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
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.
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).
Although it's not unlikely that they would be kept out of the loop, observers can have a very large influence on the UN. Much of the action taken by the body in session is little more than a formality. The majority of resolutions pass by consensus, which means that the vast majority of UN work occurs outside the UN in caucusing to reach consensus. It is here that the FSFE could leave its mark. Although it is perhaps a bit offtopic, last weekend I attended a Model UN where several observers such as the Holy See were able to have a noticeable influence.
English is easier said than done.
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.
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
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.