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
You may re-publish this message or excerpts of it.
FALSE OPEN SOURCE REPRESENTATIVE CALLS FOR EUROPEAN SOFTWARE PATENTS
A false or misled "open source representative" has signed an industry resolution calling for the EU to allow software patenting, which has been sent to members of the European Parliament. Copies of the resolution are here and here . The European Legal Affairs Committee holds a plenary vote on software patenting this Wednesday, and may have been influenced by the false representation.
Graham Taylor is director of Open Forum Europe, an organization that is purported to work for broader acceptance of Open Source. Taylor has appeared at various trade shows in Europe, saying reasoanble things about Open Source, for the past year. Open Forum Europe is a division of IT Forum Foundation and InterForum. InterForum's membership includes a number of large companies that have a vested interest in the promotion of software patenting in Europe. Mr. Taylor's sponsor organization is well connected with the EU government.
I would encourage Mr. Taylor to evangelize Open Source software, something he's done successfully for a while. However, he does not have the credentials to represent the Linux, Open Source and Free Software developer communities, especially when he contradicts our extremely strong opposition to software patenting. While Mr. Taylor has been visible as a public speaker, 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. No legitimate Open Source representative would think of taking this sort of position with government without first holding a public consultation with the developer community.
Software patents could be fatal for Open Source software in the U.S. and Europe. 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. Companies that produce proprietary software would bring that sort of suit to kill us off as a competitor.
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$500,000. The Open Source developer, an individual working on his own time, won't have the funds to defend himself. He will be compelled to settle with his accuser, regardless of the merits of the case, in order to preserve what assets the plaintiff deigns to leave him. The copyrights of his own software won't be among those assets.
We are especially threatened by royalty-bearing software patents that are embedded in industry standards. In many cases, it is impossible to achieve compliance with a standard without infringing upon the patented algorithms that are specified by that standard. Standard compliance is critical for interoperability, and thus software patents in standards can make an un-communicating island of a Linux system. For example, the IEEE 1488 FireWire standard is encumbered by patents that apply to the software interfacing to it, and a patent r
It must really be an odd article if we should actually read the article before posting a reply.
IEEE 1488 should be 1394.
Bruce Perens.
I understand that abusive software patents like One click shopping or adding 1+1=10, But for non-trivial items ... gif ie LZW compression algorithm, 7-14 years of protection is reasonable. So while Bruce Perens opposes patents on principle, obviously there is a sector of the open source movement that does not. Fortunately... or not... if you ask 4 open source advocates or community members what open source stands for you will get at least 6 answers. That is the strength of open source and free software.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Linus Torvalds wants to incoroporate DRM, yet many others don't.
actually, you have taken it a little out of context... linus wants to code the ability for end users and distros to use DRM in the kernel; which may be a good thing for security (opposed to M$ 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...
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?
Rms put back-breaking effort into Open Source softwear while Linus was still in highschool. He didn't just work for broader acceptance of Open Source, he pretty-much created open-source, and created many of the open source tools that Graham Taylor is promoting making him far more credible.
Plus, he would rant, and rave so long that the eu would have forgotton about patents long before they figure out a way to get him to shut up.
RMS may be a jerk, but he is a great, admirable and inspiring one.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
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)
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!
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
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.
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Only label him false when all your positive advice is ignored.
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.
'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.
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.
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.
"We" "need" "a" "representative"?
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.
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
He's really the last one I'd suspect as a crypto-fascist.
bruce
Bruce Perens.
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?
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.
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
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
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.
Nasty wicked tricksy falsesoftware patentssess! We hates them.
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
And since Cox actually lives in Europe, in this case he probably would be the better choice between the two.
Has the UK joined the EU yet, though? Last I heard there was some wrangling over details...
I can see how patents worries can completely stop open-source development while it appears they don't really stop closed-source. And I would agree this is unfair.
Conversely I am not sure if I would panic so much. Surely Linux violates many hundreds of patents, it is just impossible to write working code without violating patents. And you can probably do just what we do and ignore it.
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?