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.'""
...and Hitler promised that he would stop after annexing the sudetenland. Appeasment and promises never work. I hope the EU doesn't give in. We've seen what happens when they (europeans) do. (Of course, we aren't talking about World War 3 here, but still, we've seen what happens)
I have this really funny quote that I like to put here. Unfortunately, there's this really annoying thing called a char
Previously unenforced laws suddenly being enforced has historically led to massive resentment and revolution. Some of the taxation that was collected prior to the american war for independence had been on the books for some time. Imagine what would happen in the us if police routinely started pulling people over for speeding only a few miles over the speedlimit. (provided that they, of course, removed the uncertainty from the guestimation of the speed of trave)l.
On the other hand, reminds me a bit of the 'patriot' act. Oooh, don't worry, we'll only use it for the terrorists (which we now include people who disagree with the president).
Lack of enforcement is a tricky tricky thing. I've always thought that regulations should represent how things work, not the way we wish they worked. Saves this kind of doublespeak from occurring.
The patent pledge is important: it removes the uncertainty that Nokia might find its (already) patented tech in Linux, and sue; Nokia guarantees they wouldn't. But it's mostly important to Nokia. I'm not aware of any credible evidence that any Nokia tech is actually in the kernel, so it's really more of a gesture. And a way to warn off future inclusion of their tech in kernels, by saying "we were generous before, don't exploit your friends".
But Stallman is right about the other Nokia stance on European patents. They're bad, for Nokia like everyone else in the long run. They prevent Nokia from improving on innovation elsewhere. With a big company that can't take risks like small developers, Nokia benefits from unimpeded traffic in software. And as a hardware vendor, more software sells their products, with a protected base that can be protected by valid, traditional hardware patents.
Stallman's also right that Nokia's "harmless" patent guarantee is more important as propaganda to mollify the Linux community, their most dangerous opponent in the EU patent debate. We should accept their guarantee on its own merits, but not grant an inch on the meritless demands to chain innovation.
--
make install -not war
What Stallman should do instead is put together a LARGE portfolio of patents based on GNU software. I'm sure there's a ton of patentable inventions in FOSS, and I'm also sure many developers wouldn't mind patenting their stuff to protect it from being ripped off by large corporations, given that FSF holds the patent and provides a perpetual, royalty free license to whoever wants to use it for developing open source, GPL/LGPL licensed software.
Let's face it, software patents as ridiculous as they are, are here to stay. This is why to stay in the game an organization like FSF needs a large protective patent portfolio (kinda like the one Microsoft has).
This also creates some money making opportunities for FSF, because they could sue the most vehement opponents of FOSS software pretty much at will for infringement on FSF and its contributors' "intellectual property" and request ridiculous sums of money in damages.
But the fact is you can't explain it to the satisfaction of the mega-corporations because software patents give them an advantage over smaller businesses because the costs don't scale. It's the politicians who have to be convinced that not only is this bad for innovation but that they should actually do what's right instead of what's in the interest of their campaign contributors.
Whenever there's a story about Stallman and you get all these hundreds of vehemnent posts with these absurd degrees of loathing people on Slashdot have towards this guy who is a leading figure in the free software movement and you see so clearly that the people who post on Slashdot, versus the reading audiance at large, are predominantly composed of anti-free software people. There's nothing like a Stallman story to flush them out in droves like great flocks of quail darkening the sky on the approach of a bootstep crunching on the gravel.
Being a great advocate of free software myself the reason I tink this is great is because it shows you just how scared these small-minded, misguided fools are of Open Source. I mean what are these weirdos doing here at Slashdot if they hate Open Source? What compells them to vent their rage so loudly and spend their time in an ostensibly pro-free software forum? The answer is simple and it is impressive --they are scared.
Listen, the bootstep approaches. . . fly away in your great masses. The Stallman approaches, take to your wing. Click the submit button now, quickly. Fly away, fly away.
when did we ever hear of Stallman being pleased.
Off the top of my head: "I am very pleased to see that Qt is now available under the GPL," said Stallman. "This is a big win for free software and a great gift from Trolltech to the community."
I think it's important to point out that, historically, the way things tend to go is:
The funniest thing is this happens over and over, and people still laugh at him and call him a zealot, even when he's been proven right over and over.
Yeah, he takes a hard line. Yeah, he doesn't compromise much. People don't seem to realise that this is a good attitude.
Stallman is not one of the "visionaries of our age". He is a zealout that will stop at nothing to get his point across. Just look at the fact that he calls linux GNU/linux (and many times has stated he wanted the name changed).
