Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Unimpressed by Nokia Patent Pledge
Joe Barr writes "NewsForge is running a commentary by Richard Stallman on the recent PR blitz by Nokia concerning their promise not to enforce patent claims against the Linux kernel project. Stallman's take? "In effect, Nokia is lobbying the European Union to give Nokia and many others a new kind of weapon to shoot at software authors and users with--and telling the legislators, 'Don't worry, it's safe to let private armies carry these guns, because we promise that our gunmen won't shoot anyone in that building.'""
Imagine such a thing. I think highly of the man, and admire his dedication, but when did we ever hear of Stallman being pleased.
This is NOT a signature.
1) Try to make software patents valid everywhere
2) File some patents
3) Allow open source software to use your patents
4) ???
So, if patents are a "good thing" that encourages innovation, why is nokia allowing open source (ie: anyone) to use them for free? As far as I can see, they're contradicting themselves
Did only take 6 minutes to godwin this Topic.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
I know I sure don't. It seems that compaines (you know, entities in it for the money) that do anything remotely open he has to chime in and dismiss it as insuficient or something.
Companies can't make money giving their crown jewels away. Their jewels are their investment in their employees who generate code. Sometimes, companies can afford to do that because it generates income on other levels for them, sometimes, companies can't.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
He's fighting on your behalf as well. Never forget that.
Think about it next time before you troll.
VStrider.
PS. If you can present me with a copy of a real threat letter that was sent by a patent holder to a free software developer, that would be useful.
So its pretty safe to say then that FOSS is not exactly being swamped with patent infringment claims, no matter how massively Mr Stallman like to exaggerate the 'threat'. So his point, other than FUD is what exactly?
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
"With crackpot analogies like that he will never be taken seriously by outsiders."
WhatÄs crackpot about the anologie? Just look at the way software patents are used today and you'll notice it's right on target.
You don't give a loaded gun to someone unless you want them to be able to shoot someone. Conversely, you don't carry a loaded gun unless you have the resolve to use it should the need arise.
Anyone telling you they want to carry a loaded gun around just because they want to brandish it or "just because", is either lying to you or is a fool. Since decisions like this are made by lawyers, it's very unlikely they are playing the fool. That leaves only one alternative.
Companies will take their actions and determination as far as they possibly can, "to the full extent of the law" is the usual phrase used. If you give them a foot, don't expect them to stop at 10 inches just because they say they will. They have absolutely every intention of using the full foot when push comes to shove and they want something bad enough. If they had no intention of using the full foot, they wouldn't be even slightly concerned about you trying to limit them to 10 inches.
Laws are there to STOP people from taking things too far. If the law places the line anywhere besides where it belongs, the law is broken.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
You are entirely wrong. The language of business is strongly based on terms of war: conquest, crush the opposition, gain territory...
Patents are most definitely weapons, using the same language. Patents are used for offense and for defense and are expensive. The patent industry are arms dealers (again, using the same metaphorical language) and the sale of patents, just like the sale of arms, will enable war and violence between those who want and those who have.
Patents are weapons and unfortunately are used mainly by the strong against the weak.
And Stallman is most definitely sane, and exceptionally clear in his analysis. If you do not understand him, that's OK. It's a bit intellectual. But kindly don't insult one of the visionaries of our age... it just makes you look silly.
My blog
The problem with patents is that noone outside of the safe haven nation is allowed to run the programs developed there. The same thing goes for writing the programs.
Not legally. But at least development could continue and the software would be available once the patent expires. It's still a terrible outcome for those who oppose software patents though. Still, if it's going to happen - what's the fallback position? There has to be one. Either that or - FS/OSS developers give up and stop coding? That seems an unlikely outcome. --M
I know you are joking but you have point. If I was a senior exec at Nokia right now I might be thinking 'well fuck you stallman you ungrateful cunt' as I call the legal dept and ask them to start looking into potential patent infrinments of FOSS.
I think the community as a whole would be better served if Mr Stallman could just say, thanks Nokia for making a step in the right direction but theres a way to go yet. Provoking them pointlessly and making absolutely absurd analogies is only going to come back and bite you in the end.
Its like the US, slow to anger but watch out when they pick the big stick up cos someone is getting it royally.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
I was at a FFII panel presentation last week. I spoke to representatives from Alcatel and British Telecom.
Very pro-patent. They argue that patents are all that protect them from "invasion by the Chinese". I asked the woman from Alcatel whether they used Linux. Yes. In house, for much of their development. In their boxes, it's Linux everywhere.
These companies, like Nokia, are profiting from the rising sea of open source and especially Linux, which is more and more becoming an essential ingredient of their production process.
So it's normal that they want to "protect Linux" in some way. What they still have to face, and this is what I told them, is that their precious patents will cause the demise of the open source economy, including Linux, in Europe, and hasten the advance of competitors who do not have the same patent regimes.
Indeed, patents in Europe are a threat to everyone including large vendors like Nokia, and even Microsoft, but people are so panicked that they can't see straight.
Basically the software industry has been hijacked by the patent business - the EPO burocracy and patent attorneys. These people are simple parasites and if they win this battle, they will suck the life out of the software industry.
The reason many open source projects are not being attacked today is because software patents are still settling. There are some attacks but overall the goal of patent owners is to enforce their patents against smaller commercial rivals, collect larger patent portfolios, and only attack open source projects where there is direct and immediate competition.
My blog
"It was nice of you to try so hard, even though you did nothing, and we applaud you."
I think the community, (maybe we're talking about different communities?), is better served with Stallman pointing out how useless the Nokia announcement is. Although most of us could see it immidiately, some didn't.
- These characters were randomly selected.
Gee, that's one of the most idiotic statements I have ever read. An analogy by definition notes similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. So contending that things compared by way of anology have nothing to do with one another is basically stating the obvious.
Now whether the anology is useful is another matter. But even the act of proffering a bad anology does not make one dishonest, stupid, or insane. Personally, I'd have to very seriously question the motives of someone like yourself that wants to make a mountain out of a molehill this way.
Stallman's point is simply to say that when rights are created in law, it is reasonable to expect the enforcement of those rights. And that is essentially a fact, why lobby for rights you don't intend to use?
Whenever Stallman gets mentioned here, the trolls come out in force. Nothing else seems to do half as well at motivating them.
I have to say, that's a pretty good indication the man is on the right side.
Rock on Richard.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Just because you may not have the balls to stand up and announce to the world what you think is right doesn't mean you should ridicule or belittle those who do.
Both the Linux kernel and the GNU tools are essential for an operating system.
Though he may be eccentric at times, I wholeheartedly applaud Richard Stallman and what his efforts have provided to the rest of the world (for free as in freedom and beer, I might add).
Why the younger generation open source enthusiasts continue to badger Mr. Stallman is beyond me. Shame on you.
...as I (Nokia exec) call the legal dept and ask them to start looking into potential patent infrinments of FOSS.
And therefore prouving RMS' point.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Nokia says it won't hurt the Linux kernel.
Of course that doesn't mean they will leave you GNU/Linux OS alone, if they see any infringements.
In the meantime, Nokia lobbies for software patents in Europe, and RMSs analogy is exact.
They are asking for lots of power, and just claim they won't hurt the Linux kernel. Of course they won't, they don't want to alienate the developers of software that earns them money!
That's really easy to say ... but if you're a creative engineer designing some slick-ass stuff maybe worth some big bucks, and somebody's intellectual property lawyer points a bogus patent at your head and says "Freeze or I'll blow your innovation clean off!", it will suddenly seem very weaponlike. Your livelihood may well depend upon whether you can successfully defend yourself from that "non-weapon".
... well, I'd say that puts them firmly in the "offensive weapon" category. Whether or not society should put such power in the hands of individuals and corporations is a matter of some debate, but the very fierceness of that debate is some indicator of the destructive potential of software patents, and indeed the unbalanced application of intellectual property law in general.
A weapon (any weapon) can be used to intimidate and/or destroy. Patents are capable of doing both. Given the number of people and organizations that are being unjustly threatened by software patents, or being destroyed by them
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Nice troll. Please learn to read before posting again.
I didn't say that *nothing* should be free. I said that the people who are responsible for making it should be able to decide how they want to release it (free or otherwise), as opposed to Stallman who wants *everything* to be free and thinks that people who want to keep their work are evil.
