Slashdot Mirror
FSFE Becomes WIPO Observer
wikinerd writes "FSFE, the European branch of Richard Stallman's Free Software Foundation announced that it was granted observer status in WIPO, the international organisation which influences nationwide copyright laws."
Well, aside from perhaps making OSS people look like greasy hippies, this is perhaps good news for all that are concerned about software consumers' rights. having a free software advocacy group in such an influential organization will be a good way to ensure that a wrench is thrown into the gears every time lobbyists come around, throwing their specious arguments about intellectual "property"
http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby
This is a substantial piece of progress for widespread recognition and acceptance of OSS. If the OSS liscenses can't be enforced internationally, they are worth nothing. Even though this is only observer status, this is a major step in making OSS a major part of internation trade.
bad thing is that they only have OBSERVER status. meaning no control. the bright side is, when shit hits the fan, and the poo flingers try to cover it up, it'll get out anyway.
Bedevere: HELLO!
*waits*
An armour-clad face appears at the top of the rampart. It speaks in an outrageous French accent.
Soldier: 'Allo! 'Oo is it?
Arthur: It is I, King Arthur, and these are my knights of WIPO. Whose castle is this?
Soldier: This is the castle of my master, Richarde de Stallman.
Arthur: Go and tell your master that we have been charged by WIPO with a sacred quest. If he will give us food and shelter for the night, he can join us in our quest for the Holy Copyright.
Soldier: Well, I'll ask 'im, but I don't think 'e'll be very keen-- 'e's already got one, you see?
Arthur: What?
Lancelot: He says they've already *got* one!
Arthur: (confused) Are you *sure* he's got one?
Soldier: Oh yes, it's ver' naahs. ets called de GEE PEE HELL.(to the other soldiers:) I told 'em we've already *got* one! (they snicker)
Arthur: (taken a bit off balance) Well... ah, um... Can we come up and have a look?
Soldier: Of course not! You are Capitaliste types.
Arthur: Well, what are you then?
Soldier: (Indignant) Ah'm French! Why do you think I have this out-rrrageous accent, you silly king?!
Arthur: What are you doing in *WIPO*?
Soldier: Mind your own business!
Arthur: If you will not show us the Copyright, we shall take your castle by force!
Soldier: You don't frighten us, WIPO pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottoms, son of a silly person! Ah blow my nose at you, so-called "Arthur Keeeng"! You and all your silly English Knnnnnnnn-ighuts!!!
(the soldier proceeds to bang on his helmet with his hands and stick out his tongue at the knights, making strange noises.)
Lancelot: What a strange person.
Arthur: (getting mad) Now look here, my good ma--
Soldier: Ah don' wanna talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food-trough wiper! Ah fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!
Galahad: Is there someone else up there we can talk to?
Soldier: No!! Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
(Yeah, the Monty Python schtick is a little old, but boy did it fit under the parent nicely!)
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Not only does the WIPO influences copyright laws, but it does also affect the patents, which is exactly the point that the GPL v3 plans to take care of.
It's good to have an organism like the FSF being recognised in the, how critical, field of intellectual property!
On the WIPO site there is a passage that might sound kind of scary:
Intellectual property surrounds us in nearly everything we do. At home, at school, at work. At rest and at play. No matter what we do, we are surrounded by the fruits of human creativity and invention.
I wonder if it's possible to live in a IP-free environment. Let's assume that you build your house from a public domain blueprint, you read only books written by authors who died before 1954, you use self-assembled PC running only free software, you use only generic drugs and own devices that either never were patented or whose patents have already expired. I think it's possible without resorting to Amish-style technophobia and living in such environment might even be quite comfortable and stylish (imagine all those 1960's refrigerators, air conditioning systems, eight-track stereo with nothing but folk and classic music etc.). Am I wrong? Any educated comment, please?
There is a big difference between unofficial "squawking" and official "squawking". The first is a rant, the second is an enlightened observation. Although the argument may not change, the official status does have some intrensic value in presenting the argument to decision makers.
Perhaps it's in order to assure that people don't start posting before they RTFA.
English is easier said than done.
FSFE will be among the likes of CISAC, IFPI, ISO, UNESCO, WHO, etc. FSFE better shows it's up to the task and comes up with clever arguments why OSS is the way to go (or at least a way to go).
This can only be a good thing. WIPO's domain dispute resolution process is severely flawed , I wonder if the FSFE could bring some balance?
London's finest organic fairtrade coffee
You are missing something. Being close to the decision makers means more power. as George W. Bush pointed out when he was still running a failing oil operation, people look up to you when you're the presidents son.
This means that the FSFE has the same power as the ISO, if that gives you any idea of what this means.
You deserve death you filthy pirate. John Cleese hates you
Proprietry kernelspace drivers can't be distributed with linux and BitKeeper is not required to hack on linux. Try reading the GPL sometime!
It occurs to me that the FSF is representative of an incredibly vast amount of copyrighted material. Although many people would not want to have the FSF be considered there representative, I think it's reasonable to consider the FSF to be the representative of at least a slight majority of all GPLed and LGPLed software. (I mean this in the same way that the RIAA is a representative of many other labels, yet usually doesn't hold the rights itself.)