*Sighs*. Why don't you look at the fact that he started the GNU project instead? Important, yes?
Stallman should be happy companies are even bothering to support the free software community at all. If you look at any of the large free software projects (Mysql,apache,php, and open office come to mind), they are backed by large companies.
Yeah, and they are all developed using free software tools. It goes both ways ;)
The question of whether Stallman should be "grateful" to these companies is entirely separate from the question of whether he should support software patents. One might be very grateful to IBM but still deny them software patents.
Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
They would be specifically granting the Linux kernel developers a license to their patents. Or more specifically, issuing a general unlimited-use license to use the patents in any GPL software, which is a legally binding document and not just a PR promise.
(Maybe they have done this? In which case RMS should shut up and go home, once Nokia issues such a license they can't take it back.)
It is possible to issue such a license - A few years ago Cornell issued such a license for a few videoconferencing patents related to their CU30 algorithm, which was initially released as an open-source implementation. Basically anyone could use the patents for free if it were in software with specific licenses, but if you wanted to use them in close-source commercial software you had to pay $$$. Also, I remember someone with a number of font-related patents (Including the underlying patent behind Microsoft's ClearType technology) did something similar - issuing a free unlimited-use license for any software that met certain open-source criteria.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
It is rather odd that Nokia is singling out the "Linux" kernel as a benefactor of its largess. I would agree with Stallman's point (albeit poorly made) that the granting of "immunity" to the Linux kernel implies some manner of "threat" to other projects, including FOSS.
What would Nokia's motivation be for making this announcement? I doubt they need the clout for getting patents crammed through the EU -- it's just a matter of time, unfortnately. My guess is that they have some skunkworks project using Linux embedded (like the dead Media Terminal ).
I'll acknowledge and respect your opinion. One thing strikes me most about your statement, something I've suspected of the F/OSS bunch for a long time. Yet it makes perfect (economic) sense to me, the author, to distribute for free what I cannot sell, because it's worth much more to me alive and kicking than dead on a shelf. This is the crux of the matter. You're saying either you don't have the ability to make money off your work in the traditional sense or don't care to. To make money requires business and marketing sense as well as industry contacts, something that is in really short supply. So here you have an army of people slave driving themselves, giving their work away, desperate in the hope that SOMEONE somewhere will find use in it. I am the opposite. I would rather develop code, try to market it and either succeed or FAIL MISERABLY at it, only then to consider opening the code base. You are cutting your own throat by doubting your ability to make money off your work. If you truly have no desire to do so, then in my estimation you are playing the role of a starving artist. And if you are satisfied with that there is no shame there, but don't claim you're doing the world a great service because you're too afraid to get out there and fail in the pursuit of a dream. Ask yourself if you would OS your work if you knew with 100% certainty that a company would result, making you wealthy in the process. And for God's sake be honest.
I'm not against patents, nor even SW patents, for genuinely original thinking that was unlikely to be derived or released elsewhere. RSA is perhaps the best example. But many patents are far less than original or non-obvious, and that is the major problem. The US has a very bad situation (patent everything), the EU has a somewhat better but still bad situation (no SW patents).
I remember him saying something afterward to the effect that the KDE team should apologize for not having used GPL'd software the whole time.
You remember wrong. The point that was made was that the KDE developers had to be forgiven by the copyright holders whose rights they infringed upon, as breaching the GPL terminated their rights (under section four, IIRC).
It's got nothing to do with being an asshole and everything to do with crossing the 't's and dotting the 'i's, something that's very important when it comes to licensing, especially in a grey area like that where it's not clear if the termination of the license works permanently or if you can simply get a new one by downloading the software again.
Of course, that didn't stop people from mischaracterising it as some sort of vendetta, and doesn't stop people like you from continuing to do so years later.
considering software by its very nature is not patentable except by some dillusion fabracated by man, anythng that suggest otherwise, such as a promise not to use software patents against a named party, is also dillusional and in denial of the genuine nature of software. If one os going to be dillusional, who that is sane would trust them?
Now, the earth is flat and if you sail out there, the dragons will get you.
You remember wrongly. What you remember is what you took away from the following /. discussions in which, as always, at least as much bullshit was said as insightful stuff. /. polluting your mind what he really said. He talked about "forgiveness", but that was meant as a legal word, in the sense of officially and bindingly releasing KDE from every violating that may or may not have occured. The rewording to "appology" was started by malicious or unattentative readers afterwards, and developed into the usual uneducated flamefest, with the few reasonable voices drowned out by the roar of the mob. Sad, really.
Google for it yourself, and check back without
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns