Slashdot Mirror
Lobbying For Linux
Telex4 writes "Slashdot has heard a lot lately about why software patents are bad, and the passage of the legislation in the EU. But other than the online demo and a few pictures of the demonstration outside the European Parliament, Slashdotters hear little about the real behind-the-scenes lobbying. I've just put an article up on Newsforge describing and discussing my experiences lobbying inside the Parliament that might shed a little light on what we mortal geeks can do to save ourselves. There are some accompanying photos on my web site for those who like visual aids." (NewsForge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN.)
I just want to say congratulations for what you have done. Many of us bitch and complain about these issues, but you took time out of your life to do something about it. I just wanted to thank you for that.
Why was this moderated down?
Its a valid criticism and opinion.
Another example of pathetic slashdot censorship.
The cluelessness amoung MEPs is interesting. I am a firm believer that organizational incompetence is the one unifying factor amoung all political systems. Yet these MEPs are the ones will make the decision on this matter affecting everyone. It makes you wonder how many people in government actually know what is going on even a small percentage of the time.
"I never think of the future. It comes soon enough."
It's that simple.
Don't lobby for Linux. Besides being a FreeBSD user hating to see EU nations ban everything but Linux, it also doesn't do anything to correct the pervasion monoculture in governments. While 100% use of Linux is better than 100% use of Windows, 100% use of anything is still bad.
So lobby for Open Source instead. Lobby for Open Standards. Those will also be much easier to get acceptance.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
>without having to adopt the FFS mantra?
Why you have to follow entire "fsf mantra" to fight softwre patents ? If you see that software patents are dangerous and to be opposed , then cooperate with EVERYONE who share that view. You can never get somebody with which you agree 100% and in all the issues. People disagree a lot. But often they find common goals and move united. Even FSF and open source movement cooperate a lot in many areas despite having some fundamental ideological differences.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
Before you troll, just compare with a typical big business/RIAA mode "lobbying" and what this guy has done. He has followed a plain and transperant way and has tried to convince the leaders in a perfectly democratic way for a genuine purpose. On the contray, big business "lobbying" is often non-transperant and undemocratic .They shower millions in to the party fund(and often personal pockets of leaders) and then manage to have totally stupid laws like DMCA.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
Remember, when writing to an MEP that they are real persons, usually with real lives and real interest in making a better Europe.
:)
So be polite, be very clear on the subject, be fair.
Several weeks ago i wrote an e-mail to 15 Belgian MEP's and some of them replied. From those replies i understood that they are very aware of the subject (yes some MEP's really are very intelligent).
cheers,
pol
European Linux user, living in Antwerp
Why don't you become a member of FFII? Although they are associated with FSF Europe. However, FSF does very little in the debate. It is more or less managed by FFII and it's European supporters (AEL.be, AFUL, Vrijschrift, EDRI, ecc.).
http://swpat.ffii.org
https://www.ffii.org/ffii-cgi/eintrag?m=login
Trade issues like IP and patentability are among the roots of wars, famine and poverty. It is a small step from this issue to the availability of cheap AIDS medicines in Third World countries, or the exploitation of Third World farmers by Western control of genetically modified monocultures. If we want to do something about international justice we need to start at home - and that means things we understand better than most. I am not qualified to explain the problems of GM crops to a representative, but I am qualified to explain the problems created by software patents. So that's what I should do. Don't criticise the people trying to bring down the wall with pickaxes because other people are using hammers.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
" In these times of wars and famine and poverty..."
You mean the entirety of human existance?
You sound like all of the other luddites; 'why are we developing X technology when millions are starving in Y', etc.
News flash: Career politicians, like every other human, are not experts in everything.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
This may be slightly offtopic, but it relates, I believe, so here it is.
