Slashdot Mirror
"False" Open source Representative Tells EU Patents OK
Onno writes "Bruce Perens claims in this article
That a false free software/open source advocate claims to EU parlement that software Patents are ok. " This is a strange article on a lot of levels so I'm gonna avoid commentary. You definitely should read it though- it's just that odd.
So we know we hate this guy and he'd never be our official representative, but who *is*? Everyone's views are different, but who is the most agreed with overall? poll?
RMS
Linus
Anyone else?
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
ACk. It's not just the article that's strange. I'm just not able to parse this sentence: "Bruce Perens claims in this article That a false free software/open source advocate claims to EU parlement that software Patents are ok. "
You may re-publish this message or excerpts of it.
FALSE OPEN SOURCE REPRESENTATIVE CALLS FOR EUROPEAN SOFTWARE PATENTS
A false or misled "open source representative" has signed an industry resolution calling for the EU to allow software patenting, which has been sent to members of the European Parliament. Copies of the resolution are here and here . The European Legal Affairs Committee holds a plenary vote on software patenting this Wednesday, and may have been influenced by the false representation.
Graham Taylor is director of Open Forum Europe, an organization that is purported to work for broader acceptance of Open Source. Taylor has appeared at various trade shows in Europe, saying reasoanble things about Open Source, for the past year. Open Forum Europe is a division of IT Forum Foundation and InterForum. InterForum's membership includes a number of large companies that have a vested interest in the promotion of software patenting in Europe. Mr. Taylor's sponsor organization is well connected with the EU government.
I would encourage Mr. Taylor to evangelize Open Source software, something he's done successfully for a while. However, he does not have the credentials to represent the Linux, Open Source and Free Software developer communities, especially when he contradicts our extremely strong opposition to software patenting. While Mr. Taylor has been visible as a public speaker, it does not appear that he has any engagement with Open Source projects and developers, or that he brought this matter up with representative organizations such as the Free Software Foundation, the Open Source Initiative, and Software in the Public Interest. No legitimate Open Source representative would think of taking this sort of position with government without first holding a public consultation with the developer community.
Software patents could be fatal for Open Source software in the U.S. and Europe. Since we do not collect royalties from the distribution of our own software, we have no funds to pay royalties to patent holders. Rather than sue us to collect money, expect patent holders to sue Open Source developers to restrain them from distributing their software or carrying out further development. Companies that produce proprietary software would bring that sort of suit to kill us off as a competitor.
While we can sometimes work around a patented algorithm that we know about, the Open Source developer is not able to defend himself from patent infringement claims, even invalid ones. In the U.S., the cost of a patent infringement defense often exceeds US$500,000. The Open Source developer, an individual working on his own time, won't have the funds to defend himself. He will be compelled to settle with his accuser, regardless of the merits of the case, in order to preserve what assets the plaintiff deigns to leave him. The copyrights of his own software won't be among those assets.
We are especially threatened by royalty-bearing software patents that are embedded in industry standards. In many cases, it is impossible to achieve compliance with a standard without infringing upon the patented algorithms that are specified by that standard. Standard compliance is critical for interoperability, and thus software patents in standards can make an un-communicating island of a Linux system. For example, the IEEE 1488 FireWire standard is encumbered by patents that apply to the software interfacing to it, and a patent r
It must really be an odd article if we should actually read the article before posting a reply.
IEEE 1488 should be 1394.
Bruce Perens.
So who can we rely upon to represent us? There is division over the whole spectrum of open source, for example Linus Torvalds wants to incoroporate DRM, yet many others don't.
To my mind the solution to this is to elect a council of representatives which will be empowered to act on behalf of the community. I nominate Guy Kewney to represent a sane point of view.
I understand that abusive software patents like One click shopping or adding 1+1=10, But for non-trivial items ... gif ie LZW compression algorithm, 7-14 years of protection is reasonable. So while Bruce Perens opposes patents on principle, obviously there is a sector of the open source movement that does not. Fortunately... or not... if you ask 4 open source advocates or community members what open source stands for you will get at least 6 answers. That is the strength of open source and free software.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
He didn't say that.
Linus said he thinks people can use DRM with Linux if they want to. He's probably not going to incorporate anything like that in his kernel, but he doesn't try to prevent others from doing it.
These are busy people. They don't have the time or will to learn what it's all about - they need a summary that says what would happen, what's at stake and what their individual countries could lose out from if these patents are implimented. Has anyone worked on this?