In that light, how much copyrighted software does the FSF represent when compared to other software organizations? I would not be surprised if that would make the FSF the largest in the world. In that light, the FSF should have an enormous amount of sway in such a situation.
So, to take this further, could those of us who do have GPLed software which is used heavily denote the fact that the FSF does in some manner represent us, thus showing to the governments of the world how important they are? Governments tend not to listen to people who do not have some delineated backing, so I think so sort of declaration of this would be needed.
You're missing the connection between authority and action.
Squawking before was done without any authority. Precious little divided us from the tinfoil hats.
Supposedly, by being admitted as an observer to the WIPO, it's been acknowledged by the powers that be there that the FSFE is not wearing tinfoil. This will encourage other leaders to look more seriously at the points raised, since they now have some assurance that it's not coming from the local loon.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
No, it is a substantial piece of progress for widespread recognition and acceptance of the older free software movement. The FSFE doesn't speak for "OSS" (open source software). In fact the FSF tells us that the two movements are not the same. This essay explains much and is one of the most underrated essays the FSF has published.
While I'm sure that the open source movement will get some increased publicity from this (largely from people who don't understand what "open source" really means or don't know the difference between the philosophies of the two movements), it's important to understand recent history and see how the messages of the FSF and OSI differ. It's also important and fair to give credit where credit is due. Here, that means using the phrase "free software". I don't know who wrote the blurb at Wikinerds, but they were wrong. The FSFE's press release doesn't mention "open source" or "OSS" at all. Your article is vastly overrated.
Digital Citizen
I agree with you that what the FSF has achieved here is remarkable. However, the FSF doesn't argue for "OSS". They argue for free software. Perhaps that is why they are called the "Free Software Foundation Europe". When the FSF started in the US, "open source" did not exist. The start of the open source movement was over a decade away and the OSI's founders chose to stand for different values, most notably pushing aside software freedom so they could more easily speak to their primary audience: business.
Digital Citizen
the size of the IP stockpile that RMS is essentially sitting on due to the GPL sounds like you think Stallman or the FSF owns the copyright of every GPL-licensed program. This is absolutely wrong. Unless you decide to transfer the copyright to someone else, all IP rights are yours.
Well,
the more civil society organizations, the better. the reason - every organization has typically one chance to speak and currently right holders dominate these sessions because of the excess number of their participating organizations.
FSFE is actually a bit late here, EFF and CSC are already full members and EDRI, IP Justice and the Union for the Public Domain have been observers for a while.
The TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) are discussed at the WTO, and not at WIPO, which would have been a more logical place for the most important international treaty about intellectual property.
Why ?
Because US did not want to discuss separately a tailor-made law for Hollywood and parmaceutical firms.
So, even with FSFE at WIPO, which is good news, what will this change if it is the WTO that makes the rules ?
It's not so dificult becom a WIPO "Observer":
WIPO welcomes visitorsz to its Geneva headquarters throughout the week. The WIPO Information Center is open to the public weekdays from 9:30 am to 13:00 pm and from 2.00 pm to 5:00 pm [...]
If you are interested please use the Visit request form (printable version)
My city: Barcelona.
To me, that's WIPO newspeak in action, again trying to equate a fairly recent legal construct (intellectual property) with a fundamental aspect of intelligent life (human creativity and invention). Intellectual property has been around for hundreds of years, human creativity for hundreds of thousands of years. Without intellectual property law, there is no intellectual property. Are the lawmakers trying to take credit for human creativity itself?
Even if intellectual property law applies to pretty much any creative work today, the property is not identical to the work. Intellectual property is a right under the law, a right that can be established or destroyed, defended or lost, inherited or sold. The work is an abstract entity that can be created, enjoyed, disliked, debated, plagiarized or forgotten, but not inherited or sold in the normal sense of those words. The work is always tied to its creator, while the right may belong to someone else.
Intellectual property is not created by the author or artist, but by the law. Saying that we are surrounded by intellectual property just because some legislature has defined who owns the rights to that painting on the wall is a bit like saying we are surrounded by emission control just because industries are legally prohibited from polluting the air we breathe. It's a true statement, but pointless and not very exciting. When they tweak that into saying that we breathe emission control, they are lying.
will GNU/jokes ever stop being funny?
err.. yes
The FSF and OSI have very different goals that happen to be the same in practice most of the time, but not all.
Do you know that the OSI definition is based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which are of course very strongly influenced by the Free Software movement?
OSI takes a much more pragmatic approach, so licenses that restrict freedom to some extent, but still provide the basic benefits of Open Source (access to use and modify code) are OSI compliant, but classified as Non-Free by the FSF.
The reason that OSI seems to be more pragmatic is that it provides a certification process based on fixed terms. The FSF doesn't do that, so they can act in a much more flexible way.
One example is the earlier versions of the Apple Public Source License (APSL version 1.x). This was OSI approved, but classified as non-free by the FSF. Similar issues arise with the (original) Artistic License.
It is interesting to see that both issues don't exist with the latest versions of these licenses.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software