Slashdot Mirror
John Terpstra on Challenges to Free Software
Telex4 writes "Anyone who has read John Terpstra's article on Groklaw about Intellectual Property (IP) rights will be interested to read an interview I did recently with John at KDE's World Summit. We talked about what IP means to the free software community, how we can drive GNU/Linux adoption, and how he thinks the IT market will change in coming years. He gives us a lot to think about in terms of what more we should be doing."
If IP law continues the way it is Free Software will be the only alternative for consumers. Businesses are treating their customers like criminals and these customers will only take it for so long. People are becoming aware of the draconian approach to IP and they are beginning to reject it in favor of more open solutions.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
There's a difference between imposition and advocacy. People can make (and have made) the case for free software in places where they have influence. They don't have to cram these ideas down anyone's throats; gradual acceptance will come when the software lives up to the advocacy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
100%. But then I learned that taking things without permission is wrong when I was in preschool.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
"The two most important strategies we must adopt are to encourage and adhere to open standards, which undermine big IP oriented business' ability to monopolise and dominate the marketplace.
I think John misses the point over what makes some companies dominate and why open source won't help small business.
John doesn't have the same defintion of domination and the definition of "fundamental reshaping" as everyone else. Open source software has been VERY successful in the building blocks of software. GNU/Linux as an operating system; Eclipse as an IDE, MySQL as a database.
However, there are niche applications where the open source investment will be slow, painful, and probably not pan out. If you think open source will unseat AutoCAD, don't hold your breath. It may happen, but it won't be this decade. And Adobe Photoshop STILL dominates in image processing, even though GIMP is rather useful.
Domination (especially due to IP) is also a relative term. Microsoft can be seen to dominate the OS and "office" market today; those are prime targets of OS software. But IBM has a huge IP portfolio - is one of the large companies 'appear[ing] to support open source' and yet has a lot less to lose (on a relative scale to Microsoft). Even if IBM's software group (DB2, Lotus Notes, et al.) took it in the teeth from open source, is that going to have a (negative) impact on IBM Global Services? Will it not be the same dominating behemoth it is today?
The "fundamental reshaping" of the market will come when technology becomes pervasive, reliable, and easy enough to use that the Fortune 500 doesn't NEED to call IBM Global Services any more. Until then, someone has to put everything together, and open source reducing the procurement cost isn't going to change that. Solve the reliability and ease of use problems for small business and you WILL win in the marketplace - whether or not you're open source.
I learned that being a bully was bad in preschool too, but a lot of the publishing houses don't seem to understand this. Forcing us to pay outrageous prices for software that's not worth it. I'm not saying that we should go an eye for an eye; stealing for a "reason" is still stealing... but why should we sit and take it from the big guys when they're not playing fair?
That's where I see Free Software fitting in. Eventually everybody is going to get tired of all bending over we do. It's already started happening, I believe. FS is gaining ground, and that's why we see so much FUD going around. They're trying to scare those of us that don't want to take their crap anymore so we'll "step back in line."
Find Nearby Indie Events
IP is not a problem for him - in fact he challenges the software community who reject the term IP to provide a better way of describing in cogent terms the very substance of creative thinking that is embodied in free software
I'll be happy to take a swing at this one. Actually, it might not be a swing though. I guess you could call it a duck, but it's still a fight tactic. My position would be that a replacement term is unnecessary.
This sounds a lot like the argument that without copyright law there would be no GPL. Just because that is true does not make it meaningful. It's quite a silly thing to say. Yes, it's true that without copyright law there would be no GPL, but without a copyright there would be no need for a GPL.
So, this mission to find a replacement term for intellectual property is totally unnecessary. You can call an idea, an idea. Likewise you can call software, software. There's no need to come up with a replacement for the phrase "intellectual property."
Very well said. I guess that I am just speaking from the viewpoint of someone not in a position of power/influence - one where advocacy would be a viable option. And I agree that in time, people will warm up to new/superior ideas. You can see this in the slow, but steady swing of Firefox users.
Then you dont buy the software. However you ALSO dont pirate it. If someone is charging more then you want to pay for a service you are not entitled to the service without payment. Seems rahter simple to me.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
It's interesting that what John perceives as a lack of focus I perceive as merely a more diffuse / different focus. John speaks as if the goal of FOSS is business adoption and we're not doing a very good job. I question the first premise.
One of the things that makes FOSS so good is that the only people who code it are people with a need for, and thus an understanding of, a specific solution for a specific problem. Linux is not in the business of telling businesses what they need and then providing it. We're not gunning for adoption, unless I missed the memo. We're aiming to make the best software we can think of for all the things we need to do.
I think the solution to the focus problem is a no-op...there's not a problem, per se.
This isn't to say, though, that there's not a good point here. There's a great one, but it's backwards. We don't need to make linux more attractive to business, we need to start more businesses on linux. Businesses who are willing to make significant, open contributions to the code base. Think, for example, of a company which made a database product which was open, but also sold support, training, and hosting services for that database. I think it would do very well, and that's only one example.
adam b.
Every playright a Shakespeare and every poet a Dante. Not in the real world.
Yes, the Patent system has gotten way out of control. And, from the looks of things, Congress has been too well bribed to really care.
So, what's the best way for a grass-roots effort to bring this sad situation to the forefront, so that it can't be ignored? How about overwhelming the Patent Office even more?
That is, bring to Joe Sixpack's attention that he too can make big bucks via Patents - but in a way akin to the Internet Domain Name Rush of the late nineties.
Teach people the process in a simplified way. Especially in how to persist until their patent goes through. This is, in effect, a Denial-of-Service attack on the entire system. The results would be either that the Patent Office gets so overburdened that it can't keep up. or patents will exist on everything - and no business will be able to do anything without having to deal with the legal costs of defending themselves on anything that they possibly do.
If we managed to achieve the latter situation, Congress would be forced to act. If this attack was pervasive enough, they'd have few options in how to rectify the system.
EULAs are based entirely on legal handwaving and wishful thinking. The fact that an EULA gives you no consideration at all, just a subset of rights you already have as the owner of a shiny plastic disc, is enough to prove that. Never mind the many ways they blatantly defy the Fair Use, First Sale, and Idea/Expression doctrines of copyright law.
Think about it. If you, as the owner of a CD, have no right to load and execute the contents of that CD on your computer, then how could you ever legally run setup.exe and see the EULA in the first place?