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
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
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?
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)
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.
'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.
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
All of this is great advice. But it gets even better. I spent a summer working for as an intern on Capital Hill. One thing I learned is that, for an issue where the average voter doesn't really care or pay attention and which is likely to be under the radar of the average Congressman (i.e. software patents), two or three hand crafted letters can make a huge difference. It doesn't take two or three hundred letters to make a Congressman pay attention to your concern. A few individuals can have a disproportionate impact in this situation.
Of course, the key phrase here is "under the radar." Don't expect to have the same influence if you are writing about abortion, gun control, or tax cuts. But I do encourage you to write on the larger issues. You will still an impact, but the impact approaches zero as the number of people who care approaches infinity.
FreeSpeech.org
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?
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
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?
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?
FWIW, the European Patent Office is now granting most software patents.
This draft law would confirm that what the EPO is doing is legal.
But other amendments have been proposed, which would make software patenting much more difficult again (how things used to be).
These other amendments desperately need support and lobbying.
See this post for more of the ugly detail.