Slashdot Mirror
GPL to be Modified to Penalize Patents and DRM
null etc. writes "MSNBC is running an article about how upcoming changes to the GPL will retaliate against companies that patent software or produce DRM'ed products. "Software patents are clearly a menace to society and innovation. We like this to be more explicit. The basic idea is that if someone patents software, he loses the right to use free software. It's like a patent retaliation clause.""
Is anyone looking at the source of this FUD? 'MS'NBC
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
Is that DRM could conceivably used to enforce free software or to even have a system where an open source environment could actually pay its developers.
For example, if I were building a project, I could pay like $5 or something and download "printf" from another developer, $5 for a cool strcpy, and so on, and stitch together solutions on a per source file basis.
With each source file protected by DRM, I could theoretically use them as needed and the authors could actually get paid. The software would be open, that is, everyone could see the source. It would be free, that is, anyone could use it or modify it, but it would not be free as in beer.
I think the OSS community needs to rethink some of its hostility to DRM, because in DRM lies the keys to getting Developers paid all of the revenue from the products, and not shareholders.
This is my sig.
If any Linux zealot ever engages in a debate with me about why Linux not taking over the planet, or that big business is forcibly holding down the OSS movement, I will simply point to this and say that the people behind the GPL don't seem to grasp how the world really works. I agree that software patents are bad, but I assure you this is the wrong way to go about changing it. These people seem to go out of their way to restrict themselves into obscurity.
-d
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Nothing is going to change until we either shoot the bastards or take away their ability to use our software.
Has anyone considered licensing the content so that no member of the RIAA or MPAA, nor any employee of any member company, may use the software?
Andy Out!
Mr. Mueller: I have an advice for you: go back to school and take some basic computer science and EE classes, which you apparently skipped... This will make you realize that there is absolutely no difference between hardware patents and software patents, as far as computer science is concerned. Hear me? ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL !!! Write it on your forehead! This is called Turing equivalence, The First Law of Computing, if you will. Read this, if you don't believe me: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lsi.cad/msg/00 71ce40aeb97379?hl=en&
ANY computational algorithm can be implemented entirely in hardware, as
part of chip design, or it can be implemented as an executable code for
programmable DSP, or it can be written in any general-purpose
programming language, e.g. Java, to be run on any general-purpose
computer.
The decision to implement certain computation in hardware or in
software is influenced by a number of practical considerations, such as
intended use, speed of execution, size, power consumption, cost to
manufacture, future upgrade plans etc.
Of course, nobody is suggesting hardware implementation of, e.g. e-mail client,
or, at the opposite end, a software implementation of a core speech
compression algorithm as an add-on Java program for cell phone, but it
can be done, right?
So, tell me, Mr. Florian Mueller, why you keep brainwashing those err... poor and under-educated young people in "No Software Patents" T-shirts running around the Parliament and screaming "Freedom!"
How the hell does a truly unique and unobvious algorithm patent, e.g. RSA patent, interfere with their freedom?
I have always thought that people who write computer games for too long eventually become mentally handicapped ... just joking... nothing personal...