Rms put back-breaking effort into Open Source softwear while Linus was still in highschool. He didn't just work for broader acceptance of Open Source, he pretty-much created open-source, and created many of the open source tools that Graham Taylor is promoting making him far more credible.
Plus, he would rant, and rave so long that the eu would have forgotton about patents long before they figure out a way to get him to shut up.
RMS may be a jerk, but he is a great, admirable and inspiring one.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
So the premise is that someone came to speak about open source to the EU Parliament, but the are not a respected member of the open source community, as evident by their lack of support for it.
The real question is, who got this guy to speak? He was likely chosen for his viewpoints, regardless of how they represent the whole of the open source community.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
If you have a peer that knows what all that IEEE mumbo-jumbo is. 1394 is a no brainer. 1488? Zoooom!
That doesn't sound too bad. As Perens and rest of us are very worried about the future of independent OSS developers, some kinds of amendments might make the patent laws reasonable. I don't know.
For example, allowing strong software patentability and then relieving any OSS implementations from patent claims would actually make OSS a better choise than proprietary! Who would want to pay huge royalties when they can use an OSS implementation. On the other hand, such an amendment would create a loophole that would effectively nullify the patent laws as companies could release just the patented algorithm as a LGPL library.
I really don't believe the pro-patent people would want such loopholes, so it's unlikely that they would support very broad amendments. More likely, they might support amendments that deny suing of individuals while allowing suing companies such as Red Hat and other companies packaging and selling OSS. Such solution would make no difference to the OSS community, as the success of GNU/Linux strongly depends on the commercial exploitation of OSS.
Graham Taylor, the False Prophet.
Bruce Perens, the One True Voice of the Open Source Movement.
Many people in these forums claims OSS is far more innovative that proprietary software. If this is the case they why the fear of patents. If you do the innovating you can take the patents and do what ever you want with them.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Software patents are good, it's just that most of the people working in patent offices don't have the knowledge to understand a broken claim and a valid one.
I'm all for software patents, like a 10 year validity, but there has to be a resonable level on what can be patented. By that I mean, one-click stuff is too abvious, but it doesn't mean simple things shouldn't be patentable; as long as they are unique an valuable.
I thought decompression was still allowed, or that's at least what IBM said a while ago. They might've taken a step back.
The reason some open-source projects scrapped GIF support completely is because they don't want to use it, not because they can't. Unfortunately PNG is still foreign to most people ("eh? it's not as good as JPG or GIF!") due to crappy IE support. Even worse is MNG-support, which is mostly non-existant (the replacement for animated GIFs).
If IE had full support for these two (with alpha channels and the works), I'm sure the 'regular' webdesign community would embrace them and never look back at GIF.
I find it funny that Bruce claims that this guy is a 'fake'. I don't recall electing Bruce to any position representing me as a free software user.
Graham's position may not be what I have chosen. It may not be what Bruce chooses, or what CmdrTaco
chooses. But it sure as hell doesn't make him a 'fake' anything. Bruce speaks of the "Linux, Open Source and Free Software movements" as if we are one big group of people who all feel precisely the same way about everything - namely, the way he does. I'm sorry someone disagrees with you, Bruce, but it's a big world out there, and that's gonna happen.
Their website appears to be running Linux Apache with ChiliSoft ASP and FP extensions.. a Linux hosting service catering to Microsoft victims who purport to promote broader use of OpenSource software?
I don't think anyone who allows FrontPage extensions to run on their web site should be taken seriously as a Free Software or Open Source advocate. Reason being that mod_dav is standard and competely servicable for the same function (except it doesn't support Microsoft FrontPage authoring AFAIK).
It looks to me like this OpenForum Europe is a fly-by-night operation anyway. They have almost NO web presence, which belies both involvement and advocacy of existing Free Software and Open Source projects.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Who does this "open source representative" work for? What O.S.S projects have they contributed to. And most of all, who in the O.S.S community does respect him. Any hands? Even if he is authentic, would a judge order microsoft to release windows code just because a microsoft supported said they believed in it? Of coarse not, so why are we concearned about this O.S.S "representative".
Only label him false when all your positive advice is ignored.
Bill Gates: Hey Graham, how about supporting software patents?
Graham Taylor: Blow goats, Gates! I 0wn you!
Bill Gates: How about a new swimming pool at your house?
Graham Taylor: Pound sand, Gates! I don't own a house, b14tch!
Bill Gates: You do as of now.
