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.'""
Some details at GROKLAW http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505251 80125237 1 04251332&mode=print
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050530
...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
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.
When did RMS become such a cynic?
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?
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.
A Nokia executive has publicly stated, "Our failure to impress Richard M. Stallman is a failure to the entire open source community. We are greatly ashamed that we could not meet the golden standards of such a modern visionary as Mr. Stallman, a man who has contributed much to society in the form of... We're not sure, but we're very ashamed that Mr. Stallman 'is not impressed.' As a result, Nokia will never again attempt to collaborate with the open source community. We are just not the type of corporation that can handle rejection."
The executive later killed himself.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
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.
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
He's fighting on your behalf as well. Never forget that.
Think about it next time before you troll.
VStrider.
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.
Patents don't kill innovation, people with patents kill innovation.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
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
A weapon doesn't have to be a gun. Patents are weapons in a struggle for economic dominance, both between companies, between countries and between systems (as in the traditionally closed-IP-driven industries vs. the Open Source movement). Therefore the analogy is quite valid (and much better than most analogies found on Slashdot).
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
He forgot to mention the children...
Without software patents innocent children will die of hunger, PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
- These characters were randomly selected.
Alan Cox, the famous linux kernel guru, also had a comment on this matter a couple of days ago:6 38576
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=150685&cid=12
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.
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.
Hmm, so the number of trolls is inversely proportional to the distance into the "right"? Microsoft must be so far into the "right" they looped back around.
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.
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.
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.
Both the Linux kernel and the GNU tools are essential for an operating system.
I see and have used lots of Operating Systems that dont rely on either the Linux kernel or the GNU tools. Neither are essential for an operating system, but both are often seen in operating systems, quite frequently together in the GNU/Linux OS. Please dont make it sound like an OS cant exist without the Linux kernel or the GNU tools.
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.
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?
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.
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 ).
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
At the same time, just because somebody is espousing their beliefs it doesn't mean they can't be crackpot beliefs that are ripe for mocking.
Freedom of speech. He can say what he wants, and I can say what I want about what he said.
Imagine, if you will, a fiendish system that records your number plate and time at the start of your journey, and records the time when you arrive at your destination. If you have done the 120 miles between London and Bristol in anything less than the time it would take at 70mph, that means you've been speeding.
Only you don't have to imagine it. It's here.
Get your own free personal location tracker
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).
A cross-compiler, and an editor on the system running the cross-compiler, and a shell on the system running the editor and the cross-compiler... see a pattern here?
Fact is, Stallman set out many years ago to make a Free OS. He worked hard on it, both coding himself, and getting others to help with it. He drove this idea for years. All that was lacking was a kernel, and that was being worked on. But Linus finished his kernel first, and Stallmans dream was now reality - a complete Free OS now available. Can you blame him for wanting a little credit? Can you blame him for wanting people using the OS he worked so hard for so many years to create to have a clue where it came from?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Never trust what a corporation says unless you get it in writing and notorised.
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
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.
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.
It's not "fiendish"; it's basic calculus.
The mean value theorem guarantees that if your average rate of speed on some stretch of road is over the speed limit (assuming the stretch of road has a uniform speed limit), there exists at least one point such that your instantaneous speed at that moment was the same as the average speed for your entire journey, which was over the limit. Logically, there exists probable cause that you travelled over the limit.
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 #!