs, etc. - and being unappreciated. We can't forget that we're dealing with large corporations with established business plans. Linux fits into those business plans -- they're not doing it out of the goodness of their collective hearts, as much as the grassroots Linux movement would like to believe. Is forcing the software patent issue now really the brightest thing to do? Do we want to publicly spit on the contributions these hardware and software corporations have made thus far, and negate the chances of any future goodwill gestures?
***JUMP PAD ACTIVATION INITIATION START***
***TRANSPORT WHEN READY***
***JUMP PAD ACTIVATION INITIATION START***
***TRANSPORT WHEN READY***
rediculous, freedom-limiting license
:)
Actually, I believe you should say " ridiculous, freedom-guaranteeing license "
Yes, I think that is much more accurate.
I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
I don't think it's payback in the strictly economical sense; not like "since we gave you X, you owe us Y." More like, "Since we gave you X in an open manner, it behoves you to voluntarily release Y under open terms as well, as a friendly exchange." If it really was what you feared, then there would be attack lawyers all over the place.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
I remember reading a while back (at this very site) Bruce saying that he was working on releasing specs to HP printers to allow Free Software people a way to write decent drivers. He said, IIRC, that the problem wasn't so much HP's willingness to release the spec as patent issues and 3rd party licenses. Perhaps HP is using this forum as a start on releasing some of those printer specs...
"And we're happy here, but we live in fear, we've seen a lot of temples crumble..." - Concrete Blonde
> Java language instead of the previous TCL language
Holy shit! Phil used to go off on java.
TCL this, TCL that. I wonder what the hell
happened?
Anonymous posts are filtered.
well put
Anonymous posts are filtered.
VM.. a proprietary closed source operating system with large license fees.
Costly, sure, but not by S/390 standards. Closed source, hardly. The IBM VM development group has provided source code for most of their system continuously since 1967. In the early 1980s, IBM entered the dark days of their Object Code Only policy, under which much source code was withdrawn. But since the early 1990s, all that code and almost everything else that hadn't been delivered has been released to the customers. These days, the so-called open source parts of VM are the largest parts IBM doesn't provide source for, and that's because they're forbidden to do so by the original authors (e.g. DCE, Java).
Next time, keep your opinions to yourself if you don't know the facts.
That sucks.
It's not like a leather-clad BP is gonna stroll into the HP boardroom with James Brown blaring ("i can dig codin! i can dig debuggin'! But i can't dig, back- back-stabbin!"), and shoot up the joint for "Payback".
BP isn't an idiot. Personally, i think this is a good thing (TM), and the media has decided it's "Payback" time. No one is getting "Paid" any "Back". It'd be nice, sure, and definitely lead the big boys down the 12-fold path to true software divinity, but we're just asking.
thelocust[dot]org
I thought open source was all about "free speech" rather than "free beer". This just proves that the leaders have only been with movement for monitary gain. I mean COME ON! If a company sells a piece of open source software, it shouldn't matter. It's "free speech" REMEMBER? It seems, once again, that the the rules keep getting changed, for the OSS movement gain. After awhile, it makes the whole movement look like a farce. this whole fiasco reminds me of the hippies in the 70's.(I imagine stallman was one of them). The "Free" people were the ones living in the communes, they didn't want "the man" getting them down. I wish people would realize, that without things like capitalism, the internet would be nothing.
This is not to say that it would be a bad idea for IBM, etc., to be good corporate citizens and make some of their proprietary software open source, but to demand them to do so is arrogant.
First, Bruce Perens no longer claims to be affiliated with "Open Source" software. He removed himself from that splinter group some time ago because he disagreed with the compromises it was making in the name of profitability and corporate acceptance. Bruce is part of the Free Software movement.
Second, the Free Software movement has an agenda. This is not news. The Free Software movement seeks to end the quaint fallacy of "intellectual property".
In a delicious ironic twist, they use the laws of intellectual property to destroy the concept of intellectual property. I know the knee-jerk capitalists who don't understand Marxism will shriek, but this is exactly how more modern collectivist systems will be put in place. They will use the tools of the current pseudo-democracies to gain control. Marx himself said it would never be necessary to force Communism in place of Capitalism, Capitalism would evolve into Communism naturally.
If HP et al thought they could simply take the goodies and ignore the ideology behind it, they were unbelievably naive. In the real world, ALL "charity" comes with strings attached. If you accept government welfare, you have to abide by the laws and values of the government. If you accept clothes from the Salvation Army, expect to receive a pamphlet summary of the New Testament in the same shopping bag.
It's time for these companies to pay the piper. In the end, they'll benefit from releasing their patents just as much as the community at large.
The real DunkPonch is user 215121. Everyone else is Bruce Perens.
I haven't seen any evidence of this, but it sure sounds like what is happening out there. After all, what's the Free Software Foundation going to do to companies like Microsoft and HP? Send them a cease-and-desist letter?
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Sounds like you've learned your free software advocacy lessons from the pages of Atlas Shrugged. "Directive 24-7-420 equalizes opportunity for free software developers by forever abolishing the quaint notions of owning the products of one's own mind. What is mind, anyway, other than a collection of chemicals that produces software?" Dr. Richard Stallman Director The People's Foundation of Free Software.