Graham Taylor: Make me your goatse.cx-boy, Herr Gates!
Maybne this is the guy that stole Bruce's laptops at Linux World... although that could be one of 7,000 people.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Which is where this article was poached from. With all this news redundancy my RSS feeds are all starting to look the same.
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
So just because I innovate I get a patent automatically? No. I have to pay money. Lots of it.
This is a joke right? If you never have heard of Bruce Perens - go type his name into Google.
What we all should realize is that patents on software often involve patents on ways to communicate. When I create and publish e.g. an image, it's a way of communication. So is a button on a site with certain functionality behind it. So in these cases software patents in a way abridge free speech and therefore should be considered illegal.
0x or or snor perron?!
'Speaking to The Register earlier today Graham Taylor said the organisation's aim was to "move Open Source forward in the business world," and that there would be a formal launch in February. He said that although mistakes had been made over Unix, "Geoff and Phil were among the people who stood up and said 'this is nonsense.'" And he apologised profusely for sending out the press release in Microsoft Word format. "I am in the process of being converted," he shamefacedly told The Register'
I think Mr. Taylor needs to learn a few more things.
No open source software project can afford to pay the patent holder for their discovery.
Therefore, even if half the innovations in the world are done by OSS, the other half would be cost based. And therefore unaccessible to the OSS community for the specified number of years.
Also note, the patent process is an expensive one that an independent OSS software guru probably doesn't want to bother with. This leaves it open for commercial interests to claim as their own. In many cases, the OSS software guru can't afford the Lawyers to dispute the claim.
Stay long and prosper!
Having recently read "Toxic sludge is good for you" [strongly recommended] I am very curious about where the funding for OpenForum comes from. It seems deliberately ambiguous about where it gets funding or what it does, which gives a whiff of the PR industry. It is fairly standard practise for PR firms to form organisations with misleading names purely to put forward viewpoints beneficial to certain special interests. Does anyone care to refute this ?
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Industry is held back from attacking open source is the following two reasons:
* Fear of prior art. Very few software patents are new ideas. Very, very few represent a novel use of an existing idea. The last thing someone wants to do is invalidate their patent and have to deal with 50 people with licenses for said patent.
* The GIF patent is not a template for how to use your intellectual property for gain and profit.
* Bad Press reduces ROI on good marketing.
-- $G
This sort of thing happens with environmental and consumer issues all the time. Corporations fund groups that, on the surface, appear to be grass-roots, citizens organizations (real activists call them "Astro-turf" lobbies.)
For example, the "National Wetlands Council" presents itself as a citizen lobby that is concerned about the environment, but in relaity it's sponsored by the oil and real estate industries who want turn wetlands into shopping malls and drilling sites.
"Keep America Beautiful" is funding by the bottling industry and sponsors anti-litter campaigns while lobbying against any kind of mandatory recycling for the corporations.
"Consumer Alert" fights government regulations of product safety.
Massive industries funding what basically corporate front-groups is no surprise. Someone find out where that guy's funding come froms - I bet he has several large software companies behind. Since the average person, even the average legislator, doesn't undertsand the Open Source movement, it's easy for corporations to obscure the issue like this.
You are, I hope, aware that this post doesn't parse.
"bullow"? "va"? "corepirate"? "lairIE"? "takeknowledgee"???!??
Use ENGLISH, for crying out LOUD!
Even allowing for the obvious substitutions (below, via, corprate...) All of your "cleverness" simply OBSCURES any coherent thought that you wished to express in this post.
This is a political issue. (all legal ones are, really). Address such issues in the language of the PEOPLE (NOT the 'L337) if you really wish your ideas to be considered seriously on such issues.
What is the difference between a small revolutionary change and a large evolutionary change?
Maybe because this matters?
truth is, you can have the font plague disabled, & your site still shows damnned as being used. the guise over in marketeering .controll never sleep you know?
.communicate?
far as icann tell though, cars still come with ashtrays, which doesn't make all drivers of same smokers. however, if you fill your ashtrays with FUDge flavored cyanide?
some folks can't afford to buy T1s/server farms, etc..., but should still be able to
This is a bad situation getting worse. The problems created by the US patent system being extending to Europe increases the risk of open source being gradually left behind, as new and important ideas are patented throughout most of the western world.
Don't hope for companies to do the "right thing" -- remember they have a moral obligation to their shareholders to develop every possible asset. Free software can only survive if prolonged, exclusive access to critical ideas simply isn't on offer.
