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.
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
So we know we hate this guy and he'd never be our official representative, but who *is*?
Never mind "this guy," who's this "we" you are talking about?
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?
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!
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.
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
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
Nasty wicked tricksy falsesoftware patentssess! We hates them.
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?