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.

14 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Software Patents by gonvaled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:Elected role? by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  3. Re:Ok.... by gr · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So we know we hate this guy and he'd never be our official representative, but who *is*?
    Working from Perens's:
    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.
    it would seem reasonable to say that anyone who's setting out to represent open source and Free software at large probably ought to be in touch with gnu@gnu.org, osi@opensource.org, and the individuals listed as members of the SPI board of directors here.

    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 /. editors refuse to state an opinion on the point and /. posters have to ask the question you did.
    --
    Do you have a /. uid shorter than five digits? No? Then piss off.
  4. Re:Bring out RMS by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No, no, no! For the love of God, keep RMS locked in the basement!

    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.

  5. Re:What's exactly the problem? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yes, I read it. They say that by monitoring the damage and publishing articles about it, they guarantee against any adverse impact on Open Source. Isn't that absurd? They will measure the damage and tell people. That's the guarantee. It sounds like double-speak to me.

    Bruce

  6. Re:I don't recall electing Bruce, either... by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Software Patents by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It would work the way you say in an ideal world. What we have instead is a telephone company enforcing its patent upon the operator of any web site that uses frames. Said telephone company did not invent frames, and its patent was trivial and should not have been allowed. Dynamic content embedded in static content. What an invention!

    Bruce

  8. Re:I don't recall electing Bruce, either... by watzinaneihm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  9. This Happens All The Time by Romothecus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Ok.... by stanmann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  11. Business decision by SolemnDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Congressional representatives assume the same thing- that written letters represent voting percentages. And as much as they love to have money on their side, and money wins elections- the money follows the people, as well. People who write letters to congress are likely to vote with their wallets as well as their words.

    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!!!!)

  12. Re:Software Patents by royalblue_tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  13. Re:Software Patents by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What could happen is bad enough that I don't understand why you would not want to talk about it.
    There's this guy with a gun outside of my door, officer.
    Has he shot you yet?
    No.
    Then why do you think he will shoot you? I don't see why we should do anything about it.

    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

  14. Re:Software Patents by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful
    IF it violates patent
    THEN it isn't Innovative
    That's not the case at all. The nature of innovation is incremental. A patent will often be used below a new invention.

    IF available public key encryption patented
    THEN develop innovative public key protocol
    Again you're missing the point. If the use of the one-way mathematical functions that enable public key crypto is patented, you don't necessarily have any alternatives.

    Bruce