Besides, as far as my view goes, it happens to coincide with the view of another person who was actually giving a talk on open source and licensing last week.
Leo Laporte is sane about license issues in that he believes it should be up to the creators to make it open or keep it closed (and that nobody should bitch at them for doing so with *their* work as long as they don't try to force it on other people).
This was a view I've had since I started coding. It was just nice to see someone else have the same opinion.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Nokia has to do this because of newly announced LINUX tablet. It is not goodwill, they are obligated to do this under the GPL.
"The GPL says: "[..] if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies [..] through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
Nokia is it seems releasing a Linux based device. When they do that the GPL is quite clear about the patents and that you *have* to give usage. So in fact the GPL says _more_ than Nokia do." - albalbo
"Nokia has to licence its patents, or people who receive the software through it are unable to redistribute that software. That would not satisfy the GPL, hence, they would not be able to distribute the software.
Nor alas is this just PR spin to make them look good. Nokia is lobbying hard to get almost unlimited software patenting allowed in Europe. This press release is part of a game to fool the parliament into believing that open source is not threatened by patents and to make them feel more comfortable. Right now the Finnish MEP's in particular face difficult choices - Nokia is almost "Finland the company" and Linus is "Finland the rockstar" , and they say exactly the reverse about patents." - Alan Cox
The reason for the patent announcement is simple. Nokia has announced that they'll be shipping a Linux-based device. Once they do, they cannot assert their patents against the Linux kernel they have been shipping, otherwise they'd be violating the GPL. In fact, the same applies to any vendor that ships Linux, including Cisco, IBM, and Sun, all of which probably have more significant patent portfolios in this space than Nokia.
Nevertheless, Nokia didn't have to choose Linux. They could have shipped BSD or QNX, for example. Someone did a cost/benefit analysis inside Nokia and found that Linux was worth it. That's a good thing. In fact, I think it's a better thing than if they had done this for publicity or other intangible reasons.
It's true Nokia is also lobbying for software patents. I'm not convinced, however, that the two actions are necessarily related, however. Companies aren't all that organized or coordinated internally, and there are far easier arguments for them to make.
Are we to draw the same ahistorical conclusion for older versions of the Linux kernel, which Linus Torvalds gets untold amounts of adulation for?
Torvalds began what would become the Linux kernel, but Torvalds doesn't work on every line of Linux code anymore, he hasn't for some years now. Older versions of the Linux kernel aren't under Torvalds' managerial control because he has passed on the task of maintenance to other people (such as Marcello Tosatti who took over Alax Cox's job overseeing the 2.4 version). And we musn't forget the other forks of the kernel maintained and distributed by various GNU/Linux distributions, or the private derivatives (like the variant of the Linux kernel running on my machine right now) which contain code these maintainers never see.
Torvalds gets a lot of credit for work he did not do -- even going so far as to not correct anyone who calls "Linux" an operating system, not just a kernel -- very few people bother to mention Cox, Tosatti, or other maintainers of their distribution's derivative of the Linux kernel (various people at IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Canonical, etc.). This might be a side effect of the name "Linux" itself, which serves as a reminder of Linus Torvalds.
But you would have us believe that GCC (which contains no mention of Stallman by name) should grant Stallman no credit. Interesting, that in one respect this is part of an unbroken line of attempts to deny Stallman credit for valuable work he's begun or done, but also interesting in that it denies the iterative improvements that are at the heart of human achievements in art and science. Everyone stands on someone's shoulders and I think it's a big step in the wrong direction to deny credit to someone who's work has been of such enormous value to us all.
Digital Citizen
Bizarre logic, that. "Lots of people disagree vehemently with Stallman [or more likely, his persona], therefore he must be right." And this gem is moderated as "insightful". Wow, talk about a closed-world.
Why should Stallman hold his tongue? He laid out the rationale for free software 20 years ago; everything he foresaw has come to pass. I'm amazed he has any patience left. At some point, there's only so much that one man can do. Sooner or later, you, I, the rest of us who write (or use) software are going to have to choose whether to stick up for those beliefs, or bend over and be screwed. To Stallman's credit, he hasn't given up yet.
you had me at #!