..(code)... Then: (code)" A real If statement can be more complex than this, of course, since it can take any set of arguments that can be reduced to a boolean true or false. (alternatively, the 'EAX' and 'EBX' may be the reduced values created by C and dropped into the function call.) At this, it may be obvious to anyone who has coded assembly that you can make the same statement basically by replacing JZ (jump on zero) with JNZ (jump on not zero), and switching the two blocks of code. This would not count as patentable, in my opinion.
Software (code) is a lot like music. Its really complicated in the end, but the pieces that it is made up of (chords, phrases, arpeggios, melody lines, etc) can be very simple. In fact, basic chord progressions are reused so many times it borders on the ridiculous. In the same way, certain pieces of code are re-used in a similar form many times. If someone can get a software patent on smallish pieces of code, like getting a copyright on a phrase of music, you could skewer a lot of people for royalties.
Similarly, if you could copyright a general form of music, whose parts are somewhat understood, but nonetheless vague enough that someone could write it without trying to, you could again swim in royalties.
There is, fortunately, in music, a rule against this. But in software it seems that the line may be fuzzy. What we really need is a length-of code range for copyrights.
For instance (As mentioned in one of the articles linked to) it would have been unreasonable for Mozart to say, patent the Symphony. Not to say that some musician might want to try to. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to patent something as wide-reaching and ambiguous as 'one-click shopping'. Patents, to my experience, are usually rather complex, so that people will know if they are using it or not. A detailed description is given, so that there is NO confusion. This rule MUST apply to code as well.
In like terms, it would stupid for Mozart to patent, say, the first phrase from '10 Variations' (the melody is identical to 'Twinkle, Twinkle, little Star'.) how many written pieces of music have used the note progression 'C C G G A A G'? Well, I'm not going to look it up. But as a musician should know, the notes Db Db Ab Ab Bb Bb Ab' are analogous to the original progression. So, then, if you consider that as well to be the same melody (it is) and thus under the patent, you can get the idea of what kind of ridiculousness would ensue.
In software, you likewise should not be able to patent significantly minor parts of code. Heck, the size of the patentable pieces should probably relate to how complex they are a combination of the basic parts of a programming language. I mean, eveyone can see that you can't patent an 'if' statement in C. After all, you aren't the first person to make up the If statement and how it is implemented in machine code. If, however, you created a new 'If' function in assembly, could you patent that? I would think that would depend on how complex a combination of machine instructions you need to produce your statement.
Why is that? Well, generally, you would have to consider the chances that someone else writing an 'If' statement would produce the exact same pieces of code you have by accident. If there were, for instance, 1000 machine instructions required to create an If statement (obviously not, but stay with me) and there were a large number of different combinations of commands that would produce the effect (there could be, in fact, but more later..) then your more efficient If statement would be patentable.
But say, for instance, that there are about 5 lines of assembly required to make this 'If'. Basically something to the effect of "Test EAX EBX
JZ Then
So, I think that software patents should be:
1. Clear and unambiguous. A patent's viability should be judged on whether someone could be under the umbrella of the patent eas
This isn't a redundant post; I just set my threshold to 6.
If you care about these, or any, issue then its important to remember this part of the original post:
personal > telephone call > Fax > letter > email
An email is NOTHING compaired to a telephone call. Not a rude/fanatical one, just one that lets them know of your concerns.
Think that the "system" is messed up and the "man" is getting you down? This is the time to do something about it. Put up or shut up.
Its your laws, make sure that they represent your views.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
By making it about free software you weaken the argument, it isn't just about Linux, FreeBSD, or Apache - it is about all software developers that can't afford a large patent portfolio, and it is about all software consumers.
Just to echo what others have said, you are an inspiration to us all - even those of us not directly involved with the European Union (from Texas here - :)
Bravo - well done!
I am afraid it will take the man in the street getting hit by a two-by-four in the forehead before real grass roots pressure can be brought to bear on these issues. Unfortunately, by then, the internet and software development as we have known it may have gone the way of the Dodo...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
It's simple marketing: See the penguin. He is happy. Use Linux, and you will be happy.
Happy penguins to all, and to all a good night.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!