Slashdot Mirror
RMS Blasts Sun's Open Source Patent Licensing
cdlu writes "RMS takes Sun to task on its recent announcement that it is releasing 1,600 patents to the open source community. Among the major points, the license the patents are released under doesn't apply to patents, and Sun has not promised to not sue anyone using the technology within free software projects."
Hmm... maybe he's pissed because the OpenSolaris name is so unspecific... it should be: ... so it should be called: ... then we'd have a happy, smiling RMS again.
BSD/OpenSolaris (because the tools and toolchain came from there)
No... wait... didn't Sun move to SysV
SysV/OpenSolaris
No wait... didn't Sun also port lots of GNU tools to Solaris... hm... I suppose this only leaves us with:
GNU/OpenSolaris.
Now... if Sun would only get rid of their on compiler and go with only GCC and if it would dump all of it's IDEs (Sun Studio, Netbeans,...) and would ship only with Emacs (sorry: GNU Emacs)
No wait... RMS is never happy nor does he smile... so we'll probably just have an RMS who is yelling at something else again...
Oh well...
murphee
He's a zealot. That means its his way or no way. Rathewr than praising the steps in the right direction, he chooses to blast that its not his license.
Isn't there a Chinese saying about the longest journey beginning with a single step?
Stallman really needs to understand that his zeal sometimes does as much harm as good to his cause.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Free software doesn't pay the bills. Sure, they make money from "support", but then the software is not free, is it? Free software is the one thing that's worse than outsourcing. Let's all work for free and sing Kumbaya! Woohoo.
The FIRST POST which makes an on-topic (albiet brief) comment about the topic at hand is modded REDUNDANT. Way to go Slashtard!
I agree. If I spend time writing a program I have the right to decide how I wish to distribute that program - for a fee, free binary (no source), open source, etc. As the author I have that right until/unless _I_ decide to transfer my rights.
Stallman has completely lost it. He's moved beyond advocate and become, as you so accurately put it, a zealot.
I wish him well trying to knock down those windmills.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
You sound as if you are deliberately trying to be offensive.
...which kind of raises the question of why I'm offering my input. Oh, well. I've never pretended to make a whole lot of sense, even to myself.)
... blah blah blah.
...and technically, not even they can do that. The legislature is empowered only to prohibit, not to allow. All the courts can do is interpret the laws. In Diamond, the high court told the PTO that their rules were not in accordance with their charter under the law as passed by Congress.
That's okay. You sound, as usual, as if you're deliberately trying to be condescending. You don't hold mine against me and I won't hold yours against you.
The gimmie-gimmie-gimmie is coming from folks who think they have the right to own ideas and keep others from using those ideas.
Well, that's kind of implicit in any culture that accepts the right to own property, isn't it? I understand where you are and where you want to go, but this isn't the right way to get there. (Nor, in my opinion, is the destination someplace you really want to go
Here's the world you live in: People own things. Ownership is both accepted and considered virtuous. To come out against ownership is, in a nutshell, to come out against mom and apple pie. It's a complete non-starter from a PR point of view. It's not going to make you any friends.
If you want to win people over, play to your strengths. Talk about the virtue of collaboration. When people question you about why you oppose property rights, don't tell them! Nobody is interested in hearing about why you oppose property rights. "Why do you oppose property rights?" is code for "Please tell me that you don't oppose property rights."
Here's the right answer in this situation: "We strongly support the right to own property and to do whatever one wants with one's property. Sun has been a great innovator, generating thousands of new and unique ideas. We congratulate Sun for their achievement, and we thank them for offering the use of their property to others free of charge. We are a little bit concerned about the fact that"
See? See the difference between that approach and "anybody who holds a patent is a blood-sucker who should be burned at the stake?"
There was no software patenting before the court case that made it legal in the U.S.
I guess you're talking about Diamond v. Diehr, 1981. In that case, the Supreme Court ordered the PTO to grant a patent for an invention that included a computer program. Before that case, the PTO had held that computer programs were more like mathematical algorithms than machines, so they could not be patented. In Diamond, the high court recognized the absurdity of that position and ordered the PTO to change the rules.
More important, though, I think you're either unclear on or deliberately choosing to misrepresent the role of the courts. A court cannot "make anything legal." That's strictly the job of the legislature
You see, patents on computer programs were always legal. The PTO was misinterpreting complex computer programs, and illegally choosing to deny patents on them.
You make it sound like there was a law prohibiting the patenting of a computer program, and that the Supreme Court struck it down. This is not correct, and it seriously misinterprets the truth of the situation. That's also a disaster from a PR point of view. The buying public doesn't take kindly to folks who bend the truth in order to persuade the people to buy what they're selling.
I think Suns actions and licence should be taken on their merits, and not dismissed because it is not RMS's own licence. Also Sun is not capable of fixing the broken US patent system, and unlike RMS I don't think they should go broke trying to do so.