Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"False" Open source Representative Tells EU Patents OK

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the now-thats-a-long-subject-line dept.

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.

13 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. Typo by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

    IEEE 1488 should be 1394.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  2. Re:Elected role? by samhalliday · · Score: 3, Informative

    Linus Torvalds wants to incoroporate DRM, yet many others don't.

    actually, you have taken it a little out of context... linus wants to code the ability for end users and distros to use DRM in the kernel; which may be a good thing for security (opposed to M$ reasons for DRM). he is not 'enabling' it. if i build a kernel, i can most certainly turn it off, and even if i run a DRM'ed redhat distro, i can STILL recompile and turn it off. in fact, i wont even need to turn it off, since off will be the default.

    as to who is a representative, well we need more than one... RMS is willing, linus is not, and there are more movements than just GNU... open source groups also have head honchos and commities, and it is their job to sort it out.

    the reason why these organisations (eg GNU, OSI) were set up was to allow them to take care of political and legal stuff in the big picture. if someone is really a part of the community, they will just keep coding and let those guys sort it out...

  3. What's exactly the problem? by magi · · Score: 4, Informative
    Did Perens actually read the statement?

    3. The Directive should provide for a mechanism that ensures that open source software development will not be negatively affected. Amendment 17 empowers the European Commission to monitor the impact of the Directive on innovation and competition, and in particular on small and medium businesses. This mechanism will guarantee against any adverse effect of the Directive on the community of independent developers, in particular on those that are contributing to the development of open source software products.

    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.
    1. Re:What's exactly the problem? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well, consider that you are an open source developer. You get sued. You lose or settle. The patent holder gets your copyrights, your home, your car. The EU notes the damage and reports on it. How does this protect you?

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    2. Re:What's exactly the problem? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative
      You are not liable for damages before you are notified by the patent holder that you are infringing.

      It would be nice if that were true. It's not. Sorry. Perhaps you are confused about the Doctrine of Laches. That says that if you delay prosecution until it is advantageous to you, you may lose the right to prosecute. But laches is hardly a get-out-of-jail card. It's a hard case to make, and generally the delay has to be 6 years or more for the court to accept it.

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
  4. Re:Software Patents by UberLord · · Score: 4, Informative

    You picked a bad argument there Bruce.
    Mozilla or any other OSS program is able to display GIF's - what they cannot do is create GIF's without a license.

    But I still agree that software patents are a bad idea.

  5. Re:Software Patents by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative
    I work for a living too. The folks at Unisys that assert the Welch patent are the ones who should be doing useful work instead of gumming up the software industry.

    The nature of technical innovation is that ideas are built on top of other ideas. Progress is incremental and relies on previous discoveries. Software patenting prevents this.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  6. Re:Software Patents by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative
    Unisys has attempted to assert their patent on readers. If you had to prove in court that they should not do so, you'd go broke first.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  7. Re:I don't recall electing Bruce, either... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative
    No you didn't elect me, at least if you aren't an SPI member. But I speak for a reasonable portion of the Free Software community. Graham has an opinion, but represents few (if any) of the Open Source and Linux developers. He has confused evangelism, which he is qualified to do, with representation, which he is not.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  8. Re:Please back off in the "false" label by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative
    Various European folks in our community have contacted him. He has replied with blather and generalities like "Europe is not going for a US-style patent system" to excuse himself. They appealed to me for help. Had they gotten any progress with him, I would not be writing the article.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  9. Re:I don't recall electing Bruce, either... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative
    We tried. The folks whose names are at the bottom of the alert contacted him. They got nowhere.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  10. Re:DEFINITELY not accidental by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative
    I fixed the typo on my own site after Adam copied the article.

    He's really the last one I'd suspect as a crypto-fascist.

    bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  11. Explanation by sbwoodside · · Score: 4, Informative

    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