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.
7 to 14 years of protection means that Free Software projects cease to exist, because they are technologically far behind - or they have to pay license fees, which is impossible. This is the only way Free Software can be stopped, and it is the way proprietary software companies are going.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Actually, I'd rather have Alan Cox rather than Richard Stallman representing me anyday.
He doesn't seem to be as blinded by ideals as RMS is. Plus Alan's got a better beard.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Yes but in this case it make open source look like a bunch of whining children crying wolf. Not really the impression you want to make when you trying to influence legislative bodies.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
But generalizing your point is scary. The implication is that supporters of open source and Free software are effectively a mob that couldn't be represented by an individual (or even a small group of individuals), and that anyone who tries will be crucified for screwing up in whatever small way they did. I don't think that's happening here (software patents are one of those things that no human individuals could possibly like but that the corporate individual absolutely adores), but, depending on the results Perens's article, it sets a disturbing standard that stepping out of the (very much unclear ) Party Line enough that some respected member of the Community points out how you stepped out is enough to kill any notoriety and usefulness you may have had politically. It's a good way for the Movement to self-destruct.
The way around this amorphous mob problem, of course, is to have clearly-defined Leaders, which is what groups like the EFF and OSI are ostensibly trying to do, but they don't seem to be doing a wonderful job of it if
Do you have a
Make something better. Some of us still have to work for a living. I respect those like Knuth who chose to release effective algorithms into the wild and are still able to put food on the table, clothes on their backs, and roof over head. But everyone can't go into teaching.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
He is an idealist, a true believer, who's incapable of a compromise. Yet, all professional politics is about achieving a consensus between all parties.
Any politican would categorize RMS as a "crackpot loony that should be completely ignored" in a second he opens his mouth.
BOO! TERRO
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Alan Cox
Any number of others who are well respected within the Open Source movement.
Anyone from a number of companies that base their business on open source software; Mandrake, MySQL, etc.
Preferably the representatives should be people who are citizens of the EU as that in theory would carry more weight.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
If open source and free software proponents would write to their congressmen individually, with personal(not form) letters, 2-300 letters per senator/representative would have a much larger impact than a Special interest group representing 50,000 people.
this very closely maps to the theory behind the Star Trek phenomenon where all the fans wrote begging to keep the show on the air, and the powers that be... assumed that for every letter written, 10 were not...
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
He may be an idealist but this does not mean that what he advocates can not be done.
It is a nice idea that we do not have to continuously reinvent the wheel each time we create a car. This way we can concentrate on improving the car or adding new gadgets. Besides, each improvement belongs automatically to humankind. Economically makes sense, and morally it is correct.
Can our representatives understand this? Who can explain this to them? I think RMS is quite capable of doing so.
I'll ignore your straw man (and hence, troll) for a moment, but did you actually read the article?
If this is the case they why the fear of patents
Read the article. It sums this up quite nicely.
Specifically, here's what you should be looking for:
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.
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
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.
The patents cover the LZW compression algorithm, not the GIF file spec itself. Thus, there are other ways to make GIF files that do not use LZW.
Let's face it. We're already in a world where there are software patents, and much like the Internet, Open Source (Free Software) has found a way to block it off, and route around it. We have PNGs and JPGs, OGG Vorbis and Theora.
What we really need to be worried about are patents that try to cover more than what they should. For example, a patent that covers any form of video compression.
Well no, we do not all precisely feel the same thing, of course not, just read /. from time to time. However there is a (although loosely defined) community that corresponds to "Linux, Open Source and Free Software movements". And that community has a general, repeat general not everybody's precise, opinion about software patenting issue. The point is not Bruce Perens represents this community better, it is that Graham claims to represent the community yet he contradicts the general opinion. :-) because what I am saying is so obvious.
OK, after writing this I felt like feeling a troll
ato
I find it funny that Bruce claims that this guy is a 'fake'.
I find it funny that this is addressed in the article (as well as numerous times in the comments here), and that even though you (evidently) didn't read it, you still think you're qualified to criticize Mr. Perens.
I don't recall electing Bruce to any position representing me as a free software user.
You know what, neither do I.
Perhaps that's why he doesn't claim to be. (He's always claimed to be an 'evangelist', not a 'representative'.
it sure as hell doesn't make him a 'fake' anything.
It most cetrainly does.
When someone claims to represent the opinions of a group of people, and he doesn't - and in fact presents an incorrect view of the vast majority of that group, that's fake - pretty much by definition.
Since the US is a country that turned lobbying into a financially rewarding political art form I think a special intrest group with a $50,000 campaign donation will go a lot further than 50,000 letters. As with the trek seriers it will boild down to a commercial decision
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Remember that Bruce did not send a petition to anybody claiming he was a representative. What he did is that he posted a comment about somebody posing as a representative on his webpage
In that sense all he did is same as what the parent poster (patman) did while he made the comment.He gave a disagreeing comment.
If Bruce sent in a counter-petition then he probably is (indirectly) claiming to be something. All bruce says he wants is that a representative should atleast notify the Opensource/Free mailing lists.Seems reasonable.
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
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.
Nope, most senators cannot afford to ignore 200 letters that can represent as many as 5000 voters. Because for most Representatives and more that a few Senators, a 5000 vote swing which effects a change of 10,000 would change winning to losing. And 50,000 letters(distinct, not form) represent 50,000 people who are passionate enough to go out and vote. and 50,000 votes will swing any election....
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Uh.. In this case, writing to the EU would be more relevant than writing to the U.S. Congress. How many hours are left before the "two days" expire?
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.
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.
And therein lies the problem - Graham has put his name on a bill that may become law, presenting himself as an official representative of the Open Source community. Graham is not, nor has he ever been anything more than an advocate. He is not a representative, and as long as his name is on that bill as such, he's lying. Bruce (and others) have asked him to correct this so that the community at large isn't misrepresented, he has so far refused.
The trouble is, where is the line drawn between "obvious" patents, and new "inventions". The patent office has been notoriously bad in deciding these.
...
> There would be nothing stopping
Yes, there is. A patent these days is not considered a mechanism to earn your money back. It's considered a license to print money by gouging the market. For every individual who gets his patent in, the corporations will patent hundreds of blindingly obvious algorithms, if only to counter other patents. And corporations aquire rights in buy outs (cough! SCO cough!).
Remember, a patent is not a copyright. It's not protecting that exact implementation - it even prevents you doing the same thing another way. People already have copyright protection for their software.
Try writing software if someone got a patent for all the design patterns. Or for auto code generation. They don't really have to fight it in court because you personally probably couldn't afford the first round defending yourself (all the prior art not withstanding). And they know it. Some of these cases run to millions.
IANAL
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
Bill Gates?
Being a "smart guy" is not enough credo to be anybody's representative. Hitler, Stalin, Hussein and other dictators were very smart too, as a rule, it's hard to control and manipulate people otherwise. The problem with your nomination is that a representative speaks for the masses, while a dictator seeks to control the masses. Gates is a much better fit for the "dictator" category.
IMHO, this should also be viewed from more than one perspective: how does one measure the damage for projects that never even have started because of the fear of patents infringement?..
Not only that but it takes time. PNG still isn't as popular as gifs, even though it's better. The reason is that GIF's are already present, so PNG must not only become popular, they must also displace something which is popular.
Well, it sounds as if we lost the TUX2 phase-tree filesystem, something very innovative, because its author was intimidated by a patent holder. We couldn't use public key encryption in free software for a long time. There is a NeXT patent that is keeping us from putting instant-test in our GUI construction programs. I could go on.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read. There is no algorithm that cannot be replaced.
The problem isn't abstract algorithms. If somebody patented the quicksort, for example, you could switch to a different sorting method and move on. Similarly, you could use another compression technique in order to avoid the LZW patent if you like.
The problem is in interoperability with legacy data and systems having a significant installed base. Sometimes, the only way to work with another system is by implementing a protocol that's covered by a patent. The patent may not simply describe a possible approach to implementing the protocol--it could describe the specification of the protocol itself, which would therefore cover any implementation. How do you avoid these patents, if you need to communicate with such a device?
In the case of an already existing LZW-encoded GIF, how exactly are you going to avoid the Unisys LZW patent? When working with JPEG images, how are you going to avoid Forgent's patent portfolio?
Or are you just going to count on their corporate generosity? Will every patent holder be so generous?
The problem is even worse when the algorithm is embedded in a standard, a file format or intercommunication format. Bypass the algorithm and you're incompatible.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
That's right.
But there is something that we do know. The rule in Europe right now is good, there's no software patents, there's no risk at all for individuals, SMEs, and open source in general. All of the good things that you speculate might come from this clause already exist.
simon
home page
The very existence of OSS is not anti-formalism. In particular, OSS relies very heavily on one particular formalism, the GPL.
When there's no qualifying process, there's no restrictions on who can declare themselves qualified.
We still have the social convention that words have meaning to fall back on. I can declare myself the king of Wisconsin and the greatest hitter who ever lived, and there is no "qualifying process" which gives anyone a legitimate claim to either title, but that doesn't mean no one can remark that my claim is inaccurate.
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.
How in the hell do you think you know what any particular judge will find credible. You, buddy, are one big headed motherfucker if you can predict court decisions. And not only do you know what the judges think, but you've got a pipeline to the prosecutors as well. Gosh, why don't you put us all at ease with your beautiful fucking insights so we don't have to go around being all paranoid.
You are probably violating laws every day as are the majority of Americans. The US imprisons a higher percentage of its population that frickin Albania. How the hell do you know when and how the enforcement gets played out? Tell us oh Mr. clued in. We're all dying to know.
Wipe that fucking smile off your face. You're an asshole.
There was? Funny, I didn't see it. In fact, I still see GIF's all over the place and very little (relativily speaking) PNG's.
Even this very own Slashdot page has 62 GIF's and no PNG's.
There was a backlash, but I definately wouldn't say it was big.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
The only solutions that I can see are for all software to be free software
Or, Free Software simply realizes that they're a long-term movement, and that 7-14 years to get at a competitor's IP is just the cost of doing business for them.
Richard predicted much that is now happening when he started the GNU project in '84. This was most poignant when DMCA and then the Hollings bill were proposed. What might have sounded like paranoia before, started to look a lot more like common sense.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
And have you tried a patent search lately? Many software patents are so poorly descriptive of the invention that you are never assured that you're finished searching.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.