He likes to post on slashdot so much that he made dozens of accounts with variations on his name, ending with a period, etc.
And it's a mistake to think that a few hundred letters won't help turn a tide. I live in MA. And my representatives send me form letters when i write in. But sometimes those form letters reflect that i'm definitely among a large number writing in... when i wrote to protest ANWR drilling... i got back letters explaining that the reps i wrote to "Won't let down the many concerned citizens," in the vote on the issue. (and they didn't.) Politicians know that they can get voted out of office- and that for every letter written, a chunk of money has just been allocated for or against their campaign, and in many cases they can look at the donation balance sheet, see which companies support or don't support the decision, and go for money from the companies supporting the decision LEAST likely to infuriate their constituents. Granted, it doesn't always work, it's not an ideal system. But a few tips for writing to congress:
always list the bill that you're concerned about, if you know the official title number.
stick to one issue per letter.
don't use form letters. If there's a service that will write them for you- and there are many online- see that you edit out catchphrases and change the wording enough to make it an original letter, not a 'boilerplate.'
Send it by mail if you can- physical mail means a lot.
USE YOUR ADDRESS. they need to know that you're a registered voter in their constituency.
be polite and to the point, and tell them that you are discussing the matter- and their response- with your friends, family, coworkers, anyone who will listen. That's gotten me much more personalised responses.
don't be afraid to call, fax, write to thank them after the vote, or express your disapproval with their vote, after the issue is voted upon.
I know that special interest groups have lots of power, and that's why we should support the ones who support the issues that we care about (like the EFF or the DEN) but we also have a strong voice, wehn we choose to use it, as individuals. If we don't speak up, we can't argue when our reps cave in to special interests with no dissenting voice from the public. And if there's one thing slashdotters are great at, it's dissent!!! (yay!!!!)
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
"We" "need" "a" "representative"?
Follow the link to ADL, it's legit.
Is it just me, or are fully half the comments on this thread from Bruce Perens himself? I'm not faulting him for it, and I agree with the thrust of his article, but he sure does put the "active" in "activist", eh?
Who's the troll here, exactly? Methinks you meant to mod the parent...
No need to comment. Someone else will comment when it gets duped later today.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
Is this a corporation? What process is there to decide who representatives are? I think to call Mr Taylor(?) a false representative is just Bruce's usual rhetoric that really doesn't get it.
I still rember the first article that crashed slashdot. Bruce had made a troll so bad (good?) that Slashdot ranked up over 1000 posts, many calling for Bruce to step down in his "official" leadership position.
Well Bruce stepped down, only to lead those that followed on some Maddona like "new fashionable" organization after another. In a short time He had created two (three?) more organizations where he was the leader only to remove himself from all of them.
I think Bruce has done a fair job helping companies open their products (although for the life of me I don't know a one that he's actually gotten opened) don't get me wrong. But calling another advocate "false" becuase you think they don't agree with your position is immature. Thinking that your position represents "Open Source" simply means you don't get it.
In the original article - which shows no signs of slashdotting - we see:
For example, the IEEE 1394 FireWire standard
While in the article posted to slashdot, we see:
For example, the IEEE 1488 FireWire standard
Now, unless you believe that Adam retyped the entire article by hand, it is clear that he copied the article and then deliberately changed the 1394 to 1488.
He may be saying that he's saying that the firewire standard is fascist, like changing the S in MS to a $ (M$), rather than making a white power statement on his own part; I've read some of his other stuff and have not noticed white supremacist comments.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
We...
Us...
Them...
We are using these terms just a bit too loosely all the way around here. I like the idea that Bruce is taking a stand that he feels is in line with the OSS community. However, it would have been better if he had done the same as is suggesting others do and mail the lists first telling them what is about to go down. Freewheeling responses and open flamewars between party's claiming to be "right" is what the OSS community is trying to get away from. I wish the article had his credentials on the front end so we know who he is and why he feels he CAN rep OSS.
This is in no way a critique of his efforts on behalf of OSS, but like many here, I like to know why someone feels they can talk for me before I give the okay that they can. Just because Taco says "go here and be loud" does not mean I am going to.
Bruce's arguments are well thought out in the line of support of no software patents. However, that is a split issue even in OSS in some areas (look at Click and Run from Lindows). The strife is only beginning, and if the OSS community does not soon agree to open dialog, all of the progress made to this point may be for naught. Rational thought and conversations should be tools, not flames and accusations.
"Some users have it coming...I am just the delivery mechanism."
-The BOfH
No, I'm not. I read Tom's Hardware, Ars, The Reg, etc. I've never heard of Parens before. Except for Parens calculator.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
For a "Renaisance Geek", you sure are tough on a guy using voice recognition. Take it easy, just because this guy has carpral tunnel or whatever, is no reason to exclude him from the exchange of views and ideas that makes slashdot great.
Once you read it out loud, it's no worse than the average post here.
Bruce's one page letter, the article you read, is a fine summary. Within it, in two or three paragraphs, he explains that software patents will be used to thwart free software development and restrain competition in software. How's that for a summary of a summary?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I think the EU should shoot itself in the foot and pass all the DRM/software patent laws they want. In fact they have my vote.
The faster you screw over your population by passing laws the quicker we can get his all over with. We know that DRM and software patents and legislation to allow monitoring or deny spam and other forms of internet traffic are detrimental to this global network that our economies rely upon. And I think it would be a good thing to put up firewalls on the boarders and block the free flow of information to increase profits. Because money is what we live for, it is the true meaning of life.
There I found the answer you have all been looking for.
The sad thing is, we'd actually take the retard seriously if he went out and bought himself some speech therapy lessons.
My GOD man, what a whiny, twitchy, nervous bitch he came off as in that silly, stupid, geekfest known as "Revolution OS".
Software Patents are Bad
Oxygen is Good
I like Jello(tm)
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
What did we do that affected the real world?
Did Mr. Perens send a fax to all the members of the EU parliament stating in short terms (mind you they are quite busy)
"mr. taylor is NOT a representative of OSS community - disregard Open Source Community approval for software patents"
then run down a number of obvious reasons why software patents are bad. eg:
- they impose a too high "market entry fee" on newcomers
- that hurts small and medium businesses big time by giving big guys to much leverage to crush them.
Anyone care to elaborate?
Code is Speech. No to Censorship.
Let's see if we can think of a better term rather than simply bitch about the one that was used:
Anyone who's put much thought into the matter knows that patents on numerical algorithms, aka software, are bad for everyone.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I've also informed the European Parliament government that Graham Taylor has the full support of the Slashdot Community. You cooperation is appreciated.
Allolex
hello folks
more and more comments are far away from the real problem and bruce doesn't deserve it.
You can say what you want he has a story in OSS, that is not the case for a lot of us, and let me just say that, pushing OSS in a corporate environment is HARD to say the least.
the fact is this man (Graham Taylor ) will talk for us/you and i don't like that.
sometime i feel that somes like bruce waste their
time trying to explain things to people that don't want/are unable to understand.
anyway keep up the good job Bruce, we (should I says I) need you.
nezdebois
Bruce, have you attempted to contact anyone in the EU to express these same concerns? It would seem that perhaps implying intention to deceive prior to the vote would either get the vote delayed for an investigation or at least make people reconsider their position. I understand that you have to be careful about accusations, as we don't know whether this is deliberate deception or simply a case of being misinformed.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
RMS is nothing to do with Open Source Software: he's an advocate for Free Software, and you can read why here.
The difference is more than just semantics. Even if you support OSS, it's important to be aware of the distinction between Free and Open Source.
- Who is Bruce Perens?
- Who is "Mr. Taylor"?
- Who is "EU government"? (Nothing such alike does actually exist.)
I think a certain person has consumed too much of his favourite drug...precisely
home page
Dubious beginnings in the Unix industry
...and of course, was once a famously crap England manager.
Seems to think it's all about saving money up-front
Apparently used to work for Gartner, aieeee.
Really, the question is not who is Bruce, or who represents the OSS community or even the merits of software patients. Really, the question is, what are Graham Taylor's intentions?
After reviewing the site, IMHO, it's clear this site is clever marketing aimed at spreading FUD among senior managers. It's clear that this needed to be brought to the attention of the community of open source software developers and end users. It's also clear we ought to thank Mr. Perens for doing so.
Thanks Bruce.
eof
More than a few Open Source developers work day jobs for companies who hold software patents. These patents supposedly protect the livelihood of those at the company. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that at least some of these developers will have sympathy for software patents.
Just as the readers of Slashdot do not share a "hive mind" (although many trolls like to claim it), the international community of Open Source developers do not all think alike, even in regard to software patents. To claim that the vast majority of developers are against patents, and that the remaining few are either misled or dangerous enemies, is pretty pompous and arrogant.