Would you like to touch my monkey?
Unfortunately, big businesses (ANY business, for that matter) exist to make a profit. They don't generally 'give back' to ANY community for no reason. When you see companies 'giving back' to communities, it's usually because there's some good PR involved, or there's something else in it for them. Wouldn't you be pretty pissed off if a company you owned a piece of started to give away your money just to be nice? I know I would.
That is pretty naive on the part of Perens and Stallman. They're acting like IBM and HP are a couple of college kids. They're MASSIVE corporations, not individuals. They have no sense of 'obligation' or anything even close to that. The goal of these companies is to make money, and you certainly don't make money by giving away patents. Open Source, Free Software, whatever, is all about writing code for free, with no strings attached. Last time I checked, no strings attached, means no strings attached. If somebody (or a massive corporation) wants to use the stuff without contributing, that's their right according to RMS and his ilk. It sounds like these guys have been living in la-la land too long, and are upset that their idealistic, utopian expectation of the whole world freely writing and giving away software doesn't quite hold true. Bummer.
...are they SURE it's really Bruce Perens doing this? They better check.
---
Know someone who is stealing cable? Report them!
But since HP is the one putting this on, perhaps he's not trying to beat them with the stick, but prod them along. Hopefully, he'll have a carrot in his back pocket just in case...
Personally, I'd like to see some patents open up... maybe not on the bleeding edge stuff, but at least on some well-established technologies. Opening them up could lead to further developments without the legal hassle of patenthood. Oh, well, enough rambling for now...
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
i couldnt agree more with ya
Information Technology White Papers and Research
Open Source
While the companies involved may be making big profits (HP, IBM), who's to say that these big profits are derived from Open Source?
I'd say most of IBM's profits are from selling and servicing their AS/400's and 390's, they're probably making very little from selling Linux on a mainframe.
If Open Source was making such big profits for IBM and HP, don't you think VA Linux and RedHAt would be doing better?
Anyhow, if this goes much further, don't you think companies considerate of there bottom line are going to flee from Open Source? If you could lose all your patents in unrelated fields becuase you dabbled in Open Source, who's going to risk it?
$man microsoft
Crowded elevator smell different to midget. -Chinese Proverb
Asking for a complete patent license tends to get refused. However I have neogitated what amounts to the same thing - a free license for use in an open standard protocol - which is all that anyone really cares about in any case.
Most patents are filled for defensive purposes. Only a very few companies actually make money from patents as such - TI being the biggest example in the tech sector. IBM does make significant patent royalties but those tend to be manufacturing and processing.
Software patents are not actually terrifically profitable. If an idea is patented then people tend to design arround the patent. The number of ideas so devastatingly original that they can't be evaded is very small.
If the meeting has been set up right then Brian and co have already got some deal with IBM and this is simply an excuse to allow the IBM management to give away property rather than sit on it and watch it be unused.
The biggest lever the open source community has against patents is that in general a patented product is nowhere near as useful as a standards based one. There are exceptions but very few.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
CNET has a story about similar to this here. Basically it talkes about how ArsDigita, an e-commerce company in the midst of layoffs and a major product overhaul, is bucking the trend of comrades selling open-source software. While other open-source companies such as Red Hat, Caldera Systems and VA Linux Systems work to shift revenue from products to services, ArsDigita is going the opposite direction. Instead of just offering services around the open-source ArsDigita Community System (ACS) software for setting up e-commerce Web sites, the company will begin selling proprietary software modules, said Dave Menninger, senior vice president of marketing. In addition, the company's latest version of ACS has been rewritten using Sun Microsystems' Java language instead of the previous TCL language. Very interesting read
Diplomacy is the art of letting people have your way
Nice dream world.
Insightful AND funny!
--
324006
I'm a rabid FSFer. I cringe at the term "open source", preferring "free software". But even *I* can see this is a terrible, terrible idea.
Yes, by all means, try to persuade Big Business to play nice. But don't, for the love of God, say that's it's "payback" for benefits they've received from the community. The entire idea of "open source" (which is what the company's bought into, not free software) is that the company doing the releasing gets a benefit. So you can't try to make them "pay twice" by asking for a favor later.
Bruce, you cannot drive a man with a stick, you must lead him with a carrot. Point out the *benefits* of releasing patents, don't try to appeal to some nebulous "gratitude".
--
324006
IBM to linux community
"All your bases are belong to me" (sic)
While open sourcers have been busy innovating and coding. IBMs lawyers and employees (don't forget they are "goaled" on how many patents they have submitted) have been busying patenting the stuff.
IBM have historically quietly made millions from "licensing" their patent portfolio. Maybe Bruce found out how much HP has paid IBM for desktop patents in the past?
er ibm can the F1 key for help patent be public domain, thnks
If a piece of software is liscenced to you, but the technology is then sold to someone who patents it, do you lose your right to freely distribute it?
What makes the rights they bought more legal than the rights you were GIVEn?
[haven't you tried FunWithPerl?]
From the article:
" . . we will say: 'It is time now that you are making money out of our software for you to help us with this.'
He's giving something for nothing and then asking for compensation?
As Bruce argues passionatly (read:flaming them), the IBM execs will be practicing throwing pencils into the ceiling tiles.
--
Free Iran