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!
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.