I patent the whole concept of allowing electronic hardware being able to take input from human interaction devices such as keyboards, keypads and any device that translates movement of an object into information, and the ability to store that information on persistant information storage devices and the ability to manipulate that information in any way conceiveable, and the ability to show information on display screens or hardcopy printing machines.
There.
Explain to me why you can't patent your open source software, allow others to use it, and just NOT sue?!
You know it.
And don't you forget it.
Bruce Parens and Bruce Perens are both involved with open source, according to google. I guess that must confuse some people.
1. Software patents are currently not allowed in Europe.
That means, that in Europe there is no Amazon One-Click patent, no SCO lawsuit, no Charles Northrup or this, this, another one from Bezos patenting web ads, a Bezos patent on discussing products online, software versioning, submarine patents, AOL...
2. This law will allow software patents if it passes.
3. It has a clause that would monitor the effects on OSS, and maybe, if negative effects are decided to be happening, try to limit those effects.
4. Some dude nobody's ever heard of claimed to represent OSS community and said it's a good idea.
5. Some other dude said the dude in 4 is full of it in a posting on his home page.
6. said posting got slashdotted
7. You are here.
home page
I have not heard anything more pathetic since
...eventually
the rise & fall of the middle-east.
I triple garantee you that Software Patents
will mean the end of open-source
Where is RSM when you need him?
M. Al-Sahaf (IT Minister, Oil for Code program)
And as usual, both groups think the other is giving open source a bad name. (not trolling, just my observation).
"Inflammable means flammable? What a strange country!" -Dr. Nick, The Simpsons
is they block POTENTIAL more than anything else and thus future creativity.
If Lego were analogous to software, the Lego bricks would represent individual instructions in the software. Someone has the bright idea to patent combinations of bricks that achieve a useful result. There is nothing new in this at all, you HAVE to create something useful out of the pieces or you are creating nothing at all (or art). Anyone who wanted to create something incorporating that brick combination would be prohibited from doing so, even though the useful result may be different from yours.
This is the root problem with a softare patent; You're working with a finite resource, instruction sets, that can be combined in an infinite number of ways to create a useful result.
My reasons to oppose patents.
Patents promote existing monopolies, hinder fair competition and completely bar new entrants.
The huge back catalogue of Patents significantly favours established patent holders, mainly US Corporations.
European Industry would be forced to pay royalties to existing Patents holders, mainly US Corporations, without a corresponding income.
European industry would be the forced to pay royalties often for ideas designed and developed in Europe but patented in the US.
This would damage the European Software Industry competitiveness on a global scale.
Let me first thank you for clarifying Linus' statement.
Secondly, let me thank you for pointing out that in our community we need more than one representative. Linus, RMS and ESR are probably the most conspicuous ones.
The reason I make this post is that these points are always under-estimated. Points that makes us different from the the Microsoft* herd. (I suppose)
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated in any way to Linus, RMS, ESR or Microsoft (although I am a fan of the first three).
Thank you for understanding.
GrimReality
2003-05-06 16:48:45 UTC (2003-05-06 12:48:45 EDT)
You really think that words like "liesense", "corepirates", and "patentdead" are the result of voice recognition software? Voice recognition with an agenda, I guess.
That aside, you're right, the guy you replied to is a fucking idiot, and the guy who started this thread is not.
Somebody really should look into who's standing behind this guy. Not like someone(s) we'd all know wouldn't stoop to creating a Trogan organization to get the job done.
The commentary on this story is pissing me off. I thought slashdotters didn't like patents? Here's a perfectly good example of how to actually do something about it, and slashdotters are trying to shoot the messenger. Give me a break.
simon
home page
no one gets it...
Nasty wicked tricksy falsesoftware patentssess! We hates them.
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
- Slashdot moderators are nothing if not sycophantic.
- Parent post says it's from "Bruce Perens"
- Parent post is not modded to 5.
Therefore, it must be an impostor.please stand up?
Now zealotry from someone in the Debian arena is hardly a surprise. I know deb for:
- Questioning whether Linus's kernel tree is pure enough to coexist with their "social contract"
- Thinking it can do a better BSD than the existing 3
- being the platform for the Hurd?
- (unintentionally) spawning other ill-concieved projects such as "TrustedDebian" founded by someone who's not got the sense to check in with the Deb project for use of their TM.
- Pushing 'deb' as the one and only best solution and focussing on writing non-portable deb-specific code
- Running about the 'net proclaiming that GPL 'trumps' patents where the two are mixed (?? a license of unknown legal standing takes precedence over a codified/legal IP construct??)
And of course all that's just a subset of the FSF noise. "information wants to be free" "patents are bad"As I've pointed out before on /. a patent does exactly what GPL does, exchanges the disclosure of the details necessary to practice an invention or idea. Yes the details differ, Patents are used to grant a temporary monopoly, GPL is (nominally) forever.
Looking on another side of the OSS fence, OpenBSD refuses to consider GPL'd JFS and uses decidedly (imho, ymmv) inferior Kerberos & AFS implementations on the basis of license/patent stances.
Well all these people are quite free(tm) to run thier projects however they want. I'm not all that enamored of the numerous duplications of effort, but it's their projects and while I certainly have views on the damage done by zealotry and politics, I know my views probably aren't gonna change the stances.
However. When Mr Perens wants to claim to speak for the community at large. Well I'm sorry. Yes we all like a slugfest/catfight but at the end of the day I mostly care about the systems I work with running on a daily basis.
As Mr Perens says himself: "One problem we have in holding off software patents is that we have little damage to show so far. Although at least one company has made its plans clear, there has been little prosecution of Open Source developers for patent infringement to date"
Now I assume that "one company" is SCO and I've observed that Mr Perens is happy to look askance at IBM for the purposes of the current discussion?. While proclaiming that the sky will soon fall, in spite of the fact that the company with the largest patent inventory in the world is also the one most often hailed as a positive force in OSS?
I'm sorry but Patents (software and otherwise) are part of the landscape. Yes some crap gets past the examiners, this is no different from any other legislation, or government regulation.
However the OSS 'community' seems to be in general denial on this. I don't see software patents going away, and the EC seems to be taking an oss-friendly approach. And no Mr Perens does not speak for me on this (or any other) issue.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
I can see how patents worries can completely stop open-source development while it appears they don't really stop closed-source. And I would agree this is unfair.
Conversely I am not sure if I would panic so much. Surely Linux violates many hundreds of patents, it is just impossible to write working code without violating patents. And you can probably do just what we do and ignore it.
I have no formal training in CS but I've been coding for years and read extensively. My understanding is that an algorithm can be reduced to a mathematical construct(addition, subtraction, equality etc.). As such it behooves the proponents of software patents to show that all math is patentable. Last time I looked this still wasn't the case.
This ranks right up there with patenting genes.
They are discoveries not inventions. Imagine the chaos if we had allowed patents on the structure of the atom. "Look I've discovered the structure of gold. Anyone wanting to use gold must pay me in, umm, well platinum! Yeah that's it!"
Now the expression of that algorithm in software may be copyrightable(a different debate) or the wiring of it in hardware may be patentable.
I think that at the very least all software patents must express themselves in the underlying mathematics of how they operate. As such it would be obvious to any second grader that it's not a patentable object. If someone can come up with a way not to use this inherent attribute in an algorithm, well than that would be patentable.
Similarly the method/machine used in the discovery of the structure of a gene or substance would be patentable. That is the purpose behind patents and not simply patenting something just because you got there first.
"Look that big bright orange object in the sky I will call the sun. I patent the sun. Everyone wanting to use the sun must pay me in gold!"
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
I can't say that I am a developer, though I have assisted very lightly in one or two items.
But I am an OSS user. And I do have a SME, and I believe that software patents are a very bad idea, especially for open source, but also in their own right.
And I do trust Bruce to represent me quite well. I wish he would, since I, having an SME that is a little too S, cannot afford to go, either in terms of time or of money.
I think that if it is possible to affect this, now is definitely the time -- but that said, part of me believes that this is all fixed. At least in America, it would be. Maybe Brussels is different.
[PS : to be technically correct, I am not an owner. My wife is. However, I am training my wife in how to run the business, as well as 3 other people. So I am kindof the ghost in the machine. Therefore, I can speak of the SME as "mine" in a way that is very true.]
Also, I should mention that we do prepublishing. Good luck in getting rid of the software patent, though!
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
(it's entirely possible I'm missing some kind of joke here, or a spelling mistake somewhere or something, but I'll bite anyway...)
His name is Bruce Perens. Not Parens.
If you patent something and then issue a license saying 'Anyone can use this freely, and if I change the terms of my license then you can choose which version, the old or the new, to use', then anyone can use your work freely without any chance that you will change your mind, because you cannot legally 'unsign' that contract once you've signed it.
There are only two barriers to doing things like this: one, it costs money to patent something, though not as much as people think. Two, most of the software patents that people are worried about come FROM the commercial software industry, and what free software advocates really want is to be able to use this work whenever they want to without paying for it.
Admittedly, a lot of the time the things that are patented are obvious or silly, and/or were come up with independantly. And that's bad. But don't make it out to be the heroic Linux kernel hacker coming up with something really cool and then having a corporation see it, copy it, and patent it, because that's a pretty rare phenomenon.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
If this guy claims he's representing a group of people when he's not, they should be able to sue him. Especially if the EU decides to allow software patents. Oh right, you're not organized enough and don't have the money to pursue legal ends. Isn't that what the EFF is for? Where are they in all this? I know they don't want this legislation passed either, but what about going after this guy for misrepresenting himself?
You are a moron, stanmann. You totally miss the point. Obviously you love to talk just to hear the sound of your own voice. Shut up if you don't have anything intelligent to say.
According to the European Patent Convention (1973), "computer programs ... as such" were to be specifically excluded from patentability. However, according to the latest EPO guidelines software innovations are now patentable, if they have a 'technical character', beyond just being run on a computer:
Just about any kind of software design or process is therefore now apparently deemed patentable by the EPO, if it can be defended as having any kind of rational justification or identifiable practical usefulness. (Note that the exact nature of "technical character" is never defined. Apparently it's something you just know when you see it.)
The width of EPO patentability is borne out by considering a selection of some of the patents that the EPO has granted in recent years:
So, when in the letter Mr Taylor calls on MEPs to support the McCarthy draft proposals, because they "confirm the current scope of patentability" and would be "integrating the long-standing approach of the European Patent Office", this is effectively a call to confirm almost unlimited software patentability.
Put down the CRACK PIPE and STEP AWAY from the KEYBOARD!
YOU DO NOT NEED TO REPLY TO EVERY MESSAGE!
Stop it. You're an asshole.
The stuff you're posting shows you're an idiot. Posting more DOES NOT correct that impression, it only reinforces it.
Sorry for the dupe. The nesting was showing this and this with the same indentation. I thought nobody had answered.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
*I* am the true voice of Open Source! The little voices in my head tell me so!
As a coder, this is how I see the role of management in my workplace - they shield me from the ignorance of the world, and represent me to the outside. So I can get on coding.
Or at least, that's how it should work, when management are good, but that's beside the point. It is definitely true that the opensource/free software community(ies) needs management-style representation. Not to tell us what to do, but to be our buffer against the outside world, translating back and forth. This is why, IMO, such representatives should not be highly active contributors to the codebase. They are blinded by the coding, to a certain extent.
Please, feel free to disagree with me - this is just my interpretation from my own experience.
It's not a joke, thank you for correcting my mistake. Now if only trolls would stop marking other people as trolls simply because people like me take the time to try and find out who someone is that they've never heard of before and if they're reliable sources...
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
while the information presented is certainly nice to know (though rather not interesting for anyone outside us), there's a fine example of wrong wording (as many working in this field seem to show once and then):
as the number of people who care approaches infinity
this is certainly wrong, as the total population of earth is far from infinity (unless you redefine it as "more than i can count in an hour or so"). if you want to know about infty read something about exponential functions. if you want to know why the total population of the universe is zero read the hitchhiker.
That is the problem with Open Source Software. There's no command structure, no CEO, no shareholders, nobody to 'officially' speak for us.
... that matters.
I'm not ready to say it's a strength, but I don't think it's a weakness either. Open source is the first culture that embodies the principles of the internet. The end-to-end principle is at work, when OSS (and FS) developers collaborate from other ends of the world, never meeting. OSS routes around damage by flaming lusers out of the community, trashing bad code, and constantly changing/improving the source base. OSS brings in the network effect to have many eyes make shallow bugs.
A leader would imply a single point of failure. While many people consider Linus to be a deity, he in fact does very little decision making himself and by his own words delegates as much as possible. RMS may be an important evangelist but it's his message not his personality
I see OSS as being fundamentally decentralized. Who needs leaders? Everything is open for everyone to see, we don't need people to tell us what to think because we are all, constantly, broadcasting and then aggregating.
simon
home page
(*) Bruce Perens
(_) That Other Guy
It get's its funding from it's members, who are mostly big companies interested in the business benefits of free software.
Graham Taylor himself http://www.fonteau.com/