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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
This is probably more of a result of the way the media works. When do Slashdot publish writeups on Stallman? When he complains about something. Almost everyone who get attention are either complaining or some kind of entertainment superstar.
For all we know, Richard Stallman might be sitting on a chair enjoying life ninety-nine out of a hundred days.
On a more serious note: There is a rather grave difference between being pleased personally, and being pleased professionally. Stallman is professionally known to be a man of great demands and little compromise. It's probably because the wrong questions are asked that we never hear about him being pleased. Personally, I think he's quite a pleased guy.
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